On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 16:43:18 -0700, "raykeller"
<
whiney_will_have_his_nose_in_my_ass_in_3_2_1@leftards_are_loosers.com>
wrote:
Well, the "K" is for "Kalashnikov" .... but in most ways
the 'AK' is a variant of the SKS, not the other way
around. The AK is a five or six year newer design.
The smallish integral magazine of the SKS was made
that way on purpose - to discourage soldiers from
wasting precious ammo. You see a similar scheme
on the FN-49, which was widely sold to 2nd-world
governments. In Russia anyway, after the war ammo
became plentiful so the AK was built to spray it in
volume (if not with great accuracy). Some SKS's are
modified to take AK magazines however.
Russian-made SKS's are nice carbines - short,
light, reasonably accurate, easy to maneuver in
tight quarters, reliable. They owe their overall
concept to both NAZI "assault weapons". The
US M-1 carbine was the result of similar thinking.
They fill a battlefield niche - not too small, not
too big.
The "high-power" rifles of the time have
great range, but also considerable weight and
bulk and the cartridges are twice as large
and expensive. It is not so unusual for one or
two guys in a squad (usually the biggest ones)
to carry a high-powered rifle in order to deal
with shielded or distant foes. For most soldiers
however "battle" is usually at pretty close range
and you don't need or want a 1000-meter gun.
The SKS is of "conventional design" - a lot of
lathe and mill work on big bits of steel. The AK
was instead designed as an "economy rifle",
the receiver made of stamped sheet metal,
the internal parts rather few and crude. It was
made to be exported to Marxist revolutionaries
worldwide. It's cheapness and very simple
robust design made it a global success. It's
something an illterate recruit could be taught
to use in an hour, one who'd probably never
do a lick of maintenence on it either. The SKS
needs more care - better suited for professional
soldiers.
In any case, neither weapon should ever be
allowed into the hands of pin-headed leftists.