1950 SKS with spike bayonet

[Loose}{Cannon]

I dunno if I would go 'that' far.   

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.

[running-man]

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. 


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:


Finally are all guns with 90° gas blocks and some type of blade bayo.  This list is considerably smaller, 12 guns:

[Loose}{Cannon]

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. 

[Boris Badinov]

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.

[Boris Badinov]

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?

[Boris Badinov]

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.

[Greasemonkey]

Ok.. you stated your case and you stand by whatever... You gotta stand for something I guess...

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..

[Boris Badinov]

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.

[jstin2]

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.

[Loose}{Cannon]

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.

[Boris Badinov]

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.

[Greasemonkey]

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.

[Boris Badinov]

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.

[running-man]

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:


The rest:





I don't have a receiver photo for EM1546 unfortunately. 

Make of them what you will. 

[Loose}{Cannon]

First warning Boris.   Stay on topic and remember whos living room your in.

[Justin Hell]

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.

[jstin2]

I took the trigger off my 54 and put on both 49 and 50. Both fit okay and fired okay.

[Justin Hell]

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.

[jstin2]

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

[Justin Hell]

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.