M1 .30 Carbine OR SKS?

[RTFM]

CMP in their words

29 December, 2006. The Army has transferred to the CMP a significant quantity of M1 Carbines. We are currently processing these carbines through our Inspection & Repair operations and expect to have some ready for sale by 1 March, 2007, but it may be sooner. More information will be posted on this web page as it becomes available.

Would you place / take / choose an M1 .30 Carbine over a SKS?
I've never shot a M1 .30 Carbine but it's home made as opposed to Chi-Com, which can't be a bad thing in my book.


RTFM

 

[Glockfan.45]

The M1 will set you back a good deal more than the SKS and ammo wont be as cheap, available, or powerful as the SKS either. However real genuine USGI M1s dont pop up everyday. I need to find a easy way to qualify for CMPs requirements because I really want one of these.

 

[DMK]

What do you want the rifle for? They aren't equivalent rifles.

The SKS is more powerful, shoots cheaper ammo, probably a bit stouter, and is cheaper to buy.

The M1 carbine is lighter, has less recoil, has better sights, and has strong American historical value.

Accuracy is probably a wash.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

I need to find a easy way to qualify for CMPs requirements because I really want one of these.

The easiest way to qualify under the "Marksmanship or other Firearms Related Activity" requirement is to either get a C&R license or concealed carry permit.

 

[mattw]

As long as ammo cost isn't your only criteria I would choose the M1 Carbine. Much handier and US made.

 

[kfranz]

The readily available SKS's aren't chi-com anymore. Why not get both?

 

[dfaugh]

SKS---Un-issued Yugo for $150-160 (others under $250)--more power and cheap ammo besides. pretty close to indestructable, too.

Decent M-1 carbine---$600

Does that help?

 

[M2 Carbine]

RTFM
Would you place / take / choose an M1 .30 Carbine over a SKS?

I've got ten M1/M2 Carbines and want more.

I have one SKS and that's enough.

 

[pbhome71]

C'mon M2... That's not fair, isn't it...

I have 4 SKSs. I only have 1 M1 Carbine, which is enough for me too.

I would rather have a levergun than a M1 Carbine, but that is just me. LOL.

-Pat

 

[RockyMtnTactical]

The SKS is the undisputed best value in a battle carbine... but the M1 carbines are cool, have a neat historical value, good gun for the wife or a kid...

 

[Andrew S]

I say get both. I have an SKS and I cannot wait to get a M1 carbine.

I would get the M1 first though. It has a more significant history, will remain a collector rifle for much longer, and the availability will likely disappear much sooner.

 

[DWARREN123]

For what it is I would get a M-1 Carbine then a SKS. Both have their points.

 

[U.S.SFC_RET]

SKS's = Commie

M1 Carbine = American

 

[The Grand Inquisitor]

If you are either past the age of 12 or have an IQ higher than your shoesize, it reallys houldn't matter where your gun was made or designed.


That said, the SKS and the M1 Carbine are very different weapons and were designed to do very different things.

The Carbine was designed to replace either a 1911 (or other side arm) or an M1 Garand depending on the situation (it was good for giving to rear line personnel who did not need the very large and full powered Garand, and also it was designed to replace a pistol in order to be a small-ish, light-weight firearm that could be used for both close fighting as well as short to medium range shooting).

The SKS was a primary issue rifle that was issued by the thousands to troops all over the world. While I do not know the history and design of the SKS like I do the Kalashnikov, I do believe that I have read that the SKS was built in Russia to be a short term "bridge" between the older WWII era rifles and the more modern Kalashnikov rifles.

I might be totally off here and I welcome any Simonov afficianado to correct me about the history of the rifle.


That said, both rifles are great; I think they are both about the same in terms of accuracy, with the Carbine perhaps giving very slightly better groups, but with the SKS being much more durable and chambering a MUCH more robust and powerful cartridge.

While I do own a WWII era Carbine, and I do really like the rifle, the .30 Carbine cartridge has some pretty serious ballistic deficiancies, but what it lacks in power, it makes up with ease of shooting and lack of recoil.

7.62x39 is a significantly more powerful round with far more uses, but the rounds are hardly comparable because the 7.62x39 was designed to be an intermediate, full power, rifle cartridge, while .30 Carbine was designed to be very light and fast (in fact, I think .30 Carbine is comparable to .357 Magnum).


Which to buy? I don't know, but this is one of those rare situations where it is quite easy to just get both! You can get a GREAT, brand new Yugo SKS for under $150, and then you can save up for a little while and drop around $600 for a good carbine.

