SKS or Garand

Garand...better sights, effective range, looks, legal 8 round capacity for Canadians.

SKS is fun, for $200 and cheap ammo you cannot really go wrong BUT the sights are meh and so is the effective range...if AKs were legal SKS' would only be for the poor or for the backup/trunk gun.

Sure you can mod the SKS...but it usually looks like POOP and the guys doing it are adding cheap NC Star s### to it mostly so it is reallyyy an upgrade? To me...to get the most out of an SKS you need to add a full length stock, and NOT some TAPCO-y thing, add a rear peep sight and possibly a thinner front post and shoot better ammo, ie. like MFS or anything that is "new" and non corrosive, added bonus of no short time frame where you NEED to clean the gun this way too.

It also helps to actually AIM the gun and not hip/bump fire it only. :p.

---

So for $200, you'd be a fool not to buy BOTH guns!!!

For $1,500, you'd be a fool to spent that on an SKS!!!
 
Last edited:
I have never even held a garand. How ever. I originally was going to get an m14 and a sks. After shooting the sks and a friends m14 I canceled my pre order m14.
For me the sks was a better experience and I didn't think I would shoot the m14.

So I agree with the op, in a cost is the same comparison I would still pick the sks warts and all because it's much more fun for me. Plus the ammon is way cheaper.
 
.30/06 FTW said:
My Garand was made 2 years after my SKS. What does that make her? :p
Click to expand...

It's a year of design what matters :) Any more or less decent firearm adopted by any major army but designed later will always be better in design. It's not correct to compare firearm from different period, but it's the nature of the progress - later models in most cases will be more robust, more reliable and will include the best ideas of all previous models. So I would pick SKS just for this reason. I have no sentiments for both SKS and Garands at all. In the same way I would prefer AK over SKS. And Galil over AK and so on..
 
Last edited:
For me it would be the Garand, no question. Accurate. A-C-C-U-R-A-T-E. Powerful. GREAT adjustable sights, not to mention 8 round legal, .

The SKS is a fun little plinker, but the Garand is a rifle. Don't get me wrong, I love my SKSs but in a situation that actually "mattered" it would be the Garand, every time. Gong hits at 500 yds are pretty easy with a Garand, not so much with 7.62x39 SKS.

The biggest advantage an SKS has is the availability of cheap commie milsurp ammo. If the cheap ammo ever dries up the SKS won't be nearly so attractive.
 
Actually when I bought my m1 garand in the 1980's they were the same price. At that time one could still get cheaper US ball ammo. Brass is way easier to pick up after a M1 than sks as my m1 puts it all in a fairly small spot and the sks throws it everywhere. The m14/ M305 are not built nearly as nice as a Springfield made M1.
 
If it's for getting food or self-defense, Garand. For these uses, it wouldn't matter if ammo is $20 a round. If you need it you need it.

If it's for plinking, then SKS. If you're just playing around, why not blast through some cheap ammo.
 
I have SKS and M1A Springfield.
SKS is more accurate than AK-47. It looks nice with bayonet. This is cerimonial rifle of all Kremlin gurard. Cheap 7.62x39 ammo is all around.
This is easy to clean, reliable.

It less accurate than Garand, 30.06 also is plenty of power, good for any type of big game.

The only reason why I still do not have Garand is they are so damn expensive. I would buy one if I found one under $800 in good condition for sure. But while it costs $1500+, thank you, I will shot my M1A and other nice stuff.
Compare that with SKS which costs under $200. The price does not mean SKS is a piece of crap. This is honest, reliable, commie rifle built with war in mind.

This is SKS manual, all in Russian but google translate helps http://coollib.net/b/220958/read
Pictures at the end are real fun ;)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom