Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 12/14/2002 1:02:24 AM EST
What to you guys think which is the better rifle and why. Now before you jump on me, I just want to know the pro and cons, I have a yugo sks haven't shot it yet, just interested in info, I know both a semi-auto.. M1 is American, 30.06 8rd capacity. SKS is communist 7.62 10rd capacity. What else and any other interesting point welcome. Thank you
Link Posted: 12/14/2002 2:36:45 AM EST
If you're wanting to compare the functionality of each then;

An quality SKS in good condition will go bang every time you pull the trigger. So will an M1 in similar condition.

After that there really isn't much else to compare the two.

The M1 has the best sights installed on any battlerifle. The SKS's suck hide titty in comparison. The .30-06 is much more powerful than the 7.62x39. This can be a disadvantage though, but better to have too much than not enough.

And of course, the M1 is living American history. The other is a commie-gun.

I think of the SKS's niche as an M1 Carbine on steroids. Short to medium range with close quarters thrown in.

The M1 is a medium to long range rifle. But remember it handled the close quarters of house-to-house fighting in Europe just fine.

I own one of each and when I feel like really burning a bunch of ammo I'll grab the SKS. It is a hoot to shoot. And most of my range is rather short, usually less than 300 yds.

If I really want to hit something at the far end and do it without a scoped rifle, or do some more serious type practice, I'll grab my M1.

Get yourself one of each. Shoot them regularly and enjoy them.

Link Posted: 12/14/2002 2:42:32 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/14/2002 2:44:44 AM EST by raf]
Link Posted: 12/14/2002 2:52:28 AM EST
Let me sum up for the guys. You can hit what you aim at with the M1. Nuff said.
Link Posted: 12/14/2002 6:08:25 AM EST
A more realistic comparison would probably be between the M1 carbine and the SKS. And there, it's pretty close. The SKS is slightly more powerful, both are about the same in reliability and ergonomics, M1 carbine is possible slightly rarer, very close in accuracy.
Link Posted: 12/14/2002 6:11:48 AM EST
I have a one word response to this question:


KLANG!!!
Link Posted: 12/14/2002 6:26:24 AM EST
Having fired both and owning an SKS or two or three along the way I would venture that both a great rifles in their own respects. The M1 Garand was revolutionary when introduced, the SKS was near obsolete when introduced. They are actually oposite ends of the same spectrum and a collection should have both. The Garand representing the beginning of the semi auto mil rifle era, and the SKS representing the end. To this end they were designed around different philosophies of use. I would guess that within 300 yards each would be just as effective as the other.

If you are buying I would consider what you will do with it. For informal target shooting and plinking get the SKS, cheaper to buy, cheaper to feed and just as much fun. If you want a match gun for 1000 yards then get the Garand. They are both great guns that shuold last a lifetime ( the garand with proper care ) the sks with little more than a spray of CLP and a wipe down.
Link Posted: 12/14/2002 6:27:50 AM EST
I completely agree with the sentiment here.

I can think of literally NO situation under which an SKS would be preferable to a Garand.

The Garand is far more accurate
The Garand has much better sights
The Garand cartridge had far more penetrative power

If I had to rummage around my brain for any advantages the SKS has, I suppose the same number of rounds weigh slightly less, and the rifle is slightly shorter (not sure how much) overall and so the Garand may be a little heavier due to the longer barrel and stock.

So, if you have polio in your arms, and a couple of ounces of weight makes a HUGE difference to you, then go with an SKS. Under any other circumstances, and with any other criteria, the Garand is a total no-brainer.


Of course if you can afford an SKS, and not a Garand, then that is also a no-brainer. I'm not sure how much an SKS goes for these days, but a decent Garand is about $600 - unless you buy it directly from the CMP.
Link Posted: 12/14/2002 6:33:58 AM EST

Originally Posted By Dolomite:
I have a one word response to this question:


KLANG!!!




"I LOVE THAT SOUND ! ! !"
Link Posted: 12/14/2002 6:40:47 AM EST
Only thing I can think of the SKS might have an advantage is faster rate of controlled fire. It takes a little bit longer to return the Garand to the point where you can fire it again with any semblance of accuracy. Also if you stuck a 30 round AK mag on it (like the one I have) then I would probably pick up the SKS instead of the Garand, but not if it had the internal 10 round magazine.
Link Posted: 12/14/2002 6:42:16 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/14/2002 6:43:25 AM EST by 7IDL]
Well, it's been pretty much covered here by the other guys.

