Sks versus the m-1 grand


PDA






rebelz
May 26, 2006, 01:05 AM
Okay let's think about this the sks fires the russian eculent to the american 30.06
it is cheaper than the m-1 grand but not as accutate but is cheaper and works as a tshtf weapon but is less accurte and less powerful than the m-1 grand but so is life

If you enjoyed reading about "Sks versus the m-1 grand" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Devonai
May 26, 2006, 01:15 AM
Dude, it's called "decaf." Ask for it at your local grocer.

kfranz
May 26, 2006, 01:23 AM
:shakesheadslowly:

g56
May 26, 2006, 01:25 AM
Okay let's think about this the sks fires the russian eculent to the american 30.06
SKS is 7.62x39, it's about equal in power to a 30-30, not nearly as powerful as the 30-06, the closest Russian caliber would be 7.62x54R. The M1 Garand is quite accurate, the SKS is barely adequate in accuracy at ranges less than 100 yds.

Conclusion...the SKS is better than nothing.

N3rday
May 26, 2006, 01:26 AM
On a semi-related topic, it DOES make me feel better to think of my SKS as a 'poor man's Garand'. It sounds a lot better than 'that gun I bought on the spur of the moment on my 18th birthday when I should have saved another $100 and gotten an AK'.

ocabj
May 26, 2006, 01:51 AM
Okay let's think about this the sks fires the russian eculent to the american 30.06
it is cheaper than the m-1 grand but not as accutate but is cheaper and works as a tshtf weapon but is less accurte and less powerful than the m-1 grand but so is life
Okay. Let's think about this. The SKS fires the Russian equivalent to the American .30-06.

It is cheaper than the M1 Garand, but not as accurate. It is cheaper and works as a SHTF weapon. It is less accurate and less powerful than the M1 Garand. But so is life.

--------

Now my actual response to this trolling. The post is so contradictory to itself. The posts states that the 7.62x39 is the Russian equivalent to the .30-06, yet the post also states that the 7.62x39 is not as accurate or as powerful as the .30-06. So how is the 7.62x39 the Russian equivalent to the .30-06? This makes no sense.

G56 is correct. If anything, the 7.62x54R is the Russian equivalent of the .30-06.

grimjaw
May 26, 2006, 02:04 AM
I've got six SKSs, and I still voted Garand.

jmm

MTMilitiaman
May 26, 2006, 02:09 AM
The inaccuracies in cartridge descriptions have already been pointed out. The Garand is more powerful, more accurate, and despite this lacks only two rounds in standard capacity. It is probably faster to reload and about on par in terms of reliability and durability. Really, its only gives weight up to the SKS and in all reality, probably not even much there compared to my Yugo.

That stated, my Yugo is accurate enough to go well beyond 100 yards. I can hit beer bottles at 200 so Joe American shouldn't be a problem at 300 or even 400.

ABTOMAT
May 26, 2006, 02:13 AM
I don't think it's coffee he's been drinking.

roscoe
May 26, 2006, 02:18 AM
Are we sure that the Garand actually is more accurate? What was the standard for WWII? I thought it was something like 4-6 MOA. I think our nostalgia clouds our eyes - especially when it comes to the Garand and 1911.

With the Tech-Site peep site, the SKS is reasonably accurate. If you are carrying the rifle and ammo all day, and are not planning on engaging in serious firefights, there are good reasons why the SKS might be a better choice. My Norinco is very compact and handy, does not care what kind of ammo you feed it, requires no particular attention, and it hits the 9 ring easily at 100 yards. Am I facing down a German machine-gun squad with it? No, but otherwise, it is a pretty solid rifle.

If the Garand was about 1.5 lbs lighter, shot the .276 Peterson, and had a 10-round magazine, it might be the perfect rifle. Then, of course, it would be an SKS.


By the way, what is "eculent"?

Limeyfellow
May 26, 2006, 02:21 AM
There were some early SKS' in 7.62x54r but there was some reliability problems with the round in the SKS design but as been said the 7.62x39 is no where close to the power of the 30-06. It was designed to be an intermediate round based on experience to engage targets up to 300 metres. If anything the Garand is overpowered and the round is a left over of old military thinking and so has far too much recoil even with its added weight.

