M1 vs SKS: Ultimate Comparison

[Dan Crocker]

What this thread really makes me wonder is, "how many people are actually debating whether to buy an SKS vs. an M1?" They're not in the same league in either price or mall ninjatude

No kidding. What a waste of time.
Hey, let's compare a mountain howitzer to an air rifle while we're at it.

 

[panrobercik]

Thanks to last few posters, I don't have to continue this pointless argument.
I stand corrected and promise not to write "Grand" anymore

 

[gga357]

I disagree that this is a waste of time. We all started somewhere as newbies. All the hated debates are hated because you may have already read them 2, 10..100 times, however there are many poeple out there who have not and every thread has valuable information. Corrections to misinformation and so on. I enjoy them or I just don't read them.

So to add to this one...Hands down the M1 as a battle rifle. SKS as an inexpensive limited accuracy and range weapon sure.

 

[mordechaianiliewicz]

I understand the comparison. These are both rifles which served in the same era (sort of, both saw time in WWII though to much different extents. Of course both were used in Korea). Though they are very different weapons, they are both nevertheless issue weapons for major nations meant to be used in combat in the mid-20th century.

Now, what I really believe people take issue with here is the fact that .30-06 obviously outclasses 7.62 Combloc by a wide margin. That's not in dispute (or atleast shouldn't be), and most people just like feel and aiming of a Garand more.

But, if you are trying to pick a fixed mag rifle, you are limited to a few weapons, and if you don't have much money, and you're not all that concerned with shooting over 300 yards, the SKS might be your selection by default.

No, I wouldn't compare these two weapons the way the OP did, but I wouldn't say the comparison is invalid, and he makes it very clear that if price of weapon+ammo is 1/2 or more of your consideration in buying, the SKS is pretty much the way to go.

 

[briansmithwins]

.Hands down the M1 as a battle rifle. SKS as an inexpensive limited accuracy and range weapon sure.

Yes, exactly. The Sov did the same battle analysis during WWII that we and the Germans did: Unlike us, they used the data that showed that the vast majority of firefights happen within 300m when they designed their next cartridge, the 7.62x39. They also designed simple, tough, and durable rifles designed to fire that cartirdge, the SKS and AK.

The Garand was designed using different criteria. BSW

 

[elmerfudd]

No, I wouldn't compare these two weapons the way the OP did, but I wouldn't say the comparison is invalid

Maybe not as a matter of military history, comparing for example the weaponry of the North and South Koreans or of the ARVN and the VC, but the article really wasn't about that. It was about their relative virtues as "homeland security rifles" in the here and now. For that, I think he gave a very in depth answer to a question that no one ever asked. I've heard all kinds of people debating whether they wanted an AR or AK, FAL or M1A, SKS or Saiga, etc..., but I don't recall anyone ever seriously asking whether they should get an SKS or an M1 Garand.

 

[easyrider604]

This question could probably been re-phrased 30-06 vs 7.62 x 39.

It so happens the most prominent fixed mag ought-six battle rifle is the Garand, likewise the SKS in its caliber/cartidge.

Of course ballistically, the ought-six is the more accurate and powerful round, capabable of longer ranges, given its bullet's sectional density and velocity. The SKS cartridge is lighter and shorter, so more can be carried. Both cartridges' bullets will stop any human that gets in its way.

The Garand is better built and prettier, for sure. But the SKS is lighter and at least as reliable, if not more so. Practical accuracy with the average shooter, I'd say they are equal to 200 yds.

So one has to decide which cartridge characteristics are most important to himself. Choose the cartridge, then gun will follow.

 

[mordechaianiliewicz]

Yeah.... easyrider has a point. Though I also think money played a big factor in his decision as well.

 

[WardenWolf]

The 7.62x39 round is very close to the 30-30 cartridge, which is one of the most widely used and effective deer cartridges in history. There's nothing wrong with the cartridge in terms of range and power. It's long-ranged enough to do almost anything. I'd take something bigger for bear, though. Fact is, the SKS will do what most people need it to do in terms of hunting or self-defense. The M1 Garand is a lot more expensive, and it's a classic piece of American history that was only made for a short time. You have to baby it a little. For someone looking for a collector's gun, the M1 Garand is the obvious choice. For someone looking for a shooter, the SKS is probably what they're looking for.