SKS or M1A: SKS might be better

Status
Not open for further replies.
You're allowed to like whatever you want to want.

Personally, what I think people are losing sight of is that "better" is subjective.

I love the SKS and have a lot of wonderful things to say about it. In fact, it was my first tactical style rifle. In this case, the SKS is "better" if:

  • If you're running a soviet country in 1945 and trying to crank out a rifle en masse with a few moving parts that fires a widely available, cheap to produce round for combat effective at <200 meters, the SKS is your answer.
  • It's an ideal budget s̶t̶u̶f̶f̶ ̶h̶i̶t̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶f̶a̶n̶ emergency rifle for someone who wants a cheap semi-automatic with widely available ammo.
  • It's an easy semi-auto to teach people who have little to no firearms / tactical firearms experience since it's shaped like a traditional hunting rifle.
  • You can easily store 2k rounds even at post pandemic prices for like 40 cents a round.
  • If you really want, you can use the duck billed magazines. Purists cry and flip out about it, but I've never had a bad experience with one. It's not as ergonomic as an AR-15 magazine, but virtually no other magazine really is. Keyboard warriors who never served in the military arguing that it's impossible do not impress me.
I've recommended so many new pandemic shooters to SKSes and showed them how to use them that it's not even funny.

That said, I wouldn't have any qualms about having a M1A over an SKS. It can basically do everything the SKS can performance wise and more. The main reason I don't have an M1A right now is that I could literally buy 2 or 3 SKSs for the price of 1 M1A. I'd rather put that money into ammo at this point.
 
I think of the sks as the f150 and the m1a as the f350. Both are pickups, both haul a load. Both will pull a trailer. But the M1a will haul and pull a lot more for a lot more $$. Which one do YOU need? (Btw I haven't owned an M1a since I can't afford one. But I have owned most of its contemporaries)
 
Yes, exactly my point. This is no different than debating if a Toyota Camry or a Ford Transit is a better car. Clearly two different tools that can get you from point A to point B, but it all depends on the expectation of your tool.

You're allowed to like whatever you want to want.

Personally, what I think people are losing sight of is that "better" is subjective.

I love the SKS and have a lot of wonderful things to say about it. In fact, it was my first tactical style rifle. In this case, the SKS is "better" if:

  • If you're running a soviet country in 1945 and trying to crank out a rifle en masse with a few moving parts that fires a widely available, cheap to produce round for combat effective at <200 meters, the SKS is your answer.
  • It's an ideal budget s̶t̶u̶f̶f̶ ̶h̶i̶t̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶f̶a̶n̶ emergency rifle for someone who wants a cheap semi-automatic with widely available ammo.
  • It's an easy semi-auto to teach people who have little to no firearms / tactical firearms experience since it's shaped like a traditional hunting rifle.
  • You can easily store 2k rounds even at post pandemic prices for like 40 cents a round.
  • If you really want, you can use the duck billed magazines. Purists cry and flip out about it, but I've never had a bad experience with one. It's not as ergonomic as an AR-15 magazine, but virtually no other magazine really is. Keyboard warriors who never served in the military arguing that it's impossible do not impress me.
I've recommended so many new pandemic shooters to SKSes and showed them how to use them that it's not even funny.

That said, I wouldn't have any qualms about having a M1A over an SKS. It can basically do everything the SKS can performance wise and more. The main reason I don't have an M1A right now is that I could literally buy 2 or 3 SKSs for the price of 1 M1A. I'd rather put that money into ammo at this point.
 
You're allowed to like whatever you want to want.

Personally, what I think people are losing sight of is that "better" is subjective.

I love the SKS and have a lot of wonderful things to say about it. In fact, it was my first tactical style rifle. In this case, the SKS is "better" if:

  • If you're running a soviet country in 1945 and trying to crank out a rifle en masse with a few moving parts that fires a widely available, cheap to produce round for combat effective at <200 meters, the SKS is your answer.
  • It's an ideal budget s̶t̶u̶f̶f̶ ̶h̶i̶t̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶f̶a̶n̶ emergency rifle for someone who wants a cheap semi-automatic with widely available ammo.
  • It's an easy semi-auto to teach people who have little to no firearms / tactical firearms experience since it's shaped like a traditional hunting rifle.
  • You can easily store 2k rounds even at post pandemic prices for like 40 cents a round.
  • If you really want, you can use the duck billed magazines. Purists cry and flip out about it, but I've never had a bad experience with one. It's not as ergonomic as an AR-15 magazine, but virtually no other magazine really is. Keyboard warriors who never served in the military arguing that it's impossible do not impress me.
I've recommended so many new pandemic shooters to SKSes and showed them how to use them that it's not even funny.

That said, I wouldn't have any qualms about having a M1A over an SKS. It can basically do everything the SKS can performance wise and more. The main reason I don't have an M1A right now is that I could literally buy 2 or 3 SKSs for the price of 1 M1A. I'd rather put that money into ammo at this point.
Yes well said. It depends on your criteria. The question I have that nowadays is that prices are going crazy . I was at a gun show and an SKS was listed for $850. Ammo was $40 a box.. Of course an M-14 will still be higher priced but a better value if you can afford it. Not to start another discussion but An AR makes more sense all the way around. More available cheaper, I built a Delton for $600 total which is a better gun in every way. Of course you may not agree. Regardless of preference the big economic advantage of the SKS no longer exists. From that aspect an AR which can be built in a variety of rounds is actually cheaper. But as long as ammo is available an SKS is fine the use described. Lots of guys keep one around. Gun bans could make them more valuable.
 