Its hard to compare a full sized semi automatic battle rifle of the M1 Garand to what is actually a carbine with the SKS built on a different methodology.

ugaarguy
May 26, 2006, 02:33 AM
Rebelz, what exactly do you want to do with it? How much do you want to spend? Each rifle has qualities that make it better than the other in different roles. Get one of each :D

slzy
May 26, 2006, 03:08 AM
the soviets built a few svt40s in 7.62x39. they had a pistol grip and curved magazine that show up again shortly.

MTMilitiaman
May 26, 2006, 03:21 AM
Its hard to compare a full sized semi automatic battle rifle of the M1 Garand to what is actually a carbine with the SKS built on a different methodology.

True. But then, heft my Yugo and tell me it is a carbine.

C-grunt
May 26, 2006, 03:47 AM
Thats like a Ferrari vs. my Saturn!!!:D

Don't Tread On Me
May 26, 2006, 06:50 AM
M1 wins in every possible category except for cost/price.

armoredman
May 26, 2006, 10:37 AM
M1 is a full blown battle rifle. SKS is a weird ba$**** child between a battle rifle, and an assault rifle; mostly the SKS is a peasants rifle,as they were designed for rough handling by inexperianced, untrained folks, in nasty places, IMHO.
The M-1 was built by a rifleman, for riflemen.
The SKS was built by a country whose two main advantages in war, at that time, was supply of cannon fodder, and ability to trade land for time. Oh, yeah, and General Winter.

Of course, I say this, and I have two Yugos, and not one Garand - can't afford it! I have the Russian Springfield - the Mosin Nagant....the Russian equivilent to the Garand is the SVT38 and SVT40.

dev_null
May 26, 2006, 10:40 AM
I've never heard of an M1 Grand. I would, however, take a Garand over an SKS any day of the week. :scrutiny:

MechAg94
May 26, 2006, 10:51 AM
The M1 Garand is the better rifle. Better cartridge, better sights, better loading system. The SKS has a built in bayonet and is easier on recoil.

On cost, if you compare apples to apples and look at new production cost, I doubt the costs would be that far apart assume the same outfit made both. Also, if the Yugoslavians were selling off their stock of M1's rather than the US Govt, they would likely be cheaper.


A better comparrison might be M1 Carbine vs. the SKS. The SKS would still lose though.

Pilot
May 26, 2006, 10:57 AM
Apples and Oranges. No vote.

Deer Hunter
May 26, 2006, 11:02 AM
So am I the only one here who enjoys shooting the SKS over the M1?

I'm biased, though. Killed my first white-tail with an SKS.

Greek
May 26, 2006, 11:24 AM
I don't have a SKS so I can't be objective.
I do have two Garand's. The Garand's are very well made rifles. Historically, something I would like to pass down to my children. My wife and I both competed in a CMP match with them and enjoyed the experience. They are quite accurate. The sights are pretty good and even I can see them and I'm 59 yrs old! I purchased both of mine from the CMP.

alamo
May 26, 2006, 11:38 AM
English to English translation

:D

I admire your wit ocabj

Mikee Loxxer
May 26, 2006, 11:41 AM
:confused: The 7.62 X 39 is the Russian equivalent of the 30'06? Who told you that. 7.62 X39 is an intermediate cartridge whereas 30'06 is a full size cartridge. The Russian 30'06 is the 7.62X54R.

Your question should really be either SKS versus M1 Carbine or M1 versus SVT. Also please define eculent.

saltydog
May 26, 2006, 11:46 AM
Is this post for real?:confused:

riverdog
May 26, 2006, 12:21 PM
Are we sure that the Garand actually is more accurate? What was the standard for WWII? I thought it was something like 4-6 MOA. I think our nostalgia clouds our eyes - especially when it comes to the Garand and 1911.My first Garand was/is a 5 digit s/n (Aug 1940) and is as received from CMP. It's a lot better than 4 MOA, probably 2 MOA shooting USGI M-2 Ball. My other Garands are as good or better. The spec may have been 4-6 MOA, but the rifles were better IME. The SKS isn't is the same league.

WayneConrad
May 26, 2006, 12:52 PM
Do you even have to ask?

Both, please. As many as you can spare. PM me for mailing address and FFL info.

colt.45
May 26, 2006, 01:47 PM
i can't believe what i am seeing. the original poster uses no english gramar or punctuation at all, and cant even spell m-1 garand. and he wants to compare the sks to the m-1 garand, that is just stupid. the two aren't even in the same power league, build quality, accuracy, or even material quality. the only thing they have in common is that they use stripper clips

my m-1 garand is a solid 2.5moa gun in my hands, and i dont base my groups on luck either. that one 4moa group that you made with your sks and roled up nice and neat to show off and say "see! look my sks can get good groups too!!!", yeah that one. it's just not in the same league as the garand.

i have shot an sks ONCE and i think ill keep it that way. it got a case jammed in the chamber!!! it would barely stay on the 6" paper plate's in the hands of everyone in my family. and it was barely lighter than my garand and it was only 3" shorter. yeah its a lot handier!;)

the only time im going to buy an sks is when the SHTF and i get them to hand out to family friends. not because they're good, not because they're accurate or powerful, but because they cost $90 and they shoot a cheap bullet.

The Real Hawkeye
May 26, 2006, 01:55 PM
The .30-06 is much more powerful, with a much longer practical range. The M1 is much more accurate. The only advantage to the SKS is that it is a bit lighter, you can carry a bit more ammo, it loads ten rounds to the M1s 8, and it takes down for mainenance easier. If your ranges are always going to be within 150 to 200 yards or so, the SKS might be your pick for those reasons. Otherwise, the M1 Garand is my pick. Much more powerful; Much longer effective range; Much more accurate.

kfranz
May 26, 2006, 02:10 PM
the original poster uses no english gramar or punctuation at all

:scrutiny:

Haymaker
May 26, 2006, 02:30 PM
The US Rifle, Cal .30 M1 = Ammo, Accuracy, Functionality.:)

DMK
May 26, 2006, 02:53 PM
The SKS is lighter, has less recoil and holds two more rounds. It can also be topped off with single rounds. Those can be plusses. It used to be said the ammo was cheaper too, but that is becoming not so true anymore.

That said, I would give up all twelve of my SKS to keep my one Garand for any scenario that I can think of where I'd need or want a rifle. The Garand is a MUCH better rifle.

dfaugh
May 26, 2006, 05:12 PM
other than the fact that both are semi-automatic rifles that were used in wartime, there's not much to compare. 7.62x39 isn't nearly as powerful a 30-06. SKS is much lighter than a Garand. I will debate the accuracy, as my SKSs are reasonably accurate, but only if using better quality ammo. If you shoot the "cheap stuff" as I and many others do, its not so accurate. Still, the accuracy edge would go to the Garand for the most part.

ugaarguy
May 26, 2006, 05:27 PM
i can't believe what i am seeing. the original poster uses no english gramar or punctuation at all, and cant even spell m-1 garand. and he wants to compare the sks to the m-1 garand, that is just stupid. the two aren't even in the same power league, build quality, accuracy, or even material quality. the only thing they have in common is that they use stripper clips

Well if you wanna get technical the M-1 Garand DOES NOT use stripper clips. It uses en bloc clips. In a stripper clip the rounds are stripped off of the clip into the magazine; en bloc clips are inserted into the magazine box where they hold the ammo until ejected.

rebelz
May 26, 2006, 05:47 PM
What now colty boy what do say to that!!:fire:

Freddymac
May 26, 2006, 05:57 PM
With the 30-06 comment was that the 7.62x39 is the caliber the others are judged by in Russia, the way we compare every thing to the ‘06

MTMilitiaman
May 26, 2006, 06:22 PM
i can't believe what i am seeing. the original poster uses no english gramar or punctuation at all, and cant even spell m-1 garand. and he wants to compare the sks to the m-1 garand, that is just stupid. the two aren't even in the same power league, build quality, accuracy, or even material quality. the only thing they have in common is that they use stripper clips

my m-1 garand is a solid 2.5moa gun in my hands, and i dont base my groups on luck either. that one 4moa group that you made with your sks and roled up nice and neat to show off and say "see! look my sks can get good groups too!!!", yeah that one. it's just not in the same league as the garand.

i have shot an sks ONCE and i think ill keep it that way. it got a case jammed in the chamber!!! it would barely stay on the 6" paper plate's in the hands of everyone in my family. and it was barely lighter than my garand and it was only 3" shorter. yeah its a lot handier!

the only time im going to buy an sks is when the SHTF and i get them to hand out to family friends. not because they're good, not because they're accurate or powerful, but because they cost $90 and they shoot a cheap bullet.

