[telewinz]

I've been reading a few posts lately about the SKS and Garand and since I own one or more of each I sat down and looked them over along with the cartridges they fire. I guess I am pro SKS, I trust the design more than the Garand (trouble when wet) and I enjoy/prefere the 7.62X39mm for its lighter recoil and quicker follow-up shot and ease of reloading.

[iamkris]

Either would be good in my mind but I think it totally depends on what KIND of combat. Urban vs open ground? Long range vs short? Battling hordes vs sniping individuals? Organized armies vs small bands? Soft targets or hard?

Given that the most likely situation is that I'd be part of a small partisan band in quick hit and run ops (from long range because I am near-40 and overweight of course) I'd take the longer range power of the 30-06 / 308 over the 7.62 Soviet. SKS doesn't provide a significant advantage in weight or magazine capacity.

[MagKnightX]

I want both, but because of my financial problem (technically known as "bein' dirt poor") I'll be getting an SKS first. They both have their advantages and disadvantages, obviously.

[C.R.Sam]

Comparing the relative merits of apples n hubcaps.

Difference in purpose.
Both very good at doin what they were designed to do.

Sam

[Brian Dale]

Because they're beautiful rifles.

Because they're wonderful to shoot: powerful cartridge, not too much recoil.

Because their owners have lent them to me for DCM shooting - the rifles remind me of the generosity of their modern owners.

But most, because of their history. If you haven't read Metal and Wood recently, one copy is at

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=31817

Look for Dennis' post, the fourth one in the thread, at 0425 on 6-9-1999.

That's why.

[telewinz]

"Difference in purpose.
Both very good at doin what they were designed to do."

How so? they were both designed/served as main battle rifles. Research indicates the Garand was way overpowered for the typical ranges encountered in combat. And the service Garand isn't accurate enough to be a "sniper" rifle.

[DMK]

I like both. The Garand hits harder and has better range. Some can be pretty accurate. It's a pain to field strip though and the barrel can't be cleaned from the chamber end.

The SKS probably has an edge on reliablity under poor conditions and little maintenance. It also has lighter ammo, carries two extra rounds, can be loaded without clips and recoils less. However, it's tradeoffs for most of those features is poorer accuracy and a less powerful cartridge.

Both are fine weapons if the shooter is on the ball, uses the rifle's strengths to advantage and minimizes it's weaknesses.

How so? they were both designed/served as main battle rifles. Research indicates the Garand was way overpowered for the typical ranges encountered in combat. The Garand was designed with WWI lessons in mind as a battle rifle capable of long range fire (perhaps across no man's land between opposing trenches). How it was used in actual WWII combat dictated it's replacement with the .308 M-14 and then the 5.56MM M-16.

The Garand was superior in WWII and Korea not due to it's long effective range, but mainly due to the fact that it was semi-auto and had a high rate of fire. Don't forget, it's main opponent in all theatres was the bolt action battle rifle(ie. Mauser, Mosin-Nagant, Arisaka). If the Germans had MP-44 "Storm Rifles" as a primary rifle around the time of the Nomandy invasion instead of 98Ks, the Garand might not have fared so well in Europe.

The SKS on the other hand was designed with WWII combat lessons in mind as a replacment to the Tokarov STV-40 battle rifle and Mosin-Nagant carbine. In a way, it sort of bridges the gap between battle rifle and assault rifle. It's primary playground is between 300 and 50 yards, it has a high rate of fire(for it's day) and is fairly light and handy.

The thing is, Garand was a proactive genius. His rifle was ahead of it's time and it took more than a decade for some of the world to catch up. many countries took longer. The SKS, while an excellent design was reactive. In typical Soviet fashion, Simonov copied good features from a bunch of other succesful rifle designs to come up with the SKS.

