h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

The Soveit designed SKS rifle is in effect a scaled down version of the soviet PTRS anti-tank rifle. Most of the design, done by Sergi Simonov, was scaling down the large anti-tank weapon into a durable rugged rifle. Using 7.62X39mm ammunition, the SKS and AK-47 offered more stopping power than comparable western rifles. It was made obsolete by the AK-47, but still made in the millions after the adoption of the AK-47. Licensed to other Eastern Bloc countries teh SKS was stockpiled in great numbers by China Rumania and Eastern Germany. It is mostly out of use as military hardware, but is still used in Russian cerimonial activities.

Easy to use and powerfull the SKS is an outstanding weapon that was rendered obsolete by a fully automatic newcomer in 1951.

I own one of these rifles and I can attest to it's ability to be used in rough conditions.

Please note that I in no way advocate any kind of violence, and am also a pacifist. I do however habor an intense interest in military hardware and am a competent shot.

I would concur that the SKS represents a rather clever implementation of the carbine concept. While it's immediate ancestor may be the aforementioned anti-tank weapon, it also owes much to the Tokarev 1940 Model rifle.

The simplicity of the design and the manual of arms associated with it, not to mention the ease of manufacture, make it an almost perfect peasant militia weapon, which is probably why it was adopted for such use by the Chinese. It's scale also makes it usable by a very wide range of the population including women and possibly older children.

The 10 round stripper clip system at first appears to be a throwback to the bolt-action Mauser era but in fact is more practical for peasant armies that may not have the manufacturing support required to be supplied with detachable box magazines. Stripper clips are much easier to manufacturer at the cottage industry level than box magazines. This, by the way, is also true of the M-1 clip loading system. One rarely has to worry about either weapon becoming unusable because of a dearth of magazines.

If the SKS can be criticized at all in the aforementioned roles, it would be in two respects. The trigger action is unresponsive in comparison to many other longarms of the era. Oddly enough, this trigger problem can be mitigated by the use of a pistol-grip type stock that positions the shooting hand for better leverage on the trigger. The second problem with the SKS is the integral bayonet, which is for the most part essentially useless and merely adds unneeded weight to the weapon.

It would be useful, of course, in a military situation where dispatching wounded opponents was preferred because proper care of POWs could not be provided due to scarcity of food or other essentials. Having a bayonet handy would preclude using possibly equally scarce ammunition for such purposes. Of course one could also carry a hatchet or knife or simply use an improvised club or sharp rock to accomplish the same thing.

This of course would not be in compliance with the rules of war, but the rules of war rarely favor the impoverished, who are often accounted terrorists, rather than combatants and can probably, therefore, expect treatment equally savage if not more so.

Recently, it has come to light that POWs in Afghanistan were suffocated deliberately in airline freight containers. It would perhaps have been more human to have dispatched them with bayonets.

The best available data seems to indicate that the stopping power associated with the .30 Russian Short or 7.62x39 is roughly equivalent to the .223 or 5.56 NATO. This is due to the fact that the NATO cartridge exhibits higher velocity with a smaller caliber bullet. The terminal effects are essentially similar. The major advantage to the smaller NATO load is that more can carried practically, which is often a good thing since rifles chambered for the load typically have a higher cyclic rate of fire than AK47s.

Unfortunately, for Americans in particular, this advantage is rarely utilized because American soldiers have for years been loaded down with all sorts of equipment in addition to rifle and ammunition. During the Vietnam War, this problem was addressed by experienced soldiers forgoing all the non-essentials and packing primarily ammunition and water. Despite this, their opponents still could justifiably charge that American soldiers were big and slow, not at all an advantageous position in a hit and run jungle conflict.

Early versions of the M-16 were unreliable, while SKSs and AK47s proved quite durable and servicable even after termites had destroyed their stocks. Clearly design criteria differed due to different conceptions of the weapons' essential missions and probable users. Consequently, the SKS and AK47 are probably still better overall choices for arming national liberation movements than the more expensive and intricate M-16.

Pity that the SKS was so easily outclassed by the Kalashnikov. My SKS is a well firing easily maintained unit that is chinese in origin. Due to the Brady Bill it is illegal for me to afix the bayonett (trispear type) to the weapon, but it is clunky and overly heavy for target practise.
You are right in it's eas of use for the peasant army. It's single shot only format also allows for better ammo conservation in the heat of battle. It is not designed for fire suppression at all, but for aimed shots.

It depends on what you mean by "outclassed". The AK isn't as accurate and you would be hardpressed to find anyone capable of delivering full-auto or bursts for any other purpose than suppression and then it would be problematic whether such suppressive fire could be delivered anymore effectively than by firing a semiauto across a sector rapidly. I suspect this might be more of a perception issue than anything else, which of course is neither here nor there since as long as the perception persists, the reality necessarily follows.

Experienced soldiers soon learn to suppress the urge to lay down suppressive fire in auto or even burst mode since it imposes additional weight burdens just keeping an adequate supply of ammunition handy. The more or less aimed shot capacity of an M-16 with 30 round magazine is practically 10 bursts, the same as an SKS's aimed shot capacity. The ballistic payloads are roughly comparable as well.

Whether or not hit probability is measurably enhanced by using bursts is arguable. The doctrine says so but experience would argue otherwise. A well planned skirmish line providing enfilading opportunities against a foe is probably a better option that brute firepower with shoulder arms. If one wants the latter, a crew served squad automatic weapon is probably a better choice. Even so well deployed formations can easily outclass such a squad weapon because they are inherently more mobile.

Suppressive fire doctrine presumes untrained and inexperienced personnel on both sides. It necessarily breaks down when one or the other side shows a distinct preference for cultivating marksmanship. This has been proven again and again although it doesn't necessarily win wars. A foe with virtually unlimited manpower will very likely triumph in war if not battle if for no other reason than that they will exhaust an opponent's ammunition or other logistical resources.

Consequently, we probably shouldn't forget that the weapon upon which the AK47 is based was devised by the losers, and it did not, as expected, prevent them from becoming the losers.

This brings p the idea of differing combat philosophies.
Is it better to have skilled marksmen populating your ranks than unskilled but well supplied peasants?

Normally I would take the well trained units, but history shows that a peasant populace that has a steady supply of weapons can at the very least make any war into one of attrition. It happened to the US in Vietnam and it happened to the Soveits in Afganistan.

You are quite correct. One would hope that since the United States has failed to learn practically anything from Vietnam, that Afghanistan will bring this evil empire to its knees in similar fashion as experienced by the Soviet Union.

I neglected to mention, by the way, that there is a connection between economic prosperity or lack of it and expensive wars. One wonders how much the already overburdened U.S. economy can sustain in terms of the costs of such sophisticated materiel as so-called daisy-cutters and the like.

If indigenous national liberation movements could be coordinated, I suspect less than four years would be required to destroy the U.S. "presence" in the world. I further suspect that even if such coordination doesn't occur, the empire will be history in 40 years or less, having collapsed under its own insupportable greed.

I should also like to note that just because one utilizes peasants doesn't mean they are invariable bad marksmen. Marksmenship training is one of the few ways one can elevate such armies to compete with professional formations dependent on technically sophisticated weaponry.

If a means could be devised to selectively neutralize electro-magnetic fields on the battlefield, I suspect most modern armies would be hamstrung. They are not prepared in any practical fashion to wage war from the back of a mule.

That entirely depends whether your army depends on technology or not. In the UK, where anyone vaguely related to the army is used to a family of small arms which are prone to malfunction at the most inconvenient times, and where we still use 1960-issue radio equipment, I'm inclined to speculate that the british army would be - if not at home - comfortable in a battlefield arena devoid of the last 50 yearsworth of technology..

A salient point indeed. I take it then that the new model Enfield does not perform as anticipated?

It's not really fair to call it the Enfield.. the thing's manufactured by a panoply of companies and contractors, many of which are in the process of changing hands and being sold.

But no, not really.

...having said as much, I don't see what a lot of the kerfuffle's about. I've used all of the weapons in the family, and if you use them carefully, they're beautiful. It just means making concessions like putting the thing in your sleeping bag with you so that the working parts don't seize up when you're out and about.

The LSW, which is the weapon I've principally used in training (the light support variant and the target rifles are what I use the most) is actually a rather nice weapon, and the jamming problem aside, has one of the nicest sights you'll ever meet (SUSAT).

Still.. the army's probably going for the G36k, if you ask me, which is a nice choice anyway.

(cost to upgrade already bought weapons to the second generation, supposed to fix these problems (already spent): £200 million. Cost to reequip with G36k: £180 million. D'oh!)

Sounds very much like the British Army may need a great deal of sleeping bags along with mules to be fully functional in a non-electronic environment. =O)

I'm also skeptical of optical sights on combat weapons. Whatever they are, they can't possibly be as reliable as protected iron sights and given that most engagements are likely to be short-range because of cartridge capabilities if nothing else, it seems rather strange that the optical sights have attained such acceptance. I fully realize their potential on the combat target range, but I doubt it translates to actual battlefield conditions without a good deal of extraordinary logistical support.

I would be surprised if any of these weapons last as long as their forebears. I have seen perfectly servicable weapons from the First World War and before. I doubt I or anyone else will see servicable weapons from the current Afghan war era after even less time, unless they come from the Afghan side. I suspect part of that is what you mentioned regarding, "a panoply of companies and contractors, many of which are in the process of changing hands and being sold."

I would surprised even more if this current generation of weaponry was economically supportable. However, given that many modern professional armies are getting roughly the same overall support as tourists, it perhaps follows that their smallarms expenses would be high as well. It is undoubtedly a good idea in the shortterm to maintain the Praetorian Guard in the manner in which they have become accustomed, but unlikely to be a good idea in the longterm.

However, as long as the populace continues to support the military budgets required and can be convinced that such support materially contributes to their security and domestic tranquility, or coerced into accepting the same, things will likely continue as they have in the recent past.

