Sks versus the m-1 grand

[ugaarguy]

I'll attempt...

...to rephrase the original poster's question and maybe we can turn this back into a productive thread.

The M-1 Garand and SKS both entered service around the same time with their respective countries. Both rifles use a 30 caliber round traditional to their respective countries. Both use a fixed magazine fed by clips, one stripper, one en bloc. One is (in most variants)shorter, lighter, and quicker handling; more of an almost assault style rifle. The other is longer and heavier, but better suited for long range shooting; it practically defines the "Battle Rifle." How would you make the seemingly apples to oranges comparison of these two similar yet different war horses?

 

[cracked butt]

I have a feeling that most of the complaints about SKS accuracy has much to do with the trigger. Mine will shoot nearly as good as my M1- out to 100 yards or so. The garand has a fabulous trigger and far better sights when compared to the SKS. The 7.62x39 is not even close to being in the same league as the 30-06. The SKS will pretty much do everything the M1 will do to 100 yards, but will not do anything the M1 will do at 600 yards.

 

[Cpl Punishment]

A proper comparison would be an SVT-40 (in 7.62x54R -- identical nominal ballistics to the M2 ball in .30'06).

Either way, the Garand is the superior weapon. As staed numerous times, it soundsly beats the SKS in all areas but price.

It beats out the SVT-40 due to the SVT being a bit less reliable.

 

[roscoe]

As staed numerous times, it soundsly beats the SKS in all areas but price.

Well, at least it has been asserted several times. The only advantage anyone has convincingly put forward is the power of the round at distance. Reliability and accuracy are a wash, and portability goes to the SKS. I personally think that, as far as civilians are concerned, the requirement to use military ball ammo is a serious drawback for the Garand.

The Garand is a beautifully made piece of history, and in the right circumstances it would be the more appropriate rifle. That does not, however, make it the 'better' rifle.

 

[MechAg94]

The requirement to use military ball ammo is there because the 30.06 is such a versatile cartridge that there are numerous loadings available for different purposes. Many of these loads were not around in WWII times when the rifle was built.

You can't really say that about 7.62X39. It has a smaller case and there are only a few different loadings for that cartridge and most are not too different. Someone who reloads could probably expand on that more.

 

[qajaq59]

Is this post for real?

If it is, we're in big trouble.

My attitude is simply go buy the rifle you want. Just don't ask everyone else to validate your decision. We already bought the ones we liked.

 

[riverdog]

What requirement to use ball in the Garand? HP ammo is fine. You shouldn't use soft-points because the action will deform the tip and lead will eventually foul the action, but the rifle will function with other than ball ammo.

 

[Limeyfellow]

One thing the SKS does have in its advantage is a far superior loading system. The enbloc system of the Garand is no matter how dotted over flawed. Its not easy to load just a few rounds to top off the rifle, though is about doable. It can only be loaded with full clips or the rounds simply fall out while the sks is just as fast to load by stripper clip, or can be loaded one by one.

The Garand has far superior standard sights. The SKS open sights are kind of thin to see, especially to get a quick aim and I much perfer to just rip it out and stick on the tech-sight. The Garand has a great adjustable sight..

The Garand bayonet is more useful being able to be used as a knife. Its also more easier to loose.

The safety is a tricky one. The Garand is probrobly a little faster though you have to move your finger of the trigger slightly to operate it but not by much. The SKS safety can be operated by the thumb in some cases. May require the trigger finger on some people. The Garand safety mechanism is also a tad better.

The trigger pull for the Garand is much more universally smooth. This is not so much a design difference doing this but rather less quality control. Its possible to redo the SKS trigger mechanism properly to give it positive engagement and give it a smooth crisp pull.

The Garand is usually bedded better, another problem of quality control and hasty construction. The SKS design can be as well bedded as the Garand and really helps the accuracy of the rifle.

In my opinion the gas tube is more protected on the Garand than the SKS. I suppose if you hit the SKS tube section it might damage but thats going to be one helluva blow.

The bolt locks back better with the SKS. You won't become a member of the purple thumb with one as the empty magazine will simply stop it from shutting on you while cleaning and don't have to get your thumb quickly out the way when loading. Just have to pull back slightly and let go. This is to me a safer way.

The wood work on the Garand is smoother, more refined and of a better wood than most SKS carbines. Its also far heavier being of that classic ww2 styling.

Each have their advantages and disadvantages, beyond the round they are chambered for and distances they can be shot too.

 

[Thumbsmasher]

If I may take this chance to sort of hijack the post and make it for real. I bought a $99 yugo and got rid of the grenade dodad and bayonet. Plan to add a tech sight in the near future. Hope this will improve accuracy. My buddy just dropped $1400 on a Bushmaster M4 type with light rails all over and a pretty cool lookin' stock. Last time we went shooting I handed it back to him with the comment that it for sure shot better than my SKS. His reply was "Ya, but $1300 better". There's the question. What is the point of diminishing returns. Is there no way to improve the trigger, etc to close that gap? By the way, it seems if you are on a budget, the SKS is better. If not the M-1 would seem to win.

 

[surfinUSA]

The Grand was great from 1932-1950's. The M14 made it obsolete. Does it work? Sure. It also weighs a ton, only carries 8 rounds, then lets your enemy know you're empty and where you are. Price $500+

The SKS is lighter carries more rounds is just as quick to reload but can also be reloaded without the use of clips if you need to. Price $125+

For hunting pigs or self defense I'll take an SKS any day. If I want a full power , Heavy battle rifle I'll take an FAL or an M14.

 

[roscoe]

The requirement to use military ball ammo is there because the 30.06 is such a versatile cartridge that there are numerous loadings available for different purposes. Many of these loads were not around in WWII times when the rifle was built.

My point is just that it is something you have to worry about with the Garand. You cannot damage the SKS just because you accidentally load something other than Russian surplus.

It is my understanding that this is a somewhat unique flaw - the other 30 cal autoloaders that I know of, like the FAL or G3 are not in danger of damage due to heavier ammo.

I also think it is funny that some people are offended that the question has even been asked.

 

[el44vaquero]

Kinda like askin' if you would choose an ugly kid or the baby Jesus.

 

[Johnny Guest]

Enough is really quite enough.

This thread started out on a low note. To those who tried to elevate it, thank you. I kept hoping it would improve. Oh, well . . . .

Johnny