[telewinz]

You seem to know more about the Garand than I do so answer me this:

If the Garand design was so good, why did none of the major powers adopt it's unique(?) features? It wouldn't fire semi-auto in a rain storm, thats hardly the stuff legends are made of. It was a good, robust MBR but their are alot of military rifles that can make the same claim to fame. As you say, the Garand was designed to fight WWI as was the BAR but the BAR outlasted the Garand didn't it?

[Coronach]

How so? they were both designed/served as main battle rifles. The AR and the AK were both designed as the standard long arm of their respective militaries, but are also quite different. They were designed to be used by differently trained and differently motivated troops with different skills, in different ways, under different supply/logistical conditions, with different priorities placed upon different areas of the rifle's performance, partly due to different views of the role of the soldier in the overall battlefield plan. Same with the SKS and the M1. Unlike Sam, I'll admit that they're both fruit, but one is an apple, and one is definately an orange.

And please don't hijack this into an AR v AK thread. That dead horse is being relentlessly flogged elsewhere.

Mike

[Coronach]

Oh, to answer the question. I would pick the garand. Once the whole cost thing is out of the way, the differences between the two tend to (IMO) favor the Garand, if you must pick one as an all-rounder. There is little the SKS can do that the Garand cannot, but there are some things that the Garand can do that the SKS cannot (long range accurate fire, for instance).

JMO,
Mike

[surfinUSA]

Really apples and oranges. But for most combat situations I'd go with an SKS. Most combat situations occur well within the SKS's usable range. Its lighter, holds more rounds is quicker to reload and can be topped off. Its ammo is also lighter so you can carry more.

The M1 is more powerful, has better sights and is more accurate. But not enough to make a difference at most combat ranges. Its heavy so is its ammo, can't be topped of, only carries 8 rounds, and tells your enemy that its empty. A great combat weapon in the 1930-40s. An ok weapon today.

Both are rugged and reliable but I'll take an SKS.

[DMK]

If the Garand design was so good, why did none of the major powers adopt it's unique(?) features? It wouldn't fire semi-auto in a rain storm, thats hardly the stuff legends are made of. It was a good, robust MBR but their are alot of military rifles that can make the same claim to fame. As you say, the Garand was designed to fight WWI as was the BAR but the BAR outlasted the Garand didn't it? Why do you think a Garand won't fire semi-auto in a rainstorm? Have you ever tried?

I shot my Garand in a snowstorm once. A freind came to visit me and really wanted to shoot it, but by when we got up to the range(up on top of a mountain), a snowstorm had been going on up there for a while. I didn't have the heart to dissapoint him so we shot anyway. We could hardly see the targets at 100 yards, but it was actually kind of fun. :p I had to leave the actions closed on the rifles because they kept filling full of snow. Ironically, I had my Yugo SKS with us also. Neither rifle gave us a bit of trouble although numb hands made loading with strippers difficult, the Enblocs were a bit easier on numb thumbs.

The BAR and Garand are a different class of weapon. We kept the Garand design around for quite a while. The Navy even converted Garands to 7.62x51 NATO for ammo compatability and used them up until the late 60s at least. The Army and Marines went with the M-14, which is a Garand variant. If it wasn't for our bean counting Secretary of State McNamara ordering the Army and Marines to adopt the M-16 to keep defense costs down, who knows how long the M-14 would have stayed in service.

The BAR is a squad automatic machine gun. Both the Garand and BAR were to be replaced by the M-14 since it could fire full auto, but it's FA performance was dismal so the BAR apparently soldiered on for a while longer. I guess the M-60 filled in for a while when the 30.06 was phased out, but the 5.56mm SAW was the BAR's real replacment.

Hey, you want to talk about guns with long service lives, the Ma Duece is still in service and does a great job. If it ain't broke, don't go replacing it. I don't think any of the major powers have anything like it either.

Hey, I'm not touting the Garand as the best MBR of all time. Far from it. In my collection, I have one Garand among a large number of SKSes, a bunch of Mosin Nagants, three Enfields and a pair of FALs. That should say something about my opinion of the rifles(although I would get a second Garand if they were cheaper). It's got a bunch of limitations, but it's still a fine rifle.

