The svt-40 was used during ww2 then in 1945 the SKS came along and quickly replaced by the AK-47 designed in 1947. So a few countries used the SKS in battle, countries short on cash so with the aftermarket such as Canada buying up all these rifles found in storage. Civilians are really the ones this rifle was intended for. I like the compact design of the SKS. If it was developed a little further with pistol grips and full auto, I think it would have had a longer life as a military rifle.
Was the SKS a fail?
- Thread starter SVT-40 sniper
- Start date
I don't know why you keep making all these threads when you can just buy a book on the SKS or read the FAQs on this very forum? Hell, read a Wikipedia article.
The SKS was a success but it was replaced by the AK47 for frontline duty because the AK47 was far easier and cheaper to manufacture (stamped vs. milled) and had higher capacity magazines.
China used the SKS the most extensively from the 1950s onward for decades. They really liked the rifle.
It was used in the Korean-War and the Vietnam War to name a few.
The SKS was a success but it was replaced by the AK47 for frontline duty because the AK47 was far easier and cheaper to manufacture (stamped vs. milled) and had higher capacity magazines.
China used the SKS the most extensively from the 1950s onward for decades. They really liked the rifle.
It was used in the Korean-War and the Vietnam War to name a few.
- Location
- Blaster land, Okanagan BC
Yawn...
These threads you keep starting are more of a fail than the sks ever was.
These threads you keep starting are more of a fail than the sks ever was.
gewehr76
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Look bud, last actions in Ukraine and all over the world show that sks was and still is in service. When you say sks was replaced by ak is totally false. Sks fills specific role in armed forces, just as ak does. Here is what happened in USSR in 50s red army 3 types of weapons platforms were adopted sks45, ak47 and RPD. All chambered in 7.62x39. Troops were armed with one of these weapons depending on their role in soviet army. So sks was issued to troops that were not in front line or in active forces. ex. Rocket troops, guards, railroad troops etc. Ak and RPD were issued to troops that in case of war would be shock troops or by their deployment would need high personal firepower. So with time ak and rpd were replaced by more advanced assault rifles and machine guns, while sks still does what it does best. In rear echelon deployment.
So if you saying sks fail. It will probably outlast all other firearms out there in service for another century.
So if you saying sks fail. It will probably outlast all other firearms out there in service for another century.
- Location
- In the Badlands of Alberta
If any Russian gun could be considered a fail by the troops that used it, the SVT-38 and 40 would be it. Yes the Navy and Germans loved it, but the average soldier of the USSR did not like it in the field.
its ok bro, its a tough crowd today
This. It was more difficult to maintain than the Mosin and Red Army soldiers did not like it. Production was halted multiple times to produce more M91/30's. The SKS was never intended for civilian use, it was built to answer the call for a new autoloading rifle to use the then new M43 cartridge for the Red Army. As fresh combat photos and video along with nearly 70 years of combat media will support, it was infact a great success.
Ya the Russians did poop can the SKS.
I just tried to start a topic and everybody has to be so mean. Lets just keep it lame and boring for now on, hey I know lets beat the tapco stock to death some more. fun times
The SKS was a prototype infantry rifle in 1945 and started production. The AK47 prototype began in 47 and turned out to be a superior rifle for the needs of the day. War evolves and so the the weapons. The AK47 had many deemed advantages over the SKS45 and thus took over the production of military rifles, leaving the SKS to finish its tour of duty and retire.
singed all the hair off of them oh well chicks dig no ball hair.
So your saying?
So why did they make so many of them just to keep people employed in communist Russian. Heck we don't need the SKS but keep producing them.
HATERS just keep on hating! Momma always said if you don't got nothin nice to say don't say nothin!
It was a transitional rifle, wedged between two lines of military thinking.
By the end of WWII, everyone saw the need to go to semi-auto, after the success of the Garand and STG-44 became apparent.
The Soviets encountered far more of the STG-44 than the Western allies did, and saw the benefits of an intermediate calibre rifle - smaller cartridges effective to realistic ranges (200, maybe 300 yards), easier to train (full powered rifles take a fair bit more practice to get used to), etc. etc.
