Was the SKS a fail?

The No4s used by the ranger are not a 120 year old design. If they were using Lee-Metfords than that comment would have merit. It was introduced in the late 30s and not officially adopted until 1941, so 74 years of service.

Except the rifles used by the Rangers were No. 4 Mk. 2s made by Long Branch/Canadian Arsenals Limited in the 1950s.
 
They had an extensive literacy overhaul after the revolution. Still, one of the reasons of the AKs simplicity in their own reasoning was the questionable technical ability of many of the peasants and rural personnel.

"is gun, gun shoots, what more do you want?"

Simplicity has a sophistication all of its own.

RIFLE IS FINE!
 
is that me or the SKS is one of the smoothest shooting rifle? it doesnt wack you like any other.
+1 point for having a built-in monopod, who can beat that?
 
Except the rifles used by the Rangers were No. 4 Mk. 2s made by Long Branch/Canadian Arsenals Limited in the 1950s.

Actually there are no No 4 Mk 2 rifles in Canadian service as far as I can determine. Canada never adopted them. The rifles used are a mixture, mostly Longbranch made but not exclusively and of varying years of manufacture. I have seen more war year guns than 1950's made ones but don't claim to have seen a large sample of what is available.
 
Actually there are no No 4 Mk 2 rifles in Canadian service as far as I can determine. Canada never adopted them. The rifles used are a mixture, mostly Longbranch made but not exclusively and of varying years of manufacture. I have seen more war year guns than 1950's made ones but don't claim to have seen a large sample of what is available.

Same here. Transported a bunch for them, all I saw up close were wartime ones.
 
Thinking about AK and SKS, it actually appears that AK was rifle for offensive, where SKS was more suitable for the defense.

This logic is supported by the distribution of the guns between the units. Technically, any secondary troops would be OK with AK, so why produce SKS for years.

From practical point and after shooting SKS at the range, you would notice that it's easy to handle it while sitting at the bench. Let's compare it to VZ58 for example:

SKS has longer barrel and longer sight distance (front to rear iron sight)
SKS is semi, so you can do rapid fire, but unlike with full-auto, you don't lose muzzle control
SKS keeps your profile close to the ground (no long mag that makes you stick out of the ground) which could be useful if you're hiding in the trenches.
SKS can be loaded as quick as AK with strips, but if you're in the trenches. Running during offensive and loading the strips is a joke.

During the fight in Degistan (when Chechens attacked the neighboring villages), Russian Ministry was distributing SKSes to local militia volunteers, so even now it seems to be a good militia gun.
 
Thinking about AK and SKS, it actually appears that AK was rifle for offensive, where SKS was more suitable for the defense.

This logic is supported by the distribution of the guns between the units. Technically, any secondary troops would be OK with AK, so why produce SKS for years.

From practical point and after shooting SKS at the range, you would notice that it's easy to handle it while sitting at the bench. Let's compare it to VZ58 for example:

SKS has longer barrel and longer sight distance (front to rear iron sight)
SKS is semi, so you can do rapid fire, but unlike with full-auto, you don't lose muzzle control
SKS keeps your profile close to the ground (no long mag that makes you stick out of the ground) which could be useful if you're hiding in the trenches.
SKS can be loaded as quick as AK with strips, but if you're in the trenches. Running during offensive and loading the strips is a joke.

During the fight in Degistan (when Chechens attacked the neighboring villages), Russian Ministry was distributing SKSs to local militia volunteers, so even now it seems to be a good militia gun.

I can see where you are getting that idea, but if anything it's an accident of history. The SKS was meant to be the front line rifle, replacing the mosin. The SKS and the AK are from separate branches of the rifle's evolutionary tree, that happened to be being developed from experience in the war, both relatively simultaneously. And, like in many other countries and wars, if there isn't enough of the first rate stuff to go around, homeguard and militia gets the second rate stuff. The Russians have MILLIONS of SKSs and moisins in storage, easy to pass out. Logistically, it makes more sense to pass out the SKSs due to ammo/clip interchangeability. If the SKS didnt exist, and there werent enough AKs, they'd have been passing out mosins, or PPSH41s even.
 
Back
Top Bottom