Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: Luckygunner: M1 carbine "vs" SKS

  1. #1
    So blanking over it awp_101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    DFW

    Luckygunner: M1 carbine "vs" SKS

    M1 Carbine versus SKS: Milsurp Showdown

    I tried to embed the video but there's no way I can find so there's the link.
    Do the right thing. It will gratify some people and astonish the rest. - Mark Twain

    Blog with cool stuff

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by awp_101 View Post
    M1 Carbine versus SKS: Milsurp Showdown


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

  3. #3
    King Prawn Guerrero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    The 414
    Quote Originally Posted by awp_101 View Post
    M1 Carbine versus SKS: Milsurp Showdown

    I tried to embed the video but there's no way I can find so there's the link.
    Oversimplification is a very efficient way to make yourself stupid.

  4. #4
    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

  5. #5
    Member Phaedrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Location
    Big Sky Country
    Both seem equally useless but a well done video.
    I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned. - Richard Feynman
    When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor, they call me a communist.- Archbishop Helder Cāmara

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Tokarev View Post
    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.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by MandoWookie View Post
    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

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Tokarev View Post
    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.

  9. #9
    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.
    Code Name: JET STREAM

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Watson View Post
    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.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •