The SKS Is the Cockroach of Weapons
- Thread starter Big Uke
- Start date
I tend to agree with grelma. The Chinese fought in the Korean War in 1953 and the russian didn't give them their SKS so not likely a year later they would give it to the viet minh.
When the viet minh were equipped with upto date rifles, they inturn handed their old ww2 and sks down to the viet cong.
When the viet minh were equipped with upto date rifles, they inturn handed their old ww2 and sks down to the viet cong.
gewehr76
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
People think that as of 1947, magically every Soviet soldier is equipped with ak47 and SKS is just stored away. Then If China got the production rolling of SKS in 1956 then all Chinese soldiers after that have to be armed with gazillion of SKS rifles right away. Yeah right.
It takes decades to build up enough firearms and ammo for them during peace time. Korean war and Vietnam war were still fought with mainly ww2 weapons. SKS or AK were not main equipment.
Its not like in all Soviet Movies every Nazi soldier in the frame has MP40. lol
It takes decades to build up enough firearms and ammo for them during peace time. Korean war and Vietnam war were still fought with mainly ww2 weapons. SKS or AK were not main equipment.
Its not like in all Soviet Movies every Nazi soldier in the frame has MP40. lol
Portuguese Colonial Angola just before its collapse in 1969.
Nice thanks, I wonder if those are military issue sneakers in that last pic!You mean this pic?
http://4.bp.########.com/-xrXxCyvKzZ8/Ts0rnw1GbzI/AAAAAAAAFSI/_xe_QzmYzNg/s1600/398px-Vietcong1968.jpg
A more recent conflict where the SKS is fairly ubiquitous:
Too bad the Russians/ Chinese don't have a group of (public) historians that could shed light on the start date of the use of all these different military Arms in combat,, would be nice!
Oh god yes, first it is, one is none and two is one deal, then you want a certain year then you turn into a sort of collector of SKS ( mostly because they are an inexpensive rifle to collect and cool history) but you see a really nice one, but you have that year already, so you buy it, intending to sell the one you already have and on it goes!
Yep. It's like a hammer and a gun bred. Longer range than the hammer, just as tough, not quite as accurate.
bought one last summer at a big box store when it was on sale with a crate of ammo... two weeks later bought another... then a "super grade"... plan on 2-4 more for each of my family members... as the first 3 are mine!
You aren't being a know it all. You are absolutely correct. The REGULAR forces there used everything in 7.62x51 that was available in semi auto and full auto at the time. They also used a lot of 8mm weapons depending how high up they were on the ladder. By 1969 Many of the REGULAR troops went back to Portugal. Most of the people remaining were Portuguese farmers that made a life in Angola. They carried a hodge podge of weapons and often just used what was at hand. By this time there were all sorts of insurgents popping up, some with completely different mandates. Chinese advisers and medical units as well as Cuban troops with equipment ranging from artillery and very old armor to AK 47s, FN FALs and of course a few SKSs.
Angola had been a dumping ground for WWII and later weapons. For instance the South Africans would supply a few insurgent groups with whatever they had on hand. SKSs and AKs were cheap and available so they often supplied those, especially to UNITA and FNLA groups that shot the hell out of everyone they came across including each other depending what the goal at the time was.
I was a private contractor. I only received one pay packet before the whole system started to fall apart and everyone that could get out did by whatever means necessary. I was a johnny come lately, very young, naive and full of piss and vinegar. Way to much to talk about here. Needless to say there were some very stressful times without any backup or resources. We picked up what we could where we could and our equipment tended towards personal preferences. My men mostly preferred and revered the FNFAL but they were Matabele Colonial troops and were used to getting the hand me downs from regular forces. Darn good troops, tough, brave and loyal to their fellows and families. Most were Muslims and extremely ethical but not in an ISIS manner. Most didn't like the AK platform but went to it when ammo for the FNs became scarce. They liked the full auto feature and some of their wives could handle them quite well.
I wasn't REGULAR FORCE. I was treated well and with respect by both the Colonials and Regulars. No complaints there.
