1950 SKS with spike bayonet

[Loose}{Cannon]

I would think that depends on the scale and capacity of the facility.  For example, we know some locations stripped the finish from all metal and added some type etched surface for the BBQ to be applied to.  That alone is one heck of a step beyond just looking over a gun etc.

Refurbish usually equates to rebuilding from the ground up, and melting the parts only to remake them sounds unrealistic when the parts are already on hand... they use them.

Today I just bought a cylinder head from Cylinder Heads International in Grand Prairie TX that refurbishes heads.  I insisted on receiving a full tour of the facility and process before purchasing their product.  Pretty amazing how heads come in, get stripped down, parts separated, dipped, checked for issues, machined, and then are rebuilt using parts that came out of bins and were otherwise not part of the same head that came in.   Parts are parts.

This is like taking a refurbished Iphone and thinking we can identify what parts were replaced within the phone when whatever was replaced is exactly like what was taken out. 

[newchi]

Well if they were all rebuilt from the ground up, the dates mean nothing at all, the serial ranges mean nothing at all and they are all 60's production. 

Phew, i am glad we have finally sorted this out.

[Loose}{Cannon]

Well if they were all rebuilt from the ground up, the dates mean nothing at all, the serial ranges mean nothing at all and they are all 60's production. 

Phew, i am glad we have finally sorted this out.

Hence why refurbs are useless in terms of analyzing whats what.

[Boris Badinov]

Refurb 1950-51 sneak:
http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?t=630810












 Original assembly would have had early mag with notch beneath mag/trigger lug, an trigger would have been of the early design.

But this 50/51 gun wears a 1952 trigger design and a 1953 magazine. Both Stamped matching.

Upgraded design parts on an early gun.

I'm not of the opinion that every part needs to be replaced with an upgrade design. But ZERO new parts on an early gun is worth note in my opinion. Not even an upgraded trigger design?

[Loose}{Cannon]

But this 50/51 gun wears a 1952 trigger design and a 1953 magazine.

Congratulations, your gun hit the lottery and the workers unconsciously gave you two parts from 1, and 2 years later making it easier to spot compared to the OPs gun?

 Your gun could have easily been reworked by a facility not very interested in keeping the parts together and/or had the ability to fully scrub and re-serialize upon reassembly. However, Im not sure how you came to the conclusion of "1952 trigger design and a 1953 magazine".

Original assembly would have had early mag with notch beneath mag/trigger lug

Am I to believe you know exactly when this change took place.... kinda like you know exactly when the spike to blade transition was made?  Your telling me that a 51 could not have had the later mag?  Did you learn this by observing other refurbs, or is this on pooperj site?

an trigger would have been of the early design.

Again, like above, why dont you enlighten us on how you came to your conclusions. Are you referring to the housing itself, or simply the replaceable parts attached to it? 

Fyi, I understand you believe the fonts are different on these two components then the rest of the rifle, and that very well may be so, but if your intention is to 'prove' some type of point, your going to have to explain how your dating your components with such miraculous accuracy. 

[Boris Badinov]

This is like taking a refurbished Iphone and thinking we can identify what parts were replaced within the phone when whatever was replaced is exactly like what was taken out. 

I agree, only partly.

Just guessing, I'd say that 99% of folks here are incapable of  performing such a task with an iphone. But it's an iphone, not an sks. That's apples to oranges. Or ...'apples' to sks's (pun intended for levity). And this is an SKS forum. I'd also guess that most of us can identify the date ranges of most major and minor parts and components in an SKS45.


MY SOURCE:
...for dating features and transitions for the SKS45, I use this sticky post from SovietBloc subforum on milsurps.com:
https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=17575

I have used this as an SKS45 source for several years. And I share links to it often for clarity and transparency. With that as my source for more than two years the only discrepency i've encountered to the information compiled there has been this issue of 1950 guns with original spike bayos. It is a Canadian based website, and IIRC the sticky post is cut an pasted from somewhere else in Canada interwebs. Being Canadian, I'd gather they have considerably larger access to 90degree guns. Being Candian it is also....well, almost entirely based on the Canadian imported guns-- and outifts like westrifle and it's ilk. But the information there has held up in the years that I have relied on it to make determinations on sks45 features and dates.