This entire post is retarded. You butchered the English language almost as bad as the original poster in your second sentence. As mentioned, they don't both use stripper clips. I've shot at least half a dozen SKSs and every one of them--Chinese and Russian--would do better than 4 MOA on a regular basis with Wolf. My current Yugo with TechSights does much better--about half of that actually. Beer bottles at 200 yards isn't an impossible feat. All with Wolf ammo--cases of it--and despite this only two malfunctions, both ammo related. My grandpa somehow allowed one of his 165 gr hunting loads to get in his Garand and bent the op rod. Does that mean I should conclude "the greatest battle implement ever devised" was a POS? Hardly.

rebelz
May 26, 2006, 06:27 PM
Yeah u tell him Stand up for the little man!!!!:mad: :mad: :mad:

MD_Willington
May 26, 2006, 06:29 PM
Garand, Fine Canadian inventor :neener:

http://z.about.com/d/inventors/1/0/0/E/garand.gif


A Quiet Genius Who Gave
To His Adopted Country
"The Greatest Battle Implement Ever Devised"
The M1 Rifle

rebelz
May 26, 2006, 06:30 PM
He was a candian??:what: :what: :what: :what: :what: :what: :what: :what: :what: :what: :what: :what: :what: :what: :what: :what: :what: :what: :what: :what: :what: :what: :what: :what: :what: :what: :what: :what: :what: :what: :what: :what: :what: :what: :what: :what: :what: :what: :what: :what: :what: :what: :what:

Matt King
May 26, 2006, 06:37 PM
This thread is going nowhere fast.

James T Thomas
May 26, 2006, 06:38 PM
The "gooks" tied up in the trees at approximately 200 m did pretty well with their SKS's on me and my friends in 1968.

I'm glad they didn't have M1's. That is a difference. And this was a "serious firefight" as stated by one poster. All of mine were that way. The SKS was accurate enough that it kept me crawling around every time dirt kicked up near my head, but then, I gave those men as small a target as possible.
So I suppose the SKS is good if you are shooting fish in a barrel.

Sorry for the political incorrect "gooks," but we called them that because we hated them, and that is the way it is.

The round that struck me hit a little mound in front of me. I saw the splash.
It punched me in the neck, and I did a lot of bleeding, but had to ignore it, and keep busy with more pressing matters. Again, I'm glad it was not a 30-06, 180 grain round!

Oh, and we did return fire at the glimpses of those guys we saw. I wish I had an M1 or even M14 to do that, rather than the "varmit gun." When they are suicidal, or had been tied up in a tree so that they wouldn't fall out, then it is better to have a real serious battle rifle.

Jim

KINGMAX
May 26, 2006, 06:53 PM
M-1 Garrand - the most effective personal tool in battle. Saved a many a good men. Took away many more.

50 Freak
May 26, 2006, 06:55 PM
A more appropriate comparison would be the M1 Garand vs. the FN-49.

Both rifles shoot a pretty comparable round (30.06 vs 8mm).

Both rifles use "clips" instead of mags.

Both are relatively the same in accuracy (with the M1 being a little more accurate). But the FN-49 carries 10 rounds instead of the M1's 8 rounds.

Overall pretty good rifles both of them.

rebelz
May 26, 2006, 06:58 PM
aaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh! the M-1 garand does not use clips it uses enblocs

neoncowboy
May 26, 2006, 07:04 PM
from Wikipedia:
John Cantius Garand (January 1, 1888 - February 16, 1974) was a designer of firearms most famous for creating the first semi-automatic rifle to be put into active military service, the M1 Garand.

Garand was born in St. Rémi, Quebec, and moved as a child to rural Connecticut **. He attended school until he was twelve years old, and then became employed in a textile mill, where he was later promoted to machinist. After gaining the necessary experience, he was hired at a tool factory in Providence, Rhode Island.

His fondness for machinery and target shooting blended naturally into a hobby of designing guns*, which however took a more vocational turn in 1917. That year the United States Army took bids on designs for a light machine gun, and Garand's design was eventually selected by the War Department. Garand was appointed to a position with the United States Bureau of Standards with the task of perfecting the weapon. The first model was not built until 1919, too late for use in World War I, but the government kept Garand on in a position as consulting engineer with the Springfield Armory.

