The AK is the epitome of the sexy/scary “assault rifle” genre. With its sinister angles and scythe-like Magazine, the weapon just oozes danger and coolness. In contrast, the SKS is an ungainly, plain-Jane looking lump. You could even say that the SKS (Samozaryadni Karabin Simonova or Simonov’s Self-loading Carbine) is the AK-47’s ugly older sister. While it’s undboutedly true that the AK has a cool factor that is unmatched in the shooting world, an objective comparison reveals that, at least for the civilian shooter in America, the SKS is actually the better rifle.
Take construction, for example. Although there are a few (and expensive) milled-receiver AKs in the US, the vast, vast majority of Kalashnikovs in civilian hands have a stamped, sheet metal receiver. Cheap to build, but not really high quality. Worse yet, the AKs (even the milled-receiver versions) have a tinny, cheap, stamped upper cover – you know, the part you put your cheek against when you shoot.
The result is a rifle that is adequate for Red Army conscripts and peasant revolutionaries, but feels flimsy and uncomfortable. In contrast, every SKS has a forged, milled steel receiver and receiver cover, solid pieces all.
The safety is another huge difference. Not only is the AK safety a crude, ungainly, noisy nightmare copied from a turn-of-the-century Remington rifle, Kalashnikov put it on the wrong side of the receiver! Perhaps it was the brainchild of a surly Commie conscript carrying a rifle without a safety mechanism that could be seen from a hundred meters by his commanding officer. Or heard all the way across the Kremlin courtyard, where it scared the Borscht out of the armaments minister.
Again, the SKS with its easy-to-use ambidextrous trigger-guard safety (similar to the one used on the M1 Garand) wins the contest here.
Another factor that favors the SKS for civilian shooters: the magazine. Armies, of course, like to give their soldiers lots of magazines that can be changed out quickly so as to keep them shooting (they call this “firepower.”) Civilian shooters, by contrast, are generally more interested in hitting their targets than they are in putting up a wall of lead to keep the enemy’s head down.
The SKS’s 10-round fixed magazine is more than adequate for most shooters. It’s also more rugged than the AK’s, which is made of a very heavy stamping of steel (by contrast to the AKs plastic or light metal stamped magazines). Best of all, the SKS’s magazine can be “recharged” with the use of cheap, widely available “stripper clips.”
For the cost of one AK magazine, you can buy a whole pocket full of SKS stripper clips
In fact, reloading the SKS with stripper clips is easy. The SKS will conveniently lock the bolt open on an empty magazine. This prepares the weapon to accept another load of ammo and tells the shooter he needs to reload. By contrast, the AK has no bolt hold open. Unless you’re counting rounds or using the last-round-is-a-tracer trick, the only way you know you’re out of ammo is when you pull the trigger and hear a dull “click” instead of a robust “bang!” When you’re fighting off Zombies, that can be downright embarrassing.
The SKS’s longer sight radius (the distance between the front and rear sight) make it easier to shoot more accurately. The lack of a long, wobbly magazine makes the SKS easier to set on a sandbag or other improvised rest – again, improving accuracy.
The more you think about it, the more the SKS looks like a superior rifle. So why did the Russians and their allies ditch it in favor of the AK? Firepower.
The military version of the AK, of course, fires both semi- and fully-automatic. This gives the AK the military utility of a light machine gun. The AK is also cheaper to build, on account of its prevalence of el-cheapo stamped metal parts. So generals can have more of ‘em. And finally, the AK is shorter and lighter; our average 14-year-old “freedom fighter” can handle the weapon more easily (if a lot less accurately) than an SKS.
Of course, none of these factors apply to the US civilian market. We can’t get the fully auto versions without an expensive and cumbersome Class 3 license. Most American adults have no problem handling a full sized SKS (in fact, most of us have to add longer stocks anyway because even the factory SKS stock is designed for those of diminutive stature.)
“Firepower” isn’t really a consideration when you don’t command brigades, and don’t have to pay for your own ammo. Besides, you can buy extended magazines for the SKS, should you feel an overwhelming need to send a lot of lead downrange.
The bottom line: for the kinds of things a civilian shooter needs a rifle to do, the SKS is not only adequate, it’s superior to the AK. In every measurable category. Rather than seeing the SKS as a poor man’s alternative to the AK, we should see it for what it is: the smart shooter’s choice for a robust, reliable, and economical centerfire semi-auto rifle.
Well, I have both, and enjoy and would count on either in a time of need, I've just got to say: if you are getting a "cheek weld" on either of these rifles, you have a very strange body configuration, or a very strange holding technique- on both rifles, cheek weld is on the top over.
