SKS or M1 Garand?


PDA






joejoeshooter
March 29, 2009, 04:26 PM
I am still learning - So I really don't know the answer.

SKS or M1 Garand?

Is there even a comparison here?

Thanks.

If you enjoyed reading about "SKS or M1 Garand?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
cbrgator
March 29, 2009, 04:27 PM
No comparison.

Mojo-jo-jo
March 29, 2009, 04:30 PM
The only similarities between the two are that they are both gas operated semi-automatic military rifles fed from an internal box magazine.

Otherwise, the comparison is about like comparing a Rolls Royce and a Kia-- They both get the job done, and both run on gas, but there is a night and day difference in the quality of the ride.

joejoeshooter
March 29, 2009, 04:32 PM
So - the Garand is the Rolls Royce here?

cbrgator
March 29, 2009, 04:32 PM
Share with us your intended use for the rifle and we can tell you which to get.

Yes, the Garand is the Rolls.

joejoeshooter
March 29, 2009, 04:37 PM
Kind of always wanted a Garand - mainly for historic reasons. Probably wouldn't shoot it much. Kind of the same for the SKS, but don't know anything about them.

I shoot a lot of pistols and AR...

cbrgator
March 29, 2009, 04:44 PM
Well M1's are true collectors items and pieces of history. They fire the 30-06. The SKS is more of a beater gun, built just good enough to get it's job done. Fires the shorter 7.62x39.

Float Pilot
March 29, 2009, 04:55 PM
The only similarities between the two are that they are both gas operated semi-automatic military rifles fed from an internal box magazine

The 7.62 x39 mm SKS is an 10 shot carbine which loads from a 10 or 20 round semi-fixed box magazine, or from detachable box magazines with some modification.
It is a rather simple and by old standards a crude weapon. Due to the caliber limitations and the basic sights, accuracy is non-remarkable past 100 meters and chest size by 300 meters.

The M1 30 caliber Garand Rifle is like the name implies, a real rifle. 30-06 caliber . It loads from an enclosed internal magazine which requires an inserted 8 shot en-block clip. Due to the superior workmanship of the rifle and the fine peep sights, plus the greatly superior power of the 30-06 cartirdge, the M1 has at least double the effective range of the SKS carbine.
Triple plus, with a real rifleman behind the trigger.

benzy2
March 29, 2009, 05:00 PM
Ive got both. I probably wouldn't be caught without both in the safe. If I had to have only one it would be the Garand. Surplus .30-06 runs about what import steel x39 costs. I love the way the Garand feels, the power if has when it goes off, and everything about the history. Mine shoots darn good with the surplus ammo. The SKS is just crude in comparison. The M1 is built well and the SKS is built cheap. Like I said I don't think I would be without either but I will certainly always have an M1 Garand.

joejoeshooter
March 29, 2009, 07:07 PM
So is the SKS v. Garand kind of like the age old - -

AR-15 v. AK47???

benzy2
March 29, 2009, 07:12 PM
Not really. What can be said bad about the AR (little bullet, less reliable) doesn't fit. It uses a more powerful chambering and is very very reliable, not that the SKS isn't reliable. Its a situation where you get more with one than the other and price reflects that.

Paladin_Hammer
March 29, 2009, 07:28 PM
I'll take an SKS over a Garand any day.

Not because its the better rifle. But because I could buy 3 Russian SKS's for the price of a single Garand. If you want to talk ammo, I could then Tapco the three SKS's and still buy the same number of cartridges as the Garand.

So I could equip a small squad or have "the greatest implement of battle ever devised", I just wouldn't have any ammo for it.

10-Ring
March 29, 2009, 07:48 PM
IMHO, there is no comparison. Go w/ the Garand

benzy2
March 29, 2009, 07:52 PM
Where are you buying your SKS at today? I can't find them for less than $350 anywhere and at most places(gun shows) prices are pushing towards $450. Outrageous but it is what it they are asking locally. I bought my M1 for $495. Even before the obama rush prices were at or above $250 and when you add that tapco stock along with the required parts to make it legal again you really aren't much cheaper than a $495 M1. Certainly not the 3 to one ratio any more.

bang_bang
March 29, 2009, 07:55 PM
I can only speak for the SKS, since I have no experience with the Garand.

