SKS vs. M1 Carbine

[Josh Smith]

Hello,

I got this idea from another board and thought it may be fun here.

There were predominately two carbines in use in WWII and Korea: The Soviet designed SKS with its 7.62x39mm cartridge and the US designed M1 Carbine with its .30 carbine, or 7.62x33mm, cartridge.

The M1 Carbine and the SKS were both combat accurate carbines. While the SKS only held 10 rounds, the M1 Carbine held 15 in a detachable magazine. Both were quick to reload.

The real practical difference, in my opinion, is the cartridge fired:

The SKS fired a 7.62x39mm round loaded with a 123gr spitzer bullet at around 2,410fps.

The M1 Carbine fired a .30 caliber round (metric 7.62x33mm) with a bullet weighing 110gr at around 1,190fps.

If you had to pick one to use in a defensive situation (think Katrina here), which would it be?

Assume military ammo only, no hollowpoints. Both can have bayonets.

I personally think I would have to take the SKS, but only because of its ballistics. Properly fitted with a stock extender, I do like the M1 Carbine quite a bit, and almost bought one instead of the SKS. The only reason I did not was because the one I could find was an old, beat up example that the owner wanted $1,000 for due to it having been in his family since World War I ( ??? ) I walked. I do still plan to get one however.

My vote goes to the SKS and plenty of stripper clips due to its ammunition. What's your choice?

Josh <><

[quicksdraw]

I have to agree with you on this one. I've owned both an SKS and an M1 carbine and I prefer the SKS as a defensive weapon. I admit that my preference is based on personal experience rather than serious study, but I feel better equipped with the SKS than the M1 carbine.
That having been said, if my butt is on the line, give me an AK with a whole sh**load of full magazines!!!!

[Disposable Heart]

Look at what each weapon was designed for. The SKS is handy, but still large. It had a role at one time as a battle rifle, not just a carbine, but a main line weapon, unfortunately replaced by the AK. The M1 Carbine was designed as a light weapon for back area troops. It didnt "need" a big cartridge or similar because it was designed to have very very low weight (especially compared to the SKS). Either weapon will do well, considering SHOT PLACEMENT! This will soon degerate into another "whats a better caliber" war. Learn the weapon back and front and learn to combat with it. Wont matter what caliber it is then.

The weapons themselves: SKSs have fixed mags. Not terrible, however, there has yet a detachable (even the Tapcos, which I sold off to a mall ninja as fast as I got them) mag made that is reliable 100% of the time with the SKS. All M1 mags (even the foriegn contract ones) are reliable, cheap and can be easier to tote (no crazy bill hanging off the front), not to mention higher capacity. The SKS may have more range than the M1, but accuracy out to a combative distance would be almost equivalent. Downrange energy, well, thats for the physics profs to decide. While neither weapon has alot of "recoil", the M1 could theoretically stay on target easier and would be more controllable shooting some starving criminal rapidly. The rate of fire (semi) would be more accurate with an M1, but the SKSs cartridge would have more oomph at close range.

As for cost, only collectors are the ones commanding such high amounts on the M1 because it has all the parts from one company or what not. I hate that with a passion. So what if it has all the original parts from the Rockola company? Does it shoot? Then Ill give you the real world value for the gun, not someone drummed up by people that never shoot and think of weapons as commodities rather than critical assets. Someone comes up to me and spews how much their gun is worth because its a "X" (X being whatever made up value the weapon is percieved to have) will only get a so what from me. Just shoot the darn thing!

I wouldnt have too much of a preference towards one or another. Neither uses a cartridge that I would consider reliable in supply (you can get them both, but one is mostly from import sources, some american. The other is in limited supply, but available still from the CMP at the worst situation). I would probably go with the M1, seeing as I would have to tote the gun, plus in Katrina, there wasnt much firing anyways (there was some shooting, but limited). The weapon would be more of a deterrrant (the original idea for the M1) than a piece of weapon.

[Michiana]

Not sure about a M1 Carbine vs a SKS used for defense if someone wants to break into your house but if they try it at mine they will be met by me with my rebuilt M1Carbine Paratrooper style rifle and it is a mean looking and nice shooting rifle. I rebuilt it several years ago from a old carbine my uncle left me and most of the parts are new. Still have the standard stock and everything that goes with it. Thought the group would enjoy taking a peek at my work of art.

[Justus]

SKS is definitely the better value.
I had an SKS and sold it to fund another purchase.

I like the M1 Carbine over the SKS.
I've wanted one since I was a kid.
Back then, they were inexpensive and ammo was available everywhere, cheap.
Auto Ordnance is manufacturing them again, I doubt there will be a revival,
prices are too close to an AR.

[Indy_Guy_77]

For ease of storage and portability, I think that I'd take the M-1 "paratrooper" model/ Especially if this was strictly for defensive purposes.

Now, for a more offensive mindset (hah!), I may very well go to the SKS due to it's more powerful cartridge.

-J-

[Michiana]

The way I figure it if, God forbid I ever had to use it for self-defense it would probably be at a few yards, not one hundred. I have a Springfield 03-A3 if it comes to that and there is not much more stopping power than a 30-06. The paratrooper model looks mean and gives the message don't screw with me. Bottom line guys we own these guns because we like guns, like to shoot them, look at them, and brag about them. I doubt any of us will ever have to use any of them against another human being.

Unless you are a real collector and want a complete M1 Carbine with all origonal parts from the same maker you can walk the gun shows like I did and rebuild a old one. Mine looks great and shoots great and that is what it is all about.

[shooter521]

I've fired several variants of both weapons over the years, and based on that experience, I gotta say M1 Carbine, hands down. It's lighter and more compact, has better sights and trigger (IMO), lower recoil, and a detachable mag of higher capacity. All that more than makes up for any perceived deficiency in "stopping power". Besides, the .30M1 round has similar ballistics to the .357Mag fired from a carbine - nothing to sneeze at for typical CQB/urban combat type applications.

[Michiana]

I know Justus had a few posts concerning assult rifles. My question to the group is what would the police classify a M1Carbine Paratrooper rifle? If it is classified as an assult rifle does it get a pass because it is pre XXX? Mine has been rebuilt to the point that very little is origonal anymore. What % of a rifle needs to be origonal to pass the smell test for being built before XXX, therefore is not under the assult rifle rules?

[Zephri]

Wait, that ban expired.