As I have said-- 1950 is a very possible date for this gun. 1949 is another possibility. But the argument for 1950 is significant.

As for dates for design transitions, I'm not sure why it seems such an improbability to narrow the dates of manufacture of individual parts or whole rifles by date specific design feautres. We do it every day.

Even if most of us can't recall the precise transitional dates for various traits-- I'd say with confidence that most of us know that design characteristics are precisely how we identify the period when certain parts were made and others abandoned. And that these design changes mark a date certain range for SKS45 design evolution.

Are the parts on j2's 1950 dated gun original manufacture? Can't say for certain, nor have I said as much.

But what I can say is that all of the metal components are 100% orgnal configuration. Which opens wide the possibility that the gun itself -- sans laminate stock -- is all orginal.




 

[pcke2000]

But what I can say is that all of the metal components are 100% orgnal configuration. Which opens wide the possibility that the gun itself -- sans laminate stock -- is all orginal.

without official Soviet records and information, you'll never know.

[Boris Badinov]

without official Soviet records and information, you'll never know.

Fair enough.

But we kinda do know. Because we do it every time a new collector posts a new rifle with a suspect date with contradictory features: like a 1953 date claim on a gun with a 45degree gas-port; or a 1950 dated gun with a chrome lined barrel, a two-tab gas block lever, and a curved gas-port; or a 1951 dated gun with a spring loaded firing pin.

Narrowing date ranges by feature? Is that not part of what we all do on a regular basis? Most of us who've been  around more than few months can date range a soviet gun by features in our sleep.

The Russians may have told us little if anything, but a lot has been figured out in spite of that fact.

[Greasemonkey]

This is like taking a refurbished Iphone and thinking we can identify what parts were replaced within the phone when whatever was replaced is exactly like what was taken out. 

MY SOURCE:
...for dating features and transitions for the SKS45, I use this sticky post from SovietBloc subforum on milsurps.com:
https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=17575

Now hold up... I find some of the info there is out of date.. in several places.. example..https://www.milsurps.com/content.php?r=426-Poluatomaska-Puska-(PAP)-M59-SKS-Carbine

) Stock woods are Elm, Beech or Teak (Russian guns wear either Birch or laminate wood

This is just one glaring example... there are others errors spread across other examples as well..

While possibly good for a reference. I wouldn't bet the farm on information correctness, unless someone can produce proof of the teak stock.

Not trying to stir the pot..but most of that info is a decade old.... at least. Most of it hasn't really been updated or changed since maybe Bush was president.. So while it may not be totally wrong. it may not be totally right. It is someones interpretation of .0000001% of rifles at that time.. Refurbs are the proverbial box of chocolates.. you never know what your gonna get.


And again... everyone is back to pure speculation..     Speculation.... I bet a drum of crude oil will be $63.72 at the market close today and $63.74 at market open Jan 17.. 

[Loose}{Cannon]

The Canadian author did all that without having a single as-issued 49 to date show up here, or in CA..  Interesting.

[Boris Badinov]

Yes. The milsurps sticky is from 9 years ago.

But in the more than two  decades since soviet guns were banned in the US, Canada has fairly endless supply of them.

Other than the 1949-1950 cruciform bayonet claims, the date ranges for transitional design features hold up:

Here's the reference list. If anyone sees discrepancies, please feel free to point them out:



8. NUMBER OF PART CHANGES.

Parts name (# of types) descriptions

Group 1. Changes made during 1952.
1.Receiver ( 2) Early production has milled step, late production has no step.
2.Rear sight base (2) Early are large and late are small.
3.Trigger group ( 2) Early has no trigger arm mount and the later has the mount.
4.Bayonet lug (3) Early has no lightening cut with level inner ear 1949-part 1952, transition has lightening cut with level inner ear part 1952, late has lightening cut with angled inner ear part 1952-1956.
5.Gas block ( 3)Type1 1949-early 1950, type2 early 1950-part 1952, type3 part 1952-1956 .

