SKS vs AK-47
Russia convened a technical committee consisting of some of its foremost firearm experts in 1943. This was not long after a costly victory in the Battle of Stalingrad that claimed the lives of nearly half a million Russians. Their mission was to identify or create a cartridge capable of running in carbines, light machine guns, and select-fire rifles while delivering fight-stopping performance.
The ammunition commonality would eliminate some supply chain headaches encountered during the five-month engagement. More importantly, it would allow the Red Army to finally phase out the standard-issue bolt-action Mosin Nagants so painfully outperformed by many Axis small arms.
In late 1943, after conducting tests on various cartridge candidates, the Soviet military officially adopted the 7.62×39 mm and the M43. With Leningrad gripped in what would become a 900-day siege, shifting production when World War II raged in their backyard was not an option. However, work to create the first carbine capable of digesting the bottlenecked ammunition did slowly begin.
Which would you pick as the winner in this competition?
Read the rest of the article: https://www.wideners.com/blog/sks-vs-ak-47/
In general, between those 2 I’d go with AK. High mag capacity(30 vs SKS 10) is just too insane on top of being pretty “standarized” at least at that time.
Currently, I feel like both are outclassed by normal 5.56(.223) rifles, due to AK being kinda hard to modify(rail system makes it really awkward to put on some attachments, especially since currently there are quite a few of manufacturers like Zastava, Century and original Kalashnikov, all with small differences).
Solo my ak. Kept the sks ;-). It’s just a classier rifle.