White or blue that is the question

[BMont]

Afternoon sks fans....

General question that has been bantered around in the past and recently on another board...just wanted to see what current thoughts with folks here are on Russian sks bayos for my clarification. 

Are there any original/not modified, refurbed, replaced bayos that were blued on the original rifle or where all bayos issued in the white and only blued after replacement or refurb?

1949 Russian sks w the spiker comes to mind, and it was only after that first production that bayos were installed "in the white".

Thoughts?

[Boris Badinov]

For all intents and purposes, from 1956-1958 Jianshe was the third Soviet sks facility-- Soviet machinery and spare parts from Russia, soviet design, and soviet techs and managers overseeing all aspects of production. Mao's intent was to industrialize and modernize as quickly as possible. There was no time  to waste on refining or rethinking the Soviet design or production method. The Soviets simply made all of the equipment for a new sks production line, and installed it at Jianshe along with the Soviet techs and advisors. As a result, the early years of Chinese production were a cut and paste copy of the Soviet method.

Other than the catalpa hardwood stocks, the early Chinese guns are exact copies of the final Soviet sks design. If the Chinese SKS bear no evidence of golden coating or bluing, why would we expect the Soviet bayos to be any different?





 

[running-man]

The honest answer is that nobody knows.

There are several camps though, each with solid arguments and questionable reaches.

One camp considers a golden bayo to be the de facto way every bayonet was issued.  Many of the the 'as-issued' Russian SKS45s I have in the database have these types of bayos installed, but definitely not all of them are golden.  The question in my mind has always been what level of refurbishment did these seemingly 'as-issued' guns actually receive?  Most certainly disassembly and cleaning at a minimum.  Buttplates also show extensive evidence of cleanup, painting or removal of paint.  The stocks themselves exhibit interesting characteristics of a very light refinish of the shellac, with multiple brush marks and shellac over stamped characters that clearly indicated the coating happened sometime after the original shellac was applied.  Knowing this, I don't think it is a stretch to think that original bayonets were pulled and coated with the chromate conversion coating for additional corrosion protection during long term storage.

Boris's argument that we simply don't see the coating on Chinese SKS bayonets in the '56 to '60 time period is certainly a valid observation.  Of course one might argue that the Chinese simply do not have near the amount of 'as-issued' carbines from this time period as the Russians do and a huge majority of our examples are refubished imports.   

As for blued and black painted Russian bayos. I think many camps will argue that they are the result of refurbishment of some kind and not the original finish.  I've heard some argue that original bayos right after the switch from spike to blade in the '50 production model *could* have been blued before the Russians transitioned to bright or matte silver blades, but since there are so few 'as-issued' '50's out there, it's pretty hard to verify.  Blued bayos appears on refurbs of all years, so it appears that either the '50's stock of blued bayos scattered to the 4 winds during refurb (if they were originally all blued on '50 carbines), or each refurb shop blued bayos during refurbishment as they saw fit.

I had definite leanings in one direction long ago, changed my mind, changed it again, and finally said "to heck with it, I don't know".  It would be nice to solidly answer the question, but, aside from new info out of Russia (unlikely anytime soon, if ever) I honestly don't know that it can be done.

[Boris Badinov]

...

Boris's argument that we simply don't see the coating on Chinese SKS bayonets in the '56 to '60 time period is certainly a valid observation.  Of course one might argue that the Chinese simply do not have near the amount of 'as-issued' carbines from this time period as the Russians do and a huge majority of our examples are refubished imports.   

...

Regarding early Chinese blade bayonets, I've never seen one with a golden coating in any of the propaganda posters. Granted, these aren't photos, but the color depiction in every graphic I've seen portrays only shiny steel:

[Boris Badinov]

Admittedly, my theory is entirely circumstantial.  But there's a lot to it.

For example. After 1955, the Soviets were producing the AK47 in large enough quantities that the many Soviet  SKS could be relegated to long term storage, conspicuously sans heavy cosmoline-- at least as evidenced in the US imports. It makes sense that bluing and chromate coatings were added as anti-corrosion measures in the absence of a protective coating of storage grease.

The obvious question that follows is: Why the variance in bayo appearance-- i.e. gold, blued, or nothing at all?

My best guess is that this either had to do with location-- i.e. where and how the rifles were stored or how regularly they were subjected to inspection at a given storage location. Or both.

[running-man]

That's a good observation Boris. 

Here is one of the nicest '58 SKS45's I can find in my files:







vs. one of the nicest year 3(1958) Chinese type 56's I can find:





Not sure it proves anything necessarily, but it definitely doesn't disprove your hypothesis.  It could be the storage method (heavy grease vs some other preservative) might be responsible for something like this (needing a golden bayo vs having a bright/matte silver bayo).  It could also be that the storage method (during the cleaning of the preservative from the carbine) is directly responsible for the removal of the golden chromate coating too (highly unlikely as a chromate conversion coating is relatively easy to scratch/damage but really tough to get completly off!)

