SKS or M1 Garand

[dude]

..............iffin any of you had a nice shorty SKS like my 'Cowboy Companion' there would be alot more votes for the SKS!! With the shorter barrel and no heavy bayo she handles like my M 16 did in the Army. I do have a nice .308 Garand but would quickly bypass it and grab my SKS (with it's 140 rounds in stripper clips) if I ever 'needed' a rifle.

 

[cracked butt]

I would suggest getting the Garand through the CMP route- get a Service grade rifle for about $500. If you find you don't like it (I couldn't imagine anyone NOT liking the garand) you would have no problem selling it for more than you payed for it.
Downsides-
-You will need to reload for it, or pay alot for the match or rare surplus ammo out there.
-You can't simply go to Walmart and pick up a box of 30-06hunting ammo and expect the rifle to fire the whole box without breaking something.
Upsides-
Great sights
Lots of aftermarket barrels and accuracy upgrades to make the rifle very accurate if you have the desire and money to do so.
Will never lose its value and certainly will increase in value
Gtes alot of respect at the rifle range
SKS- Not an expert on these, don't own one, but have shot a few.
Upsides-
Cheap
Cheap and readily available ammo
lots of fun to shoot
Downsides-
sights are not the greatest but definately servicable
Often maligned by misinformed/misguided folks as being an evil assault rifle and is often the subject of proposed bans.

 

[Khornet]

telewinz,

the rain thing, like the "7th round stoppage", was a teething problem for the M1. The solution was dirt simple: good grease. This is where Lubriplate came in. No further problem. M1 worked in Korea when nothing else would, also. Between the two weapons, reliability is not an advantage for one or the other.

 

[jem375]

All you have to do is just shoot the garand against the SKS at any distance, and the conclusion would be to buy the garand........I have 2 garands and 2 SKS's, and there is no comparison between the 2.....I would pick the garand, there are only 2 rounds difference between two unless you have a model D......garand is much more accurate....

 

[TrapperReady]

I voted Garand.

My reasoning is...

1) I'm very familiar and comfortable with the Garand's operation and maintenance needs.
2) I really, really like the sights.
3) I can shoot quite accurately out past 300 yards with one.
4) My father used one throughout WWII (ETO), in all kinds of engagements (heavy forest, open farmland, house-to-house). One two occasions, he was issued something else (a 1903A4 and an M1 Carbine), and in both cases, he "lost" or traded them for a Garand. Good enough for Pop, good enough for me.

Then again, I'd be most comfortable with an M16-series rifle, as that's what I trained with.

 

[VG]

If the Garand design was so good, why did none of the major powers adopt it's unique(?) features? It wouldn't fire semi-auto in a rain storm, thats hardly the stuff legends are made of. It was a good, robust MBR but their are alot of military rifles that can make the same claim to fame. As you say, the Garand was designed to fight WWI as was the BAR but the BAR outlasted the Garand didn't it?

Japan cloned the Garand but never got it into production. The Germans, like the USMC, thought riflemen would be prodigal with ammo and shied away from a semi-auto infantry rifle until later in the war.

Very early testing reported problems with rain soak, completely solved with the issue of Plastilube and the use of Lubriplate 130A, still on the market today as a water-resistant lubricant

The USMC evaluated rifles in December 1940 and officially picked the M1903 Springfield, but noted the Garand was servicable. None of the weapons tested, semiauto or not, did very well after being immersed in sand and salt water.

We couldn't produce enogh for our own needs before the war. But a large number of countries used the Garand after the war, including Italian produced rifles and Danish rifles. The Danish arsenal (VAR) produced many parts postwar into the 60's, including excellent barrels, and the Italians made receivers as well.

General Hatcher's "Book of the Garand" details the development of this amazing rifle, including the many development problems, and their solution.

When Garand-equipped Army units hit Quadalcanal to relieve the M1903-equipped Marines, the firepower and reliability the weapon delivered forced the Marine brass to drop their choice of the M1903 as their standard weapon. One would guess that the battle veterans of that tropical hellhole wouldn't be very enthusiastic about a rifle that wouldn' function in the rain, no?

The BAR was an amazing weapon, but both the BAR and Garand were replaced after Korea. Replacements for both were already being evaluated when Korea popped up.

Below - A Danish Naval Garand - note Anchor on sight cover

 

[JohnKSa]

To no one in particular...

In the first line of the initial post, telewinz states:

I've been reading a few posts lately about the SKS and Garand and since I own one or more of each

One might, therefore, logically assume that he is not asking advice on which to purchase.

I'm obviously not the "posting police" so this isn't anything more than a friendly suggestion--you could call it a rant, but there's not enough emotion behind it to qualify. Here goes:

If a person finds his time is too valuable to waste reading a question then, logically, it's also too valuable to waste typing out an answer. IMO, when one finds that he has such a lack of interest in a particular topic it would probably be wise to leave that thread alone and go on to one where there IS an interest level high enough to actually warrant reading it. This approach will give a reasonable chance at posting something relevant.

As you were...