The SKS fit into my universe as the M1 carbine I never got due to unique cartridge or other reasons. The gun and its ammo was inexpensive, and I had a lot of fun with it. It's also a good intro for shooters just getting into centerfire. It is much more expensive now, and the grenade launcher models were always clumsier, but it definitely filled an importance niche in the carbine/rifle spectrum. The M1a or M14 have greater range and serve a different need that overlaps a good bolt action rifle. All fun, effective for their time, and obsolete ;)
 
I feel like the main real world advantage of the M1A is it’s use of mags vs clips. Kinda like the Garand vs M1A though, it’s an advantage but not a huge one. M1A, Garand, or SKS would all do in a pinch, and way better than a bolt action, in most cases. I’d be shocked if anyone, offered an SKS or an M1A as a gift, would not choose the M1A, even if they genuinely had no idea about relative cost or collectibility.
 
theres just something cool about an SKS. I dont know what it is. But then it was designed for a regime that doesn't give a rats gnats about the individual or whether they could actually hit anything.
Now the M14 on the other hand was designed by a country that fully expected each person to be able to hit at 300 meters and be dangerous to 600 or farther. That should tell you something right there.
 
As was stated "better" is somewhat subjective. In terms of accuracy, build quality and power the M1A is a "better" rifle. In terms of affordability (at least when they first came to our shores), ammo price, and all around utility the SKS is hard to beat. I have both, I like both.
 
I always figured that the SKS is more or less the clip-loading, semi-auto equivalent of a Winchester '98 carbine.
It fills its own niche, which is not at all the same one as an M-1a.

EDIT: Yep.
Typo - I meant a Win '94.
Been messing with too many old Mausers... .
 
Last edited:
I always figured that the SKS is more or less the clip-loading, semi-auto equivalent of a Winchester '98 carbine.
It fills its own niche, which is not at all the same one as an M-1a.
Not to me. I have hunted with both. The SKS is long front heavy clunky and much less powerful. I think you mean the Winchester 94 lever action which is an excellent hunting rifle. It is light, slim, short, well balanced and very fast handling. It is also chambered in 30-30 which is much more powerful, more accurate and with a long history of being plenty to kill anything in North America. The SKS recoils much less and you don't have to work the action for follow up shots. The '94 in 30-30 is the best stalking in the woods rifle ever.
 
Some of you guys are vastly overestimating the effectiveness of the SKS .vs M-14. It is not a handy carbine, it is long and bulky, about the same size as an M-14 but more front heavy. Poor handling. The power and accuracy is also a huge difference at any range. I fought against them and used them for hunting. I also was issued an m-14 and ;later an M-16. To think an SKS is very effective beyond 125-150 yards is certainly not true except volley fire and marginal at that. First of all you can't hit anything in an aimed shot, and the energy level and trajectory really drops beyond that. An AK being shorter and full auto is a different story. Meanwhile an M-14 is more lethal close and where penetration is needed and by contrast a good shot can hit a person at 600 meters with enough energy to kill. Something we were still doing when I was in training. So no an SKS isn't better at any range. And I don't believe any stories about long range shots. You're welcome to come in person under field conditions. Btw one of my best friends was a Sniper equipped with an M-14 and you can read about it in the book "Black Horse Riders" a history of a real battle he was in.

Got the book today per your advice. Must be a good one per Amazon yellow tag.
 

Attachments

  • 20210426_213842.jpg
    20210426_213842.jpg
    67.4 KB · Views: 12
MAS-49-56-comparo-2-courtesy-Joe-Grine-for-The-Truth-About-Guns.jpg download.jpeg-2.jpg

I enjoyed the SKS when I had one, over years had one off and on (4 different ones)
I eventually traded the SKS off, the 7.62x39 range was limited in NW Arctic Alaska.
Same with two different AK's.
Youd be forever creeping in close enuf to shoot a caribou.
I wanted a 10 shot 7.62 Nato rifle thats kinda like a SKS, but didnt have the $$$cratch for a M1a, So settled on something different.
316-1.jpg

I wanted a rear sight a tad closer to my eye than the SKS.
20210426_202156.jpg
 
Last edited:
@Rex in OTZ MAS 49/56 good choice!

Original 7.5 French or rechambered to .308 WIN?

I picked mine up when they were $250.
The Century Arms 7.62 conversion with a APX/L806" scope.
I spent more on that scope than I did the rifle.
MAS_L806MountedA[1].jpg

First thing I did was add a FP return spring on that monster firing pin, remove grenade launcher gas cutoff and fit it with a adjustable gas valve so it was not flinging brass into the next township.
Replace the shortened recoil spring with a 7.5 length spring.
And use dremmel to recountour the extractor to better fit the 7.62x51 cartridge case rims so wernt being mangled.
It took some TLC to get everything going well, might eventually invest in a titanium FP.
The MAS is allot of old school cool machined steel for the money.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top