I was looking for an excuse to handle firearms and burn a few hours, so I figured I'd break down the SKS next to the Tokarev for a little compare/contrast.
I've seen discussions about the differences between the two rifles, but never a good, detailed breakdown of each one next to the other. It's easy to look at the mammoth ww2 made Tokarev next to the more compact Simonov carbine and think they are vastly different and a comparison is not necessary. But the more I think about it, the more similarities I see, and the more I think this discussion is in order.
As a disclaimer, let me say I am an expert on neither SKS nor SVT 40. I'm just a guy who loves to own & shoot them. I just want to share some observations and a ton of pictures, and hopefully spark a conversation.
I'm breaking it down into the two categories I think guys like us like most about surplus arms: History, and shooting. First, here's an overview of both rifles:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The basics Both the SKS & Tokarev SVT 40 are semi-automatic, gas operated/piston driven rifles with 10-round capacity designed for and issued to Soviet infantry. Both are meant to be loaded via stripper clip.
Overall length:
SKS: 40 inches
Tokarev: 48 inches
Barrel length:
SKS: 20.5 inches
Tokarev: 24.5 inches
Weight unloaded:
SKS: 9 pounds
Tokarev: 9 pounds
(Those numbers thanks to my bathroom scale, probably not the best method, but only one available to me.)
Caliber:
SKS: 7.62x39, 10 round capacity
Tokarev: 7.62x54r, 10 round capacity
Military debut:
SKS: 1949
Tokarev: 1939
(Those dates are debatable, especially with the SKS being conceived in 1945. I've been working with the notion SKS production was mostly experimental until '49.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
History For me, this is the most magnetic part of studying & shooting the Tokarev rifle- its rich, tumultuous but brief history. The Tokarev design was adopted in '39 and replaced the AVS36, a select-fire rifle designed by our good friend Simonov. The AVS36 was a swift and immediate failure due to unreliability, among other things. With the constant switching between Simonov & Tokarev designs to arm the Soviet army, it's fun to imagine a personal rivalry between those two titans of firearm innovation. Tokarev may have won out with the SVT 40, but Simonov would have the last laugh.
When Stalin put the kibosh on the AVS and adopted the Tokarev, he put the Tula plant to the task of producing it. The SVT40 is actually an improvised version of the SVT 38, but the differences are negligible. By '41, Tula, Izhevsk, and Podolsk plants were making the Tokarev, although the bolt action Mosins were never retired. By the time of the German invasion of the Soviet Union in '41, some 100,000 Tokarevs were fielded. By '45, the end of WW2 & the Tokarev reign, about 1.5 million had been produced and fielded.
Along with Mosin Nagants, the Tokarev fit well into the array of Soviet small arms, being an accurate & powerful semiauto rifle. In fact, the Tokarev was highly coveted by the Finns, who captured & issued bunches of Toks during both Soviet invasions of Finland, and also by Hitler, who ended up copying the design to improve upon the Germans' Gewehr41.
Due to my heritage, I'm strongly biased here, but I really consider the Tokarev the rifle that won WW2. The Garand did its service well, beyond well in fact, and it's clearly a better all-around rifle compared to the Tokarev. But just think, it was the Soviets armed with Tokarevs, not the Americans, who were the first to breach the boundaries of Berlin and break up the Nazi Party's...um, party.
But the Tokarev had its drawbacks, like being too big and unreliable if not properly maintained. Also, look at where the bulk of fighting took place in the Soviet Union in WW2: the urban centers of Leningrad and Stalingrad. Trench warfare was dead. The days of drawing a line in a field, digging in and taking potshots at your enemy from a mile away were over. The state of warfare now demanded lightness, ease of use, and mobility in combat, something the long and cumbersome Tokarev just didn't live up to.
Surely, Simonov was well aware of what the modern face of war demanded out of infantry small arms. He certainly looked at the Tokarev and noticed its shortcomings while designing the SKS. It's fun to imagine Simonov in the Tula plant, with a cracked, broken SVT 40 on the table in front of him, thinking
What went wrong here? The answer was clear: the Tokarev was overpowered, fragile, unnecessarily long, and difficult to maintain.
So Simonov goes to work, and this is where he cements himself as a visionary and legend in the arms world. You know after his AVS36 failed so miserably, he must have had doubts regarding his abilities. He pumped out the perfect retort to the Tokarev's downfalls, the SKS. Everything the SVT 40 could not live up to, the SKS could. His little carbine, as we all know, is handy, mobile, and just damn near indestructible. Accordingly, no fewer than seven countries created their own version of the SKS, with dozens more buying surplussed ones. His creation, his legacy is still being written today, as handfuls of countries still rely on the SKS.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shooting Ahh, finally, the fun part. What's the point of owning firearms that can't be shot?