Although, both are proven and effective within the common distance firefight in battles. The Garand will do it easily, and then some. SKS is just right for the 300 yard mark.

You have to remember the basis for the build of these weapons. Garand's were built back in the day when high powered 30-06, 8mm, and .303 British weapons were the norm. The Russians new that in order for troops to carry more ammo that has an equal weight they must design a new, semi-automatic rifle that is more suited towards the 300 yard mark without putting too much of it's country's ammo supplies being produced into the 7.62x54r round (a lot of powder and brass per 100 rounds compared to the 7.62x39).

Garands will do anything the SKS will and extend it's accuracy limit and effectiveness in the longer ranges. Garand's were the top end designed rifle in WWII in my opinion.

I will own a Garand one day, almost makes me feel unpatriotic not having one.

MTMilitiaman
March 29, 2009, 08:05 PM
No comparison. Get yourself an M1 Garand from CMP. It is a far superior rifle in every significant aspect.

It is likely to be more accurate, just as reliable and durable, and gives up just two rounds with considerable gains in range and power. With practice, the en bloc clip system is faster to reload.

It is an American icon built of, by, and for riflemen. Sights and trigger are far superior to any SKS. If you have the money for either, it would be tragic to pass an opportunity to own an M1 Garand. The SKS is a fine rifle in its own right, but it isn't in the same class as the Garand. In fact, it isn't even in the same school.

c5_nc
March 29, 2009, 10:11 PM
Reguarding the SKS price comment a couple posts up, Yugo SKS at their peak from good vendors made it up to $229. Classic Arms had marked them up to that in early January and they are back down to $189 now. They have been $199 at our local shows and $229 at local stores.

Titan6
March 29, 2009, 10:22 PM
Do you want to shoot it dead from far away or just wing it up close? Of course it is never that simple but the Garand is quite superior in many ways.

benzy2
March 29, 2009, 10:25 PM
I don't see them on classic arms website. I didn't see them under the main page or the firearm page. Where are you seeing them at for that price through classic? What local store has them for $199? I would take a few more at that price and certainly haven't seen those prices over the last 6 months, let alone since the election.

jdc1244
March 29, 2009, 10:31 PM
Ive got both. I probably wouldn't be caught without both in the safe. If I had to have only one it would be the Garand. Surplus .30-06 runs about what import steel x39 costs. I love the way the Garand feels, the power if has when it goes off, and everything about the history. Mine shoots darn good with the surplus ammo. The SKS is just crude in comparison. The M1 is built well and the SKS is built cheap. Like I said I don't think I would be without either but I will certainly always have an M1 Garand.

I also own both and agree for the most part except for SKSs being ‘crude’ and ‘cheap.’ An SKS is certainly not as refined but it is a robust, well designed rifle. It’s proven to be just as reliable as my Garand.

But yes, if forced to surrender one the M1 would definitely stay.

DawgFvr
March 29, 2009, 10:56 PM
SKS vs Garand? You must be kidding? Once you fire a M1, you can never go back to the cheaply made pop-gun SKS. My SKS gathers dust behind the door...it does serve a purpose as a door stop on occassion.

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e61/DawgFvr/Mossy%20590/Arms1.jpg

easyrider6042004@yahoo.ca
March 29, 2009, 11:12 PM
SKS or M1 Garand???

For what?

I had both until I sold the Garand last year. I've always wanted a Garand since ROTC days when we trained with it and I had one assigned as my "wife" for three days during volunteer election security duty. I sold it because:
1. I never shot it because of prohibitive cost of ammo. I do not reload rifle ctgs.
2. It only came out of the safe when I watched Saving Private Ryan.
3. It was too long for me.

I kept the SKS because it is reliable and with me shooting, as accurate as my Garand, ammo is cheap and common with my Mini-30, and it fits me well. I will add a Russian version to keep my Norinco company.

benzy2
March 29, 2009, 11:15 PM
When I said cheap I meant the trigger feel and the sights. Those two are much more refined on the M1. The SKS with its milled receiver isn't the cheapest or crudest but it certainly wasn't built to the standards of the Garand. The SKS feels crude when side by side with the Garand to me.

