The SKS - Not a $220 Rifle

I get angry when I read about people who dismiss the SKS as a junk rifle;  They equate price with value.

The rifle was exceptionally designed.  It was in every sense of the word, a winter warfare rifle.  The stock was short because it was designed to be worn with a thick winter coat, the ammo was corrosive because non-corrosive offerings might not reliably ignite in -30 weather.  As I will detail later, it was over-gassed to compensate for ice.  In a climate such as Canada's I would put my faith readily in the venerable SKS.

If we were to manufacture a SKS today it would cost about $600 to manufacture with the materials, labor and machine time.  The industry standard is a markup of about 20% from the manufacturer and another 20% if it comes through a distributor.  That means if the SKS was manufactured today it would retail at around $800.

The next complaint is accuracy.  You need to understand why the SKS is not very accurate.  The big reason is the gas system.  The gas port is much larger then what is actually needed to cycle the gun.  Its ejections are forceful.  This is to compensate for potential reliability issues from mud, dust, ice and other messy battlefield conditions.  Just look to Canada's WW1 rifle, the Ross; it was a great, accurate rifle but when exposed to dirt and mud, it failed miserably putting lives at risk.  The SKS will work when it needs to work.  No questions asked.

But there is also the cultural difference in definition of accuracy.  In the west accuracy is defined in groups.  So-and-So rifle is a 1.5 MOA rifle, this-and-that is a 2 MOA rifle.  Soviet accuracy is based on the realistic expectation that it will hit a man sized target at infantry ranges.  For a rifle of war, what can you reasonably expect?  It does exactly what it needs to do.  The Soviets did not build it so Canadian and Americans could use it to "dick measure" with their arbitrary bench shot, MOA measured, groups.  MOA is irrelevant in the real world.

The ballistics of the round are similar to a 30-30.  Nobody expects the 30-30 to be a sniper rifle or to shoot distances over 200m so I find it disingenuous that people get angry that the SKS can not.

The SKS was replaced in all the militaries that adopted it...with a similar gun.  The AK47 in Russia and the Type 81 in China.  Both the AK and T81 were made with the same thoughts in mind as the SKS; the main difference between their old rifles and their new ones was detachable magazines, cheaper to build and ergonomics.  Arguably all things that are available after-market for the SKS nowadays.

So the SKS is not a "cheap" rifle.  It is a steal for what you actually get from that low price tag.

SKS Considerations

The SKS rifle was developed by Sergei Siminov in 1943.  It was quickly replaced by the new AK47.  I suspect that its low capacity 10 round, non-detachable magazine was the reason for the change.
All the tooling was sold to China who also adopted the AK47 (as the Type 56 Rifle).  Although they primarily used the AK, they liked the SKS for certain advantages it brought to their infantry sections.  Although the SKS did not have a removable magazine, they could quickly be recharged with stripper clips.  Chinese doctrine used the SKS to help keep up the volume of fire while AK magazines were being reloaded.  The SKS was longer and (in theory) offered better accuracy.
The fact that it does not require a lot to run it, its low cost, plentiful ammo and ammo that can be used to hunt medium game, make it an ideal choice for a survivialist.

But if employed in combat its advantages and limitations must be considered.  The SKS is not without flaws in the tactical sense.  Remember that the Soviets were quick to abandon it and despite the Chinese fondness for the rifle it was not the primary weapon of their infantry.

The main problem comes from reloading.  On and empty magazine the bolt locks back and it is lightening quick to reload – a great advantage.  But what about replenishing a magazine that is not quite empty?  This is necessary during a lull in battle or before entering an unknown area like a room.  The user has to dump his magazine by opening the hinged magazine bottom and catching his rounds before they spill on the ground (or just dump them if he is rushed), close the cover, cock the rifle to lock the bolt to the rear and feed the stripper clip into the top.  This is quite slow.  I tried this process (retaining my rounds) and found that I take 3-4 times as long to do this versus changing a magazine.  You can change a SKS to use detachable magazines but often this renders the stripper clips useless as the detachable magazine’s feed lips block the stripper clip from being inserted.

The second major problem is maintenance; the thing is a bitch to take apart.  I can strip an AK in a tenth of the time that I can a SKS.  But to be fair the SKS is a very robust rifle and really only needs a detailed cleaning once in a while.  I do recommend you put a wipe through the barrel after a day of shooting to prevent possible corrosion from the ammo. (military ammo used corrosive primers to ensure ignition in cold weather – don’t ask me why, I am no chemist)
Thirdly is optics.  You must give the stripper clip loading ability if you are set on traditional short eye relief optics.  This is because normal optics cover the area that stripper clips are inserted into.  Mounting traditional optics on the receiver cover almost never yields a sold zero as this portion of the rifle is designed to be removed and has some play.  For SKS users I recommend a red dot or a long eye relief scope mounted forward of the bolt.  For those who insist on a traditional short eye relief scope, use a side mount rather then a receiver cover mount.

If you keep these considerations in mind the SKS will serve you well.  In a survival or defensive situation it is a hearty, battle tested design that offers the user a well rounded jack of all trades rifle at a low cost.