Is the SKS heavy?

[SHSKS]

Considering all the SKS strengths, is the pound or two of extra weight compared to some other rifles a problem. Personally I don't think so. Reliability, easy field stripping and durability far outweigh the a little extra weight.
What do you think?

[Bubbazinetti]

Weight is all relative.Compared to what?

[SHSKS]

Weight is all relative.Compared to what?

was thinking along the lines of the mini 30, AR15 and the AKM.

[Bubbazinetti]

Not as light as a AKM but that is apples to oranges.At 3.85kg a 5 foot nothing Chinaman had no trouble handling one in the jungles of Vietnam.A M1 Garand of that era weighed 9.5lbs or a M14 at about the same weight without a full 20rnd mag much less a scope which was about 12lbs or so.

[SHSKS]

Basically what I think. Just curious what others think.

[Bubbazinetti]

Average 20" AR/M16 battle rifle is about the same weight or heavier depending on how equiped in the field.M4 is lighter but not same comparison,would be with AKM.But rifle for rifle the SKS is pretty light. My Colt 6601 20" rifle with aimpoint comp m2 mount and full mag is much heavier than my SKS.

[Bubbazinetti]

Do you have a Diemaco C7 to compare it to?

[Bacarnal]

Weight of the M16A2 is 7.9lbs empty, 8.79lbs with a 30 round mag.  My L1A1 weighs about 12 with a 20rnd mag, while my SKS D is about 8.5 with a 30rnd mag.  The SKS isn't too heavy in my opinion, also.

[Shoot The Refurbs]

It's relative, out of the box is it heavier and more cumbersome than an m4? certainly. but your also not likely to add anything to an sks, whereas an m4 could have its own weight in attachments.
If you're asking if it's weight makes it less useful or more inconvenient as a tool i would say no. Again, it's all relative to the user.
I would however argue that the 240B or MK48 is a heavy son of a gun to carry up and down some mountains, and i'm sure someone who carried the pig in Nam' will call me a wuss. 

[SHSKS]

Thank you for the replies.
I'm fairly new to "war rifles", so when I read on another forum that some folks thought that SKS is heavy, it got me thinking.
Anyway, personally speaking, I find the SKS not heavy at all.
But it's reliability is second to none.

[Bubbazinetti]

A folding stock Uzi is at least as heavy as a SKS.

[Larry D.]

Heavy has an advantage in respect to recoil.

[running-man]

I think you have to compare it to weapons of the same era (1931-1959)  Items in orange are chambered in 7.62x39:

M1 Carbine: 5.5 lb.
EM-2: 7.7 lb.
AK-47: 7.7 lb.
Chinese Type 63: 8.4 lb.
SVT-40: 8.5 lb.
SKS45: 8.5 lb.
VZ52: 9.13 lb. (7.62x45)
M14 9.2 lb.
Rasheed: 9.3 lb.
FN-FAL (50.00) 9.4 lb.
VZ52/57: 9.5 lb.
M1 Garand: 9.5 lb.
SAFN49: 9.5 lb.
CETME Mod. 58: 9.9 lb.
Thompson M1A1: 10 lb.
AG-42 Ljungman: 10.4 lb.
MAS-49: 10.4 lb.

And maybe some more contemporary comparisons:
M16: 6.4 lb.
Ruger Mini-14: 6.4 lb.
AK-74 6.8 lb.
Norinco T81: 7.5 lb.
Norinco T86S: 7.9 lb.

Looks to me like it was pretty light compared to the heavy battle rifles chambered for full power rounds of the era.  Yes the AK47 is lighter, and that plus the ease of manufacture of a stamped weapon (with the advent of the AKM) is likely the reason it has such a long production history.  Not as light as the Mini-14 or the Chinese variants designed in the 70's & 80's, but fairly decent for a carbine designed in the 1940s.

[Bubbazinetti]

Mini-14 is not fair comparison IMO.It was never designed as a battle rifle but as a light sporter and hunting,not for reliable sustained fire in combat conditions like a m16.

[SHSKS]

I think you have to compare it to weapons of the same era (1931-1959)  Items in orange are chambered in 7.62x39:

M1 Carbine: 5.5 lb.
EM-2: 7.7 lb.
AK-47: 7.7 lb.
Chinese Type 63: 8.4 lb.
SVT-40: 8.5 lb.
SKS45: 8.5 lb.
VZ52: 9.13 lb. (7.62x45)
M14 9.2 lb.
Rasheed: 9.3 lb.
FN-FAL (50.00) 9.4 lb.
VZ52/57: 9.5 lb.
M1 Garand: 9.5 lb.
SAFN49: 9.5 lb.
CETME Mod. 58: 9.9 lb.
Thompson M1A1: 10 lb.
AG-42 Ljungman: 10.4 lb.
MAS-49: 10.4 lb.

And maybe some more contemporary comparisons:
M16: 6.4 lb.
Ruger Mini-14: 6.4 lb.
AK-74 6.8 lb.
Norinco T81: 7.5 lb.
Norinco T86S: 7.9 lb.

Looks to me like it was pretty light compared to the heavy battle rifles chambered for full power rounds of the era.  Yes the AK47 is lighter, and that plus the ease of manufacture of a stamped weapon (with the advent of the AKM) is likely the reason it has such a long production history.  Not as light as the Mini-14 or the Chinese variants designed in the 70's & 80's, but fairly decent for a carbine designed in the 1940s.

That's great information 👍 thanks.

[SHSKS]

Mini-14 is not fair comparison IMO.It was never designed as a battle rifle but as a light sporter and hunting,not for reliable sustained fire in combat conditions like a m16.

Good point 👍.

[running-man]

Mini-14 is not fair comparison IMO.It was never designed as a battle rifle but as a light sporter and hunting,not for reliable sustained fire in combat conditions like a m16.

Good point 👍.

Definitely agreed, different design requirements and also built in a different era (just like the T81 & T86S)....but it's a semi-auto chambered in 7.62x39, so that's the most fair comparison you're going to get.  If for-profit Ruger could only get down to a 6.4 lb hunting/plinking rifle, that's probably pretty close to the lower limit before reliability and durability really tank. 

[Bacarnal]

Though not having owned a Mini 14 since 1988, I can argue that it has been adopted by several countries, serving in various police and military roles, and is still in current use in some.  There is even a fully automatic version, the AC-556. Not strictly a sporter.