2ndAmFan
March 29, 2009, 11:31 PM
Assuming cost of the gun and ammo are not significant concerns I'd take a Garand over an SKS anytime. I've never owned a Garand but I've fired a few and they're great rifles. I have owned an SKS for many years and it's a great little carbine but it can't do anything a Garand can't do better, with the exception of accurate, short-range rapid fire bursts. With a Garand you're unlikely to need to do that anyway, because a 30.06 is a whole lot of bang compared to a 7.62x39.

yesit'sloaded
March 30, 2009, 12:15 AM
They both will kill a man out to 500 yards with a rifleman behind the trigger. An original 1950s Russian SKS is about on par quality wise with the Garand. The Garand weighs more, recoils harder, and can only shoot milsurp 30-06 ammunition (M2 ball) or the equivalent without risking damage to the operating rod. DO NOT use modern 30-06 hunting ammo in a surplus M1! The SKS cartridge 7.62x39 has ballistics very similar to the 30-30 with a better BC. Handloads can achieve MOA accuracy in most SKS rifles.

greyling22
March 30, 2009, 12:27 AM
personally, I wouldn't buy any semi-automtic rifle right now. prices are unreal. I don't remember them being this high during the actual gun ban. 350+ for an sks? over a grand for an AR, sheesh. that said, I think the sks is more fun to shoot, but the garand is less inflated $$ wise.

if you're going to shoot it, get an sks. if its going to be a safe queen, get the garand. that's my opinion, other people have a right to theirs. neither is a bad gun, though the sks was a better deal when it was cheaper. these days I would look at a mini-14 or something for similar money. (a $250 30/30's a better gun than either for most everything but impressing people)

AnthonyC.
March 30, 2009, 12:31 AM
I would take 1 garand over a stack of 50 sks's.....:D

Actually, I would probably take the sks stack and sell them all, so I can buy a few garands.....:neener:

FlyinBryan
March 30, 2009, 12:32 AM
the garand is far superior.

far more power
far more range
way more accurate

sks rifles are nice and i actually prefer tham to the ak47, but they are not even in the same league where quality is concerned.

Wesson Smith
March 30, 2009, 12:54 AM
Personally, I don't see how anyone can say that the SKS is more fun to shoot than the Garand. To me, it's not even close!

Silverado6x6
March 30, 2009, 06:28 AM
Garand by all means, 7.62x39 will be almost impossible to find, unless we had an invading army that used it then I would say yes because you can use the enemies ammo.

However I am more partial to the M14 and the .308.

greyling22
March 30, 2009, 09:26 AM
"Personally, I don't see how anyone can say that the SKS is more fun to shoot than the Garand. To me, it's not even close!"

it's all a matter of opinion. I don't particularly like heavy recoiling rifles (and yes, I know there are heavier kickers, it's all subjective. I prefer 357 to 44mag, 9mm to 45, 20 ga to 12, etc)

FlyinBryan
March 30, 2009, 10:19 AM
you must have never fired one or something.

recoil between the two are in the same ball park.

mine kicks less than my brothers 16g shotgun.

its one of the garands trademarks.

big bullets, big velocties, vs. impact on the shooter.

their power vs. recoill is truly amazing. nothing like a mosin.

as a matter of fact, they feel very much like an sks.

accuracy between the two cannot be compared.

when shooting groups with the two rifles, the sks will shoot circles around the garand (pun intended)

SlamFire1
March 30, 2009, 11:51 AM
An original 1950s Russian SKS is about on par quality wise with the Garand.

I have a couple of Russian SKS's. They are the better built than the Yugo's or Chinese, but I think the Garand has better worksmanship.

I was able to trade enough parts to restore my CMP South Store HRA back to original condition. It took a bolt and an operating rod.

My HRA is a far better rifle than any SKS I owned.

The SKS was a deal when you could buy Chinese SKS's for $79.00.

The Garand will always be a great deal, no matter what the price.

dscottw88
March 30, 2009, 06:23 PM
I Have both, and I think everyone should. The SKS is (relatively) cheap to feed and is the perfect bush/trunk gun that fits the role perfectly. Its accurate enough to get the job done, which isn't inspiring, but its not made to be a tack-driver. Its made as a cheap rifle that'll take down foes out at 300 yards. With that said, If I could only have one, I'd take the Garand. It's probably one of the most beautiful rifles ever made. Powerful, accurate, versitile, and reliable, it does everything it's asked to and more.

http://i257.photobucket.com/albums/hh234/m4dscottw88/0203091704.jpg
http://i257.photobucket.com/albums/hh234/m4dscottw88/DCP_0013.jpg

greyling22
March 30, 2009, 07:19 PM
true, I've never shot the garand, but I figure it behaves just like the m1a it fathered. if that is the case, to me the recoil on the sks is perceived to be less. your results may vary.

