I would also like to point out that I am still curious to know what to look for regarding the determination of whether or not a barrel has been replaced or not? I am not arguing that it was impossible or unlikely--though llikely uncommon, even rare. I am only arguing that that rebarreling is impractical -- particularly with the addition of the chrome lined barrels and given the fact that the 1950's was a distinctly "cold" period for Soviet Red Army. Ergo, what need to replace what ain't even being used and abused?
Who is to say "when" exactly they were done, any of them, there is no tag that says "refurb completed on 11/13/1956, or 10/31/1967". Like the unknown many thousands of Mausers they refurbed captured in WWII. They could have been done in the 1960's, maybe as late as the 1970's. Look at all that happened say between 1955 and say 1975. Cuba, Vietnam, it was a busy time. They could have started prepping and stock piling weapons for WWIII.. rebuilding loaner weaponry for Communist satellite nations to use Or... like modern day Molot, started refurbing these weapons using mass parts over stock of new and old parts for import in to the US and Canada for financial gains and make us argue when they were actually done.
The mating marks can be found on a number of rebarreled weapons m1903, m1917, K31s, MAS36s
I am only arguing that that rebarreling is impractical
Rebarreling has numerous benefits over building a totally new firearm, materials saving, adds a lower cost per unit which goes hand in hand with labor savings, less down time in the shop equals greater time a troop is armed, ready for action, allows for an easier parts logistics. It can, in the case of France, allow for incremental small upgrades and changes, such as the counter bore on the MAS36 barrel, which early rifles did not have. It can give an indication of mean time before failure for given use to help justify use of repaired rifle vs. upgrading to another type. A rifle that breaks is of no use to a military.
If it's so impractical... Why would Spain for example, totally rebarrel M1916 and M1943 Mausers... and produce the FR 7 and FR 8, Why would Brazil rebarrel m1908 Mausers and make a M1908/34... rebarreling rifles makes sense, again..... it happened right here in the US... a Winchester M1917 with a Remington barrel, An IBM M1 Carbine with a US Postalmeter barrel. Uncle Sam didn't throw a Garand receiver away cause the bore was blown out, he didn't smelt a M1903 receiver cause the rifling was gone. Does a Garand set up easier than a SKS...a Mauser still needs to be headspaced, the M1917 needs to be headspaced. But yet, they still rebarreled.
Britain FTR Enfieild rifles, get them back on the battle field. Finlands military, almost everything they had was Russian captured property, hundreds of thousands of rifles of Tula and Izhevsk decent, mostly all rebarreled in Finland with VKT, Sako, and Tikka made barrels and the reused receivers turned against their creators.
If rebarreling was so impractical.... many militarys would disagree.. everyone did it..