SKS rifle

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

The Basket

Senior Master Sergeant
3,712
1,891
Jun 27, 2007
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.
 
The Basket said:
...
Not a M1 Garand but not a M1 carbine either.
...
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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 said:
A few points with the SKS.
Why 10 rounds?
With an intermediate cartridge?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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

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.
Click to expand...

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


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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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 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.
 
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.
 

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
The Basket said:
I wouldn't be happy Soviet soldier with an SKS if the enemy had FAL or G3.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 

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.


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.
Click to expand...

The SKS was regarded as a more accurate gun than the AK over here, too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

  • Poll
Best Post-War Battle Rifle
2 3 4
Replies
76
Views
15K
Jack_Hill
Menu
Log in
Register