Group 2. Changes made other than in 1952.
1.Finish (3) original blue, refurb park, refurb black sheen/matt paint.
2.Barrel (2) both threaded (no pin barrel): non-chrome 1949- part 1951, chrome part 1951- 1956.
3.Bayonet (2) 1949 spike, 1950- 1956 blade.
4.Gas tube latch (2) 1949-part 1954 single indent, part 1954-1956 double indent.
5.Top cover latch ( 3) 1949- part 1950 ringed, part 1950-1951 long tab, 1951-1956 short tab.
6.Carrier ( 2) 1949-part 1951 spring type, part 1951-part 1956 non-spring type.
7.Bolt (2) 1949-part 1951 spring type, part 1951-part 1956 non-spring type.
8.Firing pin (3) type 1 1949-part 1951 spring, after part 1951 non-spring type 2 milled 2 sides, type 3 milled 3 sides.
9.Top cover (3) type 1 1949-part 1950, type 2 1950-1952, type 3 1953-1956.
10.Wood ( 2) arctic birch 1949-part 1955, laminated part 1955- 1956 and also on refurb.
11.Magazine ( 2) fixed 10 rounds. early 1949 without stud for mag spring, late 1949 to 1956 with stud.

Group 3. No change.
1.Rear sight ladder ( 1) "n" marking tangent to 100-1000m . 2 types of finishes, blue and refurb grey.



and the refurb checklist:

 SIGNS OF REFURBISHING.

-Metal.
1. Refurbishing mark. There are two types of refurbishing marks: The most common is a square with a diagonal line and the other is a diamond shape (some with a "T" line inside). If your rifle has one of these markings on the top cover then your rifle has been refurbished.
2. Some of the obvious signs are the metal is painted black when originally its blued.
3. Carrier painted black when originally it was steel finish.
4. Bayonet is blued or park when originally is was silver.
5. Rear sight leaf is grey when originally it was blued.
6. Check the crown for re-bluing or paint, it should be bare steel.
7. Replacement parts not appropriate for the year it was produced.
8. File marks, edges not sharp.
9. Force matching serial numbers.
- Electro-penciled where stamped serial number suppose to be: top cover, mag, trigger guard, bolt and carrier.
- Old SN ground down and replaced by stamped or electro-penciled SN.
- Old SN XXXed out and new numbers stamped below it.
- Electro-penciled were painted over.
- Fonts of stamped numbers do not match the numbers on the side of receiver. eg: a "4" that is closed and "4" that is opened .
- Run your finger over the stamp serial number on the carrier, you should feel the raised edges and should the edges be flattened then it’s been buffed or sanded.

-Wood. Refurbished wood stock. Applies only to 1949-early 1955. Only 1955/56 came with both laminated and solid birch.
1. Recycling existing solid birch. The factory tech would XXX out the old serial numbers and stamp a new set of matching numbers (this process is called forced matching).
2. Replacement laminated, laminated not original to the rifle.
3. Wood repairs.
4. Refurbishing mark.

Once your rifle passed the non-refurb test then you move to the next level "SIGNS OF FIRING " what you do here is to look for signs that your SKS has been fired.

[Loose}{Cannon]

Here's the reference list. If anyone sees discrepancies, please feel free to point them out:

Thats just the issue....   the ONLY reference I would use is the one RM is going to do on the Russian sks Guide.  He is the only one in the world with a database of original as- issued guns to use as reference.

The page you list may have some correct, some may turn up wrong.  Ill wait for the Russian guide.

[Boris Badinov]

I guess we'll see.

But it seems like we've been dating the Soviet guns for quite a while now. So it's pretty obvious we've been working from some almalgam of corroborating date-specific sources. And I haven't heard any objections or  discrepancies to the lists above. (Of course, other than the 1949-50 cruciform bayonet claim).

[Greasemonkey]

So there is no way any of that could be incorrect, of course not.. how many lists exist, and how can one argue if there is only one.....no one has bothered to do another and verify and lay their findings side by side...so there is no chance Russia changed something in the 25 year span you quote. I mean, trust......BUT verify.  

I see a simple post on the observation of 8 rifles in various states from as issued to refurb.. pitting the 2, a refurb vs as issued is like a Vz2008 vs a CzechPoint Vz 58. Kind of like Mosins... compare a Molot sniper against a R-Guns sniper and/or a CAI early import and late import sniper... If by chance I went to New Zealand and bought a current imported Chinese SKS, then Canada and bought a current imported Chinese SKS, and then bought old 90's Chinese Norinco here in the states... there will not be any manufacturing differences between the 3.

Again, I the uncontested observation of.... 8 rifles, in various states from 9 years ago, in another country... Ok for a quick check, but not definitive, cutting edge info. Again....like I stated in my post..

So while it may not be totally wrong. it may not be totally right.

[Boris Badinov]

Where exactly does the author of the post state that he based this only 8 rifles?

If in doubt, read the thread: it's variously sourced.

GM, are we to undestand that you think that until RM publishes his Russian data, that there is just no way to accurately date Soviet parts, components, and entire rifles by examining the design features?

[Loose}{Cannon]

I think we have an 'ok' understanding on when things such as post fixes, roll stamps, tula receiver stars, and major component changes were made mid-year, but all this peddly crap such as mag features, trigger group parts, cover holes on and on and on....   Ill wait for the RM data based on 100% original guns.

Alot of what Im seeing in Canada (like the serial/year data) is fubared from the beginning because they simply go off the receiver date regardless to if its a refurb or not.

Again, Ill wait for the RM data. 

[Greasemonkey]

GM, are we to undestand that you think that until RM publishes his Russian data, that there is just no way to accurately date Soviet parts, components, and entire rifles by examining the design features?

It shows 8 different photos and says the years/refurb or not the info was taken from, but thats not the point...... As you say.."it's variously sourced"...who knows how much older the data/info he repeats/uses, is it current or from the 80's and 90's. In reality.. I really have no dog in the fight, also in reality, it's no big secret...I could give a flip less about a Russian SKS....But, I do not care for age old data bible being thumped when I have myself seen new discoverys that changes the course of collecting..such as the DDR/1\, the Sino-Soviet, the Soviet-Sino, NVA, Yugo long barrels...ect. There could be tons of data and features that are not even in that one guide.... Again.....trust, but verify.....maybe even update.

Take it for what it's worth... Your a grown man and have the free will to make your own interpretations off of what I am trying to say.  If the info there pans out with what's found.... great, out frickenstanding...but if the info doesn't.... Where does that leave you? Assuming and spreading info was that was incorrect all this time.

Time, raw data, serials, markings, prefixes and photographic proof can set one free...

Please, bare in mind.... We have been through this with the Chinese.... NVA... even certain importers...as well as other historical inaccuracies before you pass judgment on me or my comments..

As I remember..... You tried to dispute the Chinese info we presented some time ago, now you pretty much preach it..

Besides this is what we do... Right or wrong......Challenge the status quo..

[running-man]

While I appreciate the props, I'm certainly not the world's expert when it comes to Russian SKS45s.  I'd say that I know less about them than many who frequent this very board.  I certainly don't have the largest collection, not that this matters.  In my line of work, the data calls the shots; not the reputation, demeanor, size of collection, agreeableness, etc. of the person making the argument. 

Having said that, I do have an ever-expanding database currently populated with 1097 guns I would either call as-issued or are refurb guns that generally match feature-wise with at least two other like-prefixed specimens.  I have an additional 370 unknown guns that are all refurbs with either no other prefix matching gun or the feature sets are grossly inconsistent among matching prefixes.  I have an additional 3,643 photos from 2017 that will probably yield another 600 guns when all are finally catalogued.

The list from the milsurps.com sticky is generally correct, but there are some areas where I consider it to be flat out wrong.  GM rightly points out the Yugoslavian teak myth he showed was incorrect.  We have demonstrated that the font on Russian SKS RSLs changed as the years progressed and there are at least 5 font changes and possibly as many as 10 through the years indicating different dies were used to stamp the parts at various points in production.  Is this a design change?  While not affecting function, these are physical part changes nonetheless. 

I can add that I'm highly doubtful of the three types of bayo lug transitioning in '52 as there are zero as-issued '52 Russian SKS 45's in the database with an angled ear lightening cut bayo lug.  Maybe I don't have enough specimens in the database yet, but I have yet to see a single one even on a known '52 refurb.   I also think the evidence is very strong that new production letter suffix guns were assembled with both hardwood stocks as well as new laminate stocks as the acceptance stamps appear on both types fitted to specimens I consider as-issued.  Additionally, there is a fourth type of receiver cover takedown lever I found from 1950 that is not listed in the sticky so it's clear the bulleted list isn't all-inclusive.

I'm not knocking the author of the sticky at all, he did a great job explaining the design changes he encountered.  Much better than I could do I think.  Unfortunately, sites like that, Yooper John's, pretty much everything on SKSBoards, etc. end up making some pretty definitive concrete  conclusions that turn out to be wrong (and indeed, become internet gospel during the process) based off a very limited set of data.  Stick a caveat in there and I'd be good with anything they want to say, but we always have to remember that accurate data trumps theory every time.  In the event where the data may be suspect (as in the spike bayo example this entire thread is based upon), you've got to take it with a grain of salt and look for additional data that either corroborates or refutes it.  In this case, I can find neither.

[pcke2000]

There's a lot we don't know or we are not sure. For example,  according to Russian expert on SKS production history,  letter gus were not made at Tula.

[Greasemonkey]

that there is just no way to accurately date Soviet parts, components, and entire rifles by examining the design features?

And since I am in a mood now over this whole fiasco... I will answer the above the most PC way I can....

I think until Russia...like China, dusts off and lays the definitive engineers SKS handbook holy grail bible on the table, translated into english by 6 different verified unbiased people, down in front of you or anyone... 100% accuracy is not possible on anything. Once you think you have it figured out, 5 minutes or 5 years later, some feature, some little flipper doodle appears, some goofy little change crops up, a machined area that was not earlier that is now, a roll pin instead of a solid pin.

And.....then one has to decipher what an importer possibly did, maybe rebuilt out of parts, swapped around something.... throw in West Rifle.... Century Arms..if you think there is innocence there, you would be mistaken...they are in it for max $$$$$ on their investment...Plus....an added layer... a myriad of people dicking with them over the past umpteen years of swapping this for that.. Since I'm on the subject...it's been proven stamp kits exist, if someone has a machine shop...so whats fake..whats real.. it's all about the Benjamins on the supposed high dollar ones..

If everything in this hobby were cut and dry, black or white, and honest.......what would be the reason to even discuss anything...short of.... I got this SKS, I am most assuredly it's bla bla buzz.. per the grandmaster official Whosoever SKS manual. If one wants 100% undisputed historical accuracy on a gun... buy a S&W or a Colt...even Glock, places like Colt and S&W have and share records from some of their first production guns before Simonov was even a gleam in his pappys eye, and offer proof certificates of born on dates.. One is not going to get production data like that out of Russia or China or even most other nations...short of hear say...

So regardless of who throws down a web page on Russians, Chinese, Yugoslavian, Albanians, or what ever foreign nation.... in the end it's going to be a best guess off based off data that one can acquire and see... cause absolutely none of us, including the fella who wrote that post elsewere, were there.