I have no idea why other countries went with the rifles they did. England took a long time to adopt a semi-auto and finally went with the Belgian FAL. Italy adopted a Garand variant. Of course very early on, Russia dropped the MBR altogether and went with the AK assault rifles. They may not be progressive in technology, but they sure did learn quick on tactics and doctrine.

[Quintin Likely]

I chose the Garand. Asthetically and historically, I love it.

Accurate firepower can be delivered with it as well.

[telewinz]

"Why do you think a Garand won't fire in a rainstorm? Have you ever tried?"

I'm not trying to dump on the Garand but I read of this "problem" from official government reports. IIRC some M14's had a small metal roller fitted to the operating slide to correct this problem, for the Garand they were limited to developing special water-proof lubricants as the slide would freeze-up (no semi-auto fire) when wet. This was mainly a problem in the Pacific theater with there constant heavy rainstorms. It worked manually just fine.

As far as the BAR, if it had a 30 round mag instead of the 20 rounder, I'd use it before ALL others! If they would have made a semi-auto only version of the BAR (higher cost compared to the Garand a factor?) their would not have been a Garand or M14, just one giant leap to the M16.

[OEF_VET]

I voted SKS.

Most combat situations occur well within the effective range of the 7.62x39 round, and the round will do sufficient damage to kill or incapacitate an enemy soldier. The SKS can be made to function with larger capacity, detechable magazines. You can reload with stripper clips or one round at a time. The weapon itself and the ammo are light in comparison to the Garand, allowing a person to carry more ammo for the same amount of encumberance. For those of you unfamiliar with combat, less weight is usually thought of as better. The SKS isn't a sniper rifle, that much is true, but few soldiers really need a rifle capable of firing sub-MOA. The recoil of the SKS is also lighter than a Garand, so smaller framed people, or people unuse to firing a large caliber weapon will generally have an easier time becoming more comfortable shooting it. Also, if you're involved in a prolonged firefight, the '06 round will start to put a hurtin' on your shoulder a heckuva lot sooner than the 7.62 round.

Of course, that's just this old soldiers opinion, yours is most likely gonna be different.

Frank

[itgoesboom]

I added my vote for the SKS, although, it was tough because i love the Garand design.

I love how the Garand handles, and i think that it is also more than accurate enough, but i wil knock off points because it 30.06, which is more expensive, and a little too powerfull, and that the rifle is a little heavy. After i got a chance to shoot a friends Garand about 10 years ago, i have wanted to add one to my collection. I figure i still will sometime, but its just not a priority.

An SKS is also just a joy to shoot, reliable, built like a tank, and i love the stripper clips, and how easy it is to field strip and clean.

I give it points for being lighter, able to hold more rounds, and using a intermediate round rather than a full power round, as well as the fact that it won't give you a Garand thumb if you screw up. I take points away because of the risk of slam fire with cerain ammo.

I.G.B.

[C.R.Sam]

It wouldn't fire semi-auto in a rain storm, Used the M-1 Rifle quite a bit.
Used it some in the monsoony environment of some interesting places.
Never heard of it not functioning as an autoloader due to rain.

Seems that if it was rainin hard enough to stop it, wouldn't be able to see your extended hand through the rain.

I like the M-1 Rifle for it's ability to shoot folks that are concealed but think they are behind cover.

Sam

[cool45auto]

I'd choose the SKS just because the Garand is friggin' huge to me. I love the reliability of the SKS and the ease of the stripper clips.

[JohnKSa]

For a COMBAT situation?

The ability to load WITHOUT clips gives the SKS a tremendous edge, IMO.

The SKS is also lighter, shorter, and holds a couple of extra rounds to boot.

The only way I would pick the M1 is if I knew I were going to have to deal with a lot of vehicles. I figure 30-06 AP is going to have a bit more punch. On the other hand, FINDING 30-06 AP might be very difficult.

