[jsmaye]

Quote:      

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.

An M1 carbine is a "heavy duty battle rifle"? What was the Garand, then? Artillery?

IIRC, the AK-47 superseded the SKS because it was selective-fire-capable and cheaper to make.

[steve--]

Quote:       Originally Posted by 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.

Obviously a completely biased, totally nonobjective opinion.

Yeah, you won't find a more patriotic American than myself, but I'm also a realist, and accept things for what they are. The only shortcoming of the sks is the nondetatchable 10 round magazine, which is not an issue anymore anyway, due to the fact that you can purchase aftermaket detachable magazines of various different capacities. Other than that, the sks is superior to the M-1 Carbine in every aspect.


And no, the sks was most certainly not found to be inferior to the AK. It was primarily choses over the sks due to political reasons, more specifically because it had a production rate, and cost advantage of the sks. It had nothing to due with performance issues, other than the fact that that AK was selective fire, and the SKS was not, but then again neither was the M-1 Carbine, so that's irrelevent in this comparison anyway. And yes, like I said before, the SKS's didn't come from the factory with a detachable magazine, but that problem's since been remeied, so again, that's no longer a factor.

[22cowboy]

No seriously:
Not overly found of Non-American guns, Plus the SKS (assuming your not talking about the D model) Doesn't have a clip Look around internet sources like Cheaper Than Dirt and maybe even Ebay, M1 carbine clips are about $5 Ammo makes up for that low price though. Not quite sure why these two were given though, A better relation would be the M14 and the SKS since they actually saw each-other in Korea and Viet Nam. And in that sense I would curb stomp in my votes fer the M14.

[mouser868]

Quote:       Originally Posted by steve--

. It had nothing to due with performance issues, other than the fact that that AK was selective fire, and the SKS was not, but then again neither was the M-1 Carbine, so that's irrelevent in this comparison anyway. .

Must not have heard of the M2, which was a select fire M1 Carbine.

Either way it's not really a fair comparison because it's like comparing apples and oranges.Bullets are not the same and the 30 Carbine at most will get only 1900 fps whereas the 7.62X39 can achieve close to 2300 fps. To make it more fair try comparing the 300 Savage and the 7.62X39 then see how the results come out.

[mike j]

i like both firearms, my sks only cost $95 in 93', russian, packed in grease just waiting to be shot. i can't find an m-1 that isn't a part gun for less than $300 plus. each gun had a different task, i'm a pistol substitute. i'm a small battle rifle.

[mike j]

Quote:       Originally Posted by 22cowboy

No seriously: Not overly found of Non-American guns, Plus the SKS (assuming your not talking about the D model) Doesn't have a clip Look around internet sources like Cheaper Than Dirt and maybe even Ebay, M1 carbine clips are about $5 Ammo makes up for that low price though. Not quite sure why these two were given though, A better relation would be the M14 and the SKS since they actually saw each-other in Korea and Viet Nam. And in that sense I would curb stomp in my votes fer the M14.

don't think m-14 went to war in korea sorry, break out yer m-1 garand again. .308 is around 56".

[pico]

Quote:       Originally Posted by mike j

i like both firearms, my sks only cost $95 in 93', russian, packed in grease just waiting to be shot. i can't find an m-1 that isn't a part gun for less than $300 plus. each gun had a different task, i'm a pistol substitute. i'm a small battle rifle.

This is the fact that makes comparing them rather hard. Both are capable for their given tasks... which is to say both are not made for the same reason. The SKS is a capable rifle out to 300 meters. The M1 is a great carbine out to 100 meters. The price of the SKS rifle today is often less than half the price of a M1 carbine, and often times nice M1 carbines are upwards of $800-$1000 for great condition pieces.

[Taurus Fan]

SKS.
The M1 Carbine isn't even a close second.

[22cowboy]

Quote:       Originally Posted by mike j

don't think m-14 went to war in korea sorry, break out yer m-1 garand again. .308 is around 56".

Hell, your right! Thought the SOB would have been made in time to see conflict. Apparently some are made in Korea. Either way, the M1 Garand is another Great gun, if I hunted deer more often I probably would have one by now.

[billy]

sks

[Ten Man]

The SKS is more practical to have for multiple reasons, but the M1 Carbine is more fun to shoot.

I own both, and would not use either one for a "battle gun" or SHTF gun.

[pico]

Quote:       Originally Posted by Ten Man

The SKS is more practical to have for multiple reasons, but the M1 Carbine is more fun to shoot. I own both, and would not use either one for a "battle gun" or SHTF gun.

What would your SHTF firearm of choice be? I agree with you completely, and would not choose either for mine, but of the 2 the SKS is a much better and simpler firearm.

My weapon of choice for the rough times is the H&K 91.

[oldjarhead]

An apples to oranges comparison.
The M1 carbine never was considered a "heavy duty" combat rifle regardless of the extensive use during 3 major wars and many smaller conflicts.
If you compare the function of each against the other the M1 carbine, IMO, is much more reliable and has a very simple operation.
To compare the power of the cartidges the two shoot, the higher power goes to the 7.62x39.
Personally, I'll take the M1 Carbine over the SKS but would prefer an M-14 over either.
BTW, the M-14 began to see service during 1958; well after the Korean War. Unfortunately it only saw service for less than 10 years as the main battle weapon. Then came the Matty Mattel POS and we've been stuck with that turd for nearly 43 years because of desk-sittin' generals decisions that disregard mud cased troops wants and needs.

[mike j]

Quote:       Originally Posted by pico

What would your SHTF firearm of choice be? I agree with you completely, and would not choose either for mine, but of the 2 the SKS is a much better and simpler firearm. My weapon of choice for the rough times is the H&K 91.

i pull out the fn-fal,10 20 round mags and ammo to spare.

[rondog]

Sorry, but other than my Mosins, I'm not much of a fan of commie rifles. Those things were made to kill non-commie soldiers, specifially Americans whenever possible. I'll take the M1 Carbine please. Or my M1, or my AR15.....

[Capt'n Mil Coll]

Quote:       Originally Posted by jsmaye

An M1 carbine is a "heavy duty battle rifle"? What was the Garand, then? Artillery? IIRC, the AK-47 superseded the SKS because it was selective-fire-capable and cheaper to make.

Seeing as you asked, let me enlighten you. The M1 Carbine was used extensively in the Pacific Theatre of war in World War 2. It was used in island battle after battle. Names like Tarawa one of the bloodiest battles for American GI's in The Pacific War.

Or how about an Island battle on Saipan? The all original non Armory refurbed M1 Carbine I have came from a Marine just comming out of battle on Saipan. The Sailor tried to trade a .45 and holster for an M1 Carbine as the Marines came aboard ship. The first 3 or 4 would not trade their Carbines even for a .45. Finally he got J L Watson Jr to trade his for the sidearm. Guess they liked their Carbines.

Or other battles like Iwo Jima. Where there were more purple hearts given out then any other fighting in WWII. M1 Carbines were used there in every battle. They were even carried up Mt Surbiachi when they planted the flag on it.

My point being the M1 Carbine is a Battle tested Battle rifle. I would definately call it heavy duty after being in so many terrifiying bloody battles. It is a reliable, battle tested, semi automatic, magazine fed .30 carbine, carbine rifle.

Now name a battle the SKS was in?????? Come on we all know you had to do a web search to find one.

As for the M1 Garand. No it was never classified as artillery. It to is a Heavy Duty Battle rifle. It shoots a more powerful round in the 30.06 cartridge. It is different than the M1 Carbine in that it is a En-Bloc clip fed semi automatic rifle. As opposed to the Magazine fed Carbine. Making it a little slower to load. It is also longer and a lot heavier than an M1 Carbine making it less popular in the Jungles of the South Pacific than the Garand was.

On to the SKS. I own 3 SKS and 4 M1 Carbines. I would still grab a Carbine over a SKS any day. In my experence the M1 Carbine is a much more reliable firearm than a SKS ever will be. The 7.62x 39 round is not that powerful. It tends to fracture when fired through solid objects. It tends to tumble when fired through light scrub or brush. And I hear you can fire it to 300 feet? With a scope maybe. But I would take a 30.06 over a 7.62x39. The 30.06 being a round that can easily penetrate car doors. Compared to the weak performance of the SKS round.

I see how some say you can modify the SKS to accept detachable magazines. I have one of those SKS's and it is not reliable at all. It is also hard to attach the magazine to it. I would have to still go with the M1 Carbine.

And anyway if you modify a SKS you end up with a modified rifle. If you really are comparing the rifles wouldnt you have to compare an original rifle vs an original rifle?

The stripper clips are not that easy to load sometimes. The internal box magazine is not that great. Thats why its rarely used now on new rifles.

And as for the comment: "Obviously a completely biased, totally nonobjective opinion."
Are you trying to tell me the people who think SKS's are greater than sliced bread are stating a "completely non biased, totally objective opinion"???? I dont think so.

This thread is asking opinions. This is mine. Take it or leave it. But it is not a great thing to piss on someone elses opinion. Instead why not state your own opinion?

[Morgan]

I own a few of both, I like both but If I had to go out and haul one around all day (and I do when I go for walks) it would be the M1. Accuracy is good enough for any SD. IMHO it handles better and the round packs a punch at SD range. The SKS would be better for longer range. I actaully take my lil M1's hunting yoties if I'm in heavier cover (even over my AR-15s). Never liked the detachable mags on the SKS. Don't get me wrong the SKS is a great lil gun, but I just like the handling of the M1 better the SKS feels clunky in my hands.