this tale begins with me browsing for a new gun
>build first ar pistol and decide to sell my 16 inch ar15
>decide id like to get an sks
>go to gun store
cowboy companion sks aquired
i love muh sks simple as its extremely handy and nice due to it being 16.5 inches but it had me wondering what the velocity loss would be from loosing a whole 3.5 inches of barrel
thankfully i have a buddy who did his own independent velocity test and these were the results
Micro Draco 6.25" ~ 1800fps
Mini Draco 7.5" ~ 2000fps
M92 PAP 10.5 ~ 2100fps
Draco 11.5" ~ 2200fps
Krebs 103K 14.5" ~ 2350fps
AK 16.5" ~ 2350fps
SKS 20" ~ 2400fps
RPK 23" ~ 2440fps
on average this chop only costs you roughly 50fps average so why was it not the standard length? seems to be quite reliable still(though the gas port may have been drilled larger), is extremely handy, and you loose some weight
after all wasn't this thing designed to be a carbine? the m1 carbine was already around this length and was developed roughly around the same time as the sks
am i just missing something here or was it just a goofy commie moment? only really big downside i can think of is the minimal loss of velocity and dwell time
comparison of lengths
My dog. Atleast the 13th would die in it's destruction.
I'd pick the RV but then I'm no boomer
They didn't even get the GOOD Asians.
Flips are jungle monkey tier.
The SKS was meant to replace older long af rifles while the AK was meant to replace the PPS. Even though they were developed for different roles around the same time, the commies ultimately realized the 16" AK suited both purposes. This is why we have a shit ton of surplus SKS's.
No lol, what the fuck are you talking about? The SKS was produced in quantity only because of huge flaws in early AK production. The SKS was a stopgap rifle using AK ammunition until AK production problems were fixed and the rifle was available in sufficient quantity. Basically it let them split the risk of AK adoption into two parts, rifle and ammunition, and that meant that when the rifle fell through they could still transition the whole army to x39 while the rifle was unfucked. As soon as AKs were available they replaced SKSs in units descending in order of priority.
dude the question was why was the sks not 16.5 inches retard
the ak was to replace the mosin. the sks replaced the mosin carbines. the pps simply continued service.
The AK was to replace everything. In practice the AK replaced Mosins first and Carbines second because Mosin equipped troops were a higher priority and AK production was a mess for a long time, so shittier rifles stayed with troops for whom a rifle was less important (ie who received carbines) longer.
No. the akwas only to be a rifle replacement. the entire design program was for an automatic rifle.
Rpd literally got replaced by an ak that hit the gym
They did the RPD dirty It could've been the combloc version of the minimi idk why they ditched it.
It really wasn't that great
>thin handguards heated up quickly
>exposed gas port
>heavier than an RPK
>requires a bespoke reusable belt
>one that will in all likelihood get lost that the CO expects to be held on to
>also the belt is fixed to 100 rounds in 2 pieces
>unless your Chinese in which case it's made of infinitely linkable 25 round belts
Honestly I think we have it wrong with the Minimi, a heavier version of the standard infantry rifle capable of longer sustained fire seems like a much more reasonable idea. The crayon eaters seem to agree as well as a few other militaries besides Russia
I swear you guys ask some of the most bizarre goddamn questions
That's the best part of this website. It's nice to at least see people thinking, even if it's bizarre.
It isn’t even that bizarre newfag. Believe it or not, not everyone wants to sit around all day circle jerking to AR pics, arguing carry positions, and discussing how to min/max their Glock.
Don't know what board you've been posting on. These days if it's not a Ukraine thread, it's buried.
Shouldn't the question be why wasn't 14.5 standard?
I suppose that would be a much better question maybe the dwell literally just did get too bad that short or something idk
I don't think the Russians who designed the SKS had the current zoomer mindset of min-maxing absolutely everything.
I imagine they were using different ammo in the trials as well.
>I don't think a massive army would benefit from the shorter manufacturing time and less materials used to make a shorter version of their rifle that has no downsides relative to the original
For every they could have made one extra barrel for every 5 rifles they made. For every 5,000 rifles, an additional 1,000 could be made.
But the even deeper question for
is, why 16in at all? Why not 14in, based on the same logic of barely losing FPS but getting a shorter OAL? We then have to consider the parameters set by the people who commissioned the rifle itself. Intermediate cartridges were meant to fill the role of the sub machine gun AND the rifle upon realizing that the 1000m+ effective range of full power cartridges was useless overkill for 99% of soldiers. Although the 7.62x39 round was developed first, the SKS and AK-47 were developed around the same time. The soviets knew they had a decent working rifle design with the SKS because it was just an exact copy of a scaled down PTRS-41 anti tank rifle. They didn't want to risk it all on the new AK design, so while they were starting to use the AK in some areas, the SKS was still being produced en masse. Over the years and after adopting the AK, they realized 20in was excessive and they could achieve the same real-world practical results with the standard 16in barrel, because most WWII and cold war firefights happened within 300m, and most of those within 200m. The AK may have been adopted in 1949, but it wasn't until 1959 that the AKM and it's stamped metal reciever made the manufacturing process cheaper than the already-established-tooling-in-a-dozen-countries SKS.
>TL;DR: A classic case of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
I guess they figured the M38/M44 were handy enough. SKS basically has the same profile. AK is a little smaller, but it was fielded more like a sub machine gun.
based cowboy companion enjoyer.
found a really beat up one a few years back and decided to spruce it up a bit.
I have that stock too. I also have sideways pictures because I'm a lazy phone poster.
The bayonet was still a weapon of utility at the time.
4" means a lot when you're talking about stabbing the other guy with the gun.
If you want any notion of the truth find the design requirements for the competition the sks won. In there you will find that the Soviet generals asked for a carbine utilizing the 7.62x39 round, which was brand new for 1944. One of the requirements probably going to be asking for a barrel of around 20inches. Because remember the M44 carbine had the same length barrel. Also I noticed, zoomers in general can’t comprehend people 80 years ago didn’t have the same information as today and made decisions accordingly.
That does get me wondering, in the age before chronographs and ballistic gel how were bullets tested? Did they just use them on slaughter animals to see how well it put them down or was there some old fashioned way to get an estimate of the muzzle energy and terminal effects without killing something back then
Ballistic pendulums and shooting cows
>The tests were conducted at the Union Stock Yards in Chicago, using live cattle and horses (ready for slaughter), as well as human cadavers. The cadavers were dangled from the ceiling by the neck, then shot to measure the shock of each caliber, paying close attention to the amount of sway generated by each shot. The study of the cadavers accounted for the caliber of the bullet, the resistance the bullet faced upon impact, and the amount of tissue destroyed.
Obviously not talking about the Soviets, but gives you an idea of how it used to be done.
they used to standardize tests of shooting through wooden boards
Could it be??? The first good thread in ages?????