[Boris Badinov]

Chinese aid to Albania started in 1960 when Moscow cut ties with Peiking and Tirana.  As far as I know none of the early type56's from the Albanian imports bear any hint of chromate or original bluing on the blades.

And though the Soviet sneaks represent a much smaller quantity, I've not seen one yet with a golden or blued bayo. Just another observation in a confluence of circumstantial evidence.

Here's my all matching 1958 from the Albanian caches. Note the late serial tally paired with bottom sling mount .

 https://www.gunboards.com/threads/3mil-type-56-hold-out-from-the-century-arms-cache-from-arsenal-twenty-five.621418/

[Cz315]

As I mentioned here https://sks-files.com/index.php?topic=6046.msg68278#msg68278 blued bayonets are dimensionally different from the later shiny ones, so it's highly unlikely they have been blued at refurb. We'll need a survey to be sure , but for the number of reasons I outlined there, it makes sense for the blued bayos to be transitional between blued 49 'spikers' and later thinner 'shiners'. Where does the 'golden bayo' fit into this picture - I don't know.
 

[pcke2000]

For all intents and purposes, from 1956-1958 Jianshe was the third Soviet sks facility-- Soviet machinery and spare parts from Russia, soviet design, and soviet techs and managers overseeing all aspects of production. Mao's intent was to industrialize and modernize as quickly as possible. There was no time  to waste on refining or rethinking the Soviet design or production method. The Soviets simply made all of the equipment for a new sks production line, and installed it at Jianshe along with the Soviet techs and advisors. As a result, the early years of Chinese production were a cut and paste copy of the Soviet method.

Other than the catalpa hardwood stocks, the early Chinese guns are exact copies of the final Soviet sks design. If the 1956-58 Chinese SKS bear no evidence of golden coating or bluing, should we expect the 1956-58 Tula bayos to be any different?

How do we know:
(1) Russians actually provided all bayonets for early Chinese made SKS?
(2) there weren't more than one supplier in Russia that made bayonets for Russian SKS?
(3) Bayonets on late (e.g. 1958) Russian SKS were not leftovers from earlier production?

At least, I am not convinced that all parts of Russian SKS were made completely 'in-house'. And I don't even fully believe that Russian letter guns were actually made at Tula.

[Boris Badinov]

How do we know:
(1) Russians actually provided all bayonets for early Chinese made SKS?

Soviet chemist, Mikhail Klochko, served as one of  the technical advisors. From his own account, not only were the Chinese  importing whole production lines and facilities from the USSR,  they also had little to no capacity to produce the necessary spare parts to keep those new production lines running. If a given piece of equipment broke down, it didn't go back on line until the replacement parts came from Russia.

Here's a link to his article from the summer 1971 issue of International Journal:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40201404?read-now=1&refreqid=excelsior%3Acb6911263c5ea88ed57fcae47d6d67d8&seq=11#page_scan_tab_contents

In June of 1960, when the Kremlin abruptly withdrew all Soviet advisors in China, they also cut off the supply of all those critical replacement parts. And those facilities that were dependent on Soviet supply, saw either significant slowdowns in production, or were force to go off line completely. 

From collected serial data, it strikes me as more than coincidental (conspicuous, even) that barely 300,000 rifles can be accounted for during the  three year period from 1959 thru 1961. That's  a 60% (-ish) reduction in expected yearly production totals.  Whether production slowed during this period, or there was a prolonged stoppage, this drastic plunge in production at this specific point in time suggests that sks production was one of those new production lines that was still heavily dependent on Soviet resupply for continued operation.

Admittedly, this is not in any way definitive proof that the soviets were supplying bayonets. But it is a significant intersection of circumstances.

In another way, I'm not sure it really matters where the bayonets came from.  If there was a standard being followed it was a Soviet standard and not Chinese one-- at least not in the first two or possibly three years of production-- (thus, the first deviation from the soviet design is seen in 1958 with the relocation of the stock swivel). And that standard was bland, undifferentiated, uniformity among enlisted men and the kit and equipment they were issued.

(2) there weren't more than one supplier in Russia that made bayonets for Russian SKS?

It seems very possible that blade bayonets could have come from multiple suppliers, and similar would be just as possible for other components. But I think there was still one standard. Otherwise, we could expect to see similar variations in other "original" parts-- particularly bolts and carriers.

(3) Bayonets on late (e.g. 1958) Russian SKS were not leftovers from earlier production?