But they were still, mentally, locked into an internal magazine with limited ammo mindset. Give Peasant Ivan 30 round magazines and a giggle switch? He'll just waste precious resources of the Motherland! It's not that different from when armies moved from single shot bolt actions to internal magazine bolt actions - almost all of the first generation internal magazine bolt action rifles had magazine cutoffs. The soldiers were under strictly enforced orders to single feed their rifles until it really hit the fan.
Because the American and western allies didn't encounter the STG-44 in any great numbers, they didn't get to understand the effectiveness of intermediate cartridges at the same time. So they stuck with full powered rifles, upgrade them to semi-auto magazine fed, and figured they were good to go. That's where the M-14, FAL, and rifles of that ilk came from.
It wasn't until Vietnam that they really started to see the value of an easily controlled, lighter, intermediate calibre carbine. Guess what the NVA and Viet Cong irregulars were most likely to be using? If you said "AK" you'd be wrong. The bulk of them were equipped with SKS's. And they were effective with them too - especially given how little training they received, and how much the North's command was willing to win by just throwing massive waves of meat at the problem.
The debate about whether switching from the M-14 to M-16 mid conflict is one that will rage forever, but it was probably the right decision. The M-16 was lighter, you could carry more ammo, and it was accurate and deadly enough for any reasonable distance of engagement the troops were like to encounter in the hills and jungle of the region.
The Chinese hung onto the SKS as a primary arm, and kept producing them, until the early 80's, IIRC.
And it's still being used in conflicts around the world. And used effectively.
So failure? No. It was probably the most successful of the post-WWII transitional arms. But it was still a transitional rifle. It was doomed from the start to be replaced by the Assault Rifle template that the Germans created in the middle of the war. It just took different countries, different amounts of time to get all the way from the old school bolt to the New Kid On The Block assault rife.
By the end of WWII, everyone saw the need to go to semi-auto, after the success of the Garand and STG-44 became apparent.
The Soviets encountered far more of the STG-44 than the Western allies did, and saw the benefits of an intermediate calibre rifle - smaller cartridges effective to realistic ranges (200, maybe 300 yards), easier to train (full powered rifles take a fair bit more practice to get used to), etc. etc.
But they were still, mentally, locked into an internal magazine with limited ammo mindset. Give Peasant Ivan 30 round magazines and a giggle switch? He'll just waste precious resources of the Motherland! It's not that different from when armies moved from single shot bolt actions to internal magazine bolt actions - almost all of the first generation internal magazine bolt action rifles had magazine cutoffs. The soldiers were under strictly enforced orders to single feed their rifles until it really hit the fan.
Because the American and western allies didn't encounter the STG-44 in any great numbers, they didn't get to understand the effectiveness of intermediate cartridges at the same time. So they stuck with full powered rifles, upgrade them to semi-auto magazine fed, and figured they were good to go. That's where the M-14, FAL, and rifles of that ilk came from.
It wasn't until Vietnam that they really started to see the value of an easily controlled, lighter, intermediate calibre carbine. Guess what the NVA and Viet Cong irregulars were most likely to be using? If you said "AK" you'd be wrong. The bulk of them were equipped with SKS's. And they were effective with them too - especially given how little training they received, and how much the North's command was willing to win by just throwing massive waves of meat at the problem.
The debate about whether switching from the M-14 to M-16 mid conflict is one that will rage forever, but it was probably the right decision. The M-16 was lighter, you could carry more ammo, and it was accurate and deadly enough for any reasonable distance of engagement the troops were like to encounter in the hills and jungle of the region.
The Chinese hung onto the SKS as a primary arm, and kept producing them, until the early 80's, IIRC.
And it's still being used in conflicts around the world. And used effectively.
So failure? No. It was probably the most successful of the post-WWII transitional arms. But it was still a transitional rifle. It was doomed from the start to be replaced by the Assault Rifle template that the Germans created in the middle of the war. It just took different countries, different amounts of time to get all the way from the old school bolt to the New Kid On The Block assault rife.
