[29er savoy]

i agree with sutro's post, the m1 carbine was originally designed for officers and support troops as a side arm replacement. i have a inland carbine and a chi com sks i like em both. if i had to choose one as a survival weapon it would be the sks, hits harder,dependable, greater ammo availabilty (due to all the people with sks"s), more aftermarket parts for the sks than the m1 carbine, and the price factor.

[texnmidwest]

++

SKS definitely. M1 great rifle but SKS is better for SHF situation.

[Cyrano]

Sutro has the right of it. But as he also noted, comparing the SKS to the M-1 Carbine is comparing apples and oranges. The M-1 Carbine was intended to replace the Garand or Springfield rifles in rear echelon formations rather than issue them pistols or Thompson submachine guns, which aren't the easiest firearms in the world to shoot. The SKS was intended as a front line rifle.

Yes, the M-1 carbine has a better feed system. But the SKS is a helluva lot easier to maintain. The SKS is longer than the M-1 carbine, but not so long you can't use it in close quarters. If you think of the M-1 carbine as a replacement for the M1911A1, it come off very well. If you look at it as a replacement for the Garand, however, it doesn't compare well at all. If you look at the SKS as a replacement for the Mosin Nagant or the SVT, it does not compare all that well. It does not have a detachable magazine. It uses (by comparison) an underpowered cartridge. But unlike the SVT, the SKS is reliable; it's difficult to gunk it up to the point it won't shoot. It has a much faster rate of fire than the Mosin Nagant, even if its effective range is shorter. It's a good battle rifle that was developed just a few years too late. If it had entered service instead of the SVT, it would have ended up duking it out with the Garand, the Stg-44 and the Mk. IV Enfield for the title of best battle rifle of that war. Instead, it was eclipsed by the AK-47 very quickly; but again, the SKS and the AK-47 are apples and oranges.

We should really compare apples to apples and contrast the SKS to the M-1 Garand. The Garand wins on range and accuracy. The SKS wins on rate of fire, ease of maintenance, ease of manufacture and wider range of conditions where it's reliable. In the "Chinese Paratrooper" version, with the receiver modified to accept detachable AK-47 magazines, you have a contender that might actually be superior to the rifle George Patton called "The best battle implement ever devised."

The point is moot because the two never faced off against each other. But the thought does occur to me that might make an interesting test for some gun magazine like Guns & Ammo or The American Rifleman to make: the Garand versus the SKS.

[PONTIACDM]

I own both and love both. However I would choose the sks hands down for all the reasons stated above.

[marion57]

Quote:       Originally Posted by PONTIACDM

I own both and love both. However I would choose the sks hands down for all the reasons stated above.

I dont own both but have shot a good many carbines while in the service and I would also choose the SKS

[SwedeSteve]

SKS please.

[texnmidwest]

SKS all the way. The M1 is a great rifle but the power of the 30 carbine round leaves a lot to be desired. The SKS round has been well proven in combat. Now, put a 223 round or a 7.62x39 chambering in that little M1 and I may feel differently!

[buckiller 1]

if i were you i would definetly go with the sks its very relaible and you can do so much with it. i thing the stopping power is great, i hunt with it but I definetly wouldnt hunt with the m-1 carbine. another thing about the sks is that you can change the stocks on it and mount a scope on it. and its very accurate, the one thing i dont like about it is loading is tricky bucause if you move the slide back at all while you loading it with close on your fingers.

[jason1965]

Quote:       Originally Posted by dodge

My grandpa was issed a M-1 carbine on the ship he was on, he never had to use it though, today he has M1 carbine he bought at a gunshow for $500(ww2 dated) I love it myself, I'd rather have it then a SKS in combat,(and I have a chinese SKS at that) for these reasons: 1 the mag hold's 15 rounds, not 10 like the SKS, 2 you can reload it faster then the SKS(just pop out the old mag, stick in a new, and oull back the bolt, unlike the SKS you have to screw around with stripper clips, I trust a mag more) 3 the I(myself anyway) love the peep sights on the M1, I dont like the SKS V-notch sight's that much. but thats just me. what we need is a M1 chamberd for 7.62x39 then well have the best of both worlds

Good point on the cambering to 7.62 for the M-1 carbine!

[MosinRuger]

Wouldn't the Garand be more closely matched to the SKS? the feed systems are more similar and the cartridge is more similar.

[k-80]

SKS hands down, the round is bigger and i like the feel of the sks better. but i would want good ammo and mojo sights on it.

[k-80]

mosin ruger i agree with you but the 30-06 round is bigger than the 7.62x54r so the 7.62x39 would not compete with the 30-06. i would much rather have a grand over the m1 or the sks

[Da Mc]

I guess the M1 was a good rifle designed for it's time so there's nothing wrong with it as a weapon. I have never shot one but I have an SKS, Russian, and wouldn't trade it for anything. The only thing I've ever done to modify it is replace the stock with a composite one from Ram Line because the wood one had too short of a length of pull. It shoots cherry with open sights and I know in a shtf situation I'd trust my life with it!

[pico]

The M1 feels like a high end pellet gun with weight beating the hell out of anything. The SKS is clearly the better and more versatile weapon. If I was going to choose one of these, the SKS hands down beats the M1 carbine.

[jsmaye]

Considering the SKS seems to win the debate in the 'SKS' forum, it would be interesting to post the question in the 'M1 carbine' forum.

[Dragunov]

Apples to oranges really, But I much prefer the SKS for all the reasons stated.

[jason1965]

I relize that we are comparing the M1-carbine over the SKS,however,I would have to go with the Garand for the stopping power,and the shear ruggedness of it.The M2 ball 150 grain round is far superior than both the .30 carbine round and the 7.62x39.

[Ten Man]

Quote:       Originally Posted by dodge

........what we need is a M1 chamberd for 7.62x39 then well have the best of both worlds

That would be the Ruger Mini-30. LOL

[Capt'n Mil Coll]

Humm what an interesting question. Would I rather take a M1 Carbine a heavy duty battle rifle that helped win WWII into battle. Or take an SKS that was found to be inferior to the AK-47 so that the latter was chosen for production over the SKS. Hummmmm.

The M1 rifle clearly is smaller and more easily carried. It was proven in the heat of battle to be durable reliable and accurate.
The carbine round is a handgun round so at close quarters or not too far shots its accurate and deadly. Marines would not have carried it into battle on Saipan or Tarawa or Iwo Jima if they thought there was something wrong with it.

Or should I choose a rifle with a more powerful round.

Ill choose the M1 Carbine.

[pico]

Having an SKS with 20 stripper clips means I would have 210 rounds ready to go without too much wieght. The M1 carbine, with its magazines, would take up more space and wieght. I think the SKS is truely the way to go. It is perhaps a little more difficult to break down and clean,but not by much. Also, the SKS is better all around and can make distance shots at 2x the range of the M1 carbine. In the jungle or urban area, the M1 carbine probably has the advantage, but only slightly. At any distance, the SKS should not only beat out the M1 Carbine, but possibly also the modern M4.