SKS-FILES FORUM
SKS Carbines => Unaltered SKS Rifles => Russian SKS => Topic started by: jstin2 on October 13, 2017, 10:10:55 PM
-
I bought a 1950 SKS with spike bayonet, 90 degree gas port and eyelet latch pin. It has matching S/N and stock is laminate with no markings. Westrifle had 10 - 49s for sale. Last one was listed as a 1950(same price). I have posted it on Survivors forum, but would like additional input.
Pictures at
https://ibb.co/album/mQ5tBF
https://ibb.co/album/kP3zJv
First set of pictures were taken by me and the latter(better) by my daughter.
NOTICE
FEB. 4 2022 - NOTE - If you have read post in the past then jump to PAGE 17 for NEW information.
-
I think we just found the official board photographer.
clap1
-
Welcome to the files jstin, glad to have you here! thumb1
Boris Badinov and I have been PM'ing about this gun over the past few days. It's an interesting specimen, very interesting indeed. Unfortunately, the Westrifle connection causes me great pause in taking everything on it at face value. They have been known to embellish their SKSs with non-original stampings such as these gems (yes that 4th one down does say "1956" on it! rofl2):
(https://image.ibb.co/fB5v6G/A_665_stock.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/hmq6Dw/P_904_stock.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/i86k6G/IMG_9293_02.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/emWJRG/IMG_9303_02.jpg)
and my personal favorites, the laminates with 'original' '49 cartouches!
(https://image.ibb.co/cG5v6G/A_12_stock.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/b4UcLb/BO730_stock.jpg)
So assuming that there are features of the Westrifle gun that are legit and others that are not, I would say that you likely have a '49 with a scrubbed cover that they simply couldn't swap out. There are 5 other EM prefixes in the database and 4 of them are '49s while one (EM923) is a heavy refurb with a transitional '50 cover like you have. Now Boris has the opinion that the fonts on the receiver and receiver cover are a dead match, and I don't disagree that they are very similar, but I've always hated using fonts across components to prove a match. Especially when components can be scrubbed such as:
(https://image.ibb.co/cOyttw/7558_K_receiver_cover_top_scrubbed.jpg)
and most troublesome to collectors of data like me, receivers being scrubbed:
(https://image.ibb.co/joJF6G/BO5220_receiver_double_stamp.jpg)
If the gun isn't as-issued, one has to be VERY careful what conclusions one draws from them. There may be many explanations...
-
I would like to say that Boris Bradinov, was instrumental in inquiring about this carbine. I had mentioned this carbine in another site (survivor) and he was interested and from there I started a new post. When I bought it, I cleaned it, oiled and put it in safe. I would like to say that I had not bought a rifle in over 25 years and at Canadian Tire they were unpacking a 53. Bought it and now own 49 to 58 plus both Izzys.
-
This is why I want input from experts. What is your opinion on date and serial number on receiver cover? Does the receiver cover looks scrubbed? There is nothing on stock. Pictures help to prove one way or the other.
-
hi Justin and welcome. good to have you here. thumb1
-
Welcome to the sks-files jstin2!
-
Welcome, (i forgot that last time)
I buy over the counter at wholesale cry2 or canadian tire too. You just know the minimum wage guy behind the counter doesnt care what one you ask for.
Westrifle scares me, they have a lot of seemingly goodly rare guns no one else does.
The guys here that study this stuff hard will answer everything with enough pictures i bet,
All i know is EM seems right, and RM has already confirmed that, so im usless as usual.
-
Thanks for the welcome. All comments either positive or negative will make others ponder. This is why I posted and would like as much input from all. If additional pictures are required, I will take and post on one of the existing sites.
-
I just studied all these pictures VERY carefully, and here is what I can tell you...
The main receiver and the receiver cover, were stamped with the same stamp set.
All the other parts were stamped with a different stamp set, but are all matching aside from the above mentioned receiver and cover.
I would not be suspicious of two different stamp sets being used on one rifle. The receiver and receiver cover are the two main identifying components on the rifle, and were most likely stamped together in the department of the arsenal they were made in as the receiver would have to be serialed at the time of manufacture. The other components were most likely stamped by the assembly department once the receiver and cover were issued the rest of their parts.
Just my 2 cents.
-
I am in agreement with PS on the font match between the receiver and cover.
I've purposely made the cover photo larger.
(http://preview.ibb.co/fqZZ0b/20171014_193718.jpg) (http://ibb.co/dJz1fb)
...
There are also 1949 dated covers stamped with EM prefixes, sans serif 1's with receivers stamped to match.
Curiously this 1950 dated EM spiker has a serif-ed "1" that falls chronologically between 1949 EM guns with the sans serif 1's.
Which suggests the possibility that the 1949 EM series may not be related to a possible 1950 EM serial run. If the EM run in 1950 did in fact include cruciform bayos, it would have to be a very early run... possibly the first serial prefix pair of 1950.
The stock is odd-- being cut for a spike so late in the Soviet production run. In its favor is the fact that it hasn't been given the faked Westrifle date, arsenal and serial stamps.
But was the bayo channel arsenal modified or humped by westrifle along with the bayo? Here, again, the absence of the humped Westrifle stock stamps suggests (to me, at least), that the bayo channel is an authentic arsenal mod.
To carry that a bit further, I would guess that the arsenal didn't upgrade to the new standard blade bayo often seen on 49 refurbs because the rifle was refurbed for commercial export purposes and not intended for military re-issue...
That day in the refurb factory would have gone something like: "Hey, Vlad, spike bayonetko eez een wary good condeeshon. Tell, Nikita to modify stocko for spike."
-
Also the stock ferrule is for a spike bayonet(in pictures), which would imply that carbine had a spike bayonet.
-
because the rifle was refurbed for commercial export purposes and not intended for military re-issue...
Man, i wish i knew where Vlad and Nikitas boss was now i would have them pick lottery numbers for me. Knowing in the 60s that that rifle would end up in a big box store in Canada!
-
because the rifle was refurbed for commercial export purposes and not intended for military re-issue...
Man, i wish i knew where Vlad and Nikitas boss was now i would have them pick lottery numbers for me. Knowing in the 60s that that rifle would end up in a big box store in Canada!
Ok, ok. Well, at least late enough to know that the rifle wasn't going back into Soviet military service.
-
:)
And i was wrong about the big box store, that was jstin2's other ones. doh.
No lottery winnings for me.
-
Boris- I saw the pictures that you had blown up. The one of receiver does not look good. Could you redo using one of the pictures that I took. It could be lighting or angle of picture taken making the E look different. If I notice this others will also. This will also show similarities. Thanks.
-
I posted them in this fashion on purpose. The discerning expert eyes for whom I intended the side by side know very well what features to look for and what comparisons to make.
The prefix on the receiver stamp looks light a bit of a light strike but the dimensions between raised and recessed areas within each letter are still distinguishable.
Also, and most importantly...I take decent photos, but my photo editing skills leave much to be desired.
That said, I'll see what I can do.
-
RM--
Are all of those you posted above from Westrifle guns?
-
Boris- You are right about pictures that you posted. It does highlight the S/N. The E does look different to me, but a person can check the other set of pictures to see that it is the same.
-
Yes Boris, all the photos of the stocks are Westrifle guns. The ones with white backgrounds are right off their own website in fact. The final two photos are two random Russian SKSs, one posted on gunboards and the other off gunbroker.
-
I feel that I have been upfront about this rifle. Questions answered, dozens of pictures posted for all to see. But as soon as Westrifle was mentioned, it was more about them and less about knowing more about this rifle. Judge this rifle and if there are questionable items, post it.
-
To me it looks like a perfectly average refurbed sks you would find in any cabellas/wholesale/CT up here, other than the spike bayonet of course.
BUT, i also got fooled into buying 'supergrade' sks's so my opinion isnt worth much :))
-
jstin, I'm not sure what you're looking for here. There is no SKS expert in the world that will be able to tell you with 100% certainty if your gun is an as-built transitional '50, a '49 which was refurbished by the Russians, or a gun that has been modded by Westrifle to bring in a higher retail value by swapping the stock ferrule and bayonet. It simply can't be done, I don't care how good the SKS expert is. Everyone will have opinions and different features and pieces of data will hold different weight for different people to come to different conclusions. The fact that it is a Westrifle gun and you did pay a premium for it adds another layer to the equation as we now not only have to worry about what the Russians may or may not have done, but we have to look at what may or may not have done by the retailer to help 'improve' the rifle for sale. It's unfortunate, but as you can see from the photos I've posted, there are demonstrable instances of them selling Russian SKSs with markings that are not original to the guns.
Boris has talked about font on the receiver and receiver cover being matching and I think I agree with him. The rest of the stamped parts look a little different than these two, but I would say we can't even identify the reason as to why that is. Was the receiver and receiver cover both scrubbed and restamped? Are the piece parts all scrubbed and restamped? Are the receiver/receiver cover and piece parts all original yet stamped with a different stamp set? Are the stamps all the same, yet struck at different angles/by different technicians?
Could there be a run of EM prefixed '49s and a separate run of EM prefixed '50s? Absolutely. It would be the first occurrence of consecutive year prefixes I've ever encountered in the '49 to '55 timeframe though. By '56 to '58 and in the Izhevsk guns, reuse of prefixes from year to year is noted, but in the early years there seems to always be at least a one year gap between reuse of prefixes (i.e. prefix "AB" is seen in '49, '51, and '54, but not '50, '52, '53, or '55). Granted my data set is only 1467 rifles with 1097 of those being as-issued or positively ID'd using comparison to as-issued guns, but I would have thought I'd see at least one occurrence of this before now.
Could it be that the EM numbers transitioned from '49 to '50 and this is what we are seeing? Sure! The bothersome aspect of this one is that your EM717 is lower than all other known EMs and the 4 other EMs (EM972, EM1191, EM1546, and EM1818) all have '49 covers while EM923 also has a '50 cover. Maybe they built these in reverse order? Maybe they found a stash of pre-marked '49 covers that they used up sometime after the EM1000 rifle build?
Lots of conjecture, but not much to back any concrete conclusion up I'm afraid...
-
I feel that I have been upfront about this rifle. Questions answered, dozens of pictures posted for all to see. But as soon as Westrifle was mentioned, it was more about them and less about knowing more about this rifle. Judge this rifle and if there are questionable items, post it.
I don't think anyone here is trying to disparage you or the rifle because of the Westrifle connection. Were it a bladed rifle from 1950 onward, the discussion would have never gotten this far.
But, if determination of age and/or possible provenance are at heart of the discussion surrounding this rifle, than the Westrifle connection becomes crucial to making (or not being able to make) a determination.
It actually helps to let the discussion remain open. In my opinion it's crucial that the stamps on the the receiver and cover are Soviet-made ( and seemingly identical). Westrifle has a reputation of humping guns-- so it's important for the discussion to consider various aspects of the rifle to get a better idea of whether or not your rifle made it through Westrifle variously modified or relatively unscathed. TBH, I'm of the opinion that very little (if anything) was done to this rifle by Westrifle (though some of the other metal stamps could be reasonably questioned).
Might they have scrubbed some serials an then re-stamped to make a matching rifle? Yes, possibly As I just noted, some of the other metal stamps are modestly questionable (imo). But the receiver and cover serials are (beating a dead horse) still the crucial serial stamps. And I just don't see any indication that they have been altered in any way by Westrifle. Going further, I don't think they were altered by the Soviets either. To me they are far and away the most convincing traits for date determination on this rifle. But they are not 100% date-determining.
I believe there is a substantial argument to be made that it's a 1950 gun with a cruciform bayonet. And, of course others will disagree, but I think the argument in favor of 1950 is more convincing than the argument in favor of a 1949 gun with an replacement cover.
But the Westrifle connection can't be ignored-- just like Mitchell's Mausers here in the US.
More than likely this rifle will never provide definitive proof regarding the actual date of manufacture. And that's not because of the Westrifle connection. If we could omit the questionable westrfile connection, we would still be left with a nearly 70 year old gun that has gone through at least one fairly heavy refurbishment process.
The best evidence for an unaltered/as-issued (or even a lite-lite-refurb), 1950, cruciformed, SKS45 will be exactly that. Given the uninterrupted stream of Soviet SKS imports to Canada over the past few decades, my educated guess (whatever that means) is that the best chance of finding such an example would be in CANADA.
So, my sks addicts to the north, keep yer eyes peeled. Eh?
In the end you've got a unique piece that's touched on a relatively obscure corner of SKS history and (dare I say) lore.
Nothing wrong with that. I'd gladly pay 2-3 times what you paid in Canada to own such a specimen in the US...westrifle or not.
-
My last post got me the results I was hopping for. Thanks, Running-Man and Boris. I know that this rifle cannot be authenticated as no records exist and there are several iffy factors involved. It gets people thinking and pondering. If another 50 with EM shows up, it would help with this one. I would still appreciate other members opinions. Another thing that I would like to mention. Westrifle had 10 - 49 SKSs listed for $400.00. The last one was titled 1950(same price as others). My opinion only, is that they bought a crate of 49's and this one got slipped in. The premium 49's sell for $600.00.
-
Now.... would this same rifle caused this much controversy had this Westrifle had just came out, been straight out up front and said, "we built these out of all Russian imported '49-early '50 parts kits" and asked 400 bucks each. While the true imported '49's sell for 600. Same thing happens here, a few years ago a lot of Yugo M59's were toted, advertised and sold that were nothing more than heavily modified M59/66 rifles. There was really no mention by the sellers as to what it was, until the collecting community called out the retailers on their description.
On parts kits... how many Russian SKSs remain over seas to be imported? They already have been imported for years, both in the US and Canada, plus what was sent to supply other Communist nations with weapons. There was only so many rifles produced in a fairly limited time span.. the numbers remaining I'm sure are dwindling, they could be scraping the bottom of the surplus piles. Spare parts, over runs, incomplete rifles being assembled and completed is always a possibility to supply the demand and make the most profit off of what remains.
What I see and read, there are 2 roads of possibility.. it's a Westrifle, Mitchells, Gibbs, Santa Fe, Century Arms style importer parts kit rebuild/restamp, or it's truly a legit piece of Russian built hardware. Also based on what I have seen and read.. I simply see an aberration that has no concrete explanation one way or the other, a no proof one off......To me, a determining factor would be if other oddities, strange remixes that go against the norm slowly show up in mass, or if they sell out of all these rifles, and this is the only documented one in Canada.
-
My last post got me the results I was hopping for. Thanks, Running-Man and Boris. I know that this rifle cannot be authenticated as no records exist and there are several iffy factors involved. It gets people thinking and pondering. If another 50 with EM shows up, it would help with this one. I would still appreciate other members opinions. Another thing that I would like to mention. Westrifle had 10 - 49 SKSs listed for $400.00. The last one was titled 1950(same price as others). My opinion only, is that they bought a crate of 49's and this one got slipped in. The premium 49's sell for $600.00.
Then it does not sound to me like there was a great price gain to be made by humping anything.
I believe there is a substantial argument to be made that it's a 1950 gun with a cruciform bayonet. And, of course others will disagree, but I think the argument in favor of 1950 is more convincing than the argument in favor of a 1949 gun with an replacement cover.
I would tend towards the latter. We literally have zero evidence of an as-issued 50 with a spike bayo, and Im sure we can find 49s with replacement covers. Just my .02
-
don't even know what Westrifle is. got to get out more. pullhair1
-
don't even know what Westrifle is. got to get out more. pullhair1
Pretty sure its a distributor in canada.
-
don't even know what Westrifle is. got to get out more. pullhair1
Like LC said. More often discussed on the "Canadian Gun Nutz" forum but a retailer that is inaccessible to us...US ;) :)
http://westrifle.com/wrstore/
-
Like LC said. More often discussed on the "Canadian Gun Nutz" forum but a retailer that is inaccessible to us...US ;) :)
http://westrifle.com/wrstore/
More than that Jon. They are official sponsors of that forum. Any posts that show a sponsor in a less then flattering light are quickly dealt with and oftentimes the offending poster is reprimanded. whip))
I guess that's what happens when forums are at the mercy of their sponsors.
-
Oh geez
-
I joined Canadian Gun Nutz in June 2017. It was to view equipment exchange. Today when I found out about the forum, I posted my 50 SKS and explained questions that have been asked ( 1950-spike-westrifle). I posted pictures and asked if anyone had a 50 with spike or EM serial number to post it. Will let you know results.
-
Like everyone knows and has said here westrifle has done some shady stuff so the authenticity is up for grabs, but let's look at the facts it looks like a 49 quacks like a 49 but there is little known about the transition of the early 49-50 guns so it will possibly never be known the true history of this gun....but either way it's a very interesting gun and worth the investment.
-
I have posted this carbine on Canadian Gun Nutz. I was wondering if any members knew about overseas SKS forums that could help with identifying this carbine?
-
May have to settle for 'overlakes' info, because I don't think russians can tell much more about this rifle then whats been stated.
-
What I should have said was that SKSs were exported to several other counties and I wonder if there are forums in those countries.
-
I mean data bases not forums.
-
NoytaCCCP/Kurgan has a datsbase in Canada. His database is user submittted w/o photo proof for a majority of entries and I believe he has had some pretty bad issues with data quality to the point of shutting down the survey multiple times. He has not updated anything in several years. Some guys at guns.ru (or popgun or various other named Russian sites... they all have the same forum) had a prefix only list going for SKS45s but that did not go very far I'm afraid.
Apart from those two (and mine of course), I know of no other SKS45 databases that exist out there. If there is a particular subset of guns someone is interested in, I can usually pull and post that portion pretty easily and can back each entry up with at least a receiver S/N photo if not many photos of the gun's features.
I think as you search you'll find a surprising lack of information on this topic out there. It's one of the main reasons this board even exists; to have the conversation on a board where pet ideas by the 'been there done that' crowd are not treated as gospel and new ideas and noob owners are belittled like you see on sksboards.
-
Thanks for the information. I guess that I will not know for sure about this rifle, unless someone notes his in one of the forums and produces pictures. Even then it still could be questionable. If you want and have a secure site where I could send information pertaining to S/Ns of my guns, I could take pictures of S/Ns and date and send you the webpage for immb. This can be added to your data base.
-
Thanks jstin!
Hang tight, I have an online Russian SKS survey in the works. (I'm currently manually pulling the info myself from various forums and auction sites). It only needs another few hours of work before I'll be ready to beta test it. You will be able to upload photos and observations.
The Chinese Survey V2.0 is up and working quite well if you have any Chinese Type 56s in your collection: http://form.jotform.us/form/41858512574158
-
Sorry no Chinese. Also when you get the Russian survey up and running, could I put it in a folder on IMMB and give you access to it?