At least, I am not convinced that all parts of Russian SKS were made completely 'in-house'. And I don't even fully believe that Russian letter guns were actually made at Tula.

If there is a single standard, outsourcing component production doesn't really matter. At a certain level-- everything had to be the same. Differences in knurling on bayonet handles and safety levers are insignificant. But gold or blued bayonets are a significant alteration to the overall aesthetic. And variation (read: individuality) is directly opposed to the type of bland homogeneity, and sanitized de-individualization imposed at enlisted levels of military service.

[Boris Badinov]

Here is a bayonet description from declassified CIA document regarding 156 new SKS45's issued to a  Red Army Communications Battalion staionined in the Soviet zone in occupied Austria. The details are second hand and come from eyewitness accounts. 

The bayonets are described as either only chrome plated or  having rough, flat "not shiny" finish. There is no mention of gold chromate or black/blue bayonet finish.




Here's a link to the full declassified CIA document:
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP82-00046R000500020007-7.pdf

For reasons of transparency I must note that there are various inconsistencies/ inaccuracies in the description of the new 7.62 carbine, but these are mostly regarding function and design which can be expected as the account is from an Austrian eyewitness and not from one of the Soviet soldiers to whom the rifles were issued.  As well the eyewitness account is from March 1954, but the CIA report is filed a year later in April 1955-- so details could have been misremembered when recounted to CIA operatives.

It is also a small sample, only 156 rifles.

[Boris Badinov]

As I mentioned here https://sks-files.com/index.php?topic=6046.msg68278#msg68278 blued bayonets are dimensionally different from the later shiny ones, so it's highly unlikely they have been blued at refurb. We'll need a survey to be sure , but for the number of reasons I outlined there, it makes sense for the blued bayos to be transitional between blued 49 'spikers' and later thinner 'shiners'. Where does the 'golden bayo' fit into this picture - I don't know.

Interesting thread that I was not aware of.

If we consider pcke2000's suggestion that production of various components may have been outsourced to smaller facilities, it's very likely that there are similar dimensional variations in any randomly selected batch of blade bayonets. I believe similar variation has been measured in barrel diameters, thus the different number sizing (1,2, or 3) seen  on the front of the front site posts.

[Boris Badinov]

As I mentioned here https://sks-files.com/index.php?topic=6046.msg68278#msg68278 blued bayonets are dimensionally different from the later shiny ones, so it's highly unlikely they have been blued at refurb. We'll need a survey to be sure , but for the number of reasons I outlined there, it makes sense for the blued bayos to be transitional between blued 49 'spikers' and later thinner 'shiners'. Where does the 'golden bayo' fit into this picture - I don't know.

In the SKS world, "Non refurb" 1950's are about as rare as they come. But they do exist:

Here's one from shared by CARBINE nearly a decade ago-- with photos (note the uncoated bayonet)
https://sks-files.com/index.php?topic=86.msg8926#msg8926

And here's another discusscion thread of a potential 1950 non-refurb with a Chromate gold bayo. Sadly there are not photos, only links to the closed auction on Gunbroker.

https://sks-files.com/index.php?topic=5332.0

Here's a thread post (with photos) of a 1950 potential non-refurb with a partial gold chromate coating:
https://www.gunboards.com/threads/1950-russian-nonreferb.149516/post-1160569

[Boris Badinov]

Here's another 1950 with good photos. Hits all the buttons for a potential "straight-to-storage" carbine-- bare blade, no gold or black bayo:
https://imgur.com/gallery/fpQQGr3#XSbVvwn
https://www.gunboards.com/threads/share-thread-1950-non-refurb-tula-sks.1173794/#post-10521680

Here's a 1950 with the black/blued/perma-blued bayonet. Owner suggests non-refurb-- which isn't impossible, but the  barely visible stock serial, date and arsenal mark indicate significant amount of post production use or maintenance handiwork:
https://www.gunboards.com/threads/another-non-refurb-1950-sks-but-black-blade-bayo.1178384/#lg=thread-1178384&slide=12

[Boris Badinov]

I've put a lot of thought and examination into this subject over the last few years. Here are some of the things I've noted that suggest to me that bare white steel was the standard for original Soviet sks bayonets.

Blued/Perma-blued bayonets have long been claimed to be an indication of refurbishment because they are overwhelmingly found with mis-aligned staking marks. ( I agree that the stake marks are a good indication that the bayonets were removed post manufacture-- but this is not in any way definitive proof of refurbishment). What seems far more likely in my opinion, is that the stake marks are misaligned because the bayonets had to be removed in order to apply the coating--- post manufacture.