I will add that I have both, and I just ordered another SKS (a Yugo M59/66)

The M1 is THE rifle. Just pick one up and shoulder it, it "feels" right, the sights are great and performance is "kick@ss". It's more pricey than the SKS, but the SKS can't match the M1 in performance. The only "disadvantages" (if I may) is that the SKS is smaller and easier to manage in a CQB situation and ammo is cheaper.

An SKS is a neat little rifle, ammo is cheap and fun to shoot. The SKS is NOT a MBR (Main Battle Rifle) like the M1. Parts and aftermarket accessories are quite abundant.

Get the M1 first, then the SKS. (If money allows) You will enjoy both either way
Link Posted: 12/14/2002 6:47:51 AM EST
No flame but the only good thing about a SKS compared to the M1 is that you will never ome down with case of the M1 thumb.

Outside of that it's a very poor match.
Link Posted: 12/14/2002 7:59:42 AM EST

Originally Posted By sig_230:
A more realistic comparison would probably be between the M1 carbine and the SKS. And there, it's pretty close. The SKS is slightly more powerful, both are about the same in reliability and ergonomics, M1 carbine is possible slightly rarer, very close in accuracy.



Exactly. The Garand & Tokarev SVT40 would be a better comparison. The SKS was designed to be a battle rifle, & not a pistol replacement like the M1 carbine though. It was to replace the Mosin-Nagant M44 carbines in Soviet service at the time. Given the choice I'd choose the SKS over a M44 any day of the week...the low capcity, awkward safety & ridiculous muzzleflash/recoil being major strikes against the M-N. vs

animated gifs found at:www.armscenter.com/supremeox/icons.html
Link Posted: 12/14/2002 8:54:34 AM EST
M1 Garand gets you respect. Just about everybody has an SKS.
The better Yugo models go for about 120-200 dollars these days. I've seen new Garands for 600-1000 dollars. The en bloc clip of the M Garand is alot better design than 10-round stripper clips.

Garand has much better sights. And I don't think the '94 AWB applies to it, as the magazine isn't removable. So you can have your flash suppressor and bayonet and whatnot, and have it new.

SKS vs. M1 Carbine? M1 Carbine is lighter, and not as loud. Ammo is generally more expensive though, as not many governments use .30 Carbine anymore. Wolf make 7.62x39mm Russian ammo for $2.00 a box. That's ten cents a bullet.

Both SKS and M1 Carbine are very fun little guns to shoot. I love both of them.
Link Posted: 12/14/2002 9:59:57 AM EST

Originally Posted By guardian855:
Only thing I can think of the SKS might have an advantage is faster rate of controlled fire. It takes a little bit longer to return the Garand to the point where you can fire it again with any semblance of accuracy. Also if you stuck a 30 round AK mag on it (like the one I have) then I would probably pick up the SKS instead of the Garand, but not if it had the internal 10 round magazine.



Controlled fire?

If you stuck a 20 round mag on a M1 you pretty much get a M14. So are we then comparing a SKS with a AK mag to a M14?

Anything said against the M1 Garand is blasphemy

Kid of like comparing a classic Corvette to a Conquest Tsi.


Sure the Tsi can hang....for a second
Link Posted: 12/14/2002 10:34:04 AM EST
SKS is cheap and easy and fun to fire

and i love their folding bayonets.

Link Posted: 12/14/2002 11:34:25 AM EST
Hmmmm

I also have both.

MY SKS shoots ten cent ammo.

My M1 shoos fifty cent ammo...


Guess which one I shoot more!
Link Posted: 12/14/2002 2:41:47 PM EST
The M1 Garand will shoot farther and more accurately than the SKS.
The 165 grain Armor Piercing 30-06 Round will out penetrate anything in 7.62x39mm

Link Posted: 12/14/2002 6:13:35 PM EST
I like hearing KLANG! and I was spoiled by the Garand's sights. I shot a friends SKS a little while back and couldn't believe the sights were so crummy. I'm not sure how much the ammo costs, but it may be slightly less expensive to blast with an SKS.
Link Posted: 12/14/2002 7:03:26 PM EST
Everybody else here have just about summed up all the differences. Not too much to add except that the SKS is a very deadly weapon in combat. I saw them used in Vietnam. A lot of the Vietcong used them. They were effective and robust. The sonofbitches could reload those stripper clips in a firefight faster than you blink you eye.

I brought one back as a war trophy.

I think that for their cheap price they are the most effective battle rifle you can buy. I would not compare them to a M1. I don't think they compare to anything except maybe those French semi-autos.
Link Posted: 12/14/2002 7:57:49 PM EST
(Apply Fire Retardant)
I think the current batch of Garands are overpriced. Considered economically, the SKS is a much better buy. For the price of a new Garand, I would buy a M1A.
Link Posted: 12/15/2002 8:19:12 AM EST
I'd take the M1.
Link Posted: 12/15/2002 8:27:38 AM EST
Evry time I have ever given one of my Garands to someone else to shoot at the range (wh has never fired an M1) the response has been "Damn. I got to get me one of these!"

Nobody has ever done that when shooting one of my SKS rifles.

Link Posted: 12/15/2002 9:04:35 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/15/2002 9:07:11 AM EST by MouseGun87]
Rapid controlled fire? Have you shot a Garand in a CMP match? Then and only then you can get a full appreciation of what a Garand can do in a sustained rapid fire mode in a hand of a capable "rifleman". Just because one owns AR15, AK and SKS and regularly go to the range to shoot hundreds rounds of ammo from the bench or bump firing .... does not automatically qualify him the term "rifleman". The Garand is a rifle for riflemen. Period. A good rifleman can shoot at least 10 rounds of well aimed fire undeer 60 seconds and hit a 12" diameter target ring from 200 yards either from prone position, kneeling or sitting .... and not from the bench! I saw how SKS shot in a 200 yard match .... it did not come even close to the accuracy of a Garand. Heck, in that one match, 1st and 3rd place was taken by a Master and Expert high power shooter shooting ... Chinese AK (polytech and norinco). While 2nd place was taken by a gentleman shooting an SVT-40. One of the SKS shooters was a Master qualified high power competitor, so he knew how to shoot and he was shooting good brass-cased PMC ammo to boot.

Garand vs SKS ? ... c'mon ...
Link Posted: 12/15/2002 1:54:18 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/15/2002 2:02:24 PM EST by FALShootist]
The real advantage of the sks over the garand other than weight or lack of it, is the sks has two more rounds, it can be topped off and does not have to be run dry.

Finally, if you have an sks, you have all of it all you need it is a bag or box of ammo and you are ready to go. It always has its complete magazine no retarded 8 round clips to go missing when you need them.

The SKS has always been under priced and thats one reason why it gets little respect in this country. The M1 garand has always been over priced.

Me, I'll take an SKS any day. If I want a garand type actio I'll go with the M14 /M1A1.
Link Posted: 12/15/2002 2:49:23 PM EST

Originally Posted By FALShootist:

The SKS has always been under priced and thats one reason why it gets little respect in this country. The M1 garand has always been over priced.



What do you mean by the SKS being "under priced"? Do you mean that it's a great value - in that they are worth more than they are priced at - or do you just mean that they are inexpensive.

No to start a pissing match, but I always though the reason the SKS got little respect was that (1) it was a cheaper cousin of the detachable-mag AK clone and (2) it is a roughly engineered, sloppily manufactured product, and (3) the less powerful cartridge that it shares with the AKs.

I totally agree that the Garand costs more than an SKS, but $400 for a CMP rifle is pretty damn cheap, and I think that merely reflects the higher build quality of the Garand, not some grotesque overpricing. I would never buy one of the new garands - those ARE overpriced.

Link Posted: 12/15/2002 4:21:34 PM EST
I think the SKS is a great value. They came into the country in their original form unlike so many of our post ban favorites that have been cut apart and rebuilt with US compliance parts.

The SKS always works and works well. It has good practical accuracy. I think they make a great woods gun that will do most any thing the shooter wants. I find that many of the non computer literate shooters who aren't on the boards are using the SKS in a manner their grandfathers used to use the Winchester 94, (east coast woods deer and boar gun).

Don't get me wrong I think the M1 Garand is a fantastic piece of American military history. Their just not a practical working or woods gun. Nobody wants to see their collectors piece wear out, break or get scratched or bounced of of rocks. Consequently, they end up as safe queen or on the range.

The SKS will take far more abuse than the average rifleman will ever give it and if it gets banged on the rocks or dropped in the mud you just rinse it off in the nearest stream, re oil and move on without a second thought to ruin your trip.

Americans think every gun thats inexpensive is a piece of shit (of course many are) and everthing expensive most be great. The SKS has a forged receiver like the Garand and unlike some of the other over priced steel stamped foreign guns that Americans love to brag about.

I doubt you will ever see a bargain like the SKS again. Sort of like Enfields and Mausers 35 years ago when they were giving them away.
Link Posted: 12/15/2002 4:55:45 PM EST
Well, here is my 2 cents worth, I have an M1, only one right now because one went over the side of a boat in a hunting accident and one died a spectacular death when I let a friend borrow it and he decided he could feed it his hottest reloads

I love my M1, I can hit accurately with it at over 800 yards, with standard sights, I hunt with it with it's sights out to 600 yards, I also have a SKS, I am not overly fond of it, I have had both models, fixed and removeable mags, and I do prefer the fixed mag more. But everall I find them crude.

Now, I also own a VZ52/57 It sort of looks like a SKS and has similar working parts, but is far better made, and uses the same cartridge.

My VZ52/57 is my sweeties SHTF weapon, and my M1 is mine, the SKS will be left behind....

Of course, a good M14 is nice too...
Link Posted: 12/15/2002 5:07:43 PM EST
M1 Garand, an American legend, Full power round, Best sights ever put on a combat arm, The only gun I can hit with @ 400+ yards with Iron sights. The Average Garand can shoot less than MOA.

SKS, Intermediate power round, Crappy sights, 4 to 6MOA (At Least the 4 I have owned).
Good for work up to about 150 Yards.

Both are super reliable, But the trick to the Garand is it is super reliable & very accurate, 2 things that are very hard to come by in a combat arm.
Link Posted: 12/15/2002 5:37:10 PM EST
Tactical, The situations you described is just what I'm talking about. I love my SKS, its one of my favorite guns. But I won't be all that pissed if it goes over board. I'd hate to lose or blow up any gun but I'd much rather it was my $100 SKS and not a $500+ rifle like an M1.
Link Posted: 12/15/2002 8:11:46 PM EST
get both.
Link Posted: 12/16/2002 9:58:06 AM EST
I have a standard M1 Garand and love it. I just got a tanker Garand that is a lot of fun with a scout scope. However I don't understand why a person would even compare an SKS to an M1. If you want med-long target/hunting rifle get the M1. If you want a fairly accurate blasting, woods gun get an AK. What’s the point of an SKS? Get a cheap SAR-1 and blast away. The only advantage the AK/SKS guns could have is in capacity, without the 30 rounds, it is laughable to compare them.

Get an M1, and trade the SKS for an AK. Have fun.
Link Posted: 12/16/2002 12:40:40 PM EST
I would rather have an SKS stolen out of my truck than one of my M1's.

The SKS would be a great all-purpose self defense rifle with a few modifications: decent rear aperture, longer buttstock, shorter barrel, and some sort of effective bolt hold-open device.

While the M1 is comforting, it is a bit long and heavy for a general short to medium range self defense role.
Link Posted: 12/16/2002 1:04:44 PM EST
Don't have a M1 (yet). Have an SKS. Bought the SKS for "power plinking" -- basically shooting the crap out of whatever excess computer hardware/old appliances etc I can come up with and haul out to the range.

FOTBR
Link Posted: 12/16/2002 3:27:27 PM EST
did you hire a local diver to find it? I would have for an M1
I love my M1, but may be buying an SKS too just yo have one since they're easy on the budget

Originally Posted By TacticalPenguin:
Well, here is my 2 cents worth, I have an M1, only one right now because one went over the side of a boat in a hunting accident
Link Posted: 12/25/2002 6:31:08 PM EST
You are trying to compare apples to oranges! I have and love my Russian SKS,but would no way try and compare it to my M1 Grand.

You want to compare a rifle(carbine)of equal status you need to take an SKS with 154grn bullet,and a win mod 94 with a 150grn bullet!

Then you might get a good comparison!

But if you want to match the M1 you had better get a SVT-40,Hawkim 8MM,Lungman,or MG13,or maybe BAR!

Otherwise you are just not in the same league!

But an SKS,or AK will probably give a model 94 winchester all it can handle up to 170 grn then all bets are off!

Bob
Link Posted: 12/25/2002 6:42:06 PM EST
Like some of the guys said this comparison doesnt make any sense. A better comparison would be a 98k and an M1.