-
Sorry no Chinese. Also when you get the Russian survey up and running, could I put it in a folder on IMMB and give you access to it?
You talking about imgbb... The image hosting site?
-
yes, same one that I have the pictures of 50.
-
I was looking at Survivors forum. On the SKS Serial Number Registry I found something interesting. On post 73, leojlafrog on Dec.11 2012, posted a 50 tula with all 49 features. It didn't state what features specifically. No pictures.
-
No pics, crappy description.... yup, sounds like an sksboards database to me!
-
I can't see the fault in the forum. A member entered his rifles in the registry and that was it. I was in the same situation when I mentioned my rifle, but Boris questioned my rifle. He asked for more information and pictures. This did not happen when leojlafrog entered his post.
-
I can't see the fault in the forum. A member entered his rifles in the registry and that was it. I was in the same situation when I mentioned my rifle, but Boris questioned my rifle. He asked for more information and pictures. This did not happen when leojlafrog entered his post.
What knowledge did you gain from the 'registry' post on sksboards?
Was the letter prefix the same?
Was the gun refurbished?
Was there pictures of all the components and serial?
-
I can't see the fault in the forum. A member entered his rifles in the registry and that was it.
SKSboards and SKS-Files have quite a history jstin. Many members here are banned over there. Go ahead and try to post anything regarding this site or the weebly chinese SKS guide over there and watch how quickly the text turns into these markings: ******. We are 100% censored over there plain and simple and have been accused of simultaneously 'stealing' their data at the same time we just 'make stuff up'. Which is it?! It can't be both at the same time!
The survey posted over there is NoytaCCCP's from Canada and is unfortunately rife with guns that either have refurbished and swapped receiver covers or outright fabrication by the person entering the data into the survey. With no way to verify the entries, who's to say what's what?
The survey they did was a noble cause, but w/o second parties being able to verify the data via at least photo evidence, it's simply not all that useful I'm afraid.
-
This I didn't know. I thought that these forums were to further information about the SKS. I have learned a lot from both forums and hope to further my knowledge. One thing that I have to agree on, is that all items entered should have photos enclosed.
-
Loose -Cannon, I need to read previous comments rather than just last one. I missed your comment. What did I get out of post? Not much other than his statement that he was entering this rifle. No S/N, no mention of what characteristics of 49 on his 50 rifle and no pictures.
-
I just read a interesting item on the gunboards forum. Page 150, 1949 tula sks(picture heavy). 08-18-2009 at 1:55 p.m. 1950 sks mentioned. I am not a member of this forum, but browsing for information.
-
date of post is actually 08/08/2009. my mistake.
-
What ya find out?
-
It was interesting from comments made. Check it out. Had to jump ahead to get to page 151 then back to 150.
-
It was interesting from comments made. Check it out. Had to jump ahead to get to page 151 then back to 150.
No idea how to find it. Have a link to the page your lookin at?
-
Looks like jstin2 is referring to this post:
http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?125742-1949-Tula-SKS-(pic-heavy)
The pics apparently didn't survive the ages :(
-
It's amazing that the field of SKS collecting made any progress in the late 2000's in the face of posts like that. So much conjecture tossed about willy-nilly with absolutely zero to back much of it up beyond the name and reputation of the poster and a 'I own xx Russian SKSs!'.
OP of that thread was absolutely correct in pushing back at the narrative that some of those guys were pushing. Doesn't really surprise me in the least anymore though.
-
It's amazing that the field of SKS collecting made any progress in the late 2000's in the face of posts like that. So much conjecture tossed about willy-nilly with absolutely zero to back much of it up beyond the name and reputation of the poster and a 'I own xx Russian SKSs!'.
OP of that thread was absolutely correct in pushing back at the narrative that some of those guys were pushing. Doesn't really surprise me in the least anymore though.
Whoa :o flashbacks of days gone by.. ??? Don't question me...I own 87 of them...I am the expert. If you were the expert...I would be asking you chuckles1
-
Oh for petes sake.
-
Well, first off, welcome to the forum Justin.
And here, is a couple more cents. :)
What you have is a 49, for sure. It has a bottom pinned stock ferrule... these were only used on the earliest SKSs...including the prototypes, at the changeover from spike to blade, which I highly suspect happened late in 49...they began to top pin them...like every other SKS since, from any nationality.
Yours has been refurbed at some point, 49 and early 50 covers will only work on the original looped take down cover. During the refurb process, the covers would often be scrubbed and restamped, your cover appears to me to be VERY similarly scrubbed to a 49 cover I bought earlier this year from a Russian who gets his stuff directly from old military buddies who work at the 'recycling' program.
I purchased what appears to be a late 49 early 50...missing stock, trigger group, magazine, receiver cover, original gas tube, and it was a top pinned blade cut ferrule. I then bought the majority of my parts from an early 50 to refurbish it as best I could. I haven't brought myself to attempt to remove the ferrule to see if the barrel is scored for both top and bottom pin options. Another thing that points to a refurb done on yours is the fact it has the pin on the bottom of the magazine for the stud that was later added to retain the spring. Finding a 49 magazine is very difficult...as I suspect the springs likely were lost without a way to retain them....I think they tossed these at refurb and never reused them. I have no proof of that other than they are damn near impossible to find, the only one I have seen had a TERRIBLE Canadian 5 round mod pin buggering it up....other than that, only on certifiable very light refurb 49s. My search is ongoing. :)
Now, I am not sure mine is a 49, but I am trying to get it there. I doubt I will attempt to get it back to the spike though, because the stock and bayonet are ridiculous expensive...(although,I did a pretty decent fake with a T53 bayonet). The REAL problem is getting that bleeding bottom pinned stock ferrule. These are smaller than the standard SKS ferrule as well, to deal with the skinnier stock...I believe somebody had a fun job modding your stock to fit it...but, I think that happened a long time ago...probably pre-Sputnik even.
Mine happens to be an EO btw...my research is ongoing about when the serial prefixes changed keep me posted, there aren't many EOs to go by.
I think someone tried very hard to keep your gun as close to original at refurb. I think many might have received a later cover, which will actually work. The original covers likely got set aside when they ran out of looped take down lever guns requiring them. The cover I bought was partially scrubbed...poorly, and then lightly sprayed with the BBQ paint to prevent corrosion, and then it was mothballed until my guy was able to dig one up. Since your receiver and cover stamps appear to be identical, I wouldn't be shocked if the receiver was scrubbed and restamped too. Whether a totally new serial was applied is something I am curious about...and if they would have resumed with a serial scheme that was current when it was refurbed? If that is the case, then serial data on Russians might be a little useless with the exception of as issued, non refurbs. I can only speculate...and it hurts my brain a little sometimes. :)
If we can only rely on the hardware used, that stock ferrule is going DING DING DING....I am a 1949.
I am able to have the luxury of either having a scrubbed blank 49 cover on mine, or a 50 cover that matches most of my replacement parts. I am pretty darn happy with the blued blade I put on it, vs. trying to locate that ferrule...and forking over the equal sum for another SKS for a stock and spike....with my luck, I would pull my ferrule and find it was originally supposed to have a blade in the first place. chuckles1
Westrifle's reputation aside, nobody is going to try fake that ferrule...I think everything done to your rifle was at refurb...in Russia.
-
Since your receiver and cover stamps appear to be identical, I wouldn't be shocked if the receiver was scrubbed and restamped too. Whether a totally new serial was applied is something I am curious about...and if they would have resumed with a serial scheme that was current when it was refurbed? If that is the case, then serial data on Russians might be a little useless with the exception of as issued, non refurbs. I can only speculate...and it hurts my brain a little sometimes. :)
Any that is basically the crux of the matter with the suspect data from all other other surveys summed up in a few sentences. As-issued guns in original condition are the gold standard and all other refurbs can only provide (in some instances ridiculously) limited input to the whole process. The thing is, there is also some threshold of "If I get X # of guns with YZ prefix from 19## with these five traits, yet all are refurbs, I can still tease something out just by the fact that a pattern emerges." I don't have a handle on what the number X should be yet, but with the spreadsheet I currently have, sorting them into these groups is a piece of cake! thumb1
Nice observation on the stock ferrule Justin, I had forgotten about the top pin vs bottom pin examples.... thumb1
I too think it's a '49 sporting a '50 cover, I hadnt considered that the cover could have been blank to start out with and the EM S/N was the first to be stamped on it.... think1
-
I too think it's a '49 sporting a '50 cover, I hadnt considered that the cover could have been blank to start out with and the EM S/N was the first to be stamped on it.... think1
I didn't consider that it could have simply been refurbed in 50, and then restocked with the laminate even later? A blank cover...but then scrubbed and reserialed...I didn't notice scrubbing on the trigger, but heck, they could have just used a new 50 trigger and replaced the mag with the pinned version all at once? The 50 trigger would have the same traits....ALMOST....my 50 trigger required me to file down the retaining pin because the frame is thicker than on 49 triggers. This example might have had the luxury of having its retaining pin replaced too...since they had them and all. :)
I thought the cover looked scrubbed in one of the photos, but it might have been a glare...the matching serial fonts kind of bug me, because, why scrub the receiver at all, unless it was completely reserialed...and then, by what serial scheme would they use? The current one at the time of refurb? If not, why bother with the receiver...those wacky Russians.
I swear I have almost no interest in any other Tula's than the 49/early 50 ones...maybe a little for a 45 degree gas block transitional...but these early ones are really neat. There is a lot of transitional minutia that makes it more interesting.
-
Justin- what you might have seen on the cover is grind marks. It was like that when I got the rifle. There was pitting on the bottom of cover and extending on both sides of receiver to pin holes. There is also grinding on the front of receiver(bottom).Also concerning the cover, if they replaced the cover, would they not have stamped the date rather than engraving? And tula star on cover appears not to be a single stamp, like later stamps. Also would they have replaced the bolt and carrier with a new one and stamped. There is a close-up picture of bolt. Like I have mentioned before, this SKS is something to ponder over.
-
Justin- what you might have seen on the cover is grind marks. It was like that when I got the rifle. There was pitting on the bottom of cover and extending on both sides of receiver to pin holes. There is also grinding on the front of receiver(bottom).Also concerning the cover, if they replaced the cover, would they not have stamped the date rather than engraving? And tula star on cover appears not to be a single stamp, like later stamps. Also would they have replaced the bolt and carrier with a new one and stamped. There is a close-up picture of bolt. Like I have mentioned before, this SKS is something to ponder over.
I think the cover then, if those are indeed grind marks...was scrubbed and restamped. It was probably a 50 cover with another serial restamped to match the gun's serial...the 49 and early 50 covers were all hand struck...the stars and dates are very random as a result. IIRC my 49/50 thing is a little rough on the machining on the receiver's underside...nothing horrible, but not quite as polished and proper as later guns. With mine, I had the original (I think) bolt that matched the receiver...the cover matters little in the function. I almost wonder if the stamps were new enough at this one's first refurb that they just happened to match? I cannot fathom why they would scrub and restamp the receiver with the same serial....but, I also cannot fathom many things the Russians did...I just try and make sense out of it, and try to draw the most reasonable conclusion...assuming they were trying to be frugal with parts and materials that were perfectly good.
I would love to hear from a living person what exactly went on with refurbing...I suspect there were some big batches that came in for refurb and all hell broke loose trying to get parts back together to specific guns...and then some smaller batches where light refurbs and hard cases like these might have received more attention...all a guess, but...there had to be some common ground between what made sense between getting the guns back together at all, or fudging here and there with problem children like the 49/50s with their parts being improved upon frequently in those early years.
Of my current 11, this one is my most favorite to contemplate the details over...and the why behind some of them. Sometimes you can tell it was just a material saving modification, sometimes it was an actual improvement....sometimes you just don't know why. I am still kind of curious whether there was some kind of difference in the three different gas block designs over the first two years in function vs the material differences...which seem to be minor... Perhaps it was just aesthetics? The straight ear vs angled on the bayonet lug was an obvious deployment improvement...from what I understand from Russian boards, the blade seemed scarier in the troops opinion than the spike...and that was the supposed reason for the change... The spring loaded firing pin change to the floating have me a little perplexed...if it was a cost cutting measure, I wish they would have never changed for whatever minor shaving in expense was facilitated, since that is one of the few 'flaws' in the design.
I think yours might have just come from refurb (twice most likely) as you received it....a hot mess of questions, that a lot of dead guys would probably giggle at a bunch of democracy based folks wasting their time asking them. Although, I think the poor dumb bastard that had to whittle and sand that laminate stock to fit a 49 ferrule and spike might not laugh...he might appreciate the fact we care enough to talk about it nearly 70 years later. :)
-
I would love to hear from a living person what exactly went on with refurbing....
I would walk around every town with an arsenal asking all the old folks that question if i could afford to do it.
Im sure the refurb when Ivan dropped his sks out the back of the troop truck in 1951 and had it run over was a different one to the, there's 50,000 sks's coming in next month to check and prep for storage,
Guns are refurbished every single day.
-
Justin- the grind marks that I am referring to are below the serial number. Who did it?? This is my opinion only- S/N are legit, stock ferrule is for a 49/50. My only question are the date(engraved) and tula star and are they original? And why not stamped like newer covers? Everybody is concerned with the question of S/N's and what I am thinking is date and tula star. Also looking at pictures it appears that there is a faint refurb marking on it. Nobody has brought this up. Also if the cover was scrubbed the cover edges would also have been redone. If date was scrubbed they would have to take a lot of material off. And if at refurb why would they put 1950 on a 1949 and they would have to redo the tula star?
-
And why not stamped like newer covers?
Find the guy at the factory in 1949 and ask him. No one knows. (that ive ever heard)
As for the refurb mark, it might have been the tenth gun that receiver cover was put on, the fifth stock and been re-barreled twice.
In fact it could have been refurbed so many times that none of the pieces other than the receiver are actually the ones that rolled of the line in 1949, just to play devils advocate.
Unfortunately theres no individual gun logbook with every entry of what happened to it. (But that would be soooo cool if there was.)
Its all best guesses.
-
The way I look at it, if the cover was dated 49, there would be no problem. Year 49 had several rifles recorded with EM S/N. With the engraved 1950r and the older version tula star on the cover is what causes confusion. And you are right in stating in who knows what happens in refurbishing.
-
This rifle could have been refurbished at any time...it might have had it's original cover for the majority of its lifetime...at some point, a 50 cover with the tiny hole for the tiny looped takedown lever was scrubbed to match the serial of the gun. 49/early 50 covers only work on 49/early 50s...whoever did the refurb got as close as they could I suspect. Who knows, if the serial font doesn't match all the other components...maybe Westrifle did reserial it...I doubt they would, but it is possible since the serial for the receiver and the cover so closely match. With the common problem of mismatched covers to Russian SKSs after refurb, I seriously doubt they cared what star or year was on the cover when reassembling. Regarding the scrubbing and reserialing of the cover and receiver at the same time...to me is the biggest question.
There were trial guns from 45-48 too....this could be one of those, and THAT might be why it was reserialed later...heck, it might have not had a serial at all until it was mated up with the 50 cover....which could have even been surplus until they were joined together. I think the serial matching was more important so that when broken down in small groups the troops would be able to get their parts back for their gun without issue. I have seen modern Russian children being trained in school to break down AKs...and they actually pound out the sight leaf in the process...by hand. Which would explain why they bothered to electro pencil the serials on them....everything with a serial was a part that was removed for full takedown and cleaning. We are lucky they didn't serialize op rod pistons and recoil spring assemblies! Early on, they even serialed the extractors....which I believe was either phased out after manufacture of them ceased in Russia, and refurbs didn't get them on their already existing bolts when replaced....or perhaps at some point during manufacture they stopped. Hard to say. It seems to me like any part with any fitment issues specific to it's original gun got a serial.
IIRC a considerable amount of fitting was required for my 50 cover to fit my gun...not so with the 49 cover...there may have been some slight changes made between even early 50 and 49 covers...I didn't measure, or am sure I even could measure the differences....but I think there were alterations that have yet to be confirmed over the first two or three years Russia made these exquisite beasts. I also suspect that there were some alterations to the FSB as well, at least in pin placement between 49-50...I had to replace mine, first I accidentally did it with what I think was a 51, which was straight eared...but had lightening cuts....ooops! I then got one that was as close to correct as I could...but I think was a 50, because the pin depth and position was slightly different....as it also was on the 51. My original was either neutered by the State of California upon importation...or heck...maybe even in Russia. But it has zero bayonet lug, or nubs for the cleaning rod....perhaps the asshat who had it before me did that..I cannot tell, as it was bead blasted and then duracoated. My import mark is almost invisible....so much I had to take great care to ensure not obliterating it when removing the damn paint and rebluing.
Regardless, I am certain there are a few features in the first year or two that were altered unbeknownst even to the most hardcore collectors...even regarding the metal finishing....there is some neat stuff going on underneath a lot of those BBQ painted guns....you just have to strip it to bare metal and note the layers on the way there... :)
I have never heard of or seen evidence that the original Tula star/date stampings have ever been scrubbed or altered...I don't think it was an issue to them.
I seriously doubt this was ever rebarreled. If it was, the stock ferrule surely would have been replaced with a modern one, for the stocks on hand at refurb, and for the bayonets on hand at refurb.
-
What is unique about jstin2's 1950 dated gun is that serial font on the cover and the receiver are stamped in what appears to be the exact same font and size.
How often does an exact match in serial fonts occur between the receiver and replacement parts on refurbed guns? Even when they look similar, upon closer inspection there's always a detectable difference. Not so with this gun. And I've examined the two serials at least 50 times.
The exact match between the reciever and cover serial fonts is what makes this gun so intriguing-- because it ties the date on the cover to the receiver.
-
I dunno how many fonts they allowed/had, but I haven't seen much variation among Russians.
Having the same font stamp set at the refurb facility as the factory is entirely possible and likely in my opinion.
-
The mere presence of a bottom pinned stock ferrule...and that it has a spike makes it quite unlikely that it is even an early 50. The grind marks on the cover lead to the conclusion it was scrubbed. It is intriguing...I cannot explain the serial stamps matching so closely.
With the research I have done, I don't think any feature is set in stone as to when the transition to later features came along...at least enough to say that sure, there were some early 50s with 90 degree gas blocks...and other features changed a little over those first years, but I am almost positive....none would have been bottom pinned on the stock ferrule by the time 50 came around. I think the blade bayonet came in late 49, there are a few examples out there, and I don't subscribe to the thought that they would reinstall all those barrel parts to retrofit for the new bayonets....since the effort was put into this one for a laminate to both fit the ferrule and the spike, why would some get that and others not at refurb time?