Other than the Yugo M59's, all sks variants exhibit bare/in-the-white blade bayonets: Romania, East Germany, N. Vietnam, Korea, and China. Yugoslavia, with limited access to chromium used a different type of metal composition for the M59. Though, I am not certain what gives the M59 bayonet it's distinctive dark gray coloring.

1950's AK47 have blade bayonets: Not gold or blued but bare, white steel.

Chinese small arms of the 1950's are exact copies of Soviet weapons of the era. So much so that parts are interchangeable. The Type 51 tokarev, Type 53 mosin, Type56ak, Type56 sks, Type56 RPD, and the Type59 Makarov-- are all exact mechanical and aesthetic copies of  contemporary Soviet  firearms. Indistinguishable beyond arsenal markings and serialization fonts and style. and produced during Mao's 1st and 2nd Five Year plans on Soviet made machinery, under direct supervision and training by Soviet techs / advisors. If the Soviet production model was the standard was for blued or gold  sks bayonets, why would the Chinese all of a sudden deviate from that standard when every other Chinese small arm of the period was an aesthetic and mechanical copy of a Soviet design?

The Gold bayonets are often claimed to be original because the staking are commonly still aligned. The explanation being that the stake marks indicate that the bayonet has not been removed and thus the gold bayonet must be original.  But this argument overlooks the very likely possibility that the gold or chromate application did not require the bayonet to be removed at all. The many gold bayonets I've seen over the years strike me more as having been left in place and simply dipped in a coating solution.

None of this is definitive, of course. But it makes a pretty solid case that in-the-white was the standard for Soviet sks manufacture-- and why every other blade variant exhibits bare steel.

Hundreds of thousands of Chinese blade carbines have come into the US in the last decade and I'm not aware of even one that was imported to the US with a gold or blued bayonet.


Edit:

It has always struck me as highly irregular to have multiple production standards for a stop gap rifle that was destined long term storage or rear guard issue even before it went into full production in 1949.

[Chevy Boy]

Surely there are old photos of Soviet troops from the 1950s carrying early SKSs. If the blued bayonets appear in the photos when the weapons were new and had probably not yet been through a major refurbishment, that would seem to me to resolve this matter.

[Cz315]

These are excellent points and facts that are hard to argue with, Boris.

What bugs me though is that blued bayonet is bigger and heavier and 'blued'. I admit my measurements are based on a sample of one but I read the same on the various forums, so for the sake of [present] argument let's assume this is the case. Soviet firearms have been always SUPER standardized and it makes zero sense for the Tula factory to produce two different types of bayonets for refurb and replacement. It is absolutely true that most of them are in top shape, why would they blue them for storage? Cosmoline has been always enough

What makes a lot of sense to me is that early production blade bayos were blued (as was Russian/Soviet tradition since the 19th century, including '49 spiker), then they quickly changed (smaller and cheaper without blueing to save costs and weight) and had leftover that could have been put on refurbs as needed. I think it is not unreasonable that it could have happened during late 49 - 1950 when so many changes were made. The '50 prevalence of blued bayos is also anecdotally confirmed by some Russian sources.

I'm the first to admit that this is purely a conjecture without much (any?) factual support but I'm a strong believer in Occam's razor and it just makes sense to me.

[Cz315]

Also Russian sources separate blued 'shiny' and matte SKS blade bayos in addition to BBQ paint.

Again, this is Russian 'forum chat' but they are closer to the source...

[Boris Badinov]

Surely there are old photos of Soviet troops from the 1950s carrying early SKSs. If the blued bayonets appear in the photos when the weapons were new and had probably not yet been through a major refurbishment, that would seem to me to resolve this matter.

This is a good suggestion. However there are some snags.

First contemporary photos of Soviet sks in service are extremely hard to come by.  Dating them is also problematic. Not to mention the difficulty in distinguishing features that would allow us to put the date of manufacture into a specific range of years --the easiest feature to date being the the 45° vs Curved  gas ports-- in grainy 75 year old black and white photos.

There are of course date specific features to enlisted uniforms  which could be helpful. As well as photo enhancing software. Both of which are out of my wheelhouse or above my pay grade.



A 1950 Soviet armorers manual or service manual might be of help -- as bayonet color would be distinguishable in  black and white hand drawn images.

Earliest service manual I have access to is dated 1951. But the blade  bayonet images are inconclusive at best. Which also does not rule out (chromate gold).

[Boris Badinov]

Also Russian sources separate blued 'shiny' and matte SKS blade bayos in addition to BBQ paint.

Again, this is Russian 'forum chat' but they are closer to the source...

Blued Shiny vs Matte? Or   Shiny vs Matte?


I ask because the CIA text  i posted an excerpt from above describes  "chrome-plated" vs "rough finish". Which to me suggests simply the difference between a blade that has been highly polished and one that is not.