 

[RockyMtnTactical]

I don't know all the history of the SKS either, but I do not believe it was designed to bridge a short gap between WWII rifles and the AK.

I'm just guessing, but that just doesn't seem logical... If they knew the AK was on it's way, why would they even bother with the SKS?

 

[SaMx]

If you just want a gun to shoot, then I would go with the sks. It's cheaper, the ammo is cheaper, and it's more powerful if you want to hunt with it.
If you want a gun for it's historical value then spend more and get the carbine.
That's what I would do anyway.

 

[SVT93]

Both, M1 first while you can get them from CMP, SKS after that.

 

[RTFM]

Guess I should have said that I already have 2 SKS a pristine Russian and a great shooter of a Chinese.

I was wondering what someone would choose if they didnt have either.
Sorry for that bad original post. I had to leave quickly and may not have phrased it in the form of a solid question.

Looks like I'll be getting a M1 for the closet when they come out, I did think though that they were closer in function that what they really are.
So thanks for the clarification there, SKS more of a "battle' rifle of it's time and the M1 a replacement carbine for the side arm, second echelon troops/.

Thanks all.

RTFM

 

[iamkris]

If you are either past the age of 12 or have an IQ higher than your shoesize, it really shouldn't matter where your gun was made or designed.

That's really one of the best quotes I've seen in a long time.

 

[DMK]

Guess I should have said that I already have 2 SKS a pristine Russian and a great shooter of a Chinese.

Then definitely get an M1 carbine for the collection. Especially if you have a Garand.

I was wondering what someone would choose if they didnt have either.

Historical value aside, I would choose the SKS because it's more robust, more powerful and arguably more useful. Someone else might choose the carbine because it's lighter, shoots a round that's easier to find in their area, and has less recoil. It all depends on what you want out of the rifle.

 

[bcochran]

not a question of which is better

Different iron sight grouping standards at 100 yards - US - 3 inches, eastern bloc - 6 inches

Optics - Ultimak makes a forward scope mount now and there is one available for the SKS

Price - Personally, I want the best that works for me and so price is not a consideration

Skill of the operator - people are obsessed with equipment and deliberately ignore skills.

The average Joe has never shot on the move, shot in low light, had to estimate distance to target past 100 yards, cannot take apart and repair his rifle, or even shoot past 100 yards. The average guy doesn't understand ballistics or why having decent low power optics on a rifle makes a 60 year old perform better with a rifle than a 20 year old with 20-20 vision using iron sights.

Knowledge of combat - most combat is under 100 yards, in conditions of low light or smoke. It is not on the range at Fort Ord (now closed) at known ranges using set shooting positions. A knowledge of tracking, cover, concealment, stalking, sound discipline, micro terrain, weather, and foliage are much more important.

Finally, having your sks or m1 carbine in the safe at home is not as wise as having it securred in the trunk of your car.

 

[DMK]

Different iron sight grouping standards at 100 yards - US - 3 inches, eastern bloc - 6 inches

I can do a lot better than 6" with most of my SKS carbines. My unissued 59/66 does closer to two inches than three.

Finally, having your sks or m1 carbine in the safe at home is not as wise as having it securred in the trunk of your car.

Which raises another good point. You can add a repro M1A1 stock to your M1 Carbine and make it very compact. A folder on an SKS raises a bunch of legal issues that aren't necessarily easy to circumvent and still have a reliable weapon.

 

[USSR]

You can add a repro M1A1 stock to your M1 Carbine and make it very compact.

Ain't it the truth.

Don

 

[Tbu61]

SKS has utility and economy written all over it.

The M-1 Carbine is just plain FUN to shoot!!!!

 

[mljdeckard]

I happen to have both.

My Inland was bought by my grandfather for $20 when he joined the NRA in the 50s. I rescued a Yogu SKS from a friend of mine who barely fired it, and was moving to Jersey.

They are very different. I consider the SKS a full-size rifle which shoots a cartridge that might be a bit small to justify its full-size. (For the weight and size, you kind of wish it was a .308.) The carbine is much smoother in operation, ergonomics, and finish than the SKS. I keep the M-1 as my wife's primary HD rifle, and the SKS as a rifle I can drag out in the sagebrush to zap coyotes, and not feel too bad if it gets dirty. My wife absolutely HATES the SKS, she probably wouldn't like it much better if I put a better stock on it.