I truly wouldn't be surprised if this is a trial gun that was later serialed and rebuilt with whatever parts were around that fit. I wish I was more familiar with the 45-48 run...and what may have changed during those years from what the 49 eventually was mass produced as. If it was a trial gun, maybe they didn't get serialed in the same fashion...and that explains the serials being so similar between the parts? It is a real head scratcher...but it screams 49 to me more so than the cover date says. It's just my opinion...but I am pretty secure in thinking so. :)
-
If the average yearly output of sks45 was 200-300k guns-- then we've too small of a sample pool of early cruciform guns to make any definitive claims on precisesly where the cruciform bayo ended.
We've just recently seen some overlap between the Type 56 "ghosts" and the onset of the /26\ stamped guns. Which suggests that transitions between feature sets wasn't necesarily clean break from one design set to the next.
Regarding the horizontal grinding marks on base of the cover and the back of the receiver-- They do not strike me as indication of the cover serial having been scrubbed. Why would the marks remain after scrubbing an rebluing? Why do they run across both the cover and the reciever. It just doesn't jive.
I would even say there's an argument to be made that all of the stamps look like they were struck with the same stamps -- aside from the EM on the carrier and some dimensional differences in the top and bottom half of the some of the E stamps. But the receiver and the cover are -- undeniably the same.
I'm not saying that it is or isn't without exception a 1949 or a 1950. What I'm saying is that there is a considerable argument to be made that it's an original as-issued 1950 (not including the stock). And that based on such a relatively small sample of guns with cruciform bayonets-- it's impossible to make any attempt to definitively claim that this rifle is a re-furbed '49 with a 1950 cover ...scrubbed AND stamped in the exact same font and size as the receiver and most of the rest of the gun.
In the case of this gun, I prefer to keep an open mind.
-
...Understanbly there was probably a lower output of guns with the 90 degree gas port than the output of sks45s in subsequent years, but the sample pool we're working with is still statictically small. And the range of potential cruciform 1950's would likely be even statistically smaller.
-
Kind of makes you wonder if perhaps there was a period of time when they made both spike and blades and perhaps that time frame covered late 49 into 50?
My partially scrubbed cover was pretty harshly ground on...not quite enough to completely obliterate the serial, but close. It looked very similar to the grind marks on this one. I finished the job and reblued it, as I had to match the rest of the gun anyway. It was the only part that actually still had original bluing..except the ground part...which was a bit of a bummer, but... It also has no refurb stamp dance2
-
Look again at pictures of cover. Grind marks are below the serial number and extends on receiver to latch pin holes. If you would like more pictures of cover, let me know. Won't be high quality, but should show you what you need. On the front of receiver, bottom there is also grind marks. From what I could see, there was pitting and a sloppy job grinding.
-
Not sure more pics are needed.
I don't see how those marks can be associated in any way with refurbishment.
They could be from previous owner. They could be from westrifle. But that's not a trait associated with refurbishment. Marks like that would have been buffed out and reblued or painted over during refurbishment. It's not an indication that the cover has been scrubbed and restamped.
-
I have this carbine on CGN. I have requested any info on early 50s. I got one reply from bobdbldr that he has a 50 with 90 degree gas port, hand stamped tula star, engraved date, eyelet latch cover, blade bayonet and the S/N starts with ER. I was hoping for EM, but it is a start. I asked for pictures and he will send me the webpage when done.
-
Bob posted a few pictures on CGN , but also stated that it has a sloped gas port not a 90(looked at it and compared). It definitely has a engraved date, hand stamped Tula star and eyelet latch pin.
-
On CGN in Red, It was asked about cover having lightening holes. Thought was that it was from a letter series blank cover, only problem is that pin hole is for a early 49-50 carbine due to pin hole. One keen observer noted that the lightening holes were not evenly spaced like the late models. This could show that these holes were drilled at refurb. Why, who knows.
-
On CGN in Red, It was asked about cover having lightening holes. Thought was that it was from a letter series blank cover, only problem is that pin hole is for a early 49-50 carbine due to pin hole. One keen observer noted that the lightening holes were not evenly spaced like the late models. This could show that these holes were drilled at refurb. Why, who knows.
Interesting.
The small retaining pin hole should be a dead giveaway about it's years of early service.
If I was near my 49 and 50 cover I would look...but I am 99% sure neither have the lightening holes.
I also find the miniscule amounts of lightening to be inconsequential...across the lot of parts that initially had them, and later the idea was discarded? One would think that it was for lightening, it would be something they came up with later. It seems like a pain in the neck to do that to the FSB, RSB, bolt carrier...and later the tiny holes in the cover too? Why? To save a total of maybe a very generous half ounce of metal?
Something I wonder...are the SKSs with the bluing wear band across the center of the cover the ones with or without these little holes? Perhaps it had something to do with these holes and the bluing process?
The Chinese were as frugal as any SKS manufacturer....why would they choose to unlighten parts as they slowly degraded production? It certainly couldn't have been a cost saving measure...other than in labor. All Yugos into the 80s still exhibit bolt carrier lightening cuts...and they at least put a part number in there....nobody else used that as a placard. Seems like a monumental painus to even bother putting it there at all on the bazillions that had them initially....the shavings, added to the tooling waste would add up to what, a bazzilon and a dozen after reclaimation?
Why are there lightening cuts at all....particularly in receiver covers...if that even is what they are?
-
I guess I dont follow the russians that closely. Can someone post pictures of these 'lightening holes' in the cover?
-
I guess I dont follow the russians that closely. Can someone post pictures of these 'lightening holes' in the cover?
https://ibb.co/nzshgG
-
No wonder I didn't know what you guys were talking about. Why are these holes considered to be for the purpose of "lightening"?
-
No wonder I didn't know what you guys were talking about. Why are these holes considered to be for the purpose of "lightening"?
I asked myself the same question yesterday. As I have long thought they were weight reduction related.
But it occured to me that they might have something to do with the production process-- i.e. holes for mounting on hooks while cooling or for drying after rebluing or painting?
-
They 'could' be for anything, but the furthest from my mind is for lightening. :-X
Other aspects of the sks considered to be done for lightening are much more obvious of their purpose. These holes, not so much.
-
It would seem more likely to do with the production process...and it seems like the term lightening makes little sense since all the parts on early guns were lightened by what must be totally inconsequential weight vs making the process more complicated. One would think if it was for lightening...it would have come later rather than sooner.
The cover holes I suspect had something to do with ensuring the bluing was strong inside the takedown lever hole perhaps? I have wondered about that weird band some covers got where the bluing well, stupid lack of a better term....lightened. I have tried to figure out what causes that..it seems unlikely that it would be heat, since that doesn't get hot...and it is so uniform, like it had a band aid on during part of the bluing process. I wonder if that was resolved by adding the holes, perhaps at refurb they were manually added if they aren't uniform?
I just checked my unrefurbished 49 cover, no holes....and despite extensive stripping to the white and rebluing...AND only firing it ten times...I just noticed that it is developing that band?! I can't find my early 50 refurb cover though...or most of my covers...as most of my guns are scoped. The box with the original parts is AWOL somewhere in my gun room...under a bunch of my daughters crap. I wanted to check about a half dozen...especially the 50. banghead1
I also discovered my looped takedown pin somehow has lost it's pin....as in vanished. It must have fallen out during handling and found it's way out of the trigger? pullhair1
-
For what its worth...
My explanation for the light strip across the top of covers is a result of the manufacturing process of the cover. The cover would be forged into shape under extreme pressure. This pressure may have a effected the area as to not easily accept the bluing as well as the surrounding areas.
In similar fashion, it could have been heat treated lying upside down in a tray that supported them in the affected area and the temp deviation ultimately effected the area as to not easily accept the bluing as well as the surrounding areas.
-
It would seem more likely to do with the production process...and it seems like the term lightening makes little sense since all the parts on early guns were lightened by what must be totally inconsequential weight vs making the process more complicated. One would think if it was for lightening...it would have come later rather than sooner.
My question... if nations were so concerned with weight reduction, dropping an 1/8 of an ounce here, a 1/4 ounce there.. why would Russia switch to a laminate stock, thats a hair heavier than a hardwood stock? Ok, it's stronger, but more dense, and slightly heavier. NK and EG used laminates too, like Russia. Why would Yugoslavia use a heavy elm stock, then later in production, add on a pound of grenade launching hardware? Why would Albania add a smidge of extra weight with the larger style hand guard and slightly longer stock?
my opinion :o I agree... it wasn't weight they were after.. some other driving force was behind it. Lighter materials were available then... like the phenolic stocks on a Vz58.. lighter and stronger than wood, if a little nation like Czechoslovakia could do it, why didn't everyone if weight was a big factor??
-
For what its worth...
My explanation for the light strip across the top of covers is a result of the manufacturing process of the cover. The cover would be forged into shape under extreme pressure. This pressure may have a effected the area as to not easily accept the bluing as well as the surrounding areas.
In similar fashion, it could have been heat treated lying upside down in a tray that supported them in the affected area and the temp deviation ultimately effected the area as to not easily accept the bluing as well as the surrounding areas.
Hmmm...interesting point. Something I don't have enough experience looking for, but do we see this on all nationalities and eras? That also is the area where Russians would have had their stars and dates...perhaps the area is hardened differently? That would indicate a lot of Russian surplus if it is limited to earlyish Chinese...and anyone else obtaining Russian aid. MUST find that dang box!
-
It would seem more likely to do with the production process...and it seems like the term lightening makes little sense since all the parts on early guns were lightened by what must be totally inconsequential weight vs making the process more complicated. One would think if it was for lightening...it would have come later rather than sooner.
My question... if nations were so concerned with weight reduction, dropping an 1/8 of an ounce here, a 1/4 ounce there.. why would Russia switch to a laminate stock, thats a hair heavier than a hardwood stock? Ok, it's stronger, but more dense, and slightly heavier. NK and EG used laminates too, like Russia. Why would Yugoslavia use a heavy elm stock, then later in production, add on a pound of grenade launching hardware? Why would Albania add a smidge of extra weight with the larger style hand guard and slightly longer stock?
my opinion :o I agree... it wasn't weight they were after.. some other driving force was behind it. Lighter materials were available then... like the phenolic stocks on a Vz58.. lighter and stronger than wood, if a little nation like Czechoslovakia could do it, why didn't everyone if weight was a big factor??
Agreed...there should be a method to the madness. I thought perhaps shaving a little off the carrier would help with balance and how hard it closes home...but altering the spring would at least cover the latter. The amount removed seems inconsequential regardless. Perhaps it was the original idea for a place to serial instead of the stripper guide area? The Yugoslavians used it for part numbers. As haggard as the tooling marks usually are there, it seems pretty labor intensive, and not anything to do with the machining process.
The FSB I can only speculate that perhaps they had an armorers tool that would lock in there, since it is the only two flat surfaces for easier sight adjustment? Those tools we have now are not exactly what the doctor ordered...
The reduction in the RSB seems to have intensified labor, saved considerably more material and weight, but the only two things I can think of would be for easier removal...should a barrel need to be replaced...or perhaps to affect barrel harmonics? It is the most weight saved, but still very little.
Ease of assembly, maintenance and repair explain two out of three....the carrier is a little tougher to explain. At least Yugoslavia figured out a use for it. :)
-
Some Romanians have numbers stamped in the cut on the carrier.. all of mine do, and it's not serial numbers. 2 of the carrier numbers, the oddball numbers match another set of numbers on the bolt, which is kind of redundant because both have serial numbers.
-
I thought perhaps shaving a little off the carrier would help with balance and how hard it closes home...but altering the spring would at least cover the latter
If you ask LC....
He would say these old assertions of 'lightening' of the carrrier made by know-it-all bobbleheads were incorrect. It makes more sense that these carrier cuts give debris a place to go rather then bind the action.
-
I thought perhaps shaving a little off the carrier would help with balance and how hard it closes home...but altering the spring would at least cover the latter
If you ask LC....
He would say these old assertions of 'lightening' of the carrrier made by know-it-all bobbleheads were incorrect. It makes more sense that these carrier cuts give debris a place to go rather then bind the action.
If we can determine if that is correct...and that our receivers were originally designed to fart, we are gonna need a new term for that. wink1
It could make for a fun test to shoot 100 rounds of the same ammo through one with and one without and see just how filthy the innards are between the two....trigger time excuse? 'But honey, it's for research...."
-
Im not thinking shooting crud.... Im talking, mud, grass, sticks, rice, body parts. Something foreign coming into the sliding action from the outside.
-
Im not thinking shooting crud.... Im talking, mud, grass, sticks, rice, body parts. Something foreign coming into the sliding action from the outside.
Carrier Blood Groove? :P
-
If we can determine if that is correct...and that our receivers were originally designed to fart, we are gonna need a new term for that. wink1
Butt-hole is already taken: oddly enough where we put the cleaning kit.
-
Im not thinking shooting crud.... Im talking, mud, grass, sticks, rice, body parts. Something foreign coming into the sliding action from the outside.
Along these lines, you could open the action and pour boiling hot water into the action. The holes in the covers would allow smaller grit and debris that accumlates in the cover recess to drain into the action and out throught he trigger assmebly.
Just a thought that occured to me when I recalled the pics of the Chinese soldier washing NIB type 56s with boiling water in a wok over a hot fire.
-
Added 3 pictures of trigger to the pictures my daughter took. Before there was only one with magazine, none by itself showing S/N.
https://ibb.co/album/kP3zJv
-
I had info about another 50 with a spike bayonet on survivors. I asked sksnut for pictures. He sent me 4 pictures of his carbine and also stated that is was refurbed as most are. I tried to post pictures, but my computer skills are next to nil. I only had running-man's email address and asked him if he could post them. Looking at pictures it is a early 50 - engraved date, hand stamped tula star, 90 degree gas port, eyelet latch pin and a spike bayonet. Stock is later design and not tapered. There was only one problem, the stock ferrule was not for a spike bayonet due to pin placement and possibly size. If stock ferrule was replaced at refurb. they probably would have replaced gas port to a 45. In my opinion the spike is not original to carbine and was added on later. When pictures are posted, you can give your opinion.
-
What would be wrong with the gas block requiring it to be replaced?
-
The only problem with the carbine that I have mentioned is that the stock ferrule is not for a spike bayonet, but there is a spike bayonet adhered to it.
-
Gotcha..... Its a blade gun because of that ferrule. Im not surprised
-
If there is one person who is hoping to find another 50 SKS with a spike bayonet it is me. But if the pictures does not prove it, I have to show and tell what I see. I have learned a lot from people on different forums, to know what to look for. As I said before, being on these forums is a learning tool and if you think you know everything, something new pops up.
-
Here are the photos jstin is talking about. I don't really think you can draw any conclusions off this one beyond it being an early gun that's been refurbished. dntknw1
-RM
(http://preview.ibb.co/cX25Km/IMG_6817.jpg) (http://ibb.co/kzZwQR)
(http://preview.ibb.co/fvYCzm/IMG_6818.jpg) (http://ibb.co/mU4Kem)
(http://preview.ibb.co/fffxX6/IMG_6819.jpg) (http://ibb.co/gCFWs6)
(http://preview.ibb.co/kxojC6/IMG_6820.jpg) (http://ibb.co/bxfLkR)
-
I keep leaning more and more towards a period of spike/blade concurrence. It might have been a week or two...using up old parts, transitioning to new parts...I doubt there was someone making sure there was one gas block to every receiver latch, but I also doubt they would waste anything...so as new developments came along, they implemented them....and there may have been a period of hodge podge components...possibly more than once where you will find original components that don't fit the cookie cutter version of what each year is supposed to have for their components.
This is why we research, and it seems like little by little we make progress. I look forward to finding out more...and finding another 50 spiker wouldn't hurt. The main thing is trying to make sense of the serial progression. Secondary is trying to determine what WOULD be done at refurb...vs what COULD be done at refurb. Since rebarreling even non chromed barrels didn't seem to happen at all or if so, rarely...it seems likely that very little that resides on the barrel would every require replacement either....since many other can's o' worms get opened in doing so when dealing with the slight variations that make 49s and 50s incompatible...in the most pissantly miniscule ways.
I think folks have a tendency to lean towards year models for guns being like year models for modern cars. The minor changes asserted towards years may be tainted with weird guns like yours...where parts were being used until they were gone, while new changes were being implemented. Where modern thought gives you the idea that you won't find a 92 bumper on a 93 truck....despite them sharing an identical almost bolt pattern that could be fudged to work.
(as I was typing RM posted that 50...one photo shows a potentially saggy bayonet that might have been forced into position by the photographer in the previous photo. There is an unblued sight leaf, which isn't uncommon...but certainly isn't original. The stock doesn't look to be the slender forend type like the normal spiker, but more akin to the blade type....probably reworked/fashioned to fit a spike. It is also double pinned...so perhaps they had to reinforce that area to route out some more stock to allow for the spike? I have a double pinned Russian I bought simply because I thought it might have been a reworked 49....
Also....this has a top pinned stock ferrule. That is not what goes with a spike.....so why would they leave the spike and replace the ferrule? It is the opposite of my problem with my 49/50 debacle. :) Joy...
I am also not entirely convinced that isn't a M44 bayonet....I faked one for kicks for mine....looks and sags very similarly.
I do not see a rivet on the mag from either angle...so that says something too....49/50 parts convergence maybe?
I would want to see about a dozen photos that aren't there for some more exacting evidence. I think the main thing to look for now is the pin placement betwixt 49 and 50 FSBs....which is where I think I found evidence of a difference. Most folks don't get to tear apart these guns...and try to restore them. Unless someone could convince an ex employee of Westrifle to admit they 'made' some 49s...and ask about the pins on those FSBs...we might never know.
The original FSB on my 49/50 thing looked like a flawless bayonet delete job....and the pin placement matches no other I have seen. Makes me wonder if they considered not having bayonets at all...it probably was Kalifornia...but it looks designed that way to me....the rear pin placement from a known early 50, and a known 51 do not line up. Those both shared the same pin placement as each other....but not to my gun. That and the pain it was to fit a 50 cover vs a 49 are the two things that make me think mine was a 49 blade...originally. Otherwise, I would lean more towards mine being an early 50.
-
the stock and front ferrule are not correct for Russian spike bayonet. The bayonet looks wrong too.
-
the stock and front ferrule are not correct for Russian spike bayonet. The bayonet looks wrong too.
I agree that the stock fore end looks pot bellied-- for blade bayo-- and not the gradual taper of the spike channeled stocks.
But is there a difference between the profile appearance of the spike and blade ferrules?
-
Stock ferrule for a spike does not have a V cut, the pin placement for a spike is at the bottom, whereas the stock ferrule for a blade is at the top. If you look closely, you can see that the pin placement on this carbine is at the top. Boris- if you contact r-m and ask him to forward the email I sent him, you can enlarge the carbine that was posted and see better the stock ferrule placement.
-
the pin placement for a spike is at the bottom, whereas the stock ferrule for a blade is at the top.
Aha.
Thanks.
-
Even without being able to see the pin, you can tell the difference because Russian spike ferrules made no bayonet contact at all...unlike the Chinese which used the V notch for blades and the U for spikes...the stock and ferrule are slender enough to not have any contact with it at all. It relies on the stock to keep it tucked away. I daresay you would have an easier time finding parts for a North Korean or East German than finding one of those ferrules.
It probably would be cheaper to have one fabricated than to buy one...if you could even locate one. I have given up, and will just be happy with the blued blade...
If I had the stones to potentially mess up a perfectly functional gun to check...I would love to see if mine is notched on both top and bottom of that barrel section to indicate whether it originally was spiked and later retrofitted for a blade.
Mine does not have the glob of weld that seemed to be a preventative measure for cracking with the blade notch...nor do I recall when the blobbed ones were used on Russians. I want to say late 50 and 51 had that there...and that it seemed to come well into the blades use, and it was assumed to be due to them cracking because of the V cut..either during manufacturing or in use. Apparently around 80 or so the Chinese started blobbing them briefly too...I have one of those ferrules that was sent by mistake in a huge lot of handguard ferrules. From the looks of that one, it seems like it was done before they cut the V in, just to be safe when they did cut it. I can't remember whether the Russians appeared to be done before or after the cut....nor where that discussion even happened. It is another irritating facet of the early Russian SKS though.
-
I have a refurb 49 with blade and a later 50 with blade and they both have the glob weld of stock ferrule. My 51 does not have any weld on it.
-
I just noticed that the stock is xxxxxx, so it has been replaced during refurb. But still the defining factor is the stock ferrule and pin placement and the way the spike sits without a support.
-
he has or had a CAI imported 1949 with correct spike bayonet, hardwood stock, and front ferrule. That 1949 rifle went through refurb at at least two different refurb arsenals and has a wrong receiver cover take down latch.
-
I just noticed that the stock is xxxxxx, so it has been replaced during refurb. But still the defining factor is the stock ferrule and pin placement and the way the spike sits without a support.
I find it hard to believe that the arsenal would replace a stock and leave the wrong bayonet on it.
I think the bayo was switched later.
-
I have a spare laminate stock, so I thought I would try to fit it on a spike - stock ferrule. It would fit if I trimmed some wood, as the stock ferrule is smaller than others. I don't want to damage a perfectly good stock so I left it alone. But what I noticed is that my tapered 50 stock (laminate) was made for a spike bayonet and not converted. I took readings between the cleaning rod slot and the bayonet slot. 5 mm for spike and 1.5 mm for bayonet. That means that there is more wood between the slots on a spike stock. Will post some pictures next week for comparison. Leaned something new today.
-
my tapered 50 stock (laminate) was made for a spike bayonet and not converted. I took readings between the cleaning rod slot and the bayonet slot. 5 mm for spike and 1.5 for bayonet.
Damn you people, always making me go downstairs to look at stuff.
-
I have a spare laminate stock, so I thought I would try to fit it on a spike - stock ferrule. It would fit if I trimmed some wood, as the stock ferrule is smaller than others. I don't want to damage a perfectly good stock so I left it alone. But what I noticed is that my tapered 50 stock (laminate) was made for a spike bayonet and not converted. I took readings between the cleaning rod slot and the bayonet slot. 5 mm for spike and 1.5 mm for bayonet. That means that there is more wood between the slots on a spike stock. Will post some pictures next week for comparison. Leaned something new today.
you can find pictures of refurb laminated stock fit for spike bayonet on demilitarized 1949 SKS's on Russian forums.
-
What I want to do is a comparison between the stocks where they fit into stock ferrule. When you see them side by side you will see the differences. Yes I have seen laminate stocks for spike ferrules (but not in detail), but I have never seen the actual differences. Photos will show next week unless somebody has pictures available now.
-
Here is a picture of the stock differences between the spike and blade where they fit into the stock ferrule.
https://ibb.co/gJYOew
-
Here is a picture of the stock differences between the spike and blade where they fit into the stock ferrule.
https://ibb.co/gJYOew
Nice comparison photos...that angle shows how drastically different they are. A similar photo showing a Chinese spike stock next to those would be cool to see as well...as they are closer to the blade variety than the Russian spike in the girth.
-
I added a picture showing the pin position for a stock ferrule with a spike bayonet. It also shows that the bayonet does not touch the stock ferrule.
https://ibb.co/album/kP3zJv
-
I added a picture showing the pin position for a stock ferrule with a spike bayonet. It also shows that the bayonet does not touch the stock ferrule.
https://ibb.co/album/kP3zJv
That is correct ferrule for russian spike bayonet, same as the one on my 1949.
-
On reply #80, it was discussed about the lightening holes in the receiver cover and the fact that it was probably done at refurb. There has been some questions about the cover on another forum. On closer inspection of my 50, I noticed that it has a lightening hole in the receiver. Same location as later years but it is twice as deep. Will post some pictures in the next couple weeks. It is my opinion that when refurb. drilled the holes in receiver cover they also did the receiver.
-
I added some pictures of the lightening hole in the receiver. Hole in receiver is the same diameter as the cover, but is smaller than later carbines.
https://ibb.co/album/kP3zJv
-
FYI..... thats not a lightening hole. Thats simply the bored through hole that houses the trigger tang latch. How much hole depth you see to the top of that tang latch from the inside of the receiver just depends on the length of the tang latch itself.
Look under the receiver at the same location.... you will see a cross pin that retains it in place. Drive out that pin and it slides right out.
-
Live and learn. Checked it out and I see what you mean. I have a 49 with a spike and there is no hole.
-
Added additional pictures of the receiver and cover S/Ns. Questions about E on receiver not matching other S/Ns.
https://ibb.co/album/kP3zJv
-
(https://image.ibb.co/eGWQbm/twoE.jpg)
-
To me it appears that the stamp was not struck properly and the top is lacking depth. It was hit bottom heavy causing a larger bottom and narrow top. You can see how it narrows as it goes to top and does not have the depth.
-
And how would this change the huge distance/gap between the top line and middle line?
Also, how do you explain the fact the receiver E is as you say 'shallow', but yet is somehow wider then the other? I would think the deeper.... the wider.
(http://preview.ibb.co/dD1fRm/threeE.jpg) (http://ibb.co/jc576m)
-
Now i need to see a Б serial stamp up close
-
Now i need to see a Б serial stamp up close
Thats exactly what I was thinking.
You have some pics RM?
-
I added 7 more pictures to album. They are as close as I could get without it getting fuzzy. Should help in recognizing font. I will do anything to help provide a solution.
https://ibb.co/album/kP3zJv
-
Those pics make me question whether that is actually an E on the receiver at all, and certain that it is on the cover. I think perhaps it was a worn 'b' stamp that easily could explain the use of an E on a replacement 50 cover. They probably thought it was an E too.
I just checked both of the sets of Es on my 49/50 mine are quite distinct, and don't have that 'b' look. Either on the EO parts or the Ey parts. The numbers on mine appear to be struck harder, perhaps at a different time as the prefix, like yours.
Is your piston serialed? Seeing it in actual handwriting might help confirm...unless the confusion carried on to a replacement piston when the cover was replaced. The trigger is a little hard to tell from the pic....but doesn't appear to be scrubbed.
-
Piston is serialized and there is a picture of it in album.
-
Now i need to see a Б serial stamp up close
Thats exactly what I was thinking.
You have some pics RM?
Б's don't come up that often. Mostly 1954 Izhevsk guns, but there are a smattering of other years in the survey with a second character Б. Here's a set from guns with a E prefix. I would consider these to have likely been produced somewhat close chronologically to the OP's EM gun. Likely after because of the blade modified ferules, though the ferrule weld could easily be a refurb modification and not done at production. Too bad we can't see the pin hole on any of these stock ferrules, I suspect they are all top pinned as all the other transitional '50 E's with blades are top pinned ferrules. Still, a very interesting set of features on these:
(https://image.ibb.co/gLM2rm/E_194_receiver.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/hxOFBm/E_194_receiver_cover.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/kQsLcR/E_194_receiver_cover_top.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/feCaBm/E_194_magazine.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/fgVTWm/E_194_left_gas_block.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/btBP46/E_194_left_front.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/nh7aBm/E_194_bolt_carrier.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/dVpYxR/E_194_bolt.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/ne1P46/E_194_stock.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/ceZoWm/E_194_trigger_group.jpg)
Here's a second in the series that clearly has a replacement in place of the transitional '50 cover but the rest of the hardware looks ok:
(https://image.ibb.co/fJwfcR/E_427_receiver.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/hxhaBm/E_427_receiver_cover.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/fsksP6/E_427_receiver_cover_top.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/mmvsP6/E_427_left_gas_block.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/cX0946/E_427_magazine.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/hoGcrm/E_427_trigger_group.jpg)
And a third with similar features, and again a transitional '50 cover
(https://image.ibb.co/mCRXP6/E_485_receiver.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/bWQRj6/E_485_receiver_cover_top2.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/dc1crm/E_485_right_gas_block.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/d9Q3Wm/E_485_stock_ferrule.jpg)
Not a smoking gun, but it's certainly plausible that the OP's gun is a '50 like these above are thought to be. It's also plausible that the OP's gun is a '49 with that bottom pinned ferrule too. The ferrule and spike are certainly 'off' when it comes to the other examples of transitional 50's that I have. I will add that all other EM prefix guns I have show blade bayos and appear to all have top pinned ferrules. dntknw1
-
Geez.... The cover serials on the two showing them are suspect aswell. Typical refurb conundrum.
-
#2 definitely has a replacement cover.... That makes it a 50 also based on other features.
All three are 50s.... With blades. The OP has a dif prefix entirely and the serial stamps are suspect. Likely a 49 with a 50 cover.
Gotta love refurbs.
-
#2 definitely has a replacement cover.... That makes it a 50 also based on other features.
All three are 50s.... With blades. The OP has a dif prefix entirely and the serial stamps are suspect. Likely a 49 with a 50 cover.
Gotta love refurbs.
Suspect as in.... Im not even convinced the receiver serial has an E to begin with.
-
So, if this was originally a Б M with a less than perfectly struck stamp, where would that put it in RM's all knowing data list?
Second tuesday in march, just after lunch 1950?
Or does it screw it up completely because all other Б M are 1954 or something?
-
I've never seen a Б<?> prefix before. There are several <?>Б prefixes and 1954 Izhevsks with the format Б####_<?>. Here's a list of what I've got in the <?>Б format:
Prefix 1 | Prefix 2 | # | Suffix | Rec. Tula Star | Refurb. | Receiver Cover Year
В | Б | 2639 | | Uncertain | Bubba | 1953
В | Б | 4711 | | N | Heavy | 1953
В | Б | 5348 | | N | Heavy | 1953
Е | Б | 194 | | Uncertain | Heavy | 1950
Е | Б | 427 | | N | Heavy | 1949
Е | Б | 485 | | N | Heavy | 1950
Ж | Б | 781 | | Uncertain | Light | 1949
З | Б | 665 | | N | Light | 1953
И | Б | 2790 | Д | Uncertain | Light | Blank
К | Б | 1113 | | Uncertain | Light | 1953
К | Б | 1958 | | N | Light | 1953
К | Б | 2470 | | N | Heavy | 1953
К | Б | 220 | Д | Y | Bubba | Blank
К | Б | 2317 | Д | Y | Light | Uncertain
К | Б | 5931 | Д | Y | Heavy | Uncertain
К | Б | 6522 | Д | Y | Light | Blank Star
Л | Б | 1132 | | N | Heavy | 1953
Н | Б | 5090 | | Uncertain | Uncertain | Uncertain
Н | Б | 415 | Д | Y | Bubba | Blank
Н | Б | 1432 | Д | Y | Heavy | Blank
Н | Б | 1478 | Д | Uncertain | Uncertain | Blank
Н | Б | 2647 | Д | Uncertain | Uncertain | Blank
Н | Б | 2790 | Д | Y | Heavy | Blank
Н | Б | 2997 | Д | Y | As-Issued | Blank
Н | Б | 6352 | Д | Y | Heavy | Blank
Т | Б | 1325 | Д | Y | As-Issued | Uncertain
Т | Б | 1331 | Д | Uncertain | Uncertain | Uncertain
Т | Б | 2193 | Д | Y | Uncertain | Blank
Т | Б | 5975 | Д | Y | Bubba | Uncertain
Т | Б | 6166 | Д | Y | Heavy | Uncertain
Т | Б | 6809 | Д | Y | Heavy | 1949
I'm not convinced it's a Б on the OP's gun. I am also not convinced that the cover and receiver fonts match as well as was once thought either. The numbers look great, but the prefix don't seem to, especially the aspect ratio left to right vs top to bottom of the two E's receiver to receiver cover.
The bottom line is this: we can all talk until we are blue in the face and it matters not one little bit. Without another example, nothing can be determined from this firearm.
I'm having issues because it doesn't match the other EM prefixed guns with respect to stock ferrule and bayonet. Either the gun is legit and the serial data is wrong or the serial data is right and the gun is suspect.
Here are the different scenarios I can come up with:
- Gun is legit, EM prefixes are all consecutively produced in 1950 and this particular firearm received a spike bayo and top pin ferrule at fabrication. Other EM prefixed guns (both before and after) received blade bayos and bottom ferrule welded early stock ferrules at initial fabrication which were not changed at refurb.
- Gun is legit, EM prefixes are all consecutively produced in 1950 and this particular firearm received a spike bayo and top pin ferrule at refurb. Other EM prefixes were all refurbed but blade bayos and bottom pinned were left on those.
- Gun is legit, two consecutive series of EM prefixed guns were produced in 1949 and 1950. The '49s were produced with unknown bayo and ferrule features but after refurb, all known specimens have blades and top pin ferrules. The '50's were produced with unknown bayo and ferrule configurations, but after refurb some specimens have spike/bottom pin features (like the OP) while others have blade/top pin ferrules.
- Gun is legit but receiver prefix is a Б and rest of gun is a E. Mistake was made at fabrication.
- Gun is not legit and is really a '49 with a transitional '50 replacement cover. Included in this is possibility of the receiver prefix being Б and component prefixes reading E - all restamped at refurb.
- Gun is not legit and is really a '50 with replacement stock, bayonet, and ferrule.
Anyone think of anything else?
-
Well, that answered my question in spades :o
Personally, im happy with saying. meh, refurbs, whatcha gonna do.
I dont see a conclusive answer coming anytime soon.
-
NotyaCCCP's survey shows БК89 being a 1950 gun. One data point, but if there was one made with a Б prefix, others could certainly exist. No photos unfortunately to verify.
-
A note on ferrules.
I'm seeing ALOT of emphasis and faith put on them as being a standard regarding top pin or bottom pin etc.
What I see is a component that has no hole location until its mated with a barrel. I also see that both during and after the transition from spike to blade..... There's gonna be some ferrules of the spike design having no bayo cut that will HAVE to be used up as evidenced by cutting and reinforcement via weld. Its a hodge podge to begin with and after a few refurbs later using whatever is on hand.... All bets are off.
-
There are no documented bottom pin ferrules with blade bayos. Might be a space constraint with that pin, the cleaning rod, and a stored blade bayo perhaps?
I suppose physically there is no reason that an early short top pinned ferrule could not be used with a spike, but I've never seen one.
-
I see... Thought I must have been missing something.
I believe the only way to solve this issue will be to revisit the blade 49s in effort to possibly determine if they were originally a blade gun from factory. One thing ALL 49s have in common is that they are ALL refurbs regardless as to what bayo type they have. We have NO standard as to what should be what. How do we know 'some' of the spike guns were not originally late 49 blade guns? That being said, everyone has automatically assumed the blade guns were converted at refurb. Perhaps some of the blade guns were converted to spike at refurb. If the transition happened in 49, why would we expect to see anything other then top pin ferrules on them?
I guess the only way to know would be to take the ferrule off of a 49 blade gun and look for a bottom pin notch in the barrel...... Thats the only way to prove it was converted.
-
I had a first believed that it was a uneven stamped E, but with close up pictures, I now doubt it. In my opinion of running-man's 6 options, I would pick #4. Not knowing but speculating, the stamp on receiver looked wonky and worker grabbed a E and stamped the rest. If it was done at refurb, the rest of gun would have been forced matched. And that would be a tell tale sign. I have a 49 with the bolt S/N crossed out and matching new S/N engraved.
-
I am under the impression that its highly unlikely that a stamping tech made a stamp (possibly several), put the stamp away/down, and then proceeded to select yet another stamp to finish the gun. Given the mag etc.... We know stuff was replaced at refurb atleast once. It is most likely the letter on the receiver was created in partial by a chipped/damaged stamp at birth, and the refurb monkeys mistook it for an E.
-
So at refurb they would replace bolt. bolt carrier, and cover and restamp items. Would they have 49/early 50 parts available (5 years later) that have not been used to put on this carbine? Would they have a early cover available to engrave date and hand stamp tula star and why not just stamp as was done on later models? Would they not have crossed out S/N on bolt and engraved new S/N? Would they not have scrubbed out bolt carrier S/N and just engraved an new S/N? And if they were going this far into refurbishing this carbine, why not replace spike bayonet and stock ferrule? I have a 49 with all of these things done to it. Running-man has pictures of this 49 that I gave to him for his survey.The laminate stock proves that it has gone to refurb. but there are 49s out there with laminate stocks also. There are so many questions about this carbine that I think that it will take time and other examples to prove.
-
Would they have 49/early 50 parts available (5 years later) that have not been used to put on this carbine?
Of course.... They made the darn thing didn't they? Wouldn't a refurb facility have..... Gun parts? You may be forgetting they scrubbed serial numbers spicifically for this purpose. New or scrubbed.... Take your pick.
Would they have a early cover available to engrave date and hand stamp tula star and why not just stamp as was done on later models?
Its a 'refurb' facility, not a 'new' facility. Yes, they would have an abundance of already dated and serialized parts that are scrubbed of their serial in order to be used at will. Have you looked at the picture I have posted several times on several boards showing you the proof of a scrubbed 53 cover on a late 50/early 51 gun? This is the entire reason you cannot put any faith in what is stamped on a cover if its a refurb which is exactly what you are doing. Its just a stubborn fact.
Would they not have crossed out S/N on bolt and engraved new S/N? Would they not have scrubbed out bolt carrier S/N and just engraved an new S/N?
No, out of thousands of refurbs, I have seen maybe 2 with a random lined out serial.
Would they not have crossed out S/N on bolt and engraved new S/N? Would they not have scrubbed out bolt carrier S/N and just engraved an new S/N?
Why would they? We have seen every configuration known under the sun in terms of components being replace or not replaced. Was the barreled receiver fine the way it was?? You have to remember, most of the time rifles that were 100% ok were likely refurbed just to keep the peasants busy, and you may find yourself trying to look very busy indeed so the Kremlin dont shut the doors and make you shovel snow again. You should see some of the abandoned videos and pictures of people going to these now closed facilities.
Either way 49 or 50, I fear your dilemma will never be solved. I have sensed you want this gun to be unique and thats fine!. Just don't make the mistake of trying to force it into fruition.
-
What we know is that what the Russians did with the SKS and production are unknowns. We conjecture and try to find out more and the more we look we find out that there are other variables. I look at all sides of a argument and if I see that there is a valuable point I accept the fact. You have valid points but I doubt is they would have parts laying around for 5 years to refurb this carbine. I would think that they would have used up the parts and replaced them when modifications were made. Why store items for 5 or more years. Early 49/50 covers will only fit on this carbine. And refurbs usually show forced matched. If I am wrong , I admit it, looks like font is not a E, by close up photos. I also look at all the other S/Ns in album.
-
I will bet you somewhere in Russia right now there are piles of parts such as covers for the 45. They still use the damn things and they made millions... Right?
Besides, the most likely scenario for a refurb facility would be to strip em all down and start reworking. 500 guns in.... 500 guns worth of parts on hand. Some of these places would have thousands of guns being processed.
What your saying is the equivalent to stating Ford Motor Company would not have a tire that fits a 2013 model in 2018.
-
For a part that was in production for approx. 1.5 years and then swapped out . You are thinking U.S.A not Russian fabrication. And like I said, on my heavily refurbed 49, the only original parts are the receiver, barrel and receiver cover. Why would they do this to this carbine and not my 50?
-
You lost me on the 1.5.
Again... Many guns in and many parts to choose from. They made them... By the millions. They had so many dang parts your head would spin. We have no clue when it was refurbed, how many times it was refurbed, where it was refurbed, or what level of refurb it received. Fact
Stating Russia wouldn't have a 50 cover to use ON AN EARLY TAKEDOWN PIN GUN that it fits correctly.... I call BS
-
I'm not trying to discourage you. We here at sksfiles like a good mystery. But you have to understand the sks is literally almost ALL we do, and we are the last place that will make a definitive conclusion without having enough to go on. Everyone will have an opinion but yet NOBODY knows with any level of certainty.
The main problem is, we have ZERO examples of an original 49, yet alone a plethora of them to know exactly what they did and when.
If you bring us an all original non refurb 1950 spiker...... Ill be the first to start making mass newsletter announcements, but your carbine (totally badazz btw) isn't likely to get us there.
-
I had a scrubbed, and not reserialed 49 cover on it's way from Russia within six weeks of starting to search for one in any condition. My guy gets stuff directly from the factories and armories. They have recycling centers for old guns too. The majority of his parts come from those centers. Mine had been scrubbed and mothballed with a dip in the paint and left sitting for who knows how long...with original bluing, except where scrubbed and painted...no refurb stamp even. Russia has parts.
There are even posters presumably meant for the refurb guys, that point out the key differences between the early guns and late guns. I believe there was one stateside, that accidentally got tossed into a fire still in it's tube.
-
I totally agree with you and have mentioned this before. This carbine cannot be proven without other examples, and so far, none are forth coming. 50 was a transitional year. Spike to blade, stock ferrule and stock (debateable), 90 degree gas port to 45, engraved date and hand stamped to single stamp. And somewhere in there, but later would be the eyelet latch pin and cover and spring loaded bolt and carrier. I bought my first SKS 1 !/2 years ago, but in the last 6 months learned a lot about this carbine from all persons involved. I resect your years of knowledge and am still learning. Questions and debates about this carbine brings forth different aspects. All have to admit that any questions or pictures that have been asked of me, I have submitted.
-
Do you happen to have a caliper to measure the distance between the front and rear pins on the FSB?
If you do and can compare to later guns to see if there is a discrepancy between the two, it might be another indicator of 49 vs 50. IIRC it should be about half a pin width difference longer than standard pin placement later. Once I get my leg cast wearin' gun room invadin' kid out of my way I will try find my caliper and original neutered sight to compare. I don't know how effectively accurate it can be measuring diagonally between round holes on a rounded surface...especially with such a small amount, but it might be possible. Since the pin depth into the barrel is also different, a diagonal measurement might be compromised though.
-
I can all but guarantee there's still boxes of trigger groups, receiver covers, sears and anything else you can think of in some long forgotten corner of a store depot somewhere even today.
And some of the last sks's to go through the refurb process for storage probably were in the 60s or early 70s.
I am quite sure that both then and today there is a formula for parts to guns produced they followed.
Such as for every 1000 guns we need 200 spare bolts, 300 sears, 50 assembled trigger groups etc etc.
I have never found what part of the soviet warehousing system looked after boxes of parts and accessories but i will find it one day and post it here.
-
Got my caliper out and here is what I measured. Measured from outside edge of pin hole to outside edge.
1949 - 50.72/50.98 mm
1950 - 51.08/51.37 mm
1957 - 51.33/51.44 mm
I did both sides due to slight differences.
-
Got my caliper out and here is what I measured. Measured from outside edge of pin hole to outside edge.
1949 - 50.72/50.98 mm
1950 - 51.08/51.37 mm
1957 - 51.33/51.44 mm
I did both sides due to slight differences.
Largest measurement to smallest (51.44 to 50.72) is .72mm or about 0.028". That's just shy of 1/32nd of an inch. I'd say those three measurements show the same nominal spacing in a mass produced item with match drilled holes & pins such as this. Justin, you're going to have to kick out the boarder and get a good measurement for us!
-
What are we measuring?
-
What are we measuring?
Diagonal straight line distance between the two pins that hold the FSB in place like this '49:
(http://preview.ibb.co/kGpiK6/P_1431_left_front.jpg) (http://ibb.co/cuG8mm)
vs this '54:
(http://image.ibb.co/cVYzsR/AB3475_left_front.jpg) (http://ibb.co/csyAz6)
Justin thought that his '49 had a shorter spacing but jstin2's measurements don't clearly show much discrepancy (if any at all).
-
Why would that be any different?
I would expect slight differences though.
-
Hot damn Justin, take a look at this:
'49 I posted above to show as an example:
(http://image.ibb.co/kWFesR/P_1431_left_front.jpg)
another '49 spike gun:
(http://image.ibb.co/djRzRm/HM1949_left_front2.jpg)
jstin's gun:
(https://image.ibb.co/fAbk1G/IMG_6398.jpg)
'52 early bayo lug:
(http://image.ibb.co/bEFLXR/CO1431_left_front2.jpg)
'52 mid bayo lug:
(http://image.ibb.co/db3Dmm/KC4294_left_front.jpg)
'53 late bayo lug:
(http://image.ibb.co/nKcQXR/M3486_left_front.jpg)
Look at the cleaning rod nubs, definitely a transition there. The only equal length ones are found on '49's. I wonder if the pin distance changed between equal length nubs and the later unequal ones?
-
Out with the calipers. Measured from the top of sight hood to the bottom of cleaning rod nubs.
1949 - 53.42/53.40 mm
1950 - 53.45/55.63 mm
1957 - 54.15/56.04 mm
-
jstin2, does your '49 have the two equal length nubs like the '49 in my example above?
-
My measurements are in the post above yours. Yes my 49 are equal. 53.42 mm- 53.40 mm.
-
jstin2, does your '49 have the two equal length nubs like the '49 in my example above?
Nope
(https://preview.ibb.co/dMZG8w/IMG_6398.jpg) (https://ibb.co/hTU51G)
-
I was asked about my 49 by r-m not my 50. I posted my measurements of my 49,50 and 57. The picture you posted is from my 50.
-
I was asked about my 49 by r-m not my 50. I posted my measurements of my 49,50 and 57. The picture you posted is from my 50.
doh, thats what happens when you have too many tabs open :-[
-
I was asked about my 49 by r-m not my 50. I posted my measurements of my 49,50 and 57. The picture you posted is from my 50.
What makes you think its a 50? rofl
-
jstin2, does your '49 have the two equal length nubs like the '49 in my example above?
Nope
(https://preview.ibb.co/dMZG8w/IMG_6398.jpg) (https://ibb.co/hTU51G)
Gotta love refurbs... Wonder which depot installed it last.
-
My measurements are in the post above yours. Yes my 49 are equal. 53.42 mm- 53.40 mm.
Ahh, duh I totally missed that this is what you were measuring! Very neat. thumb1
-
To RM,
Do all 1949s have the two equal length nubs? or do you think they are supposed to have the two equal length nubs? Thanks.
-
Gotta love refurbs... Wonder which depot installed it last.
Gotta call it something. The cover says '50, the features say '49/'50. It's one of those two as it sure as heck isn't a '51+ with those features. I'm leaning more and more towards '50 to be honest. If the cleaning rod retainer nubs were equal length, then I'd lean more towards '49, but that's not the case. I don't think the FSBs got replaced much during any refurb, the '49-'52 early bayo lugs are simply never seen on later guns and the late lugs are never seen on early guns.
Like you've said numerous times before, we need another example of a spike '50, but nothing feature-wise is completely disqualifying on the gun. It could easily be a '50 (or a '49.) thumb1
-
To RM,
Do all 1949s have the two equal length nubs? or do you think they are supposed to have the two equal length nubs? Thanks.
No there are photos of '49 spike bayos with unequal nubs in my database. They are refurbs of course, but it seems interesting that this feature provides a pretty clean delineation as I can find none occuring in '50 or beyond and I looked through every single '49-'53 gun in the database! :o
-
That settles it. Cleaning rod retaining nubs change Jan 1st 1950.... Based off of zero original guns of course. :-X
-
L-C I think that you are reading it wrong. R-M to my way of looking at his reply is saying that it was transitioned in 49. Put a comma after his no and you will see what he means. His 2 pictures of 49s, one is even and the other is not
-
Gotta love refurbs?
-
That settles it. Cleaning rod retaining nubs change Jan 1st 1950.... Based off of zero original guns of course. :-X
Nah, just one additional piece of data to add to everything else. Nobody said anything about Jan 1, 1950 & you know it. It actually looks to me like it was *the* very first design change that ever occurred on a '49 to me.
-
To RM,
Do all 1949s have the two equal length nubs? or do you think they are supposed to have the two equal length nubs? Thanks.
No there are photos of '49 spike bayos with unequal nubs in my database. They are refurbs of course, but it seems interesting that this feature provides a pretty clean delineation as I can find none occuring in '50 or beyond and I looked through every single '49-'53 gun in the database! :o
Thank you, RM. I double-checked pictures of my 1949, it has unequal nubs.
-
Nah, just one additional piece of data to add to everything else. Nobody said anything about Jan 1, 1950 & you know it. It actually looks to me like it was *the* very first design change that ever occurred on a '49 to me.
To RM: very interesting observation. It looks like 1949 with s/n ЕУ 41 has the equal length nubs too. Unfortunately, it's a refurb with wrong stock and front ferrule.
-
So cool for you to notice that RM!
Unfortunately, my neutered FSB's nubs are uneven....as are the nubs on the replacement she sports now from the 50 she got her other parts from. I got distracted by my Sciatica meds today and forgot to search for the calipers whilst she was gone. I did find that FSB obviously...I wonder if measuring both front of hole to front of sight on both holes might make it easier to tell if there is a difference vs. diagonal though.
The depth change I noticed might make it less noticeable of a difference....I wouldn't think these pins are placed willy nilly...
-
That settles it. Cleaning rod retaining nubs change Jan 1st 1950.... Based off of zero original guns of course. :-X
Nah, just one additional piece of data to add to everything else. Nobody said anything about Jan 1, 1950 & you know it. It actually looks to me like it was *the* very first design change that ever occurred on a '49 to me.
My point is... How do you know 'when' if its a refurb? On top of that, we don't even know the order of prefix.
I'd say we have no idea
-
Looks like it coincides with the lightening cut of the bayo lug.
-
Closer examination of the pics (with glasses on) regarding the cleaning rod nubs leads me to see only the first photo with a similar length for both sets of nubs....the others all appear normal to me. Or am I missing something?
Found the caliper...dead battery. >:( Stupid cats sleep where it was sitting on my desk. Hopefully I have a replacement that fits somewhere.
Will post measurments of several FSBs including the one that originally came on mine....once I get this sucker powered up.
-
Closer examination of the pics (with glasses on) regarding the cleaning rod nubs leads me to see only the first photo with a similar length for both sets of nubs....the others all appear normal to me. Or am I missing something?
same as what I saw.
-
My point is... How do you know 'when' if its a refurb? On top of that, we don't even know the order of prefix.
I'd say we have no idea
When there is a single example, such as jstin2's spike bayo then you have a valid point. When there are tens to hundreds of examples that show a definite trend like the bayo retainer nubs, then the refurb aspect becomes far less important.
-
neutered sight that came on my 49/50 debate gun:
front edge of rear pin to face of sight: 50.6mm
front edge of front pin to face of sight: 4.5mm
offset between the two:46.1mm
Russian 50 sight I used for a replacement:
front edge of rear pin to face of sight: 51.0mm
front edge of front pin to face of sight:4.7mm
offset between the two: 46.3
no lightening cut Chinese/Russian?:
front edge of rear pin to face of sight: 51.5mm
front edge of front pin to face of sight: 4.8mm
offset between the two: 46.7
/906\ FSB:
front edge of rear pin to face of sight: 51.1mm
front edge of front pin to face of sight:4.3mm
offset between the two: 46.8mm
Random assumed Chinese poorly neutered FSB:
front edge of rear pin to face of sight: 51.7mm
front edge of front pi to face of sight: 4.7mm
offset between the two: 47mm
While these measurements were brought to you buy Pittsburgh Tool and Harbor Freight, they clearly show the amount of difference I was talking about above the averages of other sights tested. Especially of note should be the early 50 replacement difference vs. the original one on what I am calling a 49 for now. That was what I experienced fitting the early 50 sight to my barrel. I had to chip off a small sliver of barrel, picture a circle divided into quarters, one of those quarters minus maybe 15-20% of it needed to be removed in a forward and upward direction to the holes on the sight. This was also the case with the 52 sight I accidentally installed first, the rear pin conundrum was what made me notice that like an idiot I installed a totally period incorrect sight on it....the lightening cuts should have cut my stupid fingers. banghead1
If I had a better set of calipers to measure the depth the pin placement would require on the barrel it would be another indication of a change at some point early on in pin placement alterations...for whatever reason. This and the PITA it was to fit an early 50 cover to it vs the 49 makes me lean towards mine being a late 49...possibly during an either/or transition regarding bayonets....and or other minor modifications we haven't discovered yet.
The grind marks on Jstn2's cover and receiver towards the bottom make me think a half assed attempt at fitting was done to a possibly out of spec, but likely just ill fitting by design 50 cover onto a 49 gun. Had I not known better (or been willing to do it right) I could have ground off the excess cover from behind rather than the pain in the neck front tang filing it required. Chances are once they got the tiny takedown pin hole lined up, they called it good. I think that must be the case with this Jstn2's 49/50...I really would like to see the measurments front of pin to front of sight for both of his...the actual 49 and the '50' :) In hindsight the diagonal measurements seem a little likely to be inaccurate...measuring to the face of the FSB at least lends one flat surface.
I know nothing about cleaning rod nubs. Yet another fascinating new discovery here at SKS-Files 8)
The amount of difference may be +/- a tenth of a millimeter or so, due to the tool used for the measuring....but the amount of difference between my original one and the fairly close to average differences on the other would be huge to the poor dumb bastard that has to pin those on straight. Ask me how I know.... :) Since these pin placements are not easily visibly discerned...I doubt the refurb guys would want to go to the trouble of keeping the parts together...since it doesn't seem much care was applied towards the exchangeable parts that came once the design was complete.
I am pretty sure this was by design, and another reason I don't think is very likely that stock ferrules would be changed to upgrade to the blade standard....between the top and bottom pinning, you would be setting the barrel up for failure, as a notch on both sides would be akin to how you cut down a large tree....yknow?
That being said, I probably have the only 49/50 that deserves to be tested for the presence of both pin notches....but I am also chicken.
-
as a notch on both sides would be akin to how you cut down a large tree....yknow?
That being said, I probably have the only 49/50 that deserves to be tested for the presence of both pin notches....but I am also chicken.
But... the fsb indeed has two pins. Top and bottom. This isnt a structural issue.
Drive the pin out and slide it.... they aint pressed on like a fsb.
-
Justin Hell - Why would the grind marks on receiver and cover extend to latch pin hole on either side and why would there be grind marks on the front of receiver. Rust pitting. I can take some close up pictures later and post them, so you can see better what I mean.
I measured from back edge of pin hole to face sight. It was easier to see what I was doing plus part of pin was sticking out so I could get a better measurement.
1949 - 54.05 - 7.83 = 46.22
1950 - 53.90 - 7.79 =46.11
1951 - 54.05 - 7.92 =46.13
-
Just for giggles, i went to
worstwestrifles page, because i know theres pics of "49s" there and did a highly scientific and entirely conclusive study of the rear fork nub things for the cleaning rod.
(http://image.ibb.co/iEEfZ6/nohelpatall.jpg) (http://imgbb.com/)
I saved this image as nohelpatall.jpg. because thats about what it is as far as i can see. wink1
-
I also went there earlier due to the fact that they have pictures of 49s. This would show that in 49 the transition of the nubs took place.
-
Justin Hell - Why would the grind marks on receiver and cover extend to latch pin hole on either side and why would there be grind marks on the front of receiver. Rust pitting. I can take some close up pictures later and post them, so you can see better what I mean.
I measured from back edge of pin hole to face sight. It was easier to see what I was doing plus part of pin was sticking out so I could get a better measurement.
1949 - 54.05 - 7.83 = 46.22
1950 - 53.90 - 7.79 =46.11
1951 - 54.05 - 7.92 =46.13
The only problem is, measuring from the rearward side of the pin hole would be more than the difference I had noted, which was slightly less than half a pin width. The one I did that was actually on a gun was a bit difficult...the 50 sight. All of the others were loose. I had to do the one on the gun several times as it kept slipping out of the tiny bit of depth I could grab onto.
I look forward to the pics you refer to. I am not quite sure what you mean so they will help. :)
-
It makes no difference about where the readings are taken. If you are looking for the differences, it is there. Very small. I looked back at the pictures that were taken by myself and my daughter and there is no definite pictures showing the extent of rust pitting on receiver/cover properly. Will take new ones in AM and post.
-
as a notch on both sides would be akin to how you cut down a large tree....yknow?
That being said, I probably have the only 49/50 that deserves to be tested for the presence of both pin notches....but I am also chicken.
But... the fsb indeed has two pins. Top and bottom. This isnt a structural issue.
Drive the pin out and slide it.... they aint pressed on like a fsb.
I was referring to the stock ferrule, if you upgraded from a spike ferrule to a blade ferrule you would have pin notches directly on either side of the barrel....not the same animal as the offset top and bottom pins of the FSB. I am not saying it would be a huge structural problem, but it would be a weak point...and seemingly something that hopefully would be seen as a bad idea. Maybe not, it just seems like a bad idea to me. Since they placed concern over the blade notches and the cleaning rod holes being a stress point enough to blob them...perhaps they had the same mindset regarding two grooves 180 degrees apart from each other across the barrel.
I was mistaken regarding driving the pin out being the problem with the stock ferrule...it isn't the original pin, and is just a roll pin...it comes out easily, I forgot about that. It was the breaking it loose from the barrel that didn't seem to want to happen....and I didn't want to bend it trying. The previous owner who cerakoted it obviously couldn't get it off either...that or didn't try beyond losing the original pin. It was evident that it wasn't completely stripped of it's BBQ at that juncture before they repainted it. The same was noted around the gas block too. Maybe the BBQ paint seeped into the cracks and made it extremely snug after nearly 65 years of curing by that point?
-
Get an open end wrench that just goes over the barrel and tap on that so its done evenly and right where it meets the barrel. You can even wrap the wrench with teflon tape, duct tape etc to make it not metal/metal. Maybe even a thin rag. It will drift much more easy then the rsb or fsb.
-
As far as the fsb pins go... Im not seeing a notable spacing difference, and comparing cross nation is interesting but not relevant in my opinion. Jigs etc, this is still 1950s tooling with a human factor on something that does not require that tight of tolerance.
-
I have a heavy refurbished 49. Blade bayonet, 45 degree gas port, forced matched bolt and receiver. Decided to try and move stock ferrule. A little dry lubricant, hammer and wrench it moved. On this one there is only a pin slot on top. This might indicate that at refurb, when changing over to blade and 45 degree gas block that they did a barrel change?? Alignment marks line up and there appears to be a 1 on receiver but not on barrel. Will take some pictures. I like to pictures outside but it is snowing.
-
This might indicate that at refurb, when changing over to blade and 45 degree gas block that they did a barrel change??
I doubt it.
More likely it needed a barrel and thats how it got all the the rest of the bits.
-
I have a heavy refurbished 49. Blade bayonet, 45 degree gas port, forced matched bolt and receiver. Decided to try and move stock ferrule. A little dry lubricant, hammer and wrench it moved. On this one there is only a pin slot on top. This might indicate that at refurb, when changing over to blade and 45 degree gas block that they did a barrel change?? Alignment marks line up and there appears to be a 1 on receiver but not on barrel. Will take some pictures. I like to pictures outside but it is snowing.
Sounds to me like it began life that way.... all these 50s we see having a 90 degree gasblock and a blade are probably 49s that were converted. $20 says one of those would have a second pin groove.
-
Took pictures of my 49 heavy refurbished. I should also state that it has a 45 degree gas port that was used mid 50 to 52. I have to agree with Newchi about it was probably a barrel replacement.
https://ibb.co/album/e9ryVa
-
Loose - Cannon, I wish I had a 50 with 90 degree gas block and a blade bayonet. Wouldn't mind having a extra $20.00 U.S or $26.00 CDN. If I ever get one I will definitely check it out, now that I know what to do. Either way it turns out it will be a fact finding mission.
-
Justin Hell- I was just taking a closer look at the groove for the pin. I think that you are right about having 2 pin grooves opposite from each other, causing structural problems. At first didn't think it would but when the barrel heated up from firing and cooled, this could be a weak point. Look at the depth of groove and imagine one on either side of barrel.
-
Aint that deep, they obviously dont have an issue doing it, or they wouldn't do it at all. How many rifles you seen with deep dovetails for front sights etc. These grooves are no problemo.
-
I know nothing about rifle barrels or their tolerances, but any change in structure should cause a concern. Now one groove may not make any difference with a pin in it, but 2 opposite of each other may. And rifle barrels heat up drastically when shot rapid fire. The collar on stock ferrule should help eliminate some factors. If you know a gunsmith ask him.
-
Harmonics will be even with top and bottom. ;)
Again, these little grooves wont effect squat, tapping and dove tailing barrels is common place in firearms. You think its gonna snap in half when the muzzle is bumped? There is plenty of structural material there for that little groove to no effect anything... if it did, they wouldn't do it. thumb1
-
To be true to the fact, there isn't any proof that there was a groove in both top and bottom of barrel for pin. Until there is a proven picture of said item, the argument is pointless. I love the fact that you are negative to almost everything refurb and to prove you are wrong, trouble is that you are sometimes right.
-
As far as the fsb pins go... Im not seeing a notable spacing difference, and comparing cross nation is interesting but not relevant in my opinion. Jigs etc, this is still 1950s tooling with a human factor on something that does not require that tight of tolerance.
I've got to agree with this. A standard match drill tolerance on these pin locations is well within the numbers everyone has posted. I don't see any major design differences in the numbers. thumb1
-
Took pictures of my 49 heavy refurbished. I should also state that it has a 45 degree gas port that was used mid 50 to 52. I have to agree with Newchi about it was probably a barrel replacement.
https://ibb.co/album/e9ryVa
Hey jstin2,
Here's what that database has for ШO prefixed guns. Every single one sports a '50 cover, 45° gas block, short stamped rear takedown lever, square ear solid bayo lug, early tall receiver, most have a tabbed gas tube latch and all have blade bayos.
(https://image.ibb.co/fNCxGm/O_prefix.jpg)
Does yours sport an early looped rear takedown lever?
-
Why might the laminate stock be the only late-design replacement feature on jstin2's 1950(?) gun?
1. Early bolt/carrier (49-51)
2. Early trigger and saftey (49-52)
3. Early mag design (49-53)
4. Early bayonet and ferrule (49-[50?])
So this gun was refurbed post 1955, but the only thing that was replaced was the stock?
Not one outdated part/group was swapped for a new design before 1955---not even a trigger and safety update?
-
To be true to the fact, there isn't any proof that there was a groove in both top and bottom of barrel for pin. Until there is a proven picture of said item, the argument is pointless.
Oh, I can think of a whole lot of things that are pointless, but not looking at all possibilities because they may prove your gun is not a 1950 at birth is like driving a car with blinders on.
I love the fact that you are negative to almost everything refurb and to prove you are wrong, trouble is that you are sometimes right.
Remind me what you have proven me wrong about and we shall go from there?
I simply point out facts that you dont happen to be fond of, dont shoot the messenger. Im not 'negative' about anything refurb.... its just by simply being a refurb, there isnt a person on this planet that can or ever will be able to verify your holy grail. I love the fact that you are unwilling to accept any stubborn fact that does not advance your narrative. All I am doing is keeping it real. I have already stated several times, I dont care which it is 49 or 50. Im not going to ignore glaring inconsistencies because 'I want it to be so badly'.
-
running-man, Took carbine out of safe to take a look at it WO prefixed gun. For one thing it has a 49 cover (date engraved) and a refurb mark on it. Receiver cover pin hole is for early style latch pin. Thing is that latch pin doesn't have a eyelet hole in it. It is solid. The receiver and cover are the only parts that are stamped, the rest are forced stamped. Spring loaded firing pin.
-
The only way your going to prove your gun started life as a 1950 is if you bring us a NON refurb 1950 spiker, and bunch of NON refurb 49 spikers so all the variables can be eliminated.
-
We have 1 refurb 50 with a spike..... how many out there that are refurb 49 with a blade? How do you know that the transition did not happen in 49 and yours isnt simply a 49 with a 50 cover?
Like this one. How many 90 degree blade 49s you have RM?
http://www.icollector.com/SIMONOV-SKS-RIFLE-DATED-1949_i24241529
-
loose cannon - in refurb it was to improve (maybe) the carbine to new specs. If your boss says this is what I want ,you do it. But with my 50 why didn't they change everything? Unless they didn't think that it wasn't worth it. Look at blueing, receiver, bolt. bolt carrier, cover and I almost forgot spike bayonet. Stock was garbage so replace it.
-
loose cannon - in refurb it was to improve (maybe) the carbine to new specs. If your boss says this is what I want ,you do it. But with my 50 why didn't they change everything? Unless they didn't think that it wasn't worth it. Look at blueing, receiver, bolt. bolt carrier, cover and I almost forgot spike bayonet. Stock was garbage so replace it.
How do you know what they did/didnt change? Your receiver serial alone looks to have a dif prefix then the rest of the gun, and we KNOW they scrub parts to the point you cannot tell unless your lucky enough to find old remnants.
Why they scrub the serial and reserialize it? Was the receiver bad? If it was bad, why was it used.....again?
(https://image.ibb.co/joJF6G/BO5220_receiver_double_stamp.jpg)
Why, why, why..... I dunno why, but they do. Prolly because their boss said so.
(https://image.ibb.co/cOyttw/7558_K_receiver_cover_top_scrubbed.jpg)
-
Ill explain this again.
They do not care what the condition is in most cases because their entire purpose is to strip them down and make new guns out of them. A small outfit may be able to keep serial parts together, but your larger facilities are likely only interested in dipping, filling, refinishing/bluing, reassemble, and reserialize.
They were so damn good at scrubbing and reserializing parts, this thread exists.
-
Remember all this?
Welcome to the files jstin, glad to have you here! thumb1
Boris Badinov and I have been PM'ing about this gun over the past few days. It's an interesting specimen, very interesting indeed. Unfortunately, the Westrifle connection causes me great pause in taking everything on it at face value. They have been known to embellish their SKSs with non-original stampings such as these gems (yes that 4th one down does say "1956" on it! rofl2):
(https://image.ibb.co/fB5v6G/A_665_stock.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/hmq6Dw/P_904_stock.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/i86k6G/IMG_9293_02.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/emWJRG/IMG_9303_02.jpg)
and my personal favorites, the laminates with 'original' '49 cartouches!
(https://image.ibb.co/cG5v6G/A_12_stock.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/b4UcLb/BO730_stock.jpg)
So assuming that there are features of the Westrifle gun that are legit and others that are not, I would say that you likely have a '49 with a scrubbed cover that they simply couldn't swap out. There are 5 other EM prefixes in the database and 4 of them are '49s while one (EM923) is a heavy refurb with a transitional '50 cover like you have. Now Boris has the opinion that the fonts on the receiver and receiver cover are a dead match, and I don't disagree that they are very similar, but I've always hated using fonts across components to prove a match. Especially when components can be scrubbed such as:
(https://image.ibb.co/cOyttw/7558_K_receiver_cover_top_scrubbed.jpg)
and most troublesome to collectors of data like me, receivers being scrubbed:
(https://image.ibb.co/joJF6G/BO5220_receiver_double_stamp.jpg)
If the gun isn't as-issued, one has to be VERY careful what conclusions one draws from them. There may be many explanations...
-
I thought Jstin2 has already demonstrated that the stock is a Russian replacement.
Also, the photo of the receiver stamp and faded cover are from guns sold in the US.
Ill explain this again.
They do not care what the condition is in most cases because their entire purpose is to strip them down and make new guns out of them.
Other than the stock, there is not one single other new part on his gun.
-
dead3
-
I wasnt quoting it for the stock. dash2 and since when does Canada have GunBroker i.e the receiver pic?
I thought Jstin2 has already demonstrated that the stock is a Russian replacement.
Also, the photo of the receiver stamp and faded cover are from guns sold in the US.
And what exactly would the difference be? Are you assuming the Russians refurb practices would be altered for the sake of where there gun will go as if they can tell the future? We have remnants of scrubbed numbers etc from guns in the US also fyi.
Other than the stock, there is not one single other new part on his gun.
Says who... you?
New as in rebuilt... you wouldn't know/see the difference.
Since a few of you guys/gals only value RMs weight on the subject, Ill just quote him again because you must have missed it.
jstin, I'm not sure what you're looking for here. There is no SKS expert in the world that will be able to tell you with 100% certainty if your gun is an as-built transitional '50, a '49 which was refurbished by the Russians, or a gun that has been modded by Westrifle to bring in a higher retail value by swapping the stock ferrule and bayonet. It simply can't be done, I don't care how good the SKS expert is. Everyone will have opinions and different features and pieces of data will hold different weight for different people to come to different conclusions.
Was the receiver and receiver cover both scrubbed and restamped? Are the piece parts all scrubbed and restamped?
Could there be a run of EM prefixed '49s and a separate run of EM prefixed '50s? Absolutely. It would be the first occurrence of consecutive year prefixes I've ever encountered in the '49 to '55 timeframe though. By '56 to '58 and in the Izhevsk guns, reuse of prefixes from year to year is noted, but in the early years there seems to always be at least a one year gap between reuse of prefixes (i.e. prefix "AB" is seen in '49, '51, and '54, but not '50, '52, '53, or '55). Granted my data set is only 1467 rifles with 1097 of those being as-issued or positively ID'd using comparison to as-issued guns, but I would have thought I'd see at least one occurrence of this before now.
So assuming that there are features of the Westrifle gun that are legit and others that are not, I would say that you likely have a '49 with a scrubbed cover that they simply couldn't swap out. There are 5 other EM prefixes in the database and 4 of them are '49s
-
One possibility that we have not considered is the possibiltiy that, during the transition from spike to blade, the cruciform bayo might have been designated NOT by year but by serial prefix.
In this scenario "EM" and 'БМ' were rouglhy simultaneous runs of very early, 90 degree guns.
the EM series were designated for assembly with spike bayos and the 'БМ' serials were assigned the new blade bayos.
And jstin2's gun would have ended up with a spike bayonet by mistake because of the mis-struck serial prefix.
-
Also from RM regarding jstin2's 1950 dated gun:
"Yeah, I've been trying to poke holes in that gun too...and have been unable to. That's a good thing I think. Now we just need a few more examples to pop up and we'll really be in business!"
from a public thread found here
http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?923266-Late-bolt-carrier-in-an-early-gun&p=8284970#post8284970
-
I've also been unable to verify that it's truly a '50 either. Just because it's not "A" doesn't automatically mean that it automatically is "B". (false dichotomy)
As has been said many times before, it's a unique specimen that we simply can't draw concrete conclusions upon. We absolutely need other matching examples. The other 1949/1950 EM prefixed guns I have in the database don't jive with this one. Either the gun is not an EM prefix, it was not produced in the same year as those other "EM" prefixed guns, or there is something else we are missing or assuming that is incorrect. One of the 6 scenarios I laid out on this post (http://sks-files.com/index.php?topic=3653.msg43019#msg43019) has got to be true though.
-
Other than the stock, there is not one single other new part on his gun.
Says who... you?
Says the gun.
NO fewer than 7 distinct upgrades/design changes made between 1949 and 1955/56 occurring at different times and the only new/upgraded part this gun gets is a stock? Not even a trigger housing with an upgraded safety?
Other than the stock, every part on this gun is of the earliest production design.
-
One possibility that we have not considered is the possibiltiy that, during the transition from spike to blade, the cruciform bayo might have been designated NOT by year but by serial prefix.
In this scenario "EM" and 'БМ' were rouglhy simultaneous runs of very early, 90 degree guns.
the EM series were designated for assembly with spike bayos and the 'БМ' serials were assigned the new blade bayos.
And jstin2's gun would have ended up with a spike bayonet by mistake because of the mis-struck serial prefix.
Thats a huge reach into wag territory imho.
Also from RM regarding jstin2's 1950 dated gun:
"Yeah, I've been trying to poke holes in that gun too...and have been unable to. That's a good thing I think. Now we just need a few more examples to pop up and we'll really be in business!"
from a public thread found here
http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?923266-Late-bolt-carrier-in-an-early-gun&p=8284970#post8284970
How did I know you would latch onto that like some kinda life raft? :)) Because it fits your narrative. I know RM all to well and believe he has just clarified his position on the matter. thumb1
Other than the stock, there is not one single other new part on his gun..
"new" as in current production 'new'? What part of 'refurbish' are you not understanding?
http://www.lmfgtfy.com/?q=definition+of+refurbish+
-
No one here has claimed definitivley that this is a 1950 gun.
Tons of guns show up with replacement stocks and/or covers with dates that are not corroborated by the facts of the gun.
On this gun however, the facts match the date.
"New" as in upgraded design. All of the parts on this gun are period correct for a 1950 gun-- were any of the parts replaced? Maybe. Maybe not.
You can sidestep the facts all you want, but we can't responsibly ingore the fact that not one of the many systems that underwent a design upgrade/modification prior to 1954 (trigger, bolt/carrier, magazine, barrel, Ferrule, bayonet, receiver cover) was replaced when this gun was set into a laminate stock post 1955/56.
Not one 'new' part. For all intents and purposes this rifle ended up in a post 55/56 refurb shop as an all-orginal-parts-configuartion gun.
None of the arguments that can be made against suspect dates on other guns can be applied to this particular gun. That's just a fact.
For some unexplained reason this seems to really upset you.
-
No one here has claimed definitivley that this is a 1950 gun.
Accept for you... on other boards making definitive claims and then slightly altering you statements via edit prior to anyone quoting them.
You can sidestep the facts all you want, but we can't responsibly ingore the fact that not one of the many systems that underwent a design upgrade/modification prior to 1954 (trigger, bolt/carrier, magazine, barrel, Ferrule, bayonet, receiver cover) was replaced when this gun was set into a laminate stock post 1955/56.
Pot... meet kettle.
Your the one that consistently ignores the facts YOU dont like. Namingly being the fonts are different, the receiver serial may in fact not even be an 'E', and the FACT they scrubbed parts so well NOBODY could EVER tell. Then of course we have the FACT you ignore the FACT we have been observing 1949 guns with blade bayos and 90 degree gasports etc for YEARS now..... the little FACT you refuse to look into before making your executive 'deception'. How do you know the bobbleheads of SKS past were not wrong when declaring all 49 guns with a blade were converted???? YOU DONT KNOW!!!! Perhaps they were NOT converted.
I tell ya what, we have seen many times more blade 49s then spike 50s. FACT
Putting your hand on the scale because of your bias isnt what we do here.
None of the arguments that can be made against suspect dates on other guns can be applied to this particular gun. That's just a fact.
No boris.... thats just bull-****.
For some unexplained reason this seems to really upset you.
Oh nooo.... the debate and conversation does not upset me. You do.
-
you're both wrong. :P
-
you're both wrong. :P
That got an audible laugh out of me newch. chuckles1
Well said! dance2
But seriously, everyone has strong opinions on this one. No reason to get bent out of shape if someone else doesn't buy your argument for whatever reason. At the end of the day I'd hope we all have more in common than not. thumb1
-
In context I have ALWAYS stated that there is no absolutely definitive date for this gun. But I am absolutely, 100% of the opinion that there is a very strong argument for the 1950 date.
Any 'definitive' claims that you wish to attribute to me, are claims I made in the effort to posit my points in the hypothetical realm.
So you've gotta be high if you think I'm making a definitive declaration on the date of this gun. I haven't any need to call it a "case closed" (your words) with regard to the date on this gun. The relative sample size of early guns available for examination is far too small for the level of certainty with which you seem so eager to shut down the discussion of this gun. There's potentially a lot to be learned/uncovered here. And I'm not willing to shut that door on the exploration simply because someone hurls churlish insults and threats of physical violence when I don't agree with them.
As I said earlier: None of the arguments that can be made against suspect dates on other guns can be applied to this particular gun. Other than the stock, every part on this gun is of the earliest configuration. If you've got some insight that will definitively identify any of those parts as refurb replacement, be my guest and enlighten us. But I won't be holding my breath.
-
Ok... I've really, really gotten bored with the back and forth banter... and can't say I give a damn one way or the other, but..
So far we have 12 pages, of which 4 or 5 pages are chest thumping bull crap. Neither side has proven a damn thing I can see, other than their testosterone is freely flowing and they can type... so..
IT'S LIKE THIS..
Someone throw definitive unadulterated proof on the table... either put up...or shut up.. because it's no longer discussion.. the topic has become a childish pissing match filled with snide, snarky, prickish 'tude, that dare I say is bleeding over from other places this very same topic is being beaten to death at.
If you got a problem with the above.. come at me and try me, I will lock'er down... bat1 thumb1
I will ask nicely, just this once...all of ya'll back off and cool your jets.
-
I haven't any need to call it a "case closed" (your words)
You forgot the question mark that I applied after it....... that makes it a question. OK1
you seem so eager to shut down the discussion of this gun
But here we are on page 12. senil1
And I'm not willing to shut that door on the exploration simply because someone hurls churlish insults and threats of physical violence when I don't agree with them.
Dont be such a snowflake, the only thing thats going to shut down this thread is you running them gums like you did on the other boards. Stop deflecting and get back on topic before I start thrashing around on the quarter-deck.
-
Well, i think the best thing to come out of this thread was the fact that early early on in sks production the cleaning rod holder wasnt holding like they wanted it to apparently and they modified it.
-
Anyone else have or know of another early, refurb gun that still retains, all of the earliest designs of the metal components that are also stamped and matching?
Does anyone else find it curious that this carbine ended up in late-date refurb-- notably after every new design upgrade had been implemented --and never got one upgraded component until it finally landed in a laminate stock post 1955/56?
-
No, Refurb doesnt mean replace everything just because. It means check it over and fix anything out of spec.
If it meant replace everything then it would just have bean easier to make new 1960 and 1970 dated ones and melt down the originals as they came in.
-
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.
-
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. :)
-
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.
-
Refurb 1950-51 sneak:
http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?t=630810
(http://preview.ibb.co/bWdzxR/20171218_113440.jpg) (http://ibb.co/bFC3P6)
(http://preview.ibb.co/bZQJrm/20180103_103131.jpg) (http://ibb.co/kK7nj6)
(http://preview.ibb.co/ncH3P6/Screenshot_20180116_084912.jpg) (http://ibb.co/kCPTrm)
(http://preview.ibb.co/mKdXHR/20171218_114045.jpg) (http://ibb.co/cBoA46)
(http://preview.ibb.co/b7zTrm/Screenshot_20180116_084842.jpg) (http://ibb.co/nR0CHR)
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.. thumb1 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.. chuckles1
-
The Canadian author did all that without having a single as-issued 49 to date show up here, or in CA.. Interesting.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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. thumb1
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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..
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I dunno if I would go 'that' far. :o
My main issue is.... I dont trust other peoples data. Dont let RMs modesty fool you.
RM, I say you ditch the monotonous GB sales reports and try to extrapolate ONLY as-issued guns from your data in effort to narrow down our own (reliable) list of feature changes and the year they most likely happened.
I also (still) would like to know how many 1949 cover guns with blade bayos and 90 degree gasports you have on file.... refurbed or not.
-
I also (still) would like to know how many 1949 cover guns with blade bayos and 90 degree gasports you have on file.... refurbed or not.
Yeah my bad, I got busy with something else last night and didn't get it for you. Here are three lists, you should be able to click inline or right click on any picture to download and get full res if they are hard to read:
1st list is all guns I've "determined" to be 1949 based on feature sets and/or similar prefixes, 47 guns. Note that since I have yet to find an as-issued '49, this is the best I can do. I have to make the cutoff somewhere, otherwise there would be a population of zero to compare with. chuckles1
(http://image.ibb.co/i8GLNR/1949_guns.jpg)
Next are all guns with 90° gas blocks, 51 guns. Note that there should be some transitional 50's in here not present in the first list and others from the first list that don't have a clear view of the gas block that dropped out as well:
(http://image.ibb.co/jpPPhR/all_90_block.jpg)
Finally are all guns with 90° gas blocks and some type of blade bayo. This list is considerably smaller, 12 guns:
(http://image.ibb.co/dpJObm/1949_blade_bayo.jpg)
-
So, in the short time RM has been tracking these things.... He has 5 that are 1949 with 90 degree blocks and what was 'said' to be converted blade bayos.
How do we know the bobbleheads of SKS past didnt just assume that since they have a blade 'they must have been converted because we all know blades cant be on a 49 originally'? We dont.
As far as Im seeing, we have 5 of these 1949 guns that 'could have' been originally issued with a blade bayo, against 1 gun that 'could have' originally been issued with a spike bayo.
Thats a 5/1 in favor of the transition to blade happening in 49, not 50.
-
I'm absolutely ok with the date of subject gun remaining in limbo. I've said so from the get-go.
But I'm am still uncertain why all of a sudden it has become impossible to narrow the date range of the parts/components and features of Soviet SKS design.
To be perfectly honest, it comes off as disingenous to begin proclaiming all of a sudden that we haven't been able to do this accurately (and apparentlly won't be able to for some time) because only a handful of people are doing actual research.
The traits I linked above have been proven in the field so-to-speak for years. And every day they are tested over and over in the ad-hoc corroboration-via-peer-review process that is at the heart of collecting forums.
The effort to delegitimize a very simple and perfunctory process that we have be undertaking for more than a decade comes of as -- alternative story tellling.
The simple fact is that, until about a month ago, anyone of us with enough time in the forums could have easily verified that the subject gun -- with the exception of the laminate stock-- is entirely composed of the very earliest production design for every part and component . As a 90 degree early gun, every part is 100% consistent with an original early build.
I stand by the statement:
Excepting the stock, every feature on the subject gun is 100% consistent with what we've all known (now apparently assumptions) for many years.
Earliest production 1.) trigger, 2.) bolt/carrier/fp, 3.) gas block, 4.)receiver cover (and receiver latch pin), 5.) bayonet 6.) AND magazine. Yes , the magazine is also of the earliest production design, and along with the other parts listed 100% consistent with what we know of earliest production 90 degree guns.
I am still open to hearing any arguments that would contradict the DATE RANGES that are linked above. As it stands, the design features on the subject gun appear to be irrefutably consistent with an original issued 90 degree gun.
-
RM--
I do not see any 'Б' prefix 1949 guns on the list above.
Do you have any data on 'Б' prefix guns for 1950?
Are the reciever serial fonts on the EM 1949's consistent with one another, or is there variation?
-
Also: Purported, 1949 dated "EM 922" popped up yesterday. Heavy refurb, forcematch stock, blade bayo
https://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php/1668600-SKS-matching-bayo
it also cross-posted on the survivor forum.
-
Ok.. you stated your case and you stand by whatever... You gotta stand for something I guess... thumb1
But.. as you so eloquently point out.. this "very simple and perfunctory process that we have be undertaking for more than a decade", the rifle in question has been posted in what...4, maybe 5 forums.. and everyone who has chimed in, has a different answer for what it is.
If it were such a perfunctory process......why cant everyone agree that it is a 1950 w/spike and laminated stock... identify the heap and move on to the next subject.. if it's so absolutely cut and dry based off your quoted info from your source, why is there now 13 pages of BS on it here, 4 or 5 pages on GB, 7 pages on SKSwhere ever.
You telling me all them posts in those pages are "I like your rifle","Cool rifle", "I want it" bla bla bla........ I ain't reading every page, I have no real interest, but I know there is discussion on this or that feature, and some disagreement on this or that feature... after 12-13 years on fourms, there always is....disagreement, some form of pissing match and chest thumping.
Obviously, if there is this much controversy, something needs looked at further.. I can see your point, this one place says yadda yadda.... but, on the other hand, I bet enough stink has been raised to warrant another look at the data.
As for the time and length of time it takes to spit that info out..yeah, it takes a while.. Been there and helped do that, and it's by no means an easy task. By all means feel free to start your own study, let it consume your life and let us know what you come up with, we are all ears. Until then, feel free to keep freely quoting whoever where ever, our study will continue, it will either verify or contradict the known data and life will go on.
And like I stated before.... If the info there pans out with what's found.... great, out frickenstanding, we can close the book on the subject and get on with life...but if the info doesn't.... who knows..
-
Ok. I think I've got it.
The issue here isn't so much the argument being made. Instead it's the forum member making the argument. Certain members can emoji-mock (seriously, i think the emoji's do more harm to serious debate than anything), hurl insults, and even threats of violence on other forums, yet when the attacked party mounts any kind of defense, admin starts rattling the chains for a lockout.
Because as far as I can tell no one -- not even RM -- has been yet able to poke a hole in the 1950 date for the subject gun. And that's exactly the argument I've been making for the past three months.
-
As I have stated before, there will be no conclusive decision on this carbine until others are produced with pictures. Maybe a week, a month, a year, 5 years or maybe never. I agree that there are merits on both side of the argument but petty beefs are not required in this forum. Also the reason that I posted this carbine in different forums is to try to get someone to produce their carbine. There are a lot of different owners on different forums. One person said he had a 50 with spike but even I could tell it was not and said so and pointed out the differences.
-
no one -- not even RM -- has been yet able to poke a hole in the 1950 date for the subject gun
He doesn't have to because I already have. Its called good cop, bad cop. Both sides look like Swiss cheese.
Great, now I'm hungry.
-
He doesn't have to because I already have.
I will agree that you have certainly tried (and you've made a lot of noise and hurled easily your liftetime batting average of insults and even some threats).
To date, however, that is all you have done.
-
Where and when did I emoji-mock you? How have I insulted your person? What exactly were my threats of violence? I reread my posts.... my foul language was actually kept to a bare minimum and I have used like 5 whole emojis in this whole mess...
On the subject of rattling chains for a lock out... I will own that....not based off you, your proof or info you spouted off.. period, it was due to the fact you and others had gone half past stupid and were more or less past being civil, and neither side would not let go.. Which.... read Rule #1... then rule #5....... and yes, I realize one person in particular can be very, and I will say it and save you the trouble and grief of pointing it out....he can be very, very obstinate. I have no interest in what happens elsewhere.... But, keep it elsewhere, let their admin/moderators deal with it, keep it civil here, please.
I all honesty.... You have stated your case half a dozen times.. Excepting the stock, every feature on the subject gun is 100% consistent with what we've all known (now apparently assumptions) for many years.
Earliest production 1.) trigger, 2.) bolt/carrier/fp, 3.) gas block, 4.)receiver cover (and receiver latch pin), 5.) bayonet 6.) AND magazine. Yes , the magazine is also of the earliest production design, and along with the other parts listed 100% consistent with what we know of earliest production 90 degree guns.
I am still open to hearing any arguments that would contradict the DATE RANGES that are linked above. As it stands, the design features on the subject gun appear to be irrefutably consistent with an original issued 90 degree gun.
I openly acknowledge your stance prior... then
Because as far as I can tell no one -- not even RM -- has been yet able to poke a hole in the 1950 date for the subject gun.
Wanna beat that proverbial dead horse some more..
All I am asking is given him time and a chance, and it is such a simple ask... his whole world does not revolve around the SKS and getting answers... the man has a job, a wife and wonderful children. The more time and info he can gather.....the more accurate the information.
-
The two 'Б' prefix listed on RM's data base is attributed to 1950:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8Eq7Z0mPG-FZXROWUtDMWxJVkE/view?usp=sharing
I have seen also БK 89, БM 923 listed on another survey. No idea if these are part of RM's master database, but they are both attributed to 1950 dated guns.
As I understand it, to date no 'Б' prefixes have been associated with 1949 guns.
-
RM--
I do not see any 'Б' prefix 1949 guns on the list above.
Do you have any data on 'Б' prefix guns for 1950?
Are the reciever serial fonts on the EM 1949's consistent with one another, or is there variation?
I've got no Б prefix guns until 1954 Izhevsk. NoytaCCCP/Kurgan has a single one in his survey (БK89) atributed to 1950. There may not be enough data in my survey to corroborate that prefix or it may not exist.
The other EM's are (including the 922 that popped up yesterday on CGN and the 'other' boards):
Subject gun of the OP, may or may not be an EM:
(https://image.ibb.co/iYTYu6/EM717_receiver.jpg)
The rest:
(https://image.ibb.co/h4yBgm/EM922_receiver.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/jqS41m/EM923_receiver.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/gMma7R/EM1191_receiver.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/h8qeZ6/EM1818_receiver.jpg)
I don't have a receiver photo for EM1546 unfortunately.
Make of them what you will. dntknw1
-
First warning Boris. Stay on topic and remember whos living room your in.
-
The OP gun does not have ALL of the early features except the stock.
It has a pinned magazine stud for the spring. The early 49s did not have that. The gap on the latch was present on both early and late 49 mags....until a third type without the gap was introduced later.
Let us also not forget new parts were used at refurb too. Gas tubes and pistons could easily be mistaken for original, if they were first serialed to the gun being refurbed. The trigger on the OP gun shows zero signs of scrubbing...but that easily could have been a new trigger serialed to the receiver at refurb...or it could be original. It is truly impossible to be 100% certain. The same goes for the mid style magazine...it could have been original if it is a 50, or it could be a replacement, first serialed to the gun after the pinless one was ditched....in that case would be a 49. We can never really know for sure.
There are three points I look for to determine a 49 with original features above what most look at. The bottom pinned small stock ferrule, the rivetless early magazine style...and the depth of the trigger retention spring hole on the trigger.
I would be interested to see if Jstin2's later trigger groups will seat and lock in either the 49 or 50. Mine required a considerable amount removed from the spring to be able to seat, and I have seen a few photos that show that recess on the trigger frame to be deeper than the one I settled on. I wouldn't be surprised if later ones don't seat on one or both of them.
-
I took the trigger off my 54 and put on both 49 and 50. Both fit okay and fired okay.
-
I took the trigger off my 54 and put on both 49 and 50. Both fit okay and fired okay.
Hmmmm....so much for that idea. Why mine was so weird about it now befuddles me.
-
With the changes made in 50, I decided to try to get a carbine with each modification. On CGN, a individual member from Quebec advertised a 50 with matching S/Ns. It had been refurbished. It had the engraved date and 45 degree gas port. Bought it. When it arrived I realized that I should have gotten additional pictures. S/N on cover looks like letter was double stamped, letters on bolt carrier was scrubbed and not replaced with anything, gas tube latch is a late style and barrel may have been replaced. Letters on bolt are Xed, but you can see what they are, THIS is the interesting part which may help with my 50 with spike?? Letters are different from receiver and trigger but the numbers are same. If my 50 with spike, the receiver is not EM but the other, this could help but not confirm my carbine.
https://ibb.co/album/kdbeLa
-
That is a pretty sweet 50 you have there...the light colored laminate really pops.
Is it a straight eared bayo lug with a slanted ear bayonet on it or vice versa?
Tha bayonet seems to be sagging a little....otherwise that is a sexy 45 degree 50. :)
It looks like a different version of 5 round mag pinning too...at least vs.the ones I have seen.
-
That many replacement parts, heck it could be a 51. rofl
Looks good though... Nice carbine.
-
Justin-Hell, Very observant on bayonet sag. Not sure what caused it. Also magazine is pinned in a different manner. I added pictures of both.
https://ibb.co/album/kdbeLa
-
L-C The only part that I could say for sure that was replaced at refurb. was the latch for gas tube. What happened to the S/Ns I couldn't say. Take a close look at the S/N on the bolt and receiver cover and give your opinion.
-
Justin-Hell, Very observant on bayonet sag. Not sure what caused it. Also magazine is pinned in a different manner. I added pictures of both.
https://ibb.co/album/kdbeLa
Interesting, it appears to have the correct straight eared bayonet handle and lug, but something looks off about that lug...I can't put my finger on what. The bayonet has been removed at some point, the stake marks are off. Does it actually lock up tight or does it have some play in it when it is 'closed'?
-
I took the bayonet off to see if there was anything worn or different about blade. It does not lock up tight when closed as you noticed in picture.
-
Perhaps it is something as simple as a weak spring?
-
Think that I have a solution after tinkering on it. The lug is worn down although it doesn't show and is blued. I put a nail file between the bayonet handle and lug (sloped area) and it sat okay in V. Spring is still in good condition. One other thing that I noticed is that the blade is narrower. I took measurements from the tip of blade to 6 inches down.
This 50 - 20.85 mm
other 50 - 22.97 mm
53 - 22.85 mm
57 - 22.97 mm
But on my 52 it is 20.6 mm and 54 was 20.94. Would this indicate that 2 widths of blades were made? Couldn't find any indication online about blade widths. Suggestions??
-
Today on CGN there is a 49 SKS for sale. The trigger and magazine is non matching and stock has been replaced with a later stock, plus the stock ferrule has also been replaced (top pinned). It still retains a spike bayonet. Serial number is EM 1355. Doesn't help my cause but posted anyway.
-
How do you know the ferrule is a replacement and not original to a late 49?
-
It looks like the ferrule has a V notch. And I would think that with a spike bayonet, it would not need it. I only noticed the pin placement at first and then looking closer it looks like it was V notched.
-
Any chance of getting some photos posted of it jstin2? CGN doesn't typically grant access to the EE of US members since we can't typically (legally) buy firearms from Canada anyhow.
