Was the SKS a fail?

The SKS was cutting edge technology in 1943 when it was designed for WWII house to house fighting in mind just like the Mosin was cutting edge at one point in time when there was trench warfare (shooting at other trenches).
Generally speaking, bolt actions were replaced by semi-automatics like the Garand and the SKS and then those were replaced by full autos. Whether people love or hate the SKS, it wasn't a fail ..... It was great for that short time period before the AK came around. I think a fail would be more like the Ross rifles in WWI which had a reputation for jamming in war time conditions.
 
Last edited:
SVT-40 sniper said:
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.
Click to expand...

I thought that was the point of this website was to ask questions?! Keep it up mang!!
 
The SKS simply found itself in a place between two very different takes on what a firearm needs to do in a war.
It was a step in the right direction, very very early in the game.
WWII and then Korea showed very clearly that a smaller, lighter gun that could put much more rounds down range is what equals more hits on the enemy. The days of long range, slow, precision rifleman fire were in the decline by WWII.
It took the Americans until post Korea and a lot of studies and science to learn that the focus of an individual riflemans weapon in a real war needs to be to put as much ammunition down range as possible and bigger bullets that push out past 300 meters are pointless as almost all engagements were well within 300 meters. Full stop. Accuracy was no longer a priority factor. The odds of getting shot in combat are essentially random and based on time of exposure out of cover etc
I think the Russians figured this out with a lot less science and a lot earlier based on their weapon designs. The PPSH bullet hose, the SKS bullet hose and then (the best, cheapest to produce and most reliable bullet hose of them all) the AK47 which quickly replaced the SKS. The more ammo you throw the more enemy you hit and if the ammo is smaller and lighter then you can carry a hell of lot more if it to throw per man.
The SKS was just a step up the ladder of designs heading to perfect that concept. But it was no fail. It was an excellent, compact, reliable firearm with average accuracy (good enough by far for real combat) that could put a lot of rounds down range quickly. It just missed its stage cue. Had it been in production earlier in the war and made it into WWII combat much sooner it would be hailed in a different light. Knowing all that and having to listen to a bunch of ignorant, ipad-phone-fingering-generation, twit kids complaining about the SKS and it's "s**t accuracy" and "bad ergonomics" is too much to bear for this guy! lol
It gets a bad rep from people who take it out to the local gun club and try to get it to shoot sub MOA at 200 meters then get pissy when it does not. It's out of its element in that respect.
That's like taking a fish out of water, dropping it on the sidewalk and then being upset, disapointed and angry over its poor swimming performance. The SKS is an excellent war rifle and it's big brother the AK47 did away with all its weaknesses and carried on in the same light.
 
Actually the AK replaced the submachinegun more than it did the SKS. They were making SKSes in 1956 in USSR. Yugos were still being produced in 1989. So they were produced side by side.
The M16 did replace the M14, McNamara cancelled the M14 in 1963 and immediately adopted the M16, So the M14 was an epic fail, the SKS was not. Which doesn't mean the M14 isn't a good rifle, of course.
 
When it came about weapons design was at a crossroads. The US had the Garand and Johnson, Germans were expirimenting with semi auto full size cartrige designs. The russians had the SVT38/40. Most of the long arms in existence on the battlefield were bolt guns, and a semi auto rifle was a step ahead in evolution, however the germans were also due to war experience melding the SMG and rifle into one concept (the assault rifle) and weapons design was taking another road of parallel design. The SKS fit into the semi-auto rifle category, and in that it would have excelled if it had been introduced earlier, and the fact it used an intermediate cartridge arguably put it a step ahead. The AK being shaped off the Germans assault rifle concept overshadowed it, not because the SKS was a failure, but the AK fit russian frontline tactics better, and manufacturing was simpler so that you could crank out more rifles for less cash and time.
 
SVT-40 sniper said:
So your saying?
Click to expand...

From past posts I've noticed the same behaviour from you. You're starting threads or answering posts that have been answered years ago. Instead of starting new ones, use your brain power a bit and do searches on what you want to know in the red rifle section from now on please!

You'll never earn respect on here as a newbie by giving your 2 cents so might as well put some input instead of putting yourself on the spotlight as a Joe know it all. Personally I believe you have some attention issues, but that's just experience typing which speaks for itself.

My 2 cents!
 
Airborn_69 said:
From past posts I've noticed the same behaviour from you. You're starting threads or answering posts that have been answered years ago. Instead of starting new ones, use your brain power a bit and do searches on what you want to know in the red rifle section from now on please!

You'll never earn respect on here as a newbie by giving your 2 cents so might as well put some input instead of putting yourself on the spotlight as a Joe know it all. Personally I believe you have some attention issues, but that's just experience typing which speaks for itself.

My 2 cents!
Click to expand...

Steady on... He's new here, and hasn't acquired the thick hide yet.

And some of us are senile and have fun arguing the same things all over again.
 
One thing everyone seems to be forgetting is the Russians were actually the inventors of the 'Assault rifle' chambered in the relatively mild 6.5x50sr round.

Also the argument the West wasn't interested in intermediate rounds isn't true as well. The West loved the concept of the intermediate round (FN-FAL was originally designed for the 7.92 Kurz round, the Brits had there nifty EM-2 in there odd 7mm round etc.) the AMERICANS didn't like them. Since the West saw the advantages of having standard weapons and ammo so the agreement was meant to be everyone would adopt 7.62 Nato as standard, and everyone would adapt the FN-FAL, except America kinda changed there minds last minute after everyone else had committed and adopted the M14. To make matters worse they then ditched the M14 not even 15 years later.

For the SKS, as pointed out it is still trucking on, and it is a good solid design. More than adequate for what it is intended for (300m and less combat) and it is accurate enough to hit a man sized target. Also as pointed out some militaries were producing it well into the 80s (personally I find Yugoslavia's fascination with the rifle grenade tactics very interesting).

Most other early semi-auto designs fed by stripper clip tended not to last nearly as long as the SKS did. FN-49s (at least with Belgium), AG-42b's, K43, G41, SVT 38s and 40s, there might be some more in there which I am forgetting at the moment but that seems to be the major ones.

Other designs which were stripper clip or clip fed which lasted a long time though are the M1 Garand, and the MAS 49 and 49/56 rifles. Again this list isn't all inclusive but just a rough idea of the designs which lasted a long time and fit the early semi auto mold.
 
Airborn_69 said:
From past posts I've noticed the same behaviour from you. You're starting threads or answering posts that have been answered years ago. Instead of starting new ones, use your brain power a bit and do searches on what you want to know in the red rifle section from now on please!

You'll never earn respect on here as a newbie by giving your 2 cents so might as well put some input instead of putting yourself on the spotlight as a Joe know it all. Personally I believe you have some attention issues, but that's just experience typing which speaks for itself.

My 2 cents!
Click to expand...

He's started 10 threads on the first pg of red rifles. And all he does is ask a question then answer himself.
Svt.40 your being a D-BAG.
 
grelmar said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ya gotta love an educated and well written post when they come along.
 
Eaglelord17 said:
Most other early semi-auto designs fed by stripper clip tended not to last nearly as long as the SKS did. FN-49s (at least with Belgium), AG-42b's, K43, G41, SVT 38s and 40s, there might be some more in there which I am forgetting at the moment but that seems to be the major ones.

Other designs which were stripper clip or clip fed which lasted a long time though are the M1 Garand, and the MAS 49 and 49/56 rifles. Again this list isn't all inclusive but just a rough idea of the designs which lasted a long time and fit the early semi auto mold.
Click to expand...

The M14 has a charger guide and the C1A1 is the only FAL variant that can be loaded with a charger, thanks to its shorter receiver cover.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom