How did the SKS perform against US troops that were using the

>>33091528
It's hard to imagine the m1 being the better rifle. The sks features make it a lot handier, lighter, and easier to use all around.
The difference would be that US troops were actually trained well.

sks. US guns are always shitty.

>>33091553
this

>>33091546
Yeah, this. The SKS was technically a better rifle, it was lighter and easier to handle. The M1 is a little awkwardly long for a service rifle, but only lightly, and only at the time. It was probably to greatest semi-auto in WW2 though, in terms of both it being THE service rifle at the time and it being a genuinely sound piece of workmanship.

The soldiers that the US sent into Korea, though, had extensive training and experience with the weapon, some of those fuckers even came from WW2 and weren't fucking around with some new fangled weapon.

>>33091528

M1 is a POS

>>33091528
Both have similar capacities and reload from clips. You sacrifice two rounds with the M1 for a shit ton more power. Recoil is similar proportionately between the two. The M1 has better sights and better long-range capability, the SKS is lighter and more maneuverable.

But, assuming we're talking only about on-flesh damage the average US male is 5'10" and about 160 lbs in 1950. The average Korean was 5'3" and 125 lbs. Smaller, less powerful bullet into a larger, more powerful man is probably less effective.

>>33091528
isn't the 7.62x39 (SKS round) more powerful than the .30 (M1 round)?

there, you got your answer

>>33091945
There's no way you're this dumb.

File: 1469414678842.gif (3MB, 281x295px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 281x295px

>>33091970
hook, line and sinker

why even reply

>>33091528
Unless I'm mistaken I dont believe the SKS was used or had extremely limited contact during Korea?

>>33091994
This. The main small arms of the Norks and Chinese were Mosins, Arisakas and the PPS/PPSh.

>>33091589
sour grapes, poorfag?

>>33091992
>hook, line and sinker
>why even reply
reconsider your life triploser

File: 7a375e93-8d65-401d-b0a8-c8d1cfb42197.jpg (26KB, 315x315px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 315x315px

>>33091553
>US guns are always shitty.
What is M1 Garand

>>33091553
>>33091589
t. slavaboos

File: 20170223_111457.jpg (2MB, 3264x1836px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x1836px

>>33091589
Ayyyyyy

>>33091528
I dont think the north koreans ever got the SKS. Neither the Russians nor the Chinese gave them those

>>33091553
In fairness, the M-16 eventually became a really good combat rifle. It only took them a few years worth of working on it and perhaps a few hundred soldiers dead in Vietnam because their rifle jammed in the middle of combat to make it happen.

>>33092693
You're right, of course, the M1 was a perfectly fine service rifle for the time, and while I do personally think the SKS is a better gun, it doesn't make the M1 a piece of shit by any stretch of the imagination.

Korea had a fair amount of long distance shots in very mountainous areas. M1 is superior at long range. SKS superior for Asian jungles etc.

File: 1487236617041.jpg (45KB, 680x377px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 680x377px

>>33091553

>>33091546
>>33091571
Every personal account and historical book I've read says the US military at the time was in complete chaos. The weapons were old, some of the machine guns had rusted out, the training was non existent, and people died as a result.

I read a few books on the Korean war while stationed in Kyrgyzstan with nothing to do. They all had the same consensus.

>>33092901
Why was that?

They had plenty of veterans from WWII.

>>33092915
After ww2 they cut the services drastically. From funding to training and readiness nobody took it seriously.

From what I read in the books there were a few officers and nco's that were veterans of ww2 but most the guys on the ground had no experience.

>>33092915
Yeah man, the average troop wasn't a ww2 veteran.

>>33091945
You're confusing M-1 carbine and M-1 Garand.

>>33092915
There was a massive demobilization after WW2. The first troops thrown into Korea were green garrison troops from places like Japan. They were trained for and expecting occupation duties, not combat under circumstances similar to the Italian campaign. The second round of reinforcements were reservists who were waiting out their inactive reserve time. These were the guys who had fought in WW2. They were pretty bitter about getting stop lossed, since they figured that they had already done their part. Iirc, it was this second group who stiffened the Pusan perimeter enough that the Norks couldn't push all the way to the sea. Overall, though, they weren't a significant percentage of US forces.

>>33091546
>The difference would be that US troops were actually trained well.
Well trained? Maybe
Well disciplined? That depends, what part of the war are we talking about? Also, what branch?
If we're talking about the beginning of the war then it doesn't really matter how the SKS performed against the M1. It was the NK armor and the lack of any real ROK or US anti-armor capability anywhere in or near the Korean peninsula coupled with undisciplined post-war draftees that was at issue.

I suppose that rucking a M1 and heavy .30-06 ammo over those steep Korean hills had its disadvantages compared to the SKS.

>>33091528
Just like the AK, I do not think the SKS was used in Korea. It was too new for the Soviets to give away.

>>33095897
This. The Russians never really committed ground troops and the Chinese didn't get the SKS until 1956, so neither they nor the North Koreans would have had it.

File: 20-chinese-personal-arms-during-the-korean-war (1).jpg (233KB, 547x363px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 547x363px

>>33096565
https://lastingtransitions.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/20-chinese-personal-arms-during-the-korean-war.jpg
https://www.flickr.com/photos/jamestung/4767940208/

>>33096762
If they did have SKS', it would have been extremely rare. That's a Chinese SKS though, so it could not have been in use in the Korean war. The sling swivel is on the bottom for a Soviet one. That one has it on the left side.

>>33091528
If any SKS rifles would have been used in Korea, it would have been very few. Now, with that aside, here's my view on it...

For SKS...
>SKS is about 1.5lb lighter even though it has the bayonet fixed and has a slightly higher capacity. If you fixed a bayonet to a loaded M1 Rifle, it'd probably be 11-12lb. Loaded SKS is less than 9lb.
>Less felt recoil means faster follow-up shots
>Smaller round means you can carry more ammo (about 50% more, I imagine)
>Slightly more compact

For M1 Rifle...
>More accurate
>Better sights
>Faster reload
>More capable of penetrating potential cover
>Has oil bottle stored in buttstock but SKS doesn't

All in all, if I had to choose between M1 or SKS, I'd go with the SKS, but I'd be quite happy with either. If only the SKS had a bolt hold-open other than the one that only functions with an empty mag (unless you opened up the floor plate and fingered the mag well). The only situation I can think of where the M1 would outperform the SKS is if the engagement is taking place over 200-300m away, and/or if the target is behind cover that a 7.62x39 couldn't penetrate but a round of .30-06 could. Also if the enemy was riding war elephants, then I think the .30-06 might be better.

>>33092629
What is M1 Garand? A rifle designed by a Canadian, of course. John Cantius Garand started working on it before gaining American citizenship.

File: 1445978978813.gif (2MB, 331x197px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 331x197px

>>33092875
goddamn that is beautiful.

>>33097818
>Also if the enemy was riding war elephants, then I think the .30-06 might be better.

.22 only brokefag here, what's the meme here?

>>33091994
This. Korean War ended 1953. PLA didn't adopt the Type FIFTY SIX Carbine until 19 FIFTY SIX.

>>33099532
It was just a joke, but hey, if it's memeworthy then so be it. M1 Rifle is a better elephant-killer than the SKS, but then again, the SKS might be so weak that it'll just penetrate into the skull but not be able to penetrate out, leading to ricochet-action. Does that sound familiar, .22-only brokefag?

>>33097841
So he started working on it before he was 12?

>>33091528
How bad was the 'ping' flaw for the M1 Garand?

Did it cost a lot of American servicemen their lives or is that a bit of a revisionist exaggeration?

File: tell-me-another-story-about-freedom.jpg (102KB, 606x601px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 606x601px

>>33102063
Everybody knows .22 bounces around inside the skull turning the brain into mush, anon.

At least, that's what all the fucking fudds say at my local range.

>tfw australian
I will taste freedom. Until then , I browse /k/, and gain strength from tales of INDEPENDENCE.

>>33102095
He got dual citizenship around 1919, after having joined Springfield Armoury, and after he had put forward his first designs. In short, he started working on the firearm that would become the M1 Rifle while he was still simply a French Canadian, before he became a French Canadian-American.

>>33102173
It's a meme. Try shooting a rifle without ear protection sometime, and then drop an en bloc clip on the ground to simulate a ping. I doubt you'd hear it, and even if you did, have someone drop the clip 100-300m away which was the average distance of combat in WWII. Even if you STILL heard it, try to hear it while bolt actions, semi-autos, SMGs, and LMGs are being fired. Toss in a few big tank engines rumbling, some cannons firing, propeller planes in the air, etc. etc.

The chances of an enemy hearing a 'ping' and singling out the one soldier out of many who heard it is even less likely than a soldier jokingly yelling "HEY KRAUT, I'M EMPTY OVER HERE!" and it catching the enemy's attention. Besides; who in their right mind reloads while not behind cover?

I know it's just a videogame, but I've put hundreds upon hundreds of hours in Rising Storm, and I've shot unknown thousands of rounds through M1 Rifles, but there was only ONE situation where the Level 50 'ping' actually worked. Iwo Jima, I was shot at while running into a bunker, took a couple shots as I watched the doorway and seen a Japanese soldier run by. Thought for a couple seconds, pressed the 'ping' button while still aiming, he ran in, and I shot him. Now that's in a videogame; how many times in the real world is a soldier going it alone? I wager; probably never in the last century. Being a soldier means working as a team, as a unit. It's not about being a 'lone wolf'. Even snipers have spotters.

