SKS ("Simonev" design?) vs. Kalishnikov rifles. Both are reliable battle rifles for the masses, with the AK being slightly younger. Aside from the obvious advantage the AK has with the detachable, higher capacity mags, a few of questions for the gurus here:
1. Which is more reliable? I'm guessing the AK by far, based on my experience with jammed rounds in my SKS with aftermarket mags. Even with the factory 5-round non-detachable, it appears that every round fed from the left side of the mag just BARELY clears the bottom edge of the chamber opening, even with the sharpest of ball ammo.
2. Another advantage to the AK is that it won't slam-fire like the SKS, correct?
3. What is the actual difference in the nature of the action, if any? They are both operated by the gas tube with a piston to operate the bolt. Look the same to me.
So, if you had to get rid of one and keep just one, I would think an AK would be the keeper (assuming basic purposes - home defense, SHTF/Y2K, militia/battle rifle purposes)?
1. Which is more reliable? I'm guessing the AK by far, based on my experience with jammed rounds in my SKS with aftermarket mags. Even with the factory 5-round non-detachable, it appears that every round fed from the left side of the mag just BARELY clears the bottom edge of the chamber opening, even with the sharpest of ball ammo.
2. Another advantage to the AK is that it won't slam-fire like the SKS, correct?
3. What is the actual difference in the nature of the action, if any? They are both operated by the gas tube with a piston to operate the bolt. Look the same to me.
So, if you had to get rid of one and keep just one, I would think an AK would be the keeper (assuming basic purposes - home defense, SHTF/Y2K, militia/battle rifle purposes)?