[psycho dad]

i can share a story on m-1 penetration. while my brother in law was serving in viet nam, in the infantry. they ran into a division of nva regulars. they were at company strength. my brother in law was manning their thirty cal machine gun, while everyone else pulled back. some oriental person flanked him up on a ridge armed with an m-1 carbine. shot my brother in law thru the torso, entering one lung and exiting the other. also removing half of his stomach. the entry wound was small and the exit wound was also about two inches. this was a hallow point round, because of the close range it did not have enough time to expand, which probably saved his ***. the doctors saved the round and put it in his purple heart box, which he still has. the origin of this rifle was probably from when the french were there and we gave them world war two surplus equipment, or captured from monteguard tribesment. we gave them m-1 s also to fight the north.

[Sutro]

The M-1 carbine was designed to replace the .45 colt for officers & support staff since few folks can hit anything with a pistol. And I'd take a carbine over a pistol.

But I'd take a SKS over a carbine.

I'd take a FAL or M-14 over a SKS.

And I'd take a thermonuclear device over a FAL or M-14.

Point being that this is sort of an apples v/s oranges discussion in some ways: If I were in a situation where a pistol would make more sense than a SKS (e.g. an officer or support staff who's exceedingly unlikely to have to actually shoot anyone, but you gotta have some sort of weapon), I'd take a carbine instead of an SKS because it's smaller and lighter.

Real problem with the carbine is that it was put in roles beyond what it was designed for.

[sks's are cool]

i'd like a yugo sks with a tapco colapsable stock and a 20 round magazine

[BattleRifleG3]

I haven't found an M1 Carbine that shot without a frequent jam, while I've only found one SKS that had difficulties using the original magazine.

Now if a more reliable gun were developed for the M1 Carbine round I could go for one.

[SilverRun]

I don't really think this is a fair comparison for the M1. I like the look and feel of the carbine, but having owned both, the SKS is the better rifle. The SKS has a much longer effective range, and is very dependable. Given the choice between the two, I would take the SKS with a bandoleer of stripper clips. Of couse, neither would be my first choice.

[Bravo]

I own both of these (The SKS being Norinco), and for answering the question which would be my battle rifle, I'd have to say the SKS.

The M1 is a very good looking gun that is light in weight and accurate with a wide array of bullets. But, the bullet is small, and the gun will jam if I don't use the highest quality rounds. (Even when the gun is cleaned every 50 rounds).

The SKS only has a 10 round magazine, while the M1 will use larger. The thing is, the SKS with the 10 round block magazine has never jammed for me after using well over 1000 rounds of all variety (FMJ, Lead Tip, Hollow Point, even a few nylon tipped).

Comparing accuracy, I'd say they're equal. At 50 yards, I can fill a 4-inch circle while free standing with both the M1 and SKS.

The vote for best ammo goes to the SKS. I have a bunch of 156-grain lead tip bullets for the SKS that would drop a moose (I don't use it for Moose hunting, but if I had to, I wouldn't be afraid to).

The SKS that I have is a very rough looking gun. All parts are stamped, but the gun loads bullets and goes bang when the trigger is squeezed. It also has a longer barrel (a little more weight, but at my age not an issue), and more range.

Anyway, I am a huge fan of US military weapons. But, the SKS gets my vote if it's between the SKS and M1. I think I'd say the same if we were to ask AK-47 vs M16, I'd pick the AK-47. But that's another argument.

[Dallas]

If you read any of the Marine histories from the Korean war they had a real problem with the M-1/2 Carbines freezing up and becoming non-operational.

[BattleRifleG3]

The M1 Carbine has something going for it though - it came first.

[SKS NOOB]

Now WHICH are we talking about? The M1(Garand) that used enbloc clips or the M1A1 that used a 10rd magazine? Forgive my ignorance but for some reason I've heard both used for both.

[Bravo]

Neither

We're talking about the M1 Carbine with the 10/15/30 round .30 carbine magazine: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...M1_Carbine.jpg

[SKS NOOB]

Sorry. I named the second one wrong... that WAS the one I was thinking of.

M1 Garand if I had it to choose over those 2. As of the SKS or M1 Garand? I think that the SKS was Russias answer to the M1 so some of the principles are the same. I would choose either.

[mos19k]

Let me throw my two cents out there. I own two SKS's and I've fired a few M1 Carbines, both are good rifles for what they were designed for. Since the question is which would I take, it would have to be the SKS, I prefer the round, I think it shoots better and I believe it can take a lot more mistreatment than the carbine can. Eastern block firearms in general are designed to take punishment and keep on working.

[ruger22com]

The SKS any day..the M1 Carbine was made to replace a pistol for officers..it is underpowered and not a good combat weapon.

The M1 Garand on the other hand is a FANTASTIC weapon.

A lot of people (newbies and such) confuse the m1 garand with the m1 carbine......and there is a BIG difference between the two.

[SKS NOOB]

There are 3 different models, I think, of the M1: the enbloc M1 Garrand, the M1 version that had the same caliber but had clip, then the iddy biddy looking M1 carbine with smaller shell. Sorry if my knoledge is limited on it, but the latter 2 by name are the ones I keep getting confused.

[BattleRifleG3]

M1 Garand: 30-06 Semi-auto, fed from 8rd en bloc clip

M1 Carbine: 30 Carbine chambered semi-auto, fed from 15 or 30rd detachable magazine. Variants include select fire M2 and M3.

M14: 7.62x51mm NATO (308 Winchester) chambered select fire rifle feeding from 20rd (or other size) of detachable box magazine. Variants include semi-auto only civilian M1A.

All three have a vaguely similar action that uses roughly the same technology. They are not the same model, although the M14 and M1 Garand are similar enough to on occasion be fitted with certain mismatched and modified parts.

[stetson]

SKS would be my choice as it offers longer range and more power and
a bayonet for a lot less money!I have shot a M-2 carbine and if I could
that would be my choice but you said M-1 carbine semi auto.They cost
3x what sks costs and are worth every penny but not in this case.

[alfred]

Quote:       Originally Posted by Dallas

If you read any of the Marine histories from the Korean war they had a real problem with the M-1/2 Carbines freezing up and becoming non-operational.

A old "Very lucky & Blessed Frozen Chozin" Marine that made it out once told me that "the Carbines were the last to freeze up".He said "if we hadn't lucked up and found a can of Marvel Mystery Oil and mixed it with kerosene they would have froze up".Marvel mystery Oil had a cult following in the 50's and was reputed to have Sperm Whale Oil in it at the time.He also said that the Mosin Nagants and one 30-06 1917 Enfield that he saw were the most severe weather dependable firearms he saw.He influenced my later purchases of the above and the 303 Enfields.

I have found that military surplus quart cans of "LAW WEAPONS OIL ARCTIC MIL-L-14107C & INTERIM AM 1 9150-00 292-9689" works just fine on all of my firearms from SA to single shots in extreme low temperatures.

I carried a 30 cal.Carbine and a ,45 at times in the service 1962-66.A Iver Johnson in great shape was the first decent carbine for the money worth buying that I ran across,so I bought it.It has served me so well in every respect that I have never looked for another.I also owned a 56/SKS which I consider the most simple,practical and foolproof combat weapon designed to date.If I ever had to live & fight under and in hard extreme conditions,give me the SKS.#2 would be my 1917 Enfield made up of new uninsured stored parts.For all practical purposes as far as use,I have a new rifle made for and proved with thousands in the trenches of Normandy and by at least one in Korea.The Enfield is also a fine hunting rifle as are the Normandy/Korean proved British and Australian Enfields I bought.My Carbine is a fine "souped up pistol"in my opinion while the SKS is a bullet proof as you can get "in between" them all.

I ain't Dead and I Ain't Quitting.alfred

[wiki wiki]

I guess I'm in the minority by preferring an M1 carbine, even though it's really not comparable to the SKS. I own both types, and just find the carbine's less weight, ease of handling, higher capacity mags, better trigger break and much better sights to be more desireable than the SKS's longer range, harder hitting shell and easier manual of arms.

Out to 125 yards, the accuracy between my Inland M1 and Russian SKS is quite close, both average between 3" - 4" groups using PMC 30 carbine and Wolf's classic. To date, I've never had a problem with either one jamming.

While neither one would be my first choice in a combat situation, I'd take either one in a pinch and not feel too bad about it.

[marion57]

Quote:       Originally Posted by wiki wiki

I guess I'm in the minority by preferring an M1 carbine, even though it's really not comparable to the SKS. I own both types, and just find the carbine's less weight, ease of handling, higher capacity mags, better trigger break and much better sights to be more desireable than the SKS's longer range, harder hitting shell and easier manual of arms. Out to 125 yards, the accuracy between my Inland M1 and Russian SKS is quite close, both average between 3" - 4" groups using PMC 30 carbine and Wolf's classic. To date, I've never had a problem with either one jamming. While neither one would be my first choice in a combat situation, I'd take either one in a pinch and not feel too bad about it.

Quote:       Originally Posted by wiki wiki

I guess I'm in the minority by preferring an M1 carbine, even though it's really not comparable to the SKS. I own both types, and just find the carbine's less weight, ease of handling, higher capacity mags, better trigger break and much better sights to be more desireable than the SKS's longer range, harder hitting shell and easier manual of arms. Out to 125 yards, the accuracy between my Inland M1 and Russian SKS is quite close, both average between 3" - 4" groups using PMC 30 carbine and Wolf's classic. To date, I've never had a problem with either one jamming. While neither one would be my first choice in a combat situation, I'd take either one in a pinch and not feel too bad about it.

I dont know either one of you but I sincerly hope as a vet that neither of you ever have to make that choice

[jmp8927]

Considering I don't have an M1 Carbine and haven't shot one, I'd take my SKS. My SKS has a couple features the M1 has anyway, such as a rear peep sight, and a detachable mag. It also has a telescoping stock to shorten it a little when in close quarters.