SKS - Yes or No
- Thread starter cyclone
- Start date
the irony is.... this scenario already happened in 1979 when china crossed the border against vietnam but they used mostly sks against the vietnamese using chinese donated ak47 and ammo. well, lets say the chinese learned two lessons, 1. the sks is no match to the ak47 so they built the type 81 which in my opinion is superior to the ak. 2. even with superior weapons like the type 81 its still no match against battle harden vietnamese with inferior ak.
The Chinese troops that went toe to toe with the Vietnamese were, for the most part, GREEN and not battle conditioned. That's a losing situation all the way around when going up against a disciplined, battle conditioned enemy. Doesn't matter what that enemy is armed with.
Well trained fighters, that combine the discipline of their training with in the field with very stressful experiences, make formiddable warriors. There really isn't anything that trumps those conditions, other than use of air/armor/artillery support, which can completely eliminate even the best armed/trained troops.
Ah yes thee old "cant defeat a bunch of rice farmers" jab lol
My opinion has always been that a country that has nuclear capabilities never truely "loses" those kinds of wars. They just opt to give up rather then committing war crimes on a genocidal level. America couldve nuked North Vietnam, China couldve nuked Vietnam and the Soviet Union couldve nuked Afghanistan.... the only thing those little countrys truely won was sympathy.
My opinion has always been that a country that has nuclear capabilities never truely "loses" those kinds of wars. They just opt to give up rather then committing war crimes on a genocidal level. America couldve nuked North Vietnam, China couldve nuked Vietnam and the Soviet Union couldve nuked Afghanistan.... the only thing those little countrys truely won was sympathy.
The way I see it, the SKS is more of an "homeland defend" gun. Robust and usable to defend turf.
The AK is more suited for faster moving stuff (attacks, raids)
Both guns are great, all guns of flaws and I’d take any of the two without hesitation before a lot of guns that are worth more. Of course… AR is still the winner for me
ofcos the chinese were green, they havent fought a war since the korean war, 26 years before while the vietnamese fought the american 4 years before and the french before them. therefore, the chinese's modern battle strategies and tactics were untested.
The way I see it, the SKS is more of an "homeland defend" gun. Robust and usable to defend turf.
The AK is more suited for faster moving stuff (attacks, raids)
Both guns are great, all guns of flaws and I’d take any of the two without hesitation before a lot of guns that are worth more. Of course… AR is still the winner for me
We all have our personal favorites. Before I had to carry one under stressful conditions, I loved the FN FAL platform. Had to learn the hard way there were better options.
For me, the SKS did everything better than the FAL under the conditions/terrain I was active in. The only thing I felt I had traded off was weight and cumbersomeness for handy and lighter.
The FN FAL worked every time, so did the SKS. The trade off though meant more water/food and less energy expened carrying it as well as being able to keep a lower profile from a prone position.
The AK is an agressive attack weapon. I won't say it's not a good defensive weapon because in properly trained hands, it suits that purpose just fine.
That ridiculously long/heavy magazine catches on everything when you least need it to do so and you have to expose your head and shoulders to shoot aimed shots under to many conditions. The AR can give similar grief. Both are very reliable, functionally and accurate enough for most purposes.
That is why the M 14 has the shortest service life of any rifle the US ever used. Your logic is flawed. FNFAL did better in the US tests but lost to the M 14 due to politics.
Take Care
Bob
The Vietnamese Army had more to do with it then US politicians. No the US Army was never in position to level the North with nukes. What goes one way would have come the other and the US knew it. Why do you think we never had a nuclear exchange from 1950 to 1980?
The US lost the war in part because the US civilian population got tired of a war they could not win. The same thing has happened to the US in Afghanistan. Maybe this time the US will understand the limitations to sending troops in to solve all their perceived problems. If you have not been keeping up Russia is no longer the bad guy, it now appears it is China's turn. Read Orwell's "1984" if you have not already.
Take Care
Bob
That is true as well.
Troops are still using the M39 tho.... which is basically a refined M14. Id personally field a M14 over an SKS any day.
I didn't say the SKS was better than an M 14 but the M 14 sure was not the best service rifle the US ever shouldered as suggested by the quoted member. The current version of the M4 now in service does what an infantryman needs it to do with authority. The M 14, like the FN FAL are heavy to carry for certain compared to modern rifles in use today.
Take Care
Bob
Neither are true and the US would still have lost the war. Taking over from the French was about as stupid a move as going into Afghanistan with exactly the same result. I would hope the next generation of politicians in this country and the US learn from their predecessors but I fear they won't.
Take Care
Bob
Ur on drugs if u honestly think a super power like the United States, Russia or China couldnt win a serious war against a Nation like Vietnam if they really wanted to. Most of the wars that have occurred since the World Wars have basically been political pet projects and humanitarian crusades. Wars that are easy to walk away from (relatively speaking) when the costs start to out weigh the benefits.
The Vietnam era M14 sure
However , if they had fielded the M14 in a shorter barreled version and a lighter more ergonomic fiberglass pistol gripped E2 type stock, the M14 would have had a different result on the battle field. Or I'd like to think so anyways.
I mean if they had the m14 set up like this from the get go I doubt the M16 would have had the same story.
I would absolutely trust my life to this rifle
Last edited:
SKS does not equal SKS. Also Russian ones are not necessarily better than Chinese. I have a Chinese SKS which I put into a Russian stock, which is the problem with the Chinese SKS, they are flimsy. Most people don't want to spend no more than 450 on any SKS but there can be a big difference spending another 150 to 200. I bought some of the newly imported ones, both Chinese and Russian and those are usually of lower quality. I sold the ones I didn't like at cost or slightly below, some locally and the guys told me that those are still better and nicer than some of what their buddies have. The variety is just vast. And yes, I like the M14 but not crying over spilled milk. They are a step up from the SKS.