In this position he was tasked with designing a semiautomatic infantry rifle. After several preliminary designs, and quite a bit of detail work, stretching over fifteen years, to perfect the model to Army specifications, the resulting M1 Garand was patented by Garand in 1934 and began mass production in 1936.

For his work with the Springfield Armory, Garand was awarded the Medal for Meritorious Service in 1941, and the Medal for Merit in 1944. A bill was introduced in Congress to award him $100,000 in appreciation, but did not pass. Garand remained in his consulting position until his retirement in 1953, and died in Springfield, Massachusetts.

The pronunciation of the name Garand is often an issue. It is pronounced variably as 'guh-RAND' and 'GARE-end.' While many would disagree, descendants of John Garand along with close friend Julian Hatcher generally agree it should indeed rhyme with 'errand.' The former pronunciation, however, is the more common though technically incorrect pronunciation.

* - Good thing we have overbearing, unconstitutional federal law to prevent that from ever happening again!

** - Born in Quebec, but moved to Connecticut as a small child. I have a hard time considering someone who was born in another country but grew up in America as anything other than an American.

MTMilitiaman
May 26, 2006, 07:44 PM
aaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh! the M-1 garand does not use clips it uses enblocs

En Blocs are clips! Clips load magazines! The Garand has an 8 round internal magazine loaded via En Bloc clips.

50 Freak
May 26, 2006, 08:00 PM
that's why I put quotation marks around "clips"......

My point was they both do not use detachable mags.

My opinion is the FN-49 is a better rifle....(FLAME SUIT ON).........

colt.45
May 26, 2006, 08:49 PM
rebelz, i apologise for my insult's, but you can't deny the fact that it looks like you wrote that post at 4 o-clock in the morning.

and to all the people that dislike my sks experience, i will admit that it was a little exagerated. the part about jamming is still true though.

iamkris
May 26, 2006, 08:58 PM
This forum...and this thread specifically...is getting more like arfcom everyday. :(

ugaarguy
May 26, 2006, 09:11 PM
...to rephrase the original poster's question and maybe we can turn this back into a productive thread.

The M-1 Garand and SKS both entered service around the same time with their respective countries. Both rifles use a 30 caliber round traditional to their respective countries. Both use a fixed magazine fed by clips, one stripper, one en bloc. One is (in most variants)shorter, lighter, and quicker handling; more of an almost assault style rifle. The other is longer and heavier, but better suited for long range shooting; it practically defines the "Battle Rifle." How would you make the seemingly apples to oranges comparison of these two similar yet different war horses?

cracked butt
May 26, 2006, 09:15 PM
I have a feeling that most of the complaints about SKS accuracy has much to do with the trigger. Mine will shoot nearly as good as my M1- out to 100 yards or so. The garand has a fabulous trigger and far better sights when compared to the SKS. The 7.62x39 is not even close to being in the same league as the 30-06. The SKS will pretty much do everything the M1 will do to 100 yards, but will not do anything the M1 will do at 600 yards.

Cpl Punishment
May 26, 2006, 10:23 PM
A proper comparison would be an SVT-40 (in 7.62x54R -- identical nominal ballistics to the M2 ball in .30'06).

Either way, the Garand is the superior weapon. As staed numerous times, it soundsly beats the SKS in all areas but price.

It beats out the SVT-40 due to the SVT being a bit less reliable.

roscoe
May 27, 2006, 02:20 AM
As staed numerous times, it soundsly beats the SKS in all areas but price.
Well, at least it has been asserted several times. The only advantage anyone has convincingly put forward is the power of the round at distance. Reliability and accuracy are a wash, and portability goes to the SKS. I personally think that, as far as civilians are concerned, the requirement to use military ball ammo is a serious drawback for the Garand.

The Garand is a beautifully made piece of history, and in the right circumstances it would be the more appropriate rifle. That does not, however, make it the 'better' rifle.

MechAg94
May 27, 2006, 09:50 AM
The requirement to use military ball ammo is there because the 30.06 is such a versatile cartridge that there are numerous loadings available for different purposes. Many of these loads were not around in WWII times when the rifle was built.

You can't really say that about 7.62X39. It has a smaller case and there are only a few different loadings for that cartridge and most are not too different. Someone who reloads could probably expand on that more.

qajaq59
May 27, 2006, 09:54 AM
Is this post for real?If it is, we're in big trouble.