Strangely, I'd be inclined to agree with you, but for the ease of use which I've found that the sights on the british army weapons are subject to: it may be because I've spent quite so much time on target ranges, military and civilian, with both ironsighted and optically sighted weapons, but the SUSAT sight (which has a strangely obelisk-shaped reticule) is something which I find far easier (and speedier) to aim than most other standard sorts of optical sight. That aside, the illumination at night is just about perfect for a purely unpowered sight. In addition (as the h2g2 article on the SA80 series notes - can't imagine who wrote that.. ..), the sight's about the most indestructible part of the weapon: it is possible to use the sight to hammer in tent pegs and have a perfectly usable targeting device after having done so.

Possibly. What you have to realise is that the proliferation of military technology has been colossal over the last 50 years, and countries hitherto without even respectable armies (eg. South Africa) have started designing their own weapons. In this circumstance - much like the personal computer revolution - it's only the progenitors of the revolution (and selected, well-known protagonists) which will doubtlessly be remembered: any geek worth their code knows their Altair from their ZX Spectrum, but who's heard of the Tiny 320?

The mundane, standard, and run of the mill is consigned to history's dark backroom. By contrast, the only weapons you will see which are servicable which derive from such a long time ago have already stood the test of time: for every one which you see, you have to consider the thousands of weapons now forgotten: in the same way, you must consider the fact that weapons like the kalashnikov family and HK's MP5 series have already attained what might be described as a 'cult' status, and are unlikely to be forgotten (or dropped) any time soon: in the same way that enthusiasts (not to mention law enforcement and others) still use Colt 1911-genus firearms, merely the proliferation (and ease of manufacture) of kalashnikov spare parts will serve, I think, to cause the weapon to be used for several decades without a blink.

You make valid points, however, I wouldn't characterize the AK as the object of a cult. Rather, I'd call it simply ubiquitous. The same applies to the SKS. Now the MP5 may in fact be the beneficiary of a cult following much as the 1873 or 1911 Model Colts are, in some regards without merit, although I'd be more inclined to appreciate a Browning design than a Mason design.

Another factor that comes to mind is what I'd call the guru effect. I have on several occasions run across accolades for a particular weapon I couldn't substantiate in my own experience. Upon further research I would discover that the original assertion or assertions about the weapon came from some acknowledged gun guru of a bygone era whose word was rarely if ever questioned but rather devoutly repeated until everyone was saying it, therefore, it must be true.

Likewise, military smallarms doctrine often evolves from the pronouncements of ordnance officers, many of whom have little or no field experience, yet their assertions also go unchallenged until the problems become so pernicious that even a general has to take notice.

For example, we've known for years that direct gas impingement on the action would foul it. This was virtually a no-brainer that could be appreciated even when examining the mechanical drawings. The only questions were how much and how fast. The justification, or engineering tradeoff if you will, involved less carrying weight and higher cyclic rate of fire, dubious advantages to be sure, particularly if one's troops were in fact as fit as they were inclined to brag, and hardly complementary of their shooting skills under fire.

While almost any weapon is likely to constitute a set of tradeoffs, the selection process of which tradeoffs ought to be preferred is by no means invariably rational or even informed by experience. In short, there is probably as much prejudice involved as perceptiveness.

There are three main reasons why the AK is so 'popular'.

1) The USSR provided them to anyone remotely anti-western
2) Anyone could use it in any type of climatic and battle condition.
3) It works well at the job for which it was designed

It is not particularly accurate, but puts a lot of lead in the direction it is pointed. The 7.62mm round gives it good knockdown.

The best accolade for any item is to be copied. Even Israel copied it and, since they have been on the receiving end of the AK for some time, it shows they appreciate the usefullness of the design.

Regarding Israel: I presume you're referring to the Galil?

Primary sources for AKs:

China, Soviet Union, Yugoslavia. Weapons from the latter usually omit the flash suppressor.

Sources for SKSs:

China, Soviet Union.

Correction: Remotely anti-American not anti-western. The distinction may be significant.

Most of the Eastern bloc countries manufactured the AK and AKM. The Roumanian ones had an integral pistol grip on the handguard and is often seen on newsreel pictures. The Bulgarians also exported heavily. I have also seen North Korean, Hungarian, Polish and the distinctive Yugoslavian rifle with rifle grenade adaptor (in place of muzzle break) and three cooling slots in the handguard. I believe they are also manufactured in India.

The main distiguishing feature are the marks on the large change lever on the right hand side. (Safe at the top, automatic, and single at the bottom.

As for anti - whatever, any allies of the USA were seen as American. Export of the AK was seen as extending Soviet/communist influence.

Rather like export of the M-16 was seen as extending the influence of Euro-America I suppose.

I think I prefer coca-cola (USA & the West) and vodka (Russia etc)

Vodka gives me a certain love for the former eastern bloc country I know. A good bottle of Stoli is just the ticket for me to enjoy a weekend.