# SKS rifle



## The Basket (Apr 26, 2019)

Always a mystery to me is the Soviet SKS rifle. 
Not a M1 Garand but not a M1 carbine either. 
Held 10 rounds of an intermediate cartridge in a smaller package. 
Always seemed to me to be neither fish nor fowl but built in huge numbers.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 26, 2019)

I own one. Mine is Chinese. once I got all the preservative removed, it proved to be a great weapon. Accurate, reliable and easy to maintain.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 26, 2019)

The Basket said:


> ...
> Not a M1 Garand but not a M1 carbine either.
> ...



An excellent summary.
Back in war of 1991-95 in Croatia and Bosnia, the Yugoslavian version of the SKS was considered among the accurate weapons (as good as the LMG M72, just a bit behind the M48 Mauser-copy, G3, FAL and M16).
Nobody was of opinion that AK-47 (of any gender, apart from it's LMG offspring) was accurate beyond 200m.


----------



## The Basket (Apr 26, 2019)

A few points with the SKS. 
Why 10 rounds? 
With an intermediate cartridge? 
It doesn't replace the AVS or SVT or Mosin but doesn't replace a PPSh either. 
So it doesn't compare with any other combat rifle I am aware of. 
Just odd choices all round. 
Built in huge numbers when AK was available. Just don't get it. 

Built in Yugoalavia indeed. Although I wonder if other countries SKS were around such as Albanian or German for use in the wars.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 26, 2019)

The Basket said:


> A few points with the SKS.
> Why 10 rounds?
> With an intermediate cartridge?
> It doesn't replace the AVS or SVT or Mosin but doesn't replace a PPSh either.
> ...


There is a 30 round attached magazine available for the SKS. I don't know if this was original equipment. I know there are some aftermarket versions that have had trouble with jamming.


----------



## The Basket (Apr 26, 2019)

To my knowledge the 30 rounds mag were a Chinese mod.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 26, 2019)

The Basket said:


> A few points with the SKS.
> Why 10 rounds?
> With an intermediate cartridge?



5 rounds will be too little for a semi-auto, 10 is a nice, round number.



> It doesn't replace the AVS or SVT or Mosin but doesn't replace a PPSh either.
> So it doesn't compare with any other combat rifle I am aware of.
> Just odd choices all round.
> Built in huge numbers when AK was available. Just don't get it.



IIRC, it was to replace full-power rifles, whether Mosin-Nagant or semi-autos. PPSh was replaced with other SMG, and by AK.
Compared with AK - no, not huge numbers. AK was not available for the Chinese initially, they made not just SKS, but also a full-auto version of it - Type 81 - that was to supplant their AK clone.
It is probably too bad that semi-autos were not made around intermediate cartridges before ww2.



> Built in Yugoalavia indeed. Although I wonder if other countries SKS were around such as Albanian or German for use in the wars.



You can bet that SKS clones from many countries trickled into war zones.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 26, 2019)

The Basket said:


> To my knowledge the 30 rounds mag were a Chinese mod.



Specific SKS-only detachable magazines are available in the USA for a long time, not only for 20 or 30 rds.
link


----------



## The Basket (Apr 26, 2019)

China and Yugoslavia had concurrent production of SKS and AK which is odd to say as kinda odd to have both in production. Unless cheapness is a thing but I doubt that. 
The Chinese SKS and AK were both called Type 56 which must be very confusing. 

The original stamped AK did have issues which makes sense to keep on manufacturing SKS as backup. 

From a weapon point of view I can see the SKS is better but the AK is a better combat rifle. The SKS would probably be better in a long term survival situation as mags can be lost or damaged over time. Also extra accuracy of the SKS would be better as a hunter. 

Weight wise the SKS is no better than the SVT. Just from my point of view the SKS feels like an answer to the wrong question.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 27, 2019)

The Basket said:


> China and Yugoslavia had concurrent production of SKS and AK which is odd to say as kinda odd to have both in production.


It probably boiled down to domestic use as well as foreign export.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 27, 2019)

The Basket said:


> China and Yugoslavia had concurrent production of SKS and AK which is odd to say as kinda odd to have both in production. Unless cheapness is a thing but I doubt that.
> The Chinese SKS and AK were both called Type 56 which must be very confusing.



Yugoslav AK went in production almost 15 years after the SKS was 1st produced here.



> The original stamped AK did have issues which makes sense to keep on manufacturing SKS as backup.



It is always prudent to have Plan B active...



> From a weapon point of view I can see the SKS is better but the AK is a better combat rifle. The SKS would probably be better in a long term survival situation as mags can be lost or damaged over time. Also extra accuracy of the SKS would be better as a hunter.



Yes, the AK is a better combat weapon.



> Weight wise the SKS is no better than the SVT. Just from my point of view the SKS feels like an answer to the wrong question.



What was the question?
The SVT was very, very light for a semi-auto firing full-power rifle cartridges. Light weight having the pros (easier for the soldier to carry it around) and cons (parts might be of questionable strength, as it was the case with SVT; recoil will be notable). Unlike the SVT, the SKS is considered as a very reliable rifle.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 27, 2019)

I believe the SKS was, for the most part, several years ahead of the AK-47 in timing, although exact dates of start of large scale production instead of small batches are closer together (?) 

The following is supposition on my part. 
With a factory tooled up and making SKS rifles and the desire/need to replace millions of Mosin Nagants perhaps the Russians just let that Factory keep going rather than taking the hit to production/re-equipment that changing it over to AK 47 production would entail? 

The SKS provided a perfectly good rifle for 2nd line troops or combat support troops? (artillery men and so on), by providing much increased firepower in comparison to the Mosin Nagant carbines even if not equal to the AK 47, it may have also required less ammo to be carried by these non front line units?

Did the Russians (in the late 40s/early 50s) equipe their 'standard' rifle squads completely with AK 47s or did they use a mix of AKs and SKS guns like the Chinese have been reported as doing (Wiki saying the squad leader and assistant squad leader got AKs, there were two LMGs and 7 men had SKSs but it is wiki so.....). The older SVT was only issued to squad leaders or older, experienced troops, impart to maintain fire discipline. (in the US the Squad leader was supposed to carry the selector switches/levers for the squads M-14s in his shirt pocket to be distributed when needed in the 1950s and we can all imagine how that would have worked).

Just some thoughts and they could all be wrong.


----------



## The Basket (Apr 27, 2019)

The SKS was a few years earlier than the AK and was in production earlier. 
I guess it could be called replacement of the Mosin but a pointy stick could also be a replacement for the Mosin. 
This is the nub of my gist. What is it and what's it for? A evolutionary dead end? 
Not an assault rifle, not a battle rifle, not a smg, not enough rounds for a small underpowered carbine. Of course it may just be a rifle design to replace the Mosin and using a smaller round. 
But the next 10 round semi auto used in Soviet service was the Dragunov so that's a very different beast.
So in Soviet service is the key.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 27, 2019)

Well the 7.62 x 39 is over 60% more powerful than the .30 cal carbine at the muzzle and due to the slightly heavier spitzer bullet the difference only increases with range, It also shoots a bit flatter to. not as good as a full power round but a lot closer than the ,30 cal carbine or any submachine gun. 

It may have 100 meters or more effective range than the .30 cal carbine and here we get into the gray areas. It doesn't have the range of a full battle rifle but if you are fighting in cities, forests, jungles you can't see far enough to take advantage of the extra range (and in fact many troops can't hit man sized targets all that often a ranges that exceed 300 meters anyway, depends on the individual trooper and the amount of training so is highly variable) 

It may have been an evolutionary dead end but the assault rifles does require training and discipline on the part of the troops.
A loaded AK 47 magazine (the old steel ones) can weigh 1.8 to 2.0 lbs each so 5 spare magazines weigh more than the rifle. Unless the troops have some sort of fire discipline they can blow through the magazine on the gun and 5 spares in just a couple of minutes if firing automatic and that is not even firing and changing mags as fast as possible. 

the change over from the tactical thinking of before WW II to the thinking of the 1960s took quite a while. Some officers made the change faster than others but to change the thinking of a single large army (or a number of armies) took quite a while. 

The assault rifle had some obvious advantages for special situations, units or conditions but as a general issue weapon for all troops it has some disadvantages. Sorting out where the crossover point/s were took some time.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 27, 2019)

The Basket said:


> The SKS was a few years earlier than the AK and was in production earlier.
> I guess it could be called replacement of the Mosin but a pointy stick could also be a replacement for the Mosin.
> This is the nub of my gist. What is it and what's it for? A evolutionary dead end?
> Not an assault rifle, not a battle rifle, not a smg, not enough rounds for a small underpowered carbine. Of course it may just be a rifle design to replace the Mosin and using a smaller round.



Many good weapons (not only rifles) were relegated into an evolutionary dead end, some faster than others - Germans were trying to supersede the StG-44 with StG-45, for example. Genes of the SKS live today in the Chinese Type 81 weapon, while the Vz.58 also look as the autimatic-fire offspring of the SKS?
The SKS was just what it says it is - self-loading carbine (designed by Simonov's team). 'Carbine' in European terms meaning a short rifle - weapon that will provide adequate firepower at usual combat ranges.



> But the next 10 round semi auto used in Soviet service was the Dragunov so that's a very different beast.
> So in Soviet service is the key.



Dragunov's rifle was what we call today the designated marksman's rifle and sniper rifle - a weapon for well-trained shooters, not something that you'd make a general issue.


----------



## tyrodtom (Apr 27, 2019)

A 10 round magazine may not sound like much today, but when it was brought out it was replacing a 5 round bolt action rifle.
Quite a advance at the time.

Even though the american M1 carbine, introduced at about the same time might have held more, only 5 more, less powerful rounds. 
Most WW2 pictures of the M1 carbine in use show it with the 15 round magazine. The 30 round magazine was a late war introduction for the M2 carbine, and wouldn't even reliably stay in a M1 carbine, it was too heavy for the unmodified M1 carbine's magazine catch.


----------



## The Basket (Apr 27, 2019)

A few points. A carbine name is dark and full of terrors and it usually meant a short rifle given to cavalry or non front line combat troops. It can just mean a shorter rifle than say a Mosin but a carbine usually is made in smaller numbers and not a front line infantry weapon. SKS was to my knowledge a front line weapon in the Red Army. The opposite of the M1 carbine which was never a front line infantry weapon. Or at least was never supposed to be. 

To me the story of the SKS is an oops one.
It was designed midwar before the Soviets knew about the Sturmgewehr and so was a replacement for the Mosin which had been tried before and for various reasons didn't happen.

So they had this rifle and the penny dropped when they saw the Sturmgewehr but they had to build something and so the SKS was continued. The AK came out in production roughly in 1949 but it turned sour and they had to turn to a milled receiver which was good news as the SKS was kept in production as the AK wasn't built in the numbers expected. 

I wouldn't be happy Soviet soldier with an SKS if the enemy had FAL or G3.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 28, 2019)

The Basket said:


> I wouldn't be happy Soviet soldier with an SKS if the enemy had FAL or G3.



Between 1946 and 1953/54, Soviet soldier would've been in advantage - there is neither FAL nor G3 in service. The G3 will had to wait until 1958. SKS is still a lighter and handier weapon than either, and it will recoil less, while the soldiers carrying it will be carrying more ammo for a given weight.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (May 2, 2019)

Hello Gentlemen,
My understanding of the story of the SKS-45 is that it was really a backup in case the development of he Avtomat failed.
Note that the 7,62 x 39 cartridge was accepted in 1943 but with no weapon to fire it. From this timing, it can be seen that the Soviets were thinking along the same lines as the Germans about an intermediate caliber but in my opinion, they seem to have come up with a better balance of power versus controllability.
With a new cartridge in existence and the intended weapon only in the development stage, they basically adapted the design of a full power rifle to the smaller caliber in order to minimize development risks. (I believe this was the AVS-36.) The result was seen as the tactical equivalent of the M1 Garand and not the M1 Carbine.
Eventually the development of the AK-47 / AKM was completed and debugged and the SKS ended up in the hands of second line troops, ceremonial troops and as foreign military assistance.
Design of the SKS was really as a intermediate step and backup to the development of the avtomat.

Comparing the SKS and AK, it seems to me that the SKS is much more accurate and handles much better.
Chinese SKS seem to come in all kinds of quality. Some are very good and some are not. Notable are those that were manufactured with barrels pinned to the receiver. While this is probably sufficient for a cartridge of this power level, it is not confidence inspiring.
Another consideration for American owners is whether or not a particular gun falls under the "Assault Weapons" import ban or other legal restrictions.

- Ivan.


----------



## tomo pauk (May 2, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> ...
> Note that the 7,62 x 39 cartridge was accepted in 1943 but with no weapon to fire it. From this timing, it can be seen that the Soviets were thinking along the same lines as the Germans about an intermediate caliber but in my opinion, they seem to have come up with a better balance of power versus controllability.



The Soviet round offers some 10% greater muzzle energy when firing from about same barrel length, so their cartridge should be a better choice for LMGs, for example. BTW - seems like the StG-44 was much more controlable in full auto than AK-47 - video.



> With a new cartridge in existence and the intended weapon only in the development stage, they basically adapted the design of a full power rifle to the smaller caliber in order to minimize development risks.  (I believe this was the AVS-36.) The result was seen as the tactical equivalent of the M1 Garand and not the M1 Carbine.



The AVS-36 shared a lot of problems with many other designs that tried to implement full power cartridge in a hand-held automatic wepon, all while being too finicky to produce and maintain?



> Comparing the SKS and AK, it seems to me that the SKS is much more accurate and handles much better.



The SKS was regarded as a more accurate gun than the AK over here, too.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (May 2, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> The Soviet round offers some 10% greater muzzle energy when firing from about same barrel length, so their cartridge should be a better choice for LMGs, for example. BTW - seems like the StG-44 was much more controlable in full auto than AK-47 - video.



Hello Tomo Pauk,
I, like most people, have never fired the Sturmgewehr, but have encountered them a few times at various collector shows. The StG is a much bigger and heavier gun than the AK which would also contribute to the controllability. (I believe the difference is 2-3 pounds.)
Many years ago, my Son did a report and presentation on Assault Rifles. The fact that this subject was even granted approval in an American public school is amazing. We actually found a firing replica at a local gun shop at the time. One of the interesting things we found out was that the StG was really a limited issue weapon. An entire company might be issued this gun and be considered the "assault" force while other companies retained their regular weapons.

- Ivan.


----------



## The Basket (May 2, 2019)

The SKS was before the AK so in my view not concurrent even though a few years between but these were WW2 years. So big changes. It may have been the SKS was more rifle and the AK was more machine gun but the AK was rifle enough to supplant the SKS to the rear. The SKS couldnt play as an assault rifle.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (May 3, 2019)

The Basket said:


> The SKS was before the AK so in my view not concurrent even though a few years between but these were WW2 years. So big changes. It may have been the SKS was more rifle and the AK was more machine gun but the AK was rifle enough to supplant the SKS to the rear. The SKS couldnt play as an assault rifle.



Hello The Basket,
Interesting view of events, but that is not really what happened.

The development of the SKS and AK were actually concurrent. The definitive SKS model of 1945 was actually not adopted until 1949 and development of variants of the gun continued after that. What actually happened was that in the end, when both the AK and the full auto variants of the SKS were compared, it was determined that the AK was superior and the further development of the SKS ceased.

- Ivan.


----------



## The Basket (May 3, 2019)

In my view the SKS and AK became concurrent rather by circumstance rather than design. They don't share the same time frames in the early days but eventually did. The SKS is at least 2 years on the AK.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (May 3, 2019)

The Basket said:


> In my view the SKS and AK became concurrent rather by circumstance rather than design. They don't share the same time frames in the early days but eventually did. The SKS is at least 2 years on the AK.



Hello The Basket,
Bolotin's book on Soviet small arms is a pretty good reference and by my interpretation of his account does not agree with your view.

- Ivan.


----------



## The Basket (May 3, 2019)

Not sure what you saying. Kalashnikov had prototypes in 1945. 
But the AK as we know it doesn't appear until later. Early SKS was tested in 1945 in combat. the prototype of the AK-46 and testing was done in 1946. There is certainy a gap.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (May 3, 2019)

The Basket said:


> Not sure what you saying. Kalashnikov had prototypes in 1945.
> But the AK as we know it doesn't appear until later. Early SKS was tested in 1945 in combat. the prototype of the AK-46 and testing was done in 1946. There is certainy a gap.



Hello The Basket.
The SKS prototypes in 7.62 x 39 did not appear until 1944. Some were used in field trials at that time and some were used in combat trials in 1945, but development and final acceptance did not finish until 1949. The AK was in internal testing (as AK-1 and AK-2) probably in 1945/46 with a prototype submitted in 1946, but in order for that to have happened, the development of the design and drawings obviously started quite a bit earlier. Simonov had the greater experience and was working from previous autoloading rifles and carbines in other calibers, so it is not a surprise that the SKS-45 ended up in service first.

For what it's worth, it might also be noted that Simonov and Kalashnikov were only two of the many Soviet designers working on assault rifles and carbines using the M1943 cartridge. These two were the most successful but many other designs were submitted.
Among those was the Sudaev assault rifle of 1944 which but for a slightly longer barrel and some differences in the fore end looks almost exactly like the AK.
The point is that at this time, many designers were working concurrently within the same parameters and with the same objectives in mind.

- Ivan.


----------



## The Basket (May 9, 2019)

One thing reading about the SKS and AK is what I can describe as lost in translation or what the Soviets thought a machine gun or assault rifle or carbine was. I kinda can read Russian badly but it helps what I understand I am reading as the AK has been described as allsorts so difficult to pick if it was either an assault rifle or machine gun.

The SKS and AK were different guns for different strokes. Night and day different. Part of a new family of guns. Also involving the RPD as a machine gun and a bolt action rifle in 7.62x39 which unsurprisingly disappeared. SKS was the Mosin replacement and the AK was the PPS replacement. So they were not made to the same specs or chasing the same contract. They were chalk and cheese. The SKS would have been the most numerous rifle in Soviet service across all its military in the 1950s until the appearance of the AKM.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (May 9, 2019)

The Basket said:


> One thing reading about the SKS and AK is what I can describe as lost in translation or what the Soviets thought a machine gun or assault rifle or carbine was. I kinda can read Russian badly but it helps what I understand I am reading as the AK has been described as allsorts so difficult to pick if it was either an assault rifle or machine gun.



Hello The Basket,
Just out of curiosity, what are you reading that leads you to this conclusion? I will have to admit that when I read this a few minutes ago, I almost started laughing.
Not laughing AT you, but laughing WITH you.
One of the problems with learning conversational Russian in schools is that the subjects tend to be rather generic and don't generally involve much discussion about firearms or related technical terms. As a consequence, it takes a bit more immersion in the technical documentation to get a feel for terminology. My technical vocabulary and Russian vocabulary in general is pretty poor. Think about how many English language news articles can't get the correct distinction for what is and is NOT an "Assault Rifle".

It took me a few minutes to find this quote from David Bolotin's book:
"Note: The Russian term 'Avtomat' is usually - if misleadingly - translated as 'submachine-gun', which is now usually applied in the West to a weapon firing pistol ammunition. 'Assault rifle' is preferable."

It seems like the term "Avtomat" is somewhere between the Pistolet Pulemyot and "Ruchnoi" Pulemyot and in English the translation should be sub-"Machinegun" rather than "submachine-gun".



The Basket said:


> The SKS and AK were different guns for different strokes. Night and day different. Part of a new family of guns. Also involving the RPD as a machine gun and a bolt action rifle in 7.62x39 which unsurprisingly disappeared. SKS was the Mosin replacement and the AK was the PPS replacement. So they were not made to the same specs or chasing the same contract. They were chalk and cheese. The SKS would have been the most numerous rifle in Soviet service across all its military in the 1950s until the appearance of the AKM.



I believe we are mostly in agreement here. The SKS-45 and AK-47 and others were all being developed at about the same time but with different goals. The SKS was developed from a series of existing rifles and then carbines and other than the caliber change was not a great reach in terms of technology. It was the "backup" plan. Keep in mind though that the work on a replacement for the Mosin-Nagant bolt action had been going since the 1920's with examples from Federov, Simonov, and of course Tokarev with SVT rifles reaching service in pretty good numbers.
The SKS-45 wasn't really the last development of that line either but it turned out to be the last version adopted for service. If Simonov had his way, the "Avtomat" version of his gun would have been the successor to the SKS-45. The selective fire version actually competed against but lost to AK.
FWIW, There also was a Kalashnikov carbine of 1944 which did not continue development after the SKS-45 was adopted. It seemed like everyone was working on at least one or the other or possibly both of these "contracts" at this time.

- Ivan.


----------



## The Basket (May 10, 2019)

Avtomat means automatic to my knowledge and to my understanding. Federov was called avtomat. And this was well before the term assault rifle was used.
The SKS was a carbine but there was also a paratroop model, a carbine of a carbine, Although not sure if this is Chinese or not.

The SKS was to the 10 round carbine spec and so was a separate gun from the avtomat. The avtomat chosen was AS-44 by Sudaev. However Sudaev became gravely ill and died just when the AS-44 was getting started and so the gun died with him. The Sudaev had the usual teething issues of a new rifle but his death meant they were never fixed. Why the AS-44 was dropped is a mystery to me as there must have been other designers on the project but in Soviet practice either the gun was a dog or Sudaev was a big name whose reputation kept him in the game and his death meant other big names took over. By the time the avtomat programme was restarted, the war was over and the panic was over so the avtomat could be given time and space which the SKS didn't have. The SKS was the 10 round carbine winner at this time.

So the AK won its competition in 1947 but only the prototypes and early 1500 guns are actual AK-47s. The SKS won its competition in 1945. And so by 1949 the two rifles were starting mass production. The AK was struggling with stamped receivers issues and the SKS was milled so in Soviet service the SKS would have been more numerous until advent of AKM. Although the AK may have been more numerous as a front line rifle.

The bolt action 7.62x39 is an interesting concept and again signify the forward thinking of the Soviets covering all bases. I assume it was the same concept of the MAS-36 where a cheapo basic rifle is given to rear echelon troops but this was clearly nonsense and so didn't go anywhere. But we can summize the AK and SKS history was not the one planned in 1943. The SKS was a stand alone rifle which was eclipsed by a more modern if slightly less capable gun.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (May 10, 2019)

The Basket said:


> Avtomat means automatic to my knowledge and to my understanding. Federov was called avtomat. And this was well before the term assault rifle was used.



Hello The Basket,
I suspect your Russian is probably no better than mine. Perhaps Tomo Pauk has some better insight. I believe he is more fluent than either of us. I tend to read Russian with a dictionary close by which says something about even my non-technical vocabulary.

What do you see as the distinction between the "Avtomat" and "Avtomaticheskaya Vintovka" as in AVS-36?




The Basket said:


> The SKS was to the 10 round carbine spec and so was a separate gun from the avtomat.
> .....
> By the time the avtomat programme was restarted, the war was over and the panic was over so the avtomat could be given time and space which the SKS didn't have. The SKS was the 10 round carbine winner at this time.



The reason I keep referring to the definitive SKS model as the "SKS-45" is because the term "SKS" is not really unique in the context of this discussion. There were plenty of other models of SKS carbine. There were considerably more than just two models of "Avtomat" in competition at the time and there are photographs of selective fire version of the Tokarev and description of the selective fire SKS.
Even for THE Sudaev assault rifle, there were two distinctly different models that functioned in a radically different manner. The first version was a simple blowback that fired from an open bolt which is somewhat surprising for this caliber. The second version was a locked breech design and reached field trials where it was determined to be too heavy.




The Basket said:


> So the AK won its competition in 1947 but only the prototypes and early 1500 guns are actual AK-47s. The SKS won its competition in 1945.



The dates you have listed are not really correct. The Soviet system for naming a weapon doesn't tend to be the year of final adoption or the winning of a completion. The SKS-45 for example was only reaching field trials in prototype form in 1945 and was not adopted until 1949. It was still being modified up to that point. The AK-47 existed only in prototype form in 1947 and was also not adopted until much later.



The Basket said:


> The bolt action 7.62x39 is an interesting concept and again signify the forward thinking of the Soviets covering all bases. I assume it was the same concept of the MAS-36 where a cheapo basic rifle is given to rear echelon troops but this was clearly nonsense and so didn't go anywhere. But we can summize the AK and SKS history was not the one planned in 1943. The SKS was a stand alone rifle which was eclipsed by a more modern if slightly less capable gun.



I would have to disagree with you here.
The 7.62 x 39, development of which started in 1939 was clearly intended for a hand held selective fire weapon. Otherwise, there would not have been the substantial reduction in ballistics from the 7,62 x 54R. It clearly was an "intermediate" cartridge which was not a substitute for the full power rifle round nor the pistol round but with an emphasis for controllable automatic fire.

I believe the bolt action guns were most likely just a means of having a platform to test and develop a new cartridge, but to be honest, I have never heard of military bolt actions in 7,62 x 39.
Are you thinking this is something like the Spanish FR-8 rifles?

- Ivan.


----------



## The Basket (May 10, 2019)

Avtomat is probably from the fact the AK was a PPS replacement as a machine gun.
Avtomaticheskaya Vintovka means automatic rifle. There is a big difference between ordering a coffee and deciphering 75 year old technical Russian! 

45 comes from year of acceptance as the AK was accepted in 47. It means nothing in terms of production or what the final rifle looked like. Just that AK won competition in 47. You will to argue with Stalin if you think the 45 designation is inaccurate so good luck with that. 

There was other Avtomat from Bulkin and Dementiev in the same trials in 46 and 47 as was Simonov and Korobov earlier so the AK didn't exist in a vacuum.

The bolt action was part of the 4 part plan which included the Karabin, Avtomat and Pulemyot so it was made into prototype and that's it. I assume the thinking was either training or cheapness or simplicity. But was around at the same time. Daft concept so didn't go anywhere.


----------