Which would I rather OWN and SHOOT? Well, I'm currently restocking my M1--I've never owned an SKS and have no plans to buy one.

I think a lot of people read ANY question about the relative merits of two guns and find themselves totally unable to answer any question other than "Which one do I like the best?"

[DMK]

telewinz, I realize you aren't bashing anything. I think it's an interesting discussion actually.

I vaguely remember reading something about the report you mention. I'd suspect that it was probably more of a lubricant problem that one of firearm design. The Garand manual specifies grease to be used at certain contact points. Perhaps this was washing out. I don't think that other U.S. small arms used at that time used grease.

However, comparing the actions of the SKS and Garand, I'd say that the SKS is a much simpler design. If I had to bet on which one would work the longest running dry with no lube, my money would be on the Simonov Carbine(SKS).

Concerning the BAR, keep in mind that monster weighs 18 lbs compared to the Garand's 9.5 lbs!

[Brian Dale]

John, you're right. I answered the question you identified, rather than the thread author's (my apologies, telewinz). I'd like to own and shoot an M1.

OEF_VET, I'm one of "those of you unfamiliar with combat," as you put it. Too true; contact with the thoughts, conclusions and experience of old soldiers is one of the benefits of reading this board. Thank you, and thank you to the rest of the vets here, for your writings and for a whole lot more that you've done for us.

I'll add to my reasons, but I won't change my answer. I'd pick a Garand because I've shot them and I trust them. I've just never fired an SKS.

[bernie]

I would have to go for the M1 rifle, perhaps in .308. I have used one extensively, and it is a fine combat arm. It may be a little bit long for CQB, but in a MOUT situation I would not feel badly armed if an M1 is what I had. The clips load quickly (some feel more quickly than an M14), it shoots a substantial cartridge with range, and it is very reliable! While the SKS may be simpler, I have kept an M16 running in field conditions, and compared to that, keeping the M1 running is a cinch.

[JohnKSa]

John, you're right. I answered the question you identified, rather than the thread author's
Having been repeatedly guilty of that minor offense makes it easier for me to see it in others, I suppose.... ;) However, I didn't have anyone in specific in mind when I posted my observation. I was thinking about the poll results.

And, I suppose I should make it clear for anyone who reads my post and thinks I have any combat experience. The closest I've come to combat was walking past the TV on the way to the fridge while BlackHawk Down was playing. :D

[keederdag]

Garand's got a lotta poop (30'06); shoot straight and They WILL STAY DOWN. Definitly The Garand. Gramps say's "Ya just don't let her run dry son" Grenades are for when they think PIIING means come get me!:D

[glockenstein]

Get the Garand from the CMP. You can always buy a SKS- but the government doesn't make Garands any more. Once they are gone, they're gone. I got one recently from the CMP- its beautiful and my new favorite rifle.

[dude]

..............iffin any of you had a nice shorty SKS like my 'Cowboy Companion' there would be alot more votes for the SKS!! With the shorter barrel and no heavy bayo she handles like my M 16 did in the Army. I do have a nice .308 Garand but would quickly bypass it and grab my SKS (with it's 140 rounds in stripper clips) if I ever 'needed' a rifle.

[cracked butt]

I would suggest getting the Garand through the CMP route- get a Service grade rifle for about $500. If you find you don't like it (I couldn't imagine anyone NOT liking the garand) you would have no problem selling it for more than you payed for it.
Downsides-
-You will need to reload for it, or pay alot for the match or rare surplus ammo out there.
-You can't simply go to Walmart and pick up a box of 30-06hunting ammo and expect the rifle to fire the whole box without breaking something.
Upsides-
Great sights
Lots of aftermarket barrels and accuracy upgrades to make the rifle very accurate if you have the desire and money to do so.
Will never lose its value and certainly will increase in value
Gtes alot of respect at the rifle range:D
SKS- Not an expert on these, don't own one, but have shot a few.
Upsides-
Cheap
Cheap and readily available ammo
lots of fun to shoot
Downsides-
sights are not the greatest but definately servicable
Often maligned by misinformed/misguided folks as being an evil assault rifle and is often the subject of proposed bans.

