1950 SKS with spike bayonet

[Loose}{Cannon]

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.

[Loose}{Cannon]

Remember all this? 

Welcome to the files jstin, glad to have you here! 

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! ):






and my personal favorites, the laminates with 'original' '49 cartouches!



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:



and most troublesome to collectors of data like me, receivers being scrubbed:


If the gun isn't as-issued, one has to be VERY careful what conclusions one draws from them.  There may be many explanations...

[Boris Badinov]

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.

[newchi]

 

[Loose}{Cannon]

I wasnt quoting it for the stock.     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

[Boris Badinov]

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.

[Boris Badinov]

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

[running-man]

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 has got to be true though. 

[Boris Badinov]

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.

[Loose}{Cannon]

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.   

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+

[Boris Badinov]

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.

[Loose}{Cannon]

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. 

[newchi]

you're both wrong.

[running-man]

you're both wrong.

That got an audible laugh out of me newch. 

Well said! 

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. 

[Boris Badinov]

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.

[Greasemonkey]

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...     

I will ask nicely, just this once...all of ya'll back off and cool your jets.

[Loose}{Cannon]

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.   

you seem so eager to shut down the discussion of this gun

But here we are on page 12.   

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. 

[newchi]

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.

[Boris Badinov]

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?

 

[newchi]

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.