VanIsleCam
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Thank you for sharing bearhunter. The Okanogan must feel pretty tame.
In case anyone didn't catch it (most probably did), the "newer" pictures of the SKS in action are with Ukrainian irregulars in the ongoing two-way range going on over there. It's kind of fallen out of the news cycle, but it's very much an ongoing conflict.
Now, I've never been in the military, or in a gunfight (and desperately hope to never have the experience), so take my analysis with a large dose of salt. But I've been shooting off and on for close to 40 years now, and own several SKS's and a CZ-858 (as close to an AK as we can have in Canada), and an AR, M1A, etc etc., have shot them all a lot, and I can see where each type of platform has its advantages, and why the SKS is still relevant today.
The big advantage of an AK/858/AR/"modern combat rifle" over something like the SKS is ammo capacity and sustained fire. That big magazine, with all those extra bullets, are mighty handy. Especially in a co-ordinated group of people (small unit tactics). There's a lot of shooting going on in modern warfare, with not a lot of "getting shot." The statistics are pretty staggering, something like 30,000 rounds of ammo fired per casualty on average. Mostly what individuals are doing, is maintaining sustained fire to keep the other team's heads down, while the other people in your team are manoeuvring around trying to get a clean shot off that might actually hit something. In that kind of fight, you want as many rounds on tap without having to reload as possible.
The big disadvantage is bulk and weight. Yes, an AK is lighter than an SKS. But add in a full magazine, and a half dozen or 8 loaded magazines on your body, and in total, the AK ends up being pretty heavy and bulky. Sure, the barrel is shorter, but with that fat banana hanging off the bottom, the gun ends up being a lot bigger when you look at it in terms of height and weight.
The SKS fits in a different role, for a different kind of fighter. Yes, it is slightly more accurate, but I don't think that's what's really winning the day here (both will hit a bad guy size object at 300 yards or so), and why you see them in the hands of middle aged insurgents - who given the region, probably have some form of military background and training, and access to AK's is "not hard". If they really wanted one, they could probably get it.
I think where it wins out for these guys is for other reasons.
1: Simplicity. The SKS is an incredibly simple rifle. The AK may be legendary for its simplicity, but the SKS is on a whole different level of simple. Crazy easy to take down and maintain, and get it back together again.
2: No magazines. Magazines add bulk and weight. A lot more of it than you might realize. I have a couple of SKS ammo bandoleers, each can hold 200 rounds on stripper clips. This takes up a fraction of the space and weight that 7 loaded magazines would occupy (for 210 rounds). With my middle aged spread, knees and feet that have seen better days, I am 100% Ok with the concept of "every pound of crap I don't have to carry is fine by me." Being on your feet all day, and humping crap around while you do it, sucks at any age. As you get older, the challenges multiply. Trust me on this one.
3: Slimmer profile/easier to shoot prone. A standing deer is an easy shot (done it), a gopher scuttling through the grass is not. If someone is ever shooting at me, I'm going to channel my inner gopher and become one with the dirt. The magazine sticking out of a modern rifle (AK/858/AR, whatever) makes it hard to do this and still be able to shoot back. Your shoulders are going to end up being an extra 8 inches or so higher off the ground in order to be able to line up a shot. That works out to 8 inches more vertical space (and a lot more total area) for somebody else to shoot back at. With an SKS, you can lay absolutely flat, and still be able to get a cheek weld and line up a shot. That has a certain appeal.
4: Full auto only matters if you're in a group. Full auto is mostly used for suppressing fire (see above) to give your team a few moments to move. If you're alone, full auto mostly just serves to empty your magazine in a hurry. You need to make your shots count, otherwise you run out of ammo before you run out of things to fight.
For someone fighting as an insurgent, with irregular supply, indeterminate levels of supporting fire, the advantages of something like an SKS could conceivably outweigh the advantages of a more modern platform.