Is it possible that the stock ferrule is original and the bayo is a replacement on this gun?
-
Those zany Russians.... Anything goes with a refurb.
How do we not know late 49s didn't come...... With a blade?
My suggestion to prove your carbine is a 1950 that originally came with a spike bayo.... Find and bring us one that is an as-issued or otherwise non-refurbished specimen.
-
I have sent a message asking if he could either post pictures on this site or email me the pictures and I could post. I am not going to repost other peoples pictures without permission. As far as the stock ferrule being original, I defer it to the experts. Take a good look at the pictures. At refurb you would think that if you were going to replace stock that you would replace stock ferrule or shave down stock to fit stock ferrule, but wouldn't you also replace the 90 degree gas port? But then again who knows what happens at refurb. My motto - live and learn. Who knows what we find out next. Example - cleaning rod nubs. As I have mentioned before that I have a heavy refurbed 49 and that it has a blade, V notched ferrule and a 45 degree gas port.
-
At refurb you would think that if you were going to replace stock that you would replace stock ferrule
Was your ferrule replaced when they replaced the stock?
You would think alot of things, but unfortunately that doesn't make them true.
-
Loose - Cannon, I hope that one day there will be another 50 with spike posted. It may take a week, month, year or 5 years. I feel that my 50 is a starting point and if another one is posted, then maybe there will be less criticism. I cannot fault your criticism by there being only one documented with pictures. Other people have stated a 50 with spike but have no pictures. This is a learning process with the SKS and as we noticed with the revelation about the changing of the cleaning rod nub in 49.
-
Do you have the cleaning rod nubs?
Im not sure it was a "revelation" persay, I remember it being covered on another board many moons ago, but little things of this nature are often lost or forgotten in the swamp.
-
Now about my 50. If at refurb they were going to replace stock, why replace it with a tapered down stock and not a later stock. Why change stock ferrule so that it could fit tapered down stock. Doesn't make sense.
-
SKS post nubs. On this post, reply 166. Jan 12th 2018. This is all that I know.
-
I received some pictures but it didn't show stock, bayonet and stock ferrule. Asked for more.
-
Don't get much later then a laminated stock.
-
Still waiting for more pictures of his 49. He doesn't care if pictures are posted on this site, so if you have the know how, bring them over. I have also been thinking about the stock ferrule being original and a spike added later also. As I mentioned before, if at refurb they replaced the stock ferrule wouldn't they also replace gas port. Also the way the stock has been butchered to fit a spike doesn't look right.
-
They would have to remove the gas block to swap a stock ferrule if it needed replacing, but if the block is in good shape, why not put it right back on? Guaranteed to have the right press fit, guaranteed that the gas port in the barrel and gas block will line up, and guaranteed that the retaining pin will line up. Why fight with fitting a replacement gas block if it doesn't need replacing? dntknw1
-
Why was Douglas Macarthur after proving to be the most incompetent General of ww2 which lead to the Bataan death march allowed to preside over the North Korean blunder that resulted in the frozen chosin?
-
peteroliver 1234, just posted another 49 for sale. Thing is that this one has a blade bayonet, but the stock ferrule is bottom pinned???
-
Just to note, I have not found any further evidence of another. I reread this post a couple days ago and another thought about this 50. This is just conjecture and cannot be proven. In late 1949, the fate of the spike was made and the blade was decided to be in favor. Now there must have been several production lines involved since rifles were hand stamped and hand engraved. Now what IF, the production lines were slowly changed over to blades and the last line involved still had the original parts for a 49 and they carried over to 1950 and had to stamp the receiver cover 1950. I would also like to point out that I saw that the E on the receiver was questionable on page 1 of the post.
-
I have another question to the fact that the early 50 with 49 features and a blade bayonet had serial numbers, in question with my 50 with spike. In dispute on mine was the E and the Б. Now the EM has been shown up on 49s and the EБ to the early 50. Now where did the БM come into the picture (as in my 50 receiver). As Loose - Cannon has shown the receiver is not a E but a Б on my 50 (defective stamp) and the rest stamped EM. Only by close examination can this be seen. I also know that until I or someone else finds another one, this will be in dispute and questionable. Click on number on bottom of picture to enlarge.
https://ibb.co/album/bNdUBF
https://ibb.co/album/cQ985a
-
Today the liberal party in Canada enacted a gun ban on multiple assault rifles in Canada. Although the SKS was not included in ban, it might be in the future. If it was included, I would have my rifle deactivated so I would not have to hand it in to be destroyed( 2 year grace period). And in the same token, if there was another example like mine it would be destroyed by someone who did not know what he had.
-
How can one individual just issue a single decree and poof you firearms are gone. Don't you have any recourse here.
-
I do not believe that this forum should get into politics. You can google for more information. I only brought this up to let people know that the SKS is still available in Canada and not on the ban list at this time. Plus I do not want to destroy my 50 with spike if it was ever to be banned.
-
Your 5/1 post was political in nature.
-
Your 5/1 post was political in nature.
Jstin2’s comment was arguably just a point of factual information but another person might see it as political.
Polite suggestion as an administrator: either, neither or both of you are welcome to discuss the political aspects of this issue on a current thread in the “Politics” sub-forum. Thanks for keeping it civil! :)
https://sks-files.com/index.php?topic=4917.0;topicseen
-
Sounds good.
-
Sounds good.
thumb1 :)
-
A very interesting article posted by jmauser concerning - SKD Trials Article:Yuschenko/M9130.info
There has been in question of the transition from spike to blade in this post. In the last paragraph of article, it answers that question. Now production of transition would be dependent on spikes in stock.
Below is a copy of last paragraph of article. The whole article is well worth reading.
However, at that moment there was no adopted knife blade bayonet for the SKS. Production started according to existing drawings which contained a spike bayonet. Four days after the adoption of the SKS, the Simonov design bureau (OKB-19) and factory No. 536 design bureau submitted their knife blade bayonet designs for adoption, but neither of them were accepted. A new bayonet design was created according to the advice of the group of Marshal of the Soviet Union veterans, it was accepted on November 2nd, 1949. Leftover spike blade bayonets were supposed to be used in production within the next 3 months, afterwards, production was supposed to be switched to the knife-blade bayonet.
-
Now if we could identify when the receiver covers went from hand struck to stamped, we might be able to break down 1950 a bit further. You may be the only person so far to be able to pretty much confirm your SKS was made in January 1950. It sure would be nice if your serial could be used to decrypt the system they used....if there indeed was one.
It's a bit more iron clad than my A series letter gun being made in January 1959. ;)
Unfortunately, there likely won't be any information that comes to light regarding the hoopla surrounding take down lever progression that year, but this article is pretty fascinating huh?
-
Justin Hell - If you go to page 4, I have a forum - 1950 Transitions. This may answer some of your questions.
-
I have another question about the rust pitting on receiver? There is pitting on the front of receiver which would have been covered by the stock. The other area of pitting is back end of trigger and back end of receiver and receiver cover. But the rest of receiver is like new. If you have trigger attached to rifle, the pitting lines up with receiver pitting. The last picture is with a cover from my early 50 with blade, to show that some of the grinding was done to inside of receiver. Another question is where was it done, Russia, importer or seller?
https://ibb.co/album/X2Nrwj
-
Three years ago today I was browsing Westrifle website. On the side column there was advertised 10- 1949 SKS for $400.00. When I purchased I did not realized the debate that would follow. I contacted a fellow collector in Nova Scotia a couple months after purchase asking if he had one and he replied that he had not seen one. He contacted Westrifle and said that if they got another that he would purchase. Their reply was that there was no such thing as a 50 with spike.
https://ibb.co/album/y6dgkK
Thanks to Boris Bradinov for asking me to post on this site and all the experts who gave their knowledge on this subject, pros and cons. Although I have been unable to find another like mine the evidence has been growing. I realize that one carbine does not make it true and until other 50 with spike are found and documented with pictures mine is still under review.
What has been found is that mine has all the features of a 49.
The serial number on receiver was stuck with a defective stamp and is NOT a E but a Б. The rest of serial numbers are EM 717. The 717 looks like it was struck by the same person.
Need more information on SKS's with a serial number starting with БM if it can be found, as EM is associated with 1949 SKS
The laminate stock was made for a spike and not shaved down from a bade stock.
The most recent post by jmauer- "SKS Trials Article :Yushenko/m9130.info" indicates that spikes were to be used until supply was exhausted and could be used until Feb. 02 1950.
I am constantly checking websites to find another as there should be at least 716 with БM
-
Wow, time flies....I remember drooling over that listing of those.
It sure would be nice to nail down the serial system, if the E is the first letter, and they progress through the alphabet, my EO 50 is two letters later than yours....with a blade. and Ey is also a 50 with a hand engraved cover. I am curious when the stamped covers began.
I have been waiting for a photo I purchased in March, from Russia showing a parade of cadets from Leningrad 1958 marching exclusively with spikers. It leads me to think they may have used the spikers in training situations to keep some semblance of uniformity. If that's the case....you might have one that survived that life, when many may not have. It's also possible they were just used for parade purposes too...perhaps a cache of those were what made it your direction half a century later.
I really hope that photo shows up....the stupid virus has slowed international shipping to the 15th century it seems.
-
Justin Hell- Receiver serial number is БM not EM as was proven by Loose Cannon. The rest is stamped EM. Also I went through entire Westrifle listing and the first 9 were engraved 1949.
-
One possiblity is that the "Б" stamp that was used to serialize the receiver was worn/marred enough that whoever stamped thought it was an "E".
-
The only way to prove that is was originally a EM, is to find a another 50 with spike. My opinion is that it was originally stamped БM 717.
-
I have spent the last 4 years trying to find another 1950 with a spike bayonet. I have replied to many 1950's for sale. I had a lead last summer but it did not pan out. Three days ago I found one that I hoped would pan out. It was double the price of a regular SKS was selling for. Seller sent me some pictures and I decided to buy. I knew a collector in the seller's city and he picked it up tonight. All metal serial numbers matching including electro-pencil parts. Stock has been sanded and refinished but you can see original stamps faintly. I will be receiving SKS next week and will be posting better quality pictures then.
https://ibb.co/album/1bJtM0
I was sent a picture of rifle last night. Shows the bluing better with the proper lighting and use of a better camera.
-
Looks pretty nice. I like the single digit serial. thumb1
-
Cool 8) Looking forward to more pictures of SNs, stock ferrule, bolt, etc. Congratulations thumb1
-
Interesting that it has the later 45° transition gas block instead of the 90° gas block that you would expect.
-
Interesting that it has the later 45° transition gas block instead of the 90° gas block that you would expect.
Yep, that list of 1950 transitions in the other thread just got longer.
Nice catch, jstin2!
-
I was sent a few more pictures of 50.
https://ibb.co/album/XyNBtN
-
I have two guns with ИM prefix and transitional '50 characteristics in the database:
ИM9, gun has been bubba'd cry1
(https://i.ibb.co/1n3C2PS/M9-receiver.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/23sK7Z8/M9-receiver-cover.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/R0t1QXh/M9-right-whole.jpg)
Stock is clearly a blade bayo stock, though unknown if it matches the gun or not.
ИM349, this is a Russian "Sneak"
(https://i.ibb.co/QnbdN9L/M349-recevier2.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/2YLC3Xb/M349-import-stamp.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/9VkvWkp/M349-rght-whole.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/WnmvHVh/M349-right-back.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/KLvdgb0/M349-right-front.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/FmbfSv9/M349-stock.jpg)
Stock is an XXX'd replacement stock, but is clearly a Tula stock. Blade bayo is there.
Not terribly much we can really say, if these 2 ever had spikes they were removed long ago.
Both have 45° gas blocks though so that's a good indication all the ИM guns did.
Going to be very interesting to see what the stock is marked with when jstin2 gets the gun in hand.
-
running-man, The second last picture shows that the stock ferrule is pinned at the top, so it was built for a blade bayonet. The production line may have started with spike bayonets and when they ran out continued on with the same lettering but with blades. Stock ferrule and stock would also have to be changed. Also from what I was told the stock on my fifty was sanded but you can faintly see the original serial numbers(same as rifle). From the pictures that were shown to me, I cannot be sure. I will take some pictures when I receive the rifle.
-
Second ferrule is definitely top pinned you're right. Once you get it in hand and can really give it a good look we'll be able to dissect it a bit better. thumb1
-
I have one picture of the stock and added it to album. It was stamped after refinishing, but you can see part of the old serial number. I do not have a picture of star or date. I should be able to get a better picture when I get the rifle.
https://ibb.co/album/1bJtM0
-
running-man - I was looking carefully at the top ИM 9 and wondering if it might have a spike or blade stock ferrule. I have a spare blade stock, so I decided to try to fit it onto my EM 717. Took less than 2 minutes to modify. Cut off around 1/8 inch from stock that fits in ferrule(picture included in album). When I compared it to the picture you have, there is a good chance that your picture has a stock ferrule for a blade. I also tried a spike stock on blade barrel and there is about 1/8 gap.
https://ibb.co/album/sp3dbT
-
I received my 50 today and took some pictures. There are still a few more pictures that I need to take and will do that Thursday.
https://ibb.co/album/N9G70w
-
I received my 50 today and took some pictures. There are still a few more pictures that I need to take and will do that Thursday.
https://ibb.co/album/N9G70w
Very nice! And the ep'd letter 'm' looks good!
-
running-man - I was looking carefully at the top ИM 9 and wondering if it might have a spike or blade stock ferrule. I have a spare blade stock, so I decided to try to fit it onto my EM 717. Took less than 2 minutes to modify. Cut off around 1/8 inch from stock that fits in ferrule(picture included in album). When I compared it to the picture you have, there is a good chance that your picture has a stock ferrule for a blade. I also tried a spike stock on blade barrel and there is about 1/8 gap.
https://ibb.co/album/sp3dbT
Good comparison, I'd say you're right on with this one. The spike ferrules will always leave a bit of stock hanging over as that's how they were intended to be fitted, so unless that blade stock on ИM9 was shaved down considerably, it wouldn't be even.
I wish I had better photos of that one but those are it.
-
I received my 50 today and took some pictures. There are still a few more pictures that I need to take and will do that Thursday.
https://ibb.co/album/N9G70w
If you think of it, get a full photo of the bottom of the magazine (with or w/o external rivet for the spring on the follower). I't still unclear from the photos thus far.
-
Added more pictures. Also I noticed that the bayonet butts up against stock ferrule, it doesn't on my EM 717. ??
https://ibb.co/album/N9G70w
-
Added more pictures. Also I noticed that the bayonet butts up against stock ferrule, it doesn't on my EM 717. ??
https://ibb.co/album/N9G70w
Interesting. The stock on your newly purchased 1950 indeed looks correct for spike bayonet. The one on serial IM 349 doesn't.
-
I mentioned that the stock on mine has been refinished and you can barely make out some of what was on there.
https://ibb.co/album/kgC8c7
-
Interesting. The stock on your newly purchased 1950 indeed looks correct for spike bayonet. The one on serial IM 349 doesn't.
Being a Russian sneak, anything could have happened to the stock on ИM349 between when it left Russia through its time in Albanian to when it was imported into the US. The scratchings within the S/N and date lettering seem a bit odd to me for certain. It may not be a 1950 stock at all, but it's been on that carbine a long long time. To me, the old number bears no resemblance to '349' either.
Being that we only have a population of 3 ИM prefixed guns from '50, we just have to compile the data as best we can and not make the mistake of making absolute determinations when the data simply isn't there to support it. Jstin2's carbine is certainly in the best shape of all 3. Maybe they all looked like that off the line? Maybe his carbine was a one-off? Maybe there's some other implausible but possible case we haven't even considered yet to reconcile the differences in the three.
-
I put this in another post regarding stocks and forgot to enter it here. The cleaning rod opening in the stock is drilled.
https://ibb.co/album/yFk7sd
-
When I was cleaning the bolt, I noticed a couple things that I found odd. The extractor has only a 3 on it, but when I removed it I found the whole serial number on it. Also there was a previous post about how the bolt and carrier were numbered the same, well mine is not numbered but has a stamp on it and looks like it may have been engraved. No idea what it is.
https://ibb.co/album/Jnn1yB
Sean's interesting 49 is not marked on top but on the inside. I then checked my EM 717 and it is only marked on the inside and nothing showing on the top. So it is not an odd thing on the extractor.
-
When I was cleaning the bolt, I noticed a couple things that I found odd. The extractor has only a 3 on it, but when I removed it I found the whole serial number on it. Also there was a previous post about how the bolt and carrier were numbered the same, well mine is not numbered but has a stamp on it and looks like it may have been engraved. No idea what it is.
https://ibb.co/album/Jnn1yB
Sean's interesting 49 is not marked on top but on the inside. I then checked my EM 717 and it is only marked on the inside and nothing showing on the top. So it is not an odd thing on the extractor.
IIRC, my 49 has the serial EP'd on inner side of extractor too.
-
They probably started out marking the inside of extractor then realized it was faster and easier to do it when it was on the bolt. My opinion only.
-
They probably started out marking the inside of extractor then realized it was faster and easier to do it when it was on the bolt. My opinion only.
One of my transitional 1950 (EO serial series) has serial EP'd on inside of extractor too.
-
I looked on my post about 50 transitions and although not all albums show the extractor, I found that #6 & #10 show no serial number on extractor. But #11 does, this is when the bolt transitioned to a free floating firing pin.
-
I took off the butt plate today and noticed markings on the butt. I am not sure if they are common, but I haven't seen or noticed this before.
https://ibb.co/xFnNsDr
-
I was recently on another forum when I noticed a post from Jarret47 asking if his SKS was a true 1949. It had a 90 degree gas port and an eyelet latch pin but with a blade bayonet. He questioned the trigger because the safety was not friction. From his picture I noticed that there was rise behind the magazine release and not flat. Therefore the trigger was probably replaced. The rear sight has also been replaced(not blued). Stock is also a replacement. Now the dust cover is from a 1949 and has a refurb mark. But it appears that the serial number has been scrubbed and matching one stamped. From picture it doesn't look like it sits flush with the receiver. The receiver looks like it might be an early transitional 1950. It has the 90 degree gas port, eyelet latch pin and blade bayonet with the stock ferrule pinned at the top. Now the kicker is that the receiver serial number is EM 1999 and all other parts with matching serial number I also asked for permission to post his pictures and he okayed.
https://ibb.co/album/5Bkq7V
-
I took off the butt plate today and noticed markings on the butt. I am not sure if they are common, but I haven't seen or noticed this before.
https://ibb.co/xFnNsDr
Aren't these called "tramp stamps?" chuckles1