Comments by "The Immortal" (@theimmortal4718) on "SKS short lived Russian semi-auto rifle" video.

The SKS is a fantastic weapon, especially in places like south east Asia. Stripper clips are cheaper, and a lot can be carried. More accurate than the AK, more velocity and range. Reasonably short and lightweight. Very reliable and durable. Decent sights and trigger. The only real disadvantage us the lower rate of fire, but in the sustained role that has less importance.
5
@dy3812 I think it comes down more to the economy of the army. Clips are cheaper by far and disposable. At the time these weapons were designed, it wasn't uncommon for some armies to issue very few mags. That's the reason the US went to en bloc clips for Garands rather than the BAR mags it could have been designed to take. For done people today, it would be easier to have a gun that doesn't require mags.
1
@dy3812 I'm just explaining the reasoning behind why the SKS was fed by both. The clips come with every case of ammo. Mags don't, and they were expensive to produce in the 1940s. Obviously, there's a reason that the SKS is considered obsolescent in modern warfare and is outperformed by nearly every weapon. Yet, at the time it made sense. Especially for troops that were going to be performing tasks other than frontline infantry, like mortars, engineers, transportation, etc.
1
@dy3812 I believe the origional AK 47 weighed the same as the SKS, both at around 8 1/2 pounds. The SKS was never modernized like the AKM. The AKM lightened the gun down to a little over 8 pounds. The guns that were produced before 1960 were heavier, but the ones produced from 1960- 1977 were pretty light.
1
@dy3812 The SKS was fielded before the AK. At the time, they didn't know when the AK would he ready. The SKS was a definite improvement from the Mosin Nagant and the Federov.
1
@Turgz Lol
1