>>33102183
I'm Canadian, but sure. I became a legal gun owner at 18 years old, which is when I bought a pistol as my first firearm, and got an M1 Carbine just a year or two later or so. The license I got at 18 also allows me to own SBR, no added tax needed. We also still import firearms/ammo from Russia and China. So yeah, we may not have full autos, but we have quite a bit of freedom ourselves. Oh yeah, and you can own semi-autos with even the most basic of licenses; Non-Restricted. You might even be able to get that license before you're 18 years old, provided you have parental consent, but don't hold me to that. I know a lot about Canadian firearm laws, but I don't know it all.

File: 1376886726164.png (39KB, 1021x746px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 1021x746px

>>33102234
>I bought a pistol as my first firearm

You have my gratitude, that brings a tear to my eye.

Even though you're still cucked (lmao 5round mags), you have infinitely more freedom than I do.

>>33092756
>implying ordinance board didn't intentionally sabotage nam M16s to save their precious M14 and armories

The M16 was pure until the govt fucked with it

>>33091925
>le 5'10" giants can't be stoped with tiny chink bullets

>>33091528
I would personally prefer SKS for following reasons:

>lighter gun
>lighter ammo
>lower recoil

Only two advantages for M1:
>longer sight radius
helps but doesn't win wars
>en-bloc
this gives you advantage, but you are screwed if you run out of them

Also I can't prove this I'm pretty sure SKS would handle dirt better

If you asked M2 carbine vs. SKS it would be more interesting.

>>33102672
5 round mags in centerfire semi auto rifles. 10 round mags in pistols. Rimfire and manually-operated (bolt/pump/lever/etc. action) rifles have unlimited capacity. Yeah it kinda sucks, but compared to the rest of the Western world we're doing pretty damn good for ourselves. No offense to our British brethren, but look at the UK. No pistols, seemingly no semi-auto rifles (they even have Ruger Mini 14 rifles that are manually operated), and I think they also have a limit to how much ammo they are allowed to have in their home.

I do believe that we can get a Conservative majority government again someday, like under Harper, and also like harper we will be able to further improve firearm laws in Canada. I voted for Harper when he said he would scrap the long gun registry, and he scrapped it. I hear that Quebec kept it because they had a bad shooting at some point, but that's them. I'm proud of my vote, and I'm proud that I had a small part in improving the state of affairs for my fellow gun owners. We can improve our nation, and we will stand up to the Liberals united if they try to pull any UK-style bullshit.

>>33102710
I have the feeling that the SKS would do better in dirt as well, and you're right; M2 Carbine vs SKS is interesting. Sacrifice a little bit of accuracy/range for a lighter firearm, more ammo, less recoil, better sights, 3x capacity (or at least 1.5x with M1 mags), and detachable mags for faster reload. I'm leaning a little towards M2 Carbine, even though it's less reliable than SKS.

>>33102996
For me I would all come down to how bad .30 carbine round is irl.

Some wartime accounts like place it somewhere between 6mm BB and .22 short, but on paper it closer to .357 out of same barrel length.

>>33102996
There's also the full auto capability of the m2 carbine.

>>33103292
Dude, .30 Carbine being ineffectual is a meme. It's actually not even that far off from 7.62x39; it's JUST shy of being an intermediate cartridge, it's basically about as strong a pistol round as you can get without it being intermediate. I think it would be fair to call .30 Carbine, .30 Magnum; putting it in the same family as .22 Magnum, .357 magnum, and .44 Magnum. 110gr at 1990 ft/s from an 18" barrel is good. An AK-47 or AKM with M43 7.62x39 is 123gr at 2350 ft/s from a 16.3" barrel, if I remember all that correctly. A 13gr heavier bullet with a 360 ft/s advantage. Hardly noteworthy. Mk.VII Ball .303 British is 174gr at 2440 ft/s from a 25" barrel, and M2 Ball .30-06 is 150gr at 2800 ft/s from a 24" barrel. 24gr with 360 ft/s difference. s.S. Patrone 8mm Mauser (WWII stuff) is 198gr at 2500 ft/s from a 24" barrel (hotter than M2 Ball), and that's 48gr advantage with 300 ft/s less.

>>33103319
Meh, I don't put much value in full auto capabilities.

>>33103511
As I recall, 8x33 Kurz for the STG was almost identical to 7.62x39, but 100 ft/s slower. 125gr at 2250 ft/s from a 16.3" barrel or so. That's only 15gr heavier and 260 ft/s faster, which really isn't all that much. I don't think round-nose vs spitzer would make all that much difference, save for accuracy perhaps, and if the bullet is designed properly spitzer can also lend towards tumbling but I don't think M43 or 8mm Kurz are known for tumbling. 5.45x39 is legendary for it, and I hear M67 or whatever it's called, that Yugo 7.62x39 loading, is good at tumbling. Wow, if M67 is right then that loading is about 50 years old now. Crazy...

>>33092629

Overrated burgershit.

>>33092693
>Everyone who doesn't agree with me is a Slavaboo XD

>>33092915

What everyone else said, plus a LOT of the funding that didn't get cut went to the Air Force and the Navy (esp AF). The Army was not the most well-resourced service at a time when nobody had a lot of resources.

>>33102173

It was never a serious problem. The US Army in late WW2 was actually worried enough about the PING stories that they conducted tests and prototyped a quiet non-ping clip, but they determined that under battlefield conditions there was almost no situation where the noise would actually give the enemy an advantage.

>>33103916
I heard about the silent clips as well. Tested things like bakelite, coated metal clips, or shit like that. MAYBE if it was a firearm meant for stealth, like a DeLisle carbine, then having the firearm go 'ping' would be an actual hindrance. When you're talking about an infantry rifle however, come on. You might as well worry about the clicking that comes from working the bolt of a bolt-action, and give consideration to putting buffers on parts of the receiver to lessen the noise it makes.

>>33103732
>over rated
get out shitposter or elaborate.

>>33104250
I'm not him, but America doesn't really have a whole lot of American-made firearms in its history, and not all those that ARE American-made ended up being anything particularly special.

>M9 pistol
Italian
>M240 and M249
Belgian
>M1903
Blatant copy of a German Mauser
>M1917
Rechambered P14, which is a British design that has elements of Mauser
>Brown Bess
British
>Enfield Rifled Musket
British
>Krag Rifle
Norwegian
>M1 Rifle
Started being designed by a Canadian with no American citizenship, John Cantius Garand was Canadian-American by the time it was finished but at its beginning he was just Canadian
>M14
Upgraded M1 Rifle
>M1/M1A1/M2/M3 Carbine
Elements of M1 Rifle which has lots of Canadian roots
>M1919
Effective machine gun for its time, but by WWII was largely outclassed, especially by the MG34 and MG42
>M1918 BAR
Effective LMG for its time, but was outclassed even more quickly than the M1919 especially when 'updated' as the far heavier M1918A2
>Thompson SMG
Heavy as shit, it might have been absolutely amazing in the 1920s-30s, but so many better designs came out around WWII that were lighter, cheaper, and easier to maintain
>M3 "Grease Gun"
Lighter, controllable rate of fire, but it has issues

American-made designs that aren't over-rated

>M1911
The majority of modern designs still use the Browning tilting-barrel design, and as I recall it was Browning who came up with pistols having slides to begin with.
>M1873 Springfield Trapdoor Rifle and Colt SAA Revolver
Solid blackpowder rifle design, and a solid fixed-cylinder revolver design.
>Lever-actions in general
They're not exactly Military firearms except for a few rare and desperate situations, but they are still very interesting and I see them as being very much American
>AR-15
I am not a fan of the design myself, and though its beginnings were rocky at best, it's been developed over the past half century into an outstanding series of firearms that will doubtlessly see service for decades to come.

only fags use m1s you can't top off the shitty clips

>>33103511
I know it is meme, but there has to be a grain of truth, otherwise why some vets would be so salty about it.

>>33104583
Yes you can.
>>33104964
My guess is that it's a similar situation to the No.5 Lee Enfield. People claimed it had a 'wandering zero' because they didn't want a bolt-action anymore; they wanted a semi-auto or an SMG, which is what it seemed the world was headed towards in the early-mid 1940s. The concept of 'assault rifle' hadn't really become widespread yet. My guess is that people bitched about the M1 Carbine and the .30 Carbine cartridge because if they were going into close range with the enemy, they wanted more than basically a small rifle. My guess is that if the Americans were going to use a .30 cal cartridge, they wanted .30-06, but if they were going to be stuck with a pistol cartridge then the .45 ACP shot a lot bigger/heavier bullet than .30 Carbine. 50% wider and over 100% heavier.

But that's just a guess. I'm pretty sure some people have even hunted deer with .30 Carbine before, so I can't see it being particularly ineffectual against humans. Sure it shoots a smaller bullet than 9mm, and also generally lighter, but it's got a lot more velocity. If .30 Carbine is indeed ineffectual, then that means .45 ACP is truly better than 9mm because evidently even as little as .05" of thickness on a bullet makes a big difference, and .45 ACP is .1" thicker than 9x19. Maybe those with the M1 Carbine expected .30-06-esque affects but instead ended up with something more in line with a pistol cartridge than a rifle cartridge. I dunno.

>>33103724
Spizter makes massive difference. "Spitzerizing" reduces bullet weight to roughly 70% of original weight (based on .30-03 to .30-06 transition).

For .30 carbine this would change it's bullet mass to 77gr (~5g) so assuming conservation of momentum, it would result in ~2,755fps (840m/s) and 1,681J.

>>33105060
I personally think the problem lies with its round nosed design that could result it rapid loss of energy, so it was fine at close range.

But psychological aspect is possible.

>>33091528

M1's are far more accurate than SKS's. The SKS can make 3 inch groups at about 300 yards while the M1 can hold 3 inch groups out to 600 yards easily.

>>33105117
If all that is accurate, then a "spitzerized" .30 Carbine cartridge might just qualify as an intermediate cartridge, provided that 1,681 Joules of energy is enough. Anyways, as-is, .30 Carbine is still accurate to about 250-300m, so it's still a fairly accurate firearm, better than typical SMGs.

>>33105191
Even if it slows down to 1000ft/s, with its 110gr bullet it would still be comparable to 9x19 if not a tad weaker. Anyways, I still think the .30 Carbine cartridge being ineffectual meme to be nonsense. Yeah it's still a pistol cartridge, which means it's generally going to be underpowered anyways, but compared to a 9mm, .45, or whatever, it's not much difference ballistically. Maybe at a distance once it loses velocity, the wound chanel of the .30 won't be quite as big as the 9mm's or .45's, but they're all pistol cartridges, and as such are underpowered to begin with, but .30 Carbine is still quite potent for a pistol cartridge.

>>33105462
Um, I'm gonna have to call bullshit on that. 3" at 300yd is 1MOA. 3" at 600yd is 0.5MOA. As I recall, the M1 Rifle was designed and manufactured to have a minimum of... what was it... 3" at 100yd? 5" at 200yd? something like that. Nowhere NEAR 1MOA. The No.4 Lee Enfield is an OUTSTANDINGLY accurate rifle, and out of the factory the Mk.I was supposed to have something like 1.5" group at 100yd. The No.4 Mk.2 improved it further, allowing for I think 1MOA, and that's in a standard-issue SERVICE RIFLE. That's something you generally don't see. Thick floating barrel and long radius apertures with a full sized rifle cartridge. Sure .303 is slightly weaker than .308, but only slightly. I love the M1 Rifle but I doubt there's an M1 on the planet that can hold a 3" group at 600yd "easily". Neither can an SKS get a 3" group at 300yd consistently.

>>33102216
As ridiculous as it looks, I suppose citing Rising Storm isnt ENTIRELY retarded.

Anways, just because the average distance was 100-300m, doesnt mean there werent regularly engagements in tunnel/bunker complexes within 10m. Myths like this rarely up out of nothing, chances are it happened a few times.

>>33104428
you forgot the M2 Browning HMG

>>33105926
Oh for sure; I'm not saying there were NEVER close-quarters engagements. Think about the house-to-house stuff in the towns from Normandy to Germany. The thing is though, as stated; soldiers typically don't do things alone.

>>33105958
That I did; my apologies. The M2 Browning is most certainly an amazing design if for no other reason than the fact it's still in widespread use in spite of probably nearing a century old by now. Also, the Barret rifles. I'd never want to carry one, I don't even have interest in shooting one, but as far as .50 BMG rifles are concerned is there really anything out there that's better? I somewhat doubt it. The PTRS/PTRD comes to mind, and those actually fire larger/more powerful rounds, but I dare say both are heavier and both will abuse the shooter to a greater extent.

>>33105462
>he doesn't know about leaving the port open and using your SKS as a bolt action

>>33092581
>$770
>refinished direct from CMP
>hard hitting 30-06
I dont get why people cant afford it.

>>33106021
The only thing I can envision happening by removing the gas tube of an SKS and using it is getting at best a negligibly more accurate shot off before being blasted in the face with propellant.

>>33092756
>us government decides to change to a dirtier powder last minute because they had to use up surplus
>issue bot enpugh cleaning kits
>PR claims rifle needed no cleaning
>barely any training on how to maintain rifles
>humid jungle environment

Its like every step of the introduction was fucked behind belief.

>>33106246
*not enough

>>33106238
I think he means just removing the short stroke piston from within the tube. actually now that i think about it if you removed the short stroke piston/oprod from an sks gas tube could you tighten the diameter or pressure seal the tube enough to make the sks a DI gun?

>>33106246

>us government decides to change to a dirtier powder last minute because they had to use up surplus
Well no other rifle had problems with it before.

>PR claims rifle needed no cleaning
People on /k/ still claim that to this day

>>33092735
Do you also pray towards camp pendleton 5 times a day? While reciting the pray of accuracy and applying sacred oils.

>>33106361
Do you not?

>>33104428
>>M1/M1A1/M2/M3 CarbineElements of M1 Rifle which has lots of Canadian roots
bullshit, the m1 carbine was designed by a moonshiner while he was in prison for gunning down a revenuer

>>33106361
it's Camp Perry, not Camp Pendleton

>>33106307
Still sounds very foolish, and I won't even entertain the idea of the SKS become DI. DI is bullshit. It's the Bang system 2.0, not in design similarity, but in the fact that it will someday be a thing of the past. That is what I believe, and that 'some day' will be when the AR-15 is no longer in production. Pistons must be like 95% of the present rifles, and it will be 99% of the future of rifles. If I end up being wrong, then you can feel free to scream at my grave when the AR-15 finally leaves production and becomes the SKS of America, but I believe that DI will die with the AR. The concept of a tube directly connecting the barrel to the action will not catch on. It hasn't caught on in over 50 years, it isn't going to catch on now. Gas-operated rifles of the future will use pistons.

>>33106467
That guy, "Carbine" Williams I think his nickname was, designed the M1 Carbine's style of short-stroke gas piston. The rest was done by others, but the M1 Carbine does have the Garand-style rotating bolt, the position of the rear sight is almost the same, the style of sights is very similar, and the buttstock style is very similar. I didn't say the M1 Carbine is a copy of the M1 Rifle, but as I said, it does have ELEMENTS of the M1 Rifle, and the M1 Rifle does very much have Canadian roots.

>>33106662
I meant as a proof of concept ,of course its a stupid idea. I'm just wondering if it could be done.

File: man power.png (18KB, 398x198px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 398x198px

>>33091528
Korean War came to a truce purely by Chink's manpower
So, M1 is better rifle

>>33107245
The Chinese were probably using mostly bolt-actions, with a bunch of Russian PPSh-41s tossed their way, and probably a healthy amount of PPS-43s as well. You can't rely on the Korean War for a fair comparison between M1 and SKS simply due to the fact that the SKS didn't see much (if any) action there. The Russians started mass-production of the SKS-45 in 1949 as I recall, same with the AK-47, and soviet doctrine planned for the AK-47 to be used like an SMG in close quarters while the SKS was meant to be a 2nd-line rifle since it's more accurate. This was to replace aaaaaaall those M91/30s. I highly doubt many AKs or SKSs were just handed over to the Chinese. PPSh-41 and PPS-43, sure, but not the AK and SKS which was to dominate the future Soviet Military.

Hell, the Makarov PM had already come about during the Korean War, and it looks like the Russians stopped producing the PPS-43 shortly after WWII, so the Russians probably weren't all that keen on holding onto those SMGs but the AKs and SKSs they very much needed to modernize their Military for the early stages of the Cold War.

Ultimately, both the M1 and SKS are fantastic firearms, but unless the engagements are reaching out to 400m or farther I think the SKS is the better firearm. In fact, it can still be relatively accurate to 400m, I've even seen footage of it being taken to 500m (550yd) or 500yd (450m). So it's plenty accurate, you can carry around 50% more ammo, there's less recoil, and it's FAR lighter at roughly 8.8lb loaded with bayonet, sling and cleaning kit meanwhile the M1 Rifle is probably somewhere around 10.5lb loaded with bayonet AT LEAST (that's basically a minimum; might very well be up around 12lb. 8 rounds of .30-06 is .5lb and I imagine the bayonet must have around 1lb or so of steel in it).

Not only that, but if you look at it today the SKS is cheaper than the M1 as well. For ammo weight; 3 10-rnd clips of 7.62x39 weigh about 1.1lb and 2 8-rnd clips of .30-06 weigh around .9-1lb

>>33107422
Wait, 3 10-rnd clips of 7.62x39 might be 1.2lb, not 1.1lb. I might be mistaken there. Either way, though, you can see the weight savings.

SKS - 8.5lb
M1 Rifle with bayonet - about 11lb

20 SKS clips (200 rounds) - 8lb
20 en bloc clips (160 rounds) - 9-10lb

SKS with 200 rounds - 16.5lb
M1 Rifle with 160 rounds - 20-21lb
SKS with 300 rounds (30 clips) - 20.5lb

So for the same weight, you can have basically twice as much ammo with the SKS as you can with the M1, if you're going to stock up on 20.5lb in total. Bit of a hefty loadout considering it's JUST the firearm and ammo, not taking into consideration boots/helmet/uniform/rucksack/etc., but if we dialed it back to 16.5lb then the M1 Rifle could only have around 5-6 clips (40-48 rounds) meanwhile the SKS would have 20 clips (200 rounds).

>>33105637

>minimum of... what was it... 3" at 100yd? 5" at 200yd? something like that. Nowhere NEAR 1MOA

Except they regularly shoot them out to 600 yards at camp perry. M1D's are probably the most common rifle you'll find on the range for the 600 yard vintage sniper match.

>>33107245
By this metric Krag is better than Mauser since (Spanish-American war)

>>33102095
do not question the church of garand heretic

>>33111165
With 3MOA, you should still manage a man-sized target at 600yd (550m). I was talking about the minimum. If an M1 Rifle couldn't manage a 3" group at 100yd, then it had to be improved, but if it met that minimum requirement for accuracy then it was given the go-ahead. As for M1D, I'm talking about the typical service rifle. Not for scoped variants that may have been somehow improved or accurized in some way. The No.4 Lee Enfield is inherently more accurate straight from the factory, and I wager the Kar98k is as well.

>>33113407
Well sure lighter bolt action rifles will almost always be more accurate than a semi auto design from the same era. The k98 was probably the most accurate of the WWII service rifles or maybe that arisaka that was chambered in 6.5 because of those sick ballistics their both Mauser actions though which is a point unto itself.

>>33114451
I figure the most accurate WWII service rifle would have been the No.4, thanks to the barrel that was far thicker than the Mk.III* that came before it, the fact it's a floating barrel, and also the long-radius aperture sights. Bit of a heavy rifle for having a 25" barrel though; 9lb as I recall. I believe the Kar98k is a good half pound or a pound lighter yet only has a 1" difference in barrel length. This is due to how much thicker the No.4's barrel is. As for the Type 38 in 6.5 Arisaka, it has a 31.5" barrel. Now imagine a 6.5 Grendel rifle with a barrel that freakishly long. Yeah, probably quite accurate, but I'd never want to have to lug around a rifle that obscenely huge, and with that small of a cartridge. Basically intermediate.

If I were going to be using a bolt-action in 6.5 Arisaka, I'd want it to be in a carbine like the No.5 Lee Enfield. Don't need a Mauser action to handle that small of a round; Lee bolt would be plenty sturdy enough, and would provide a faster rate of fire. The rifle would also only be about 7lb (3.2kg or so), and with a convenient 20" or so barrel. As-is, isn't the Type 38 around 9-10lb unloaded? That's ridiculous considering it's basically using an intermediate cartridge.

Let's see if I can remember what the Type 38 gives... I wanna say... 140gr with... 2200 ft/s velocity from that redonkulous 31.5" barrel?

Nope, but I was close! Just checked. The Type 38 is over 9lb heavy, has a muzzle velocity of 2500 ft/s with a standard loading of 6.5 Arisaka, and the standard bullet weight is 138gr. As I recall, M43 7.62x39 from a 20" SKS barrel is 123gr at about 2400 ft/s. Now imagine if it had an additional FOOT of barrel length; I imagine 7.62x39 would increase a good couple hundred feet per second with that much additional barrel. Yup, 6.5 Arisaka is definitely intermediate if we're talking about ANY sort of rational modern barrel length.

>>33114451
Granted I didn't spend much time researching, but by simply searching Kar98k MOA and No.4 Lee Enfield MOA, it looks like with standard s.S. Patrone 1934 8mm Ball and Mk.VII .303 Ball, the Kar98k manages 2MOA at 100yd, and the No.4 manages 1.5MOA at 100yd. With the post-war No.4 Mk.2, it gets down to 1MOA.

>>33115274
It sounds like you know more about this than i do. My understanding is that thew Mauser action is the more accurate while the Enfield action is faster cycling, something like a thicker floated barrel would give it a decent advantage in raw accuracy potential, and having more precise sights with a longer radius would also make shooting targets much easier. the biggest disadvantage of the Mauser 98k in my opinion is the sights I can ring steel at long range with it easily so it could definitely take down a man at 300 meters with those sights but they aren't very good for precise target work or groupings.

>>33092629

a rifle thatll fail the shit out the mud test

>>33091945

unless you mean .30 carbine than no, .30-06 is more powerful than 7.62 soviet

>>33115349
Also I'm pretty sure that 6.5 jap is more like 6.5 creedmore in terms of size and performance rather than 6.5 grendel.

Weren't the norks and Chinese overwhelming armed with smgs and mosin type rifles?

>>33115389
Yeah the sks would be rare if even present in korea.

>>33115349
Kar98k is very accurate, but the No.4 has a better barrel and sights. 8mm is hotter than .303, but not by a lot. 198gr at 2500 ft/s vs 174gr at 2440 ft/s. So really 8mm Mauser is superior to .303 in every way, but not by a whole lot. They are both still rifle rounds, and in the same league as other such cartridges as 7.62x54r, 7.62 Nato, 7.5x55, .30-06, and so on. Ultimately, almost all WWII bolt actions have been taken to 1000yd (900m). Kar98k, M91/30, No.4 Lee Enfield, and even a Korean War era M1D that's all-original. So the differences in accuracy are basically negligible, even though evidence suggests the No.4 was potentially the most accurate standard-issue service rifle of WWII.

The Lee bolt is definitely smoother/faster. 60 degree bolt turn vs 90 degree, cock-on-close vs cock-on-open, and able to comfortably fire without letting go of the bolt allowing the shooter to start working the bolt the second recoil is felt.

As for 6.5 Arisaka vs Grendel vs Creedmore, I'll look up some stats. Keep in mind that barrel length does make a substantial difference on velocity.

>Type 38
6.5 Arisaka: 138.9gr at 2500 ft/s from 31.5" barrel for 1966 ft/lb

6.5 Grendel: 130gr at 2510 ft/s from 24" barrel for 1818 ft/lb

6.5 Creedmoor: 140gr at 2710 ft/s from 28" barrel for 2283 ft/lb

Well, I feel comfortable in saying that if that 6.5 Grendel was given a 138.9gr bullet and had a barrel 7.5" longer, it'd most certainly be going more than 2500 ft/s, so 6.5 Arisaka is looking to be weaker than 6.5 Grendel which is already considered an intermediate cartridge. As for 6.5 Creedmoor, it's clearly the most potent.

>Federov Avtomat
6.5 Arisaka: 138.9gr at 2145 ft/s from 20.5" barrel for 1419 ft/lb
>SKS-45
M43 7.62x39: 123gr at 2411 ft/s from 20" barrel for 1587 ft/lb
The Federov Avtomat has less velocity/energy than an SKS-45.

>AK-47/AKM
M43 7.62x39: 123gr at 2350 ft/s from 16.3" barrel for 1508 ft/lb
The Federov Avtomat also has less velocity/energy than an AK-47/AKM.

>>33115543
So 6.5 Arisaka might be pretty potent with a 31.5" barrel, when it's brought down to 20.5", then it's shown to actually be a weaker round than either 7.62x39 or 6.5 Grendel. Hell, if you took a .223 and shot it from a 31.5" barrel, its velocity and energy would doubtlessly extend beyond what could reasonably be considered an intermediate cartridge, and so would advance into the realm of rifle cartridge. Similarly if the AKs-74u had a much shorter barrel on it, it would have such low velocity/energy that it would no longer be considered an assault rifle and would become a potent SMG even though 5.45x39 is an intermediate cartridge under normal circumstances. Barrel length truly does make a whole lot of difference.

>>33091528
The M1 is heavier, but the 30-6 is far better than 7.62x39.

>>33102173
Literally wasn't an issue. The battlefield was never quiet enough for it to be heard outside of a few meters.

>>33116007
Better for what? For hunting moose, bear, or anything like that, I'd agree. For Military use however? Ehhhhh, I'm leaning towards 7.62x39. You can carry so much more. M2 Ball .30-06 must be 18 rounds per pound MINIMUM, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was closer to 16 rounds per pound. M43 7.62x39, if memory serves, is 29 rounds per pound. M855 5.56 is probably around 35 rounds per pound or so. I think 7N6 5.45 was around 39 rounds per pound.

Bear in mind that this is from memory, so feel free to double-check just in case I'm wrong, and if I am, my apologies. On another note; who else is drinking this pleasant Saturday afternoon?

>>33102234
>You might even be able to get that license before you're 18 years old, provided you have parental consent, but don't hold me to that. I know a lot about Canadian firearm laws, but I don't know it all.

iv seen kids aged 12 getting their non restricted

>>33092693
I prefer "tankie" thank you very much

>>33104964
The Carbine is not a very accurate rifle, especially if you lean into the sling the way they teach you to with the M1 Garand.

If you shoot it right, it's still a 4-6 MOA rifle at best, if you shoot it wrong, it's more like a 12 MOA rifle.

4-6 MOA is good enough for gooks at 300 meters, 12 MOA means good hits are scarce until they are within 100m.

>>33106246
Don't forget they deleted the chrome lining of the bolt carrier gas chamber and of the barrel and chamber for cost reduction.