As to magazines, my Soviet SKS has a simple, sheet-metal stamped magazine- works fine! Plastic magazines, of Soviet or Bulgarian manufacture are extremely robust and reliable. For metal, Hungarian(available with last-round hold-open),Romanian and Chinese are bullet-proof. Any high-cap mags for the SKS are an "iffy" compromise- I'll take a 40-round Bulgarian in my AKM over that any day>
Like John D above I have both an SKS and an AK-47 and believe they are both great rifles.
But I must inquire how you are resting your cheek on the dust cover of an AK? You must have a very long neck because when I bring my AK up to shoulder the closest I can bring my head to the dust cover is to put my nose on the end of the button that holds the cover on.
I do agree on a bit of the article but disagree with most of it. First you're dead on when talking about the safeties. The safety of the AK is poorly placed and hard to access (compared to most military rifles at least).
Although it is true that the SKS receiver is stronger being it's not stamped sheet metal I haven't seen too many failures with stamped AK receivers so I'm really impartial on this. The one advantage of using stamped sheet metal receives on the AK (besides cost) is weight. But I find both rifles to be plenty light enough for all day shooting.
As for the sight radius both rifles require work here. The rear sight of both rifles is in front of the bolt greatly shortening the distance between the front and rear sight. Needless to say both rifles have a poor sight radius compared to something like an M1 Garand or M-14. But that's find considering the SKS and AK-47 were more designed as rifles to be used in closer distances whereas the American battle rifles were designed with the idea of engaging targets at much greater distances (neither philosophy is right or wrong really).
Also I prefer the the detachable AK magazine to the SKS fixed magazine. The magazine is statistically the part that will most likely fail on a rifle. It's just physics since the magazine spring is moving up and down with every round loaded or fired. If the magazine on an AK fails it's not a big deal you rock it out and put a fresh one in. If the magazine on the SKS fails you at best have a single shot rifle and at worst have a paper weight. And as John D said above there are some tough AK magazines out there (seriously I haven't seen a Bulgarian waffle magazine break yet even when running them over with a truck).
Finally a 10-round magazine is plenty for some things but not for others. For instance a 10-round fixed magazine is just fine if you're at the range shooting targets but is a HUGE disadvantage if you're in a three-gun competition (a common civilian sport). Likewise if you're in an Appleseed events having a detachable magazine is good for the test because you're expected to do reloads and it is faster to swap magazines than it is to reload via a stripper clip (mostly because stripper clips need to be aligned with the guide whereas magazines have a lot more give and fall into place so long as you're close).
The bottom line is the SKS is better than the AK for specific use cases (at the range target shooting) while the AK is superior to the SKS for other use cases (more active shooting sports).
John & Chris: Thanks for your comments. As for my cheek weld, on both rifles it's behind the top cover but close enough to the top cover that I don't want a cheap part to fail and send the bolt carrier into my face. IMO the SKS is superior not only because the top cover is more robust, but because it is held in place very positively with a large diameter metal rotating pin, whereas the AK has a small button that engages the back of the frame. And no, I've never seen that little button fail, but when comparing the two, I simply prefer the more rugged construction of the SKS.
Ah, but what causes a magazine to fail? It's not the spring that causes most mag failures, it's bending the feed lips. And what causes bending the feed lips? Dropping the magazine or otherwise damaging those fragile lips. But, observe: The SKS feed lips are inside the magazine well, in a place where they are almost impossible to damage. So while it's true that you can replace a damaged or malfunctioning magazine more easily on an AK, it's also true that because of the design of the SKS it's virtually impossible to damage the magazine in the first place.
Hello Martin- The top cover on the Ak does not hold the bolt carrier in place at all- in fact, the "button" holding the top cover on is at the back of the recoil spring lug, nesting in a slot at the rear of the receiver- you can fire the ak all day long without the top cover, although the reciprocation of the bolt and carrier would be very distracting- for ultimate safety in a shoulder-fired weapon, a Mauser 98 would be hard to beat(see, now you have every reason to acquire more guns-heh!) And by the way, Thanks for one of the best gun blogs out there!
I had to stop reading when it said that the sheet metal top cover is where you put your cheek when you shoot it. How dumb can you be?
Ok first things first, you speak about safety on the AK. I don’t think so, how about those lovely free floating firing pins on the SKS. So if i were an SKS owner i would definitely change the pin out quick. Unless you like being shot by your own weapon, if it gets dropped. Furthermore I will take my 30 round mag over any stripped clip ever. Don’t forget those sweet 100 round drum mags. The only thing in my opinion that the SKS has is range. Then again I also happen to have a M4 as well, so to me its a moot point. My next rifle and probably last for a while is going to be a Styer Aug.
The feed lips on an ak mag is about 2mm thick you will not bend them dropping it and you can get mag followers that hold the bolt after the last round. I use the magazine as a perch so no sandbags needed. The safety has never been a problem yet I keep the thing pointed in a safe direction. That’s not saying thers anything wrong with the ak or sks.