This is where the SKS sets itself apart from the Tokarev. Don't be mistaken, shooting the SVT 40 is righteous good fun. In fairness though, I've never met a functional firearm that wasn't fun to shoot. But the Tokarev has its pitfalls. Shooting the Tok is equivalent to a Bubba Job.
WAIT WHAT! Shooting is Bubbaing?!? You're crazy, Blicero, get the heck out of here but first tell me what you mean. Sure thing, voice in my head. A bubba job is the willful and irrevocable defacement of historical arms, and that's what you're doing by firing the SVT 40.
Look, I have never met an SVT 40 whose handguard would not chip, crack, or break with enough firing. That dastardly little piece is just the Achilles Heel of the rifle. Take a look at what's happened to this handguard after slamming enough times into the rear sight:
That crack has formed with only 200 or so rounds fired, never with the gas system above 1.2. Take a look at what extended shooting has done to another one of the Tokarevs:
Just tonight I was noticing the hairline fracture beginning to stretch the entire length of the handguard, ticked me off, see if you can see it:
Unfortunately, that's just the price you pay for shooting the Tokarev. It's maddening to damage such beautiful firearms, but hey, what's the fun of owning rifles you can't shoot? Just be warned, that damage is nearly inevitable.
Now, if you're a rookie to shooting the Tokarev, you have to know about the adjustable gas system, something the SKS does not have. This is the gas valve nut, located a few inches behind the front sight:
It has five settings: 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.5, and 1.7. The higher the setting, the more gas being cycled back into the rifle. In order to adjust the setting, you must own a Tokarev gas tool. You can get them
here cheaply . It also serves to unscrew the gas piston.
Do not try to adjust the gas with a home-brewed tool or one not made for the job. You'll probably just end up marring or stripping the nut. Trust me. Just buy the tool. In fact, buy a few of them. Keep one in your range bag and one for your work bench. It's money well spent.
Back to shooting. If you're shooting the Tok for the first time, take the tool and set the gas to 1.1. Make sure the flat of the nut is even with the inscribed notch. Now fire off a few rounds, note the results. What you're looking for is consistent extraction, ejection, and feeding. If you get any sort of failure, chances are you need more gas. Set it to 1.2, squeeze off a few rounds. Continue doing this until you get positive results. You want that gas setting to be on the lowest number possible while still getting good results. The lower the setting, the less wear & tear you're putting on the rifle.
If you're not scared away from the Tokarev by now, let me tell you how pleasant it is to shoot. Once you have the settings dialed in, it's an absolutely reliable and joyful rifle to shoot, and it's hard to not imagine yourself ankle deep in Soviet snow, protecting the Motherland from the dirtbag Nazis.
Shooting the SKS is a different animal. Yes, many SKS triggers are horsetrash, an epic and gravelly journey from squeeze to BANG. Yes, the SKS does not shoot lasers. You will probably not see many guys schlepping SKSs to CMP or appleseed matches. But that's OK, that's not where their beauty is. For me, the true joy of shooting the SKS is its sturdiness, affordability, and unwavering reliability. Seriously, I have never met an SKS that did not feel like it could not run for all eternity. That's just sheer world-class craftsmanship, embodied in the SKS.
All in all, shooting the SKS is just a universe apart from the Tokarev. They both have tons of advantages, and only a few minor quirks or disadvantages. They feel different on the shoulder, they point differently, they both evoke different reactions and emotions within you when you shoot them. You'll know what I mean when you feel it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, here is a piece by piece break down of both rifles. I've already rambled off into oblivion here, so I'll nix the commentary. You can see the differences for yourself.
Stocks/handguards:
Receivers:
Trigger groups:
Bolts & bolt carriers:
Gas systems/op rods/pistons:
Receiver covers:
Bayonet provisions:
Recoil springs:
Sights:
Obviously, the SKS is a different beast than the Tok. But that was the point, to deviate away from the outdated, uselessly long bolt and semiauto guns. It's easy to think of the Tok as the WW2 gun, and the SKS as the Cold War & beyond gun. As humans we have to compartmentalize periods of history to help make sense of it all, but no two eras are ever distinctly separate from each other. The Tokarev rifle, in turn, is a clear stepping stone in the evolution of what would shortly become the Simonov carbine. In effect, I see these two guns as a bridge between two eras of humanity & military history, with the SKS being the indisputable answer to the Tokarev's questions.
That's all. I appreciate you reading along. Please feel free to chime in with your knowledge/call me an idiot/ask questions.
Home
Search
SKS Guide
Russian
Chinese
Romanian
Yugo
Albanian
North Korean
Donations
Login
Register