Anyway, for me it's all cloudbusting. Interesting to think about in the abstract. The guys who have actually had to deal with it most likely will be able to poke holes in my thoughts, and that's fine. Experience matters.
Now, I've never been in the military, or in a gunfight (and desperately hope to never have the experience), so take my analysis with a large dose of salt. But I've been shooting off and on for close to 40 years now, and own several SKS's and a CZ-858 (as close to an AK as we can have in Canada), and an AR, M1A, etc etc., have shot them all a lot, and I can see where each type of platform has its advantages, and why the SKS is still relevant today.
The big advantage of an AK/858/AR/"modern combat rifle" over something like the SKS is ammo capacity and sustained fire. That big magazine, with all those extra bullets, are mighty handy. Especially in a co-ordinated group of people (small unit tactics). There's a lot of shooting going on in modern warfare, with not a lot of "getting shot." The statistics are pretty staggering, something like 30,000 rounds of ammo fired per casualty on average. Mostly what individuals are doing, is maintaining sustained fire to keep the other team's heads down, while the other people in your team are manoeuvring around trying to get a clean shot off that might actually hit something. In that kind of fight, you want as many rounds on tap without having to reload as possible.
The big disadvantage is bulk and weight. Yes, an AK is lighter than an SKS. But add in a full magazine, and a half dozen or 8 loaded magazines on your body, and in total, the AK ends up being pretty heavy and bulky. Sure, the barrel is shorter, but with that fat banana hanging off the bottom, the gun ends up being a lot bigger when you look at it in terms of height and weight.
The SKS fits in a different role, for a different kind of fighter. Yes, it is slightly more accurate, but I don't think that's what's really winning the day here (both will hit a bad guy size object at 300 yards or so), and why you see them in the hands of middle aged insurgents - who given the region, probably have some form of military background and training, and access to AK's is "not hard". If they really wanted one, they could probably get it.
I think where it wins out for these guys is for other reasons.
1: Simplicity. The SKS is an incredibly simple rifle. The AK may be legendary for its simplicity, but the SKS is on a whole different level of simple. Crazy easy to take down and maintain, and get it back together again.
2: No magazines. Magazines add bulk and weight. A lot more of it than you might realize. I have a couple of SKS ammo bandoleers, each can hold 200 rounds on stripper clips. This takes up a fraction of the space and weight that 7 loaded magazines would occupy (for 210 rounds). With my middle aged spread, knees and feet that have seen better days, I am 100% Ok with the concept of "every pound of crap I don't have to carry is fine by me." Being on your feet all day, and humping crap around while you do it, sucks at any age. As you get older, the challenges multiply. Trust me on this one.
3: Slimmer profile/easier to shoot prone. A standing deer is an easy shot (done it), a gopher scuttling through the grass is not. If someone is ever shooting at me, I'm going to channel my inner gopher and become one with the dirt. The magazine sticking out of a modern rifle (AK/858/AR, whatever) makes it hard to do this and still be able to shoot back. Your shoulders are going to end up being an extra 8 inches or so higher off the ground in order to be able to line up a shot. That works out to 8 inches more vertical space (and a lot more total area) for somebody else to shoot back at. With an SKS, you can lay absolutely flat, and still be able to get a cheek weld and line up a shot. That has a certain appeal.
4: Full auto only matters if you're in a group. Full auto is mostly used for suppressing fire (see above) to give your team a few moments to move. If you're alone, full auto mostly just serves to empty your magazine in a hurry. You need to make your shots count, otherwise you run out of ammo before you run out of things to fight.
For someone fighting as an insurgent, with irregular supply, indeterminate levels of supporting fire, the advantages of something like an SKS could conceivably outweigh the advantages of a more modern platform.
Anyway, for me it's all cloudbusting. Interesting to think about in the abstract. The guys who have actually had to deal with it most likely will be able to poke holes in my thoughts, and that's fine. Experience matters.
I am quite certain you didn't see any SKS's in Prague, crommed and dolled up VZ (CZ) 52, or perhaps 52/57's but no SKS.
Scott
