Luckygunner: M1 carbine "vs" SKS

[awp_101]

M1 Carbine versus SKS: Milsurp Showdown (https://www.luckygunner.com/lounge/m1-carbine-versus-sks-milsurp-showdown/?utm_source=LG+Lounge&utm_campaign=dbe8d0a929-RSS_LG_Lounge&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_e40b2a6d44-dbe8d0a929-293702561&mc_cid=dbe8d0a929&mc_eid=f8db14d521)

I tried to embed the video but there's no way I can find so there's the link.:rolleyes:

[MandoWookie]

M1 Carbine versus SKS: Milsurp Showdown (https://www.luckygunner.com/lounge/m1-carbine-versus-sks-milsurp-showdown/?utm_source=LG+Lounge&utm_campaign=dbe8d0a929-RSS_LG_Lounge&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_e40b2a6d44-dbe8d0a929-293702561&mc_cid=dbe8d0a929&mc_eid=f8db14d521)


I tried to embed the video but there's no way I can find so there's the link.:rolleyes:

See all this video did was make me want to buy both. And cry for the days when that would have cost less than 1000 rounds of 9mm does right now

[Guerrero]

M1 Carbine versus SKS: Milsurp Showdown (https://www.luckygunner.com/lounge/m1-carbine-versus-sks-milsurp-showdown/?utm_source=LG+Lounge&utm_campaign=dbe8d0a929-RSS_LG_Lounge&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_e40b2a6d44-dbe8d0a929-293702561&mc_cid=dbe8d0a929&mc_eid=f8db14d521)

I tried to embed the video but there's no way I can find so there's the link.:rolleyes:


https://youtu.be/zyPKMMZ7yiM

[Tokarev]

I've said it before. I'll say it again. US Army Ordnance had a good thing going without realizing how close they were.

Had they based the M1 Carbine around something like a .351 SLR necked down to .25-.27 they'd really have been on to something.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[Phaedrus]

Both seem equally useless but a well done video.

[MandoWookie]

I've said it before. I'll say it again. US Army Ordnance had a good thing going without realizing how close they were.

Had they based the M1 Carbine around something like a .351 SLR necked down to .25-.27 they'd really have been on to something.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

Or just kept developing from their experiments with the .25 Remington during the lead up to the Garand. The Model 8 wasn't suitable as a military rifle, but their own studies showed how promising a SCHV round was back in the 20s. Keep the M1 ball round as the MG standard, and the SCHV for everything else, and you could have gone into WW2 with the same kind of high-low caliber system we use today. Would have been less of a logistical nightmare than the historical setup was.

[Tokarev]

Or just kept developing from their experiments with the .25 Remington during the lead up to the Garand. The Model 8 wasn't suitable as a military rifle, but their own studies showed how promising a SCHV round was back in the 20s. Keep the M1 ball round as the MG standard, and the SCHV for everything else, and you could have gone into WW2 with the same kind of high-low caliber system we use today. Would have been less of a logistical nightmare than the historical setup was.Yes although I think there's more to it than just the cartridge. Detachable box mag, small size and lightweight design and, later, capability of full-auto fire.

.276 Pedersen was no doubt a move in the right direction but it was still more a full-power rifle cartridge. At least as I understand it.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[MandoWookie]

Yes although I think there's more to it than just the cartridge. Detachable box mag, small size and lightweight design and, later, capability of full-auto fire.

.276 Pedersen was no doubt a move in the right direction but it was still more a full-power rifle cartridge. At least as I understand it.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

The .276 was decided on as being the most powerful round they could feasibly get to work in a rifle that was the same weight as the Springfield 03.
Pedersen convinced them that if they wanted something in 30'06 that meet all of their requirements they could end up waiting for maybe 20 years and never have something satisfactory, but he could make something that would be combat ready in only a few years.
The Army had already done testing with smaller caliber rifles with a bunch of modified Model 8s in .25 Remington, and ( if I recall correctly) the guys running that program recommended considering something in a similar caliber, but with box mags and possibly full auto as a new infantry rifle, because the effectiveness of just semi in the more manageable caliber over bolt actions were pronounced, even when both only held five rounds that were stripped loaded.
But Ordnance ballistic testing of calibers between .25 and .30 showed that the .25 lost too much steam past 300yds compared to everything else. Even though their was a cadre of folks in the Army who pointed out that for individual riflemen that was also about the limit of what someone could realistically see an enemy to engage, so having more power was unnecessary waste, but the power was needed for the MG doctrine of the time, so they were overruled.
The Pedersen round had the same basic external ballistics as M2 ball, so it would minimize training issues and would have been an acceptable compromise as an MG round.

Then Garand was able to demonstrate you could get 06 to work within, more or less, the weight and size restrictions, and so they went with that instead.

Edit to add: BTW my reference for this is The Book of the Garand by Julian Hatcher, who was an Ordnance officer through most of that period.

[Jim Watson]

P.O. Ackley had a guest writer who was the doctor at animal tests of automatic rifles.
He said the real killer was the .256 Pedersen, an obscure variant.

[MandoWookie]

P.O. Ackley had a guest writer who was the doctor at animal tests of automatic rifles.
He said the real killer was the .256 Pedersen, an obscure variant.

I think that might have been one of the tests Hatcher was referencing. He just said that the Army tested calibers between .25 and .30, and though lethality was superior on the .25, the long range ballistics were poor, and beyond, I think 200 yds, the larger calibers had better 'killing potential '. So they split the difference with the .276.

[Ed L]

Here is a photo of my M1 Carbine compared to my "paratrooper" SKS. The so-called paratrooper SKS was never used by Chinese paratroopers, but was a version made for US import. It has a fixed 10 round magazine and a 16.5" barrel. It is compact, but when compared to the M1 carbine it is heavy. But it uses a more powerful cartridge. I think it makes much more sense as a 16.5" barrel than the 20" barrel of a standard SKS. But the M-1 carbine is light, slim, and handy with minimal recoil and blast compared to the SKS.

76434

[UNM1136]

I've owned both. My paratrooper SKS actually took AK mags. My now stolen M1 was a 1943 General Motors. I would give my left nut to get the M1 back. Don't miss the SKS, even though a buddy in the 24th STS was attending school at KAFB and held an impromptu class on manipulating that rifle in ways that maxamized its usefulness in a fight.

I have hunted mule deer and Barbary Sheep with both. And at 16 years old I learned how the sear worked, and in theory could have used a twist tie off of a loaf of bread violate some laws. I could also afford, while making $3.50 an hour, to dump 30 round mags for fun.

pat

[Borderland]

I think if someone were looking at buying either one they should consider the ammo situation. Not just what it is now but what it might be in the future. 7.62x39 may be going away or might become a lot more expensive than it is now. I'm seeing prices going up just in the last week. Not quite as expensive as 30 carbine ammo now but it will be soon. There is still mil surplus 30 carbine hitting the market occasionally from places like S Korea and Aquilla (MX) makes it constantly.

I load 30 carbine just for fun. I bought thousands of bullets years ago when they were about 0.12. Like everything else the price has doubled and supply is thin.

[Phaedrus]

Yeah, the calculus has changed for X39 guns if there's no workaround for the ban on cheap Russian ammo. If you have to pay brass prices then a guy might as well get an AR unless you're just a hardcore AK/SKS fan.

[revolvergeek]

I've said it before. I'll say it again. US Army Ordnance had a good thing going without realizing how close they were.

Had they based the M1 Carbine around something like a .351 SLR necked down to .25-.27 they'd really have been on to something.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

Sounds like the 5.7 Johnson Spitfire. Firearms News did an article on those a couple issues back.

[Tokarev]

Sounds like the 5.7 Johnson Spitfire. Firearms News did an article on those a couple issues back.The 30 M1 Carbine cartridge was based on Winchester's .32 SLR cartridge. The .351 was a later offshoot using a longer case and bigger bullet.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210830/29c3d7ce65db9480b4901e9660caf61a.jpg

There was one more SLR cartridge in the lineup called the .401. It could have also been a good starting point for a bottle necked wildcat. Action size and weight would have no doubt increased. Maybe these increases would negate any advantages of a Super M1 Carbine over other designs.

The 30 Carbine necked down aka Johnson Spitfire actually worked pretty well and may have been quite useful in its own right.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[revolvergeek]

The 30 M1 Carbine cartridge was based on Winchester's .32 SLR cartridge. The .351 was a later offshoot using a longer case and bigger bullet.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210830/29c3d7ce65db9480b4901e9660caf61a.jpg

There was one more SLR cartridge in the lineup called the .401. It could have also been a good starting point for a bottle necked wildcat. Action size and weight would have no doubt increased. Maybe these increases would negate any advantages of a Super M1 Carbine over other designs.

The 30 Carbine necked down aka Johnson Spitfire actually worked pretty well and may have been quite useful in its own right.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

Sorry, was just trying to cram in some forum time last night and glad to have ac and internet back again :cool:and didn't express my thoughts well. I just meant more conceptually than dimensions / performance. I would love to see what the 5.7 Spitfire did in gel testing with some modern bullet designs. Never actually seen a loaded round of ammo for it though. Same for .25 Remington.

Wildcats off the .351 / 401 had never crossed my mind because the ammo has always been so scarce. I have read a lot of references to them being useful and effective little guns but I have read that the .401 was a thumper on both ends. I actually have a couple of rounds of .32 SLR and .351 around here somewhere in my ammo collection. I'll try to find them and post a pic up later with .30 Carb and 7.62x39. Seems like a 1907 with a few extended mags would have been hard to beat around the trenches in WW!. I almost bought a 1907 from Cabela's a couple years back. They had it pretty cheap, but no magazine. When I started reading about reloading for it and having to make brass from .357 max it just sounded like more project that I had time for. Personally, I would love a modern version of the 1910 .401 that would shot 10mm out of 1911 mags.

I had several SKS Para's over the years should have kept all of the them. I had one in a Choate folding stock and the stock 10 round mag and that was really handy. Another used AK mags, but only 30 rounders. It ran like a sewing machine with them and was my go-to trunk rifle for years when I was a broke college student. I wanted to use it with the Yugo 20 rounders but I never managed to get that combo to work reliably. Only had one M1 Carb and it was an early Winchester with flip rear and a push button safety and I sold it to a friend about about 4 times what I paid for it after Saving Private Ryan came out. I had hoped to get one from a buddy's estate that he had got from the CMP years ago but it turned out to be way to collectible for my budget when we researched it.