The SKS was made for uneducated poorly trained soldiers. Designed for it to be cheap and easy to make. A M1 in good shape is a piece of art. The problem is that to get the same sustained firepower you need a TRAINED Rifleman. A common commie soldier is not going to able to this. I dont think many run of the mill GIs could do this. They had M14s going full auto on the history channel. These guys were pros and only they could shoot the M14 in full auto and hit anything. The common Vietnam era grunt couldnt hit a damn thing. Not to mention all that ammo is heavy!
Link Posted: 12/25/2002 7:13:12 PM EST
Order a Danish Lend Lease gun (M1 Garand) from the ODCMP. $400.00
You will be buying an incredibly accurate rifle and a fine piece of history. Love to shoot @ distance.
SKS just plain fun.
Do the Cruffler thing and buy both.
Link Posted: 12/26/2002 4:19:52 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/26/2002 7:09:00 AM EST by FALShootist]
I love hearing how the sks and other commie weapons were junk designed for uneducated plowboys and peasants. Yes indeed, history changes everything. To read these posts you would think US weapons were designed to be used by rocket scientist. Think again. The SKS has a forged and milled receiver just like the M1. Thats one of the reasons (not the only one) it was replaced by the AK (which was substantially easier to manufacture).

At the time of the M1's adoption, most americans still lived in rural parts of the country. The highest education they had was high school. Many never graduated as they went to work to help support their families.

And training, during times of war the US pushes the men into battle as soon as they can get them through boot camp. The length of which is determined by how serious the need is at the front.

All governments look for weapons that are as soldier and idiot proof as possible and easy and cheap to manufacture (except maybe the French and God knows what they were thinking about with some of their past designs). Both the M1 and the SKS excel at what they were designed to do, take care of the man carrying them and kill his enemy reliably when subjected to little maintenance, and both were replaced by modern selective fire weapons that do the same.
Link Posted: 12/26/2002 9:46:20 AM EST
I dont think that you can compare the rifle training that an average Marine receives with that of Charlie. Also the tolerances are a lot tighter on the M1. But FAL you are correct, I have seen some nice milled SKSs. A good comparison is to work the bolts on a Swiss Mauser and a commie Yugo Mauser. The Swiss action glides like glass and the commie one goes clunk clunk but shoots everytime.
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 5:44:14 PM EST

Originally Posted By FALShootist:
The real advantage of the sks over the garand other than weight or lack of it, is the sks has two more rounds, it can be topped off and does not have to be run dry.

Finally, if you have an sks, you have all of it all you need it is a bag or box of ammo and you are ready to go. It always has its complete magazine no retarded 8 round clips to go missing when you need them.

The SKS has always been under priced and thats one reason why it gets little respect in this country. The M1 garand has always been over priced.

Me, I'll take an SKS any day. If I want a garand type actio I'll go with the M14 /M1A1.




If you ever saw the oswald rifle magazine paper that he ordered it from,his italian rifle was pretty cheap but right above his rifle was a M1 Grand listing in 1963 at 98.00!

They have only gotten higher in resale by proportunate need to have one!

Bob
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 9:45:55 PM EST
It all depends on who's gonna be using them. If I were arming a group of untrained city-slickers:SKS.
If I were arming a group of country-boy shooters:M1 Garand.
I'd send my SKS guys in a human wave attack, utilizing my Garand armed soldiers to fire effectively from farther ranges.
Link Posted: 1/6/2003 5:35:07 PM EST

Originally Posted By garr:
M1 Garand, an American legend, Full power round, Best sights ever put on a combat arm, The only gun I can hit with @ 400+ yards with Iron sights. The Average Garand can shoot less than MOA.



The M1 Garand is a wonderful rifle with excellent accuracy potential, but 1 MOA is ridiculous. A carefully match tuned M1 can do 1 MOA with good handloads or maybe top-flight factory ammunition such as Federal Gold Medal Match. The all service grade M1s can consistently put everything inside 4 MOA guaranteed, most will go half of that, a few will do a bit better without match tuning.

It's not MOA, but MOA is sniper rifle accuracy. 2-4 MOA is plenty for a battle rifle, that keeps all shots on the torso at 400 yards, worst case, 800 yards best case. That is MORE than enough.
Link Posted: 1/6/2003 6:30:04 PM EST
DID SOMEONE SAY,"M1 GARAND?"
Link Posted: 1/6/2003 6:38:26 PM EST
Top Top