Bentonville
March 30, 2009, 08:01 PM
dscottw88, nice foot. Maybe could use a pedicure on those nails tho',:D
I'd take the M1, no hesitation at all. I love the smell of linseed oil when I oil my stock.

KyJim
March 30, 2009, 09:21 PM
I'll take an SKS over a Garand any day.

Not because its the better rifle. But because I could buy 3 Russian SKS's for the price of a single Garand.
How do you shoot three rifles at the same time? Using this logic, we should all stick to slingshots since they are much cheaper and rocks are plentiful.

JShirley
March 30, 2009, 09:32 PM
the garand is far superior.

It is rare to find a weapon that is "superior" to another in general, and that is not the case here. The M1 has greater range, but the SKS has it beat in volume of fire that can be reasonably expended, as well as the amount of ammunition that can be carried. If I had plenty of funds, I'd love to have another M1, but I mostly kick myself that I don't still have any of the five or six SKS carbines I've owned. Especially the Paratrooper that I installed a 20-round mag in. I'd take that over a M1 for most tasks any day of the week, even at the same price.

John

mudriver
March 30, 2009, 09:57 PM
I think a lot of folks here have some crappy SKS's. My '54 Russian shoots under 2" at 100 (as good as I can shoot iron sights) with crap ammo and is a ball to shoot. My M1 is also a very nice gun and shoots a little better (I don't shoot Wolf out of it, though).

Unless you can get a good SKS (not sure where you would find it) a CMP Garand is a better gun.

RP88
March 30, 2009, 11:30 PM
...find an...SKS...

If Samco still has their stock, then I'd say look there.

Marathonman
March 30, 2009, 11:48 PM
"Probably wouldn't shoot it much. Kind of the same for the SKS, but don't know anything about them.

I shoot a lot of pistols and AR..."

I have a couple of 1911's. Thought I would never find anything more fun than shooting them.

Then I bought an M1. Holy Smokes! It's a beautiful rifle, great history, built like a tank, excellent furniture and as fun as heck to shoot. I have now done two CMP competitions and am having a great time.

Try shooting 200 yards with iron sights. Fun fun fun

Go with the Garand!

P-32
March 31, 2009, 04:00 AM
true, I've never shot the garand, but I figure it behaves just like the m1a it fathered. if that is the case, to me the recoil on the sks is perceived to be less. your results may vary.

Having grown up shooting match grade M-14's, It is my opinion the M-1 Garand does kick slightly less compaired to the M-14.

I would rather own a M-1 any day over a SKS. M-1's are part of our history. M-1's are robust and have a great and fully adjustable sighting system. The only real down fall IMHO is you just can't dump any ol '06 cartridge in the chamber as the gas system is port pressure sensitive. But Greek '06 at the CMP is pretty cheap and it shoots well to boot. Boxer primed too.

I would look at the CMP web site and get the paper work done to order your choice of M-1 grade. I would buy as much rifle as you can. The last M-1 I ordered was a correct grade H&R. I about passed out when I got it. The rifle was shot little, has a LMR barrel which is the best of the best and is worth about $2500.

Find a SKS that will do that.......

Griff56
March 31, 2009, 10:01 AM
Well, I have never shot an SKS, don't recall that I ever have seen one. So my opinion probably doesn't carry much weight.

The questions asked another question though. What do you plan to do with said rifle. If it is just a safe queen, that is one thing. If you want to shoot for accuracy and group control or just spray and pray.

I own a CMP M1 that is a beauty. I have never shot it since I had it reworked but I plan to do so in the near future. The last time I fired an M1 it was for Uncle Sam. That was some time ago. I do however own other rifles and another 30-06. Recoil is not an issue to me and I am not
a big man but I like big guns. I personally think a rifle that fits you and shoots to POA is a blessing what ever it is. My advise is to decide what you want to do and then make your decision based on that.

If you enjoyed reading about "SKS or M1 Garand?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!