My attitude is simply go buy the rifle you want. Just don't ask everyone else to validate your decision. We already bought the ones we liked.

riverdog
May 27, 2006, 11:00 AM
What requirement to use ball in the Garand? HP ammo is fine. You shouldn't use soft-points because the action will deform the tip and lead will eventually foul the action, but the rifle will function with other than ball ammo.

Limeyfellow
May 27, 2006, 02:16 PM
One thing the SKS does have in its advantage is a far superior loading system. The enbloc system of the Garand is no matter how dotted over flawed. Its not easy to load just a few rounds to top off the rifle, though is about doable. It can only be loaded with full clips or the rounds simply fall out while the sks is just as fast to load by stripper clip, or can be loaded one by one.

The Garand has far superior standard sights. The SKS open sights are kind of thin to see, especially to get a quick aim and I much perfer to just rip it out and stick on the tech-sight. The Garand has a great adjustable sight..

The Garand bayonet is more useful being able to be used as a knife. Its also more easier to loose.

The safety is a tricky one. The Garand is probrobly a little faster though you have to move your finger of the trigger slightly to operate it but not by much. The SKS safety can be operated by the thumb in some cases. May require the trigger finger on some people. The Garand safety mechanism is also a tad better.

The trigger pull for the Garand is much more universally smooth. This is not so much a design difference doing this but rather less quality control. Its possible to redo the SKS trigger mechanism properly to give it positive engagement and give it a smooth crisp pull.

The Garand is usually bedded better, another problem of quality control and hasty construction. The SKS design can be as well bedded as the Garand and really helps the accuracy of the rifle.

In my opinion the gas tube is more protected on the Garand than the SKS. I suppose if you hit the SKS tube section it might damage but thats going to be one helluva blow.

The bolt locks back better with the SKS. You won't become a member of the purple thumb with one as the empty magazine will simply stop it from shutting on you while cleaning and don't have to get your thumb quickly out the way when loading. Just have to pull back slightly and let go. This is to me a safer way.

The wood work on the Garand is smoother, more refined and of a better wood than most SKS carbines. Its also far heavier being of that classic ww2 styling.

Each have their advantages and disadvantages, beyond the round they are chambered for and distances they can be shot too.

Thumbsmasher
May 27, 2006, 03:23 PM
If I may take this chance to sort of hijack the post and make it for real. I bought a $99 yugo and got rid of the grenade dodad and bayonet. Plan to add a tech sight in the near future. Hope this will improve accuracy. My buddy just dropped $1400 on a Bushmaster M4 type with light rails all over and a pretty cool lookin' stock. Last time we went shooting I handed it back to him with the comment that it for sure shot better than my SKS. His reply was "Ya, but $1300 better". There's the question. What is the point of diminishing returns. Is there no way to improve the trigger, etc to close that gap? By the way, it seems if you are on a budget, the SKS is better. If not the M-1 would seem to win.

surfinUSA
May 27, 2006, 08:00 PM
The Grand was great from 1932-1950's. The M14 made it obsolete. Does it work? Sure. It also weighs a ton, only carries 8 rounds, then lets your enemy know you're empty and where you are. Price $500+

The SKS is lighter carries more rounds is just as quick to reload but can also be reloaded without the use of clips if you need to. Price $125+

For hunting pigs or self defense I'll take an SKS any day. If I want a full power , Heavy battle rifle I'll take an FAL or an M14.

roscoe
May 28, 2006, 02:36 AM
The requirement to use military ball ammo is there because the 30.06 is such a versatile cartridge that there are numerous loadings available for different purposes. Many of these loads were not around in WWII times when the rifle was built.
My point is just that it is something you have to worry about with the Garand. You cannot damage the SKS just because you accidentally load something other than Russian surplus.

It is my understanding that this is a somewhat unique flaw - the other 30 cal autoloaders that I know of, like the FAL or G3 are not in danger of damage due to heavier ammo.

I also think it is funny that some people are offended that the question has even been asked.

el44vaquero
May 28, 2006, 03:57 AM
Kinda like askin' if you would choose an ugly kid or the baby Jesus.

Johnny Guest
May 28, 2006, 11:05 AM
This thread started out on a low note. To those who tried to elevate it, thank you. I kept hoping it would improve. Oh, well . . . .

Johnny

If you enjoyed reading about "Sks versus the m-1 grand" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!