[Khornet]

the rain thing, like the "7th round stoppage", was a teething problem for the M1. The solution was dirt simple: good grease. This is where Lubriplate came in. No further problem. M1 worked in Korea when nothing else would, also. Between the two weapons, reliability is not an advantage for one or the other.

[jem375]

All you have to do is just shoot the garand against the SKS at any distance, and the conclusion would be to buy the garand........I have 2 garands and 2 SKS's, and there is no comparison between the 2.....I would pick the garand, there are only 2 rounds difference between two unless you have a model D......garand is much more accurate....

[TrapperReady]

I voted Garand.

My reasoning is...

1) I'm very familiar and comfortable with the Garand's operation and maintenance needs.
2) I really, really like the sights.
3) I can shoot quite accurately out past 300 yards with one.
4) My father used one throughout WWII (ETO), in all kinds of engagements (heavy forest, open farmland, house-to-house). One two occasions, he was issued something else (a 1903A4 and an M1 Carbine), and in both cases, he "lost" or traded them for a Garand. Good enough for Pop, good enough for me.

Then again, I'd be most comfortable with an M16-series rifle, as that's what I trained with.

[VG]

If the Garand design was so good, why did none of the major powers adopt it's unique(?) features? It wouldn't fire semi-auto in a rain storm, thats hardly the stuff legends are made of. It was a good, robust MBR but their are alot of military rifles that can make the same claim to fame. As you say, the Garand was designed to fight WWI as was the BAR but the BAR outlasted the Garand didn't it?

Japan cloned the Garand but never got it into production. The Germans, like the USMC, thought riflemen would be prodigal with ammo and shied away from a semi-auto infantry rifle until later in the war.

Very early testing reported problems with rain soak, completely solved with the issue of Plastilube and the use of Lubriplate 130A, still on the market today as a water-resistant lubricant

The USMC evaluated rifles in December 1940 and officially picked the M1903 Springfield, but noted the Garand was servicable. None of the weapons tested, semiauto or not, did very well after being immersed in sand and salt water.

We couldn't produce enogh for our own needs before the war. But a large number of countries used the Garand after the war, including Italian produced rifles and Danish rifles. The Danish arsenal (VAR) produced many parts postwar into the 60's, including excellent barrels, and the Italians made receivers as well.

General Hatcher's "Book of the Garand" details the development of this amazing rifle, including the many development problems, and their solution.

When Garand-equipped Army units hit Quadalcanal to relieve the M1903-equipped Marines, the firepower and reliability the weapon delivered forced the Marine brass to drop their choice of the M1903 as their standard weapon. One would guess that the battle veterans of that tropical hellhole wouldn't be very enthusiastic about a rifle that wouldn' function in the rain, no?

The BAR was an amazing weapon, but both the BAR and Garand were replaced after Korea. Replacements for both were already being evaluated when Korea popped up.

Below - A Danish Naval Garand - note Anchor on sight cover
http://www.capinc.com/files/3069_2_s.jpg

[JohnKSa]

To no one in particular...

In the first line of the initial post, telewinz states:
I've been reading a few posts lately about the SKS and Garand and since I own one or more of each
One might, therefore, logically assume that he is not asking advice on which to purchase.

I'm obviously not the "posting police" :) so this isn't anything more than a friendly suggestion--you could call it a rant, but there's not enough emotion behind it to qualify. Here goes:

If a person finds his time is too valuable to waste reading a question then, logically, it's also too valuable to waste typing out an answer. IMO, when one finds that he has such a lack of interest in a particular topic it would probably be wise to leave that thread alone and go on to one where there IS an interest level high enough to actually warrant reading it. This approach will give a reasonable chance at posting something relevant.

As you were... ;)