Arsenal 0129: A Second Cast Receiver

[jmaurer]

You may have seen this one surface lately. I think it's a close counterpart to Phosphorus32's rifle discussed here:

https://sks-files.com/index.php?topic=4929.msg55436#msg55436

This one shares some of the same features (weird stock finish, early front sight base use as a casting pattern, etc.). The serial numbers don't seem to match, but is that because of a slave laborer being pushed to reach a quota, or is it the result of someone living in a communist s-hole showing up to work drunk on baijiu? You decide:





The receiver cover appears to be cast as well. Note the pits and the odd raised area that may have been the base of a sprue / riser:









Here's some more parts:































Was the hammer a soft, cast part as well? Look at the huge divot  where the hammer strikes the firing pin:















At best, the fitment of the gas tube seems to have been rushed a bit, and that's being charitable. The crack in the gas tube's wooden handguard is (I think) due to the shoddy fitting of the gas piston / gas tube: you've got to play with the lever on the rear sight base for about 5 minutes before you can get everything assembled, and you find yourself wanting to mash the tube, only to find that the piston extension jumps out of the rear sight base / piston extension housing. I found myself wanting to force the gas tube in to place, and I noted that I would have only made the crack worse. These things are rough.







Also, it looks like this MAY be an oddball gas tube construction. The image may seem to depict what looks like rust on the gas tube, but in the flesh this looks like sloppy BRAZING. So did the CCP / Chinese army refurbish crapped out early gas tubes with a new, brazed cylindrical section forward of the wooden handguard?





And now the receiver and barrel:





























As others have mentioned, the cast receiver may be brittle and hard, necessitating light and perhaps repeated stamping of the serial numbers:



















































The stock's wood is NOT dense at all; when disassembled, it has the feel of rotten punk wood. Also note the single reinforcing pin. Were these old stock rejects from early production used for experimental production purposes?

















Until I started photographing this rifle, I didn't notice the (possibly cast, as well) rear sling swivel attachment. Note the brittle failure cracks (supposition on my part) where the tab was folded over the swivel:

[Phosphorus32]

Great photo spread, as usual 

Really interesting gun, so crude. A really early 1971 gun; must be January. Perhaps as few as a couple thousand made that year would still mean production of 150-200 per month.

[echo1]

Great shoot j, nice observation. I wonder how much ducats were actually saved with such a crude approach. PAX

[Sindone]

What let's you know it's a cast receiver?  I've been trying to research these and can't really see how to tell.  Is there any way to definitively tell with the receiver still in the stock?

[jmaurer]

For me, the biggest indicator would be the presence of pits from the casting process (voids or vesicles from minor amounts of gases in the molten steel, I suppose) and the rough surfaces that may be present on non-machined areas. Until I had this rifle in hand, I wasn't sure of the receiver cover, but on close examination, I'm tending to believe it's cast as well, largely from the pits and the round, smooth area on the inside, toward the front: one can imagine that this may have been where a casting riser was ground off/ground smooth. So, did each of the arsenals that experimented with casting use this process for both the receiver and the receiver cover? Don't know, but it could be an easy check if the opportunity is there to go over a rifle prior to purchase. Secondarily, at least for this arsenal 0129, the apparent surficial hardness (and the potential for brittle failure) of the cast receiver is possibly indicated by lightly-stamped type designation, arsenal number, and serial number.

That being said, my first step is to review this site and the associated guides regarding a particular variant. A general familiarization with the arsenals that produced this or that variant is in order, and this is the best place for it! That's why I like to take the effort to contribute here with the posts as I construct them; it takes a while to edit photos and cull the bad ones, but I feel like it's the least I can do, given the benefit I've gained here.

[Papahound]

Your pics are excellent sir - thanks for sharing   

[running-man]

Very nice photo spread!  I'll pull sister rifles from my files and see what else we can see.

The receiver certainly looks cast to me, but it seemingly lacks any 'as cast' surfaces. I wonder if the casting was so crude that they had to clean up every surface?  Usually there is a parting line right down the center in the bottom where the two halves of the green sand mold came together...

[Sindone]

Thank you for taking the time to explain.  I looked at a rifle recently at the LGS it didn't have any noticeable casting marks but it looked really crude. I swore it was cast, but didn't didn't really know. 

[jmaurer]

I've been in the same situation years ago, Sindone. Even though we as Siminov enthusiasts can likely (and safely, correctly) disassemble and reassemble an SKS, most shops are unwilling to allow for a thorough inspection that would confirm a cast receiver. I'm positive that I've passed up a couple because of that. The worst was passing up a stamped and riveted receiver SKS: I noted heavy, active rust at the gas tube/gas block interface, and I wanted to see how bad the corrosion was. I was as diplomatic as possible, prefacing my request by acknowledging the (not really ) fair price that I was fully prepared to pay, and the response from the shopkeep was stupid enough that I put the rifle on the counter and walked out without saying anything. Of course hindsight is 20/20, and I should have swallowed my pride and gotten it anyway.

[running-man]

Very nice photo spread!  I'll pull sister rifles from my files and see what else we can see.

The receiver certainly looks cast to me, but it seemingly lacks any 'as cast' surfaces. I wonder if the casting was so crude that they had to clean up every surface?  Usually there is a parting line right down the center in the bottom where the two halves of the green sand mold came together...

Welp, P32's is the only sister carbine I've been able to track down from [0129] in 1971.  Not many of these in the wild and the later years are *much* more refined than these two for certain!  I'm showing Year 16 (this carbine, 1971), and then year 21 through year 24 (1976 thru 1979) for this arsenal. I wonder if they needed the intervening years to improve their QC to the point where they were given another contract?

Not a doubt in my mind these both are cast though. 


The telltale mold line I'm thinking of looks like this:

[jmaurer]

Thanks for checking your files, Running-man! In scrolling through the photos again, something jumped out about the sides of the receiver where the barrel is pinned. It definitely looks as if the receiver was produced oversize and was intended to be machined to final specification; note photos 37 and 47 above:


On the normally round, most forward part of the receiver that houses the chamber end of the barrel, you can see small flats that appear to be the result of planing the receiver sides, where on conventionally-produced receivers, this area is essentially round, as far as I can tell with a quick review of a few random photos of other rifles.

Edit to add:Padams8888's 1972 DB Shenyang City rifle also has these flats; the images he posted clearly show machining marks spanning the main, largest flat side of the receiver and the forward-most round part of the receiver:
https://sks-files.com/index.php?topic=4345.msg48429#msg48429

However, his 1970 Arsenal 0221 rifle does NOT have these flats:
https://sks-files.com/index.php?topic=2270.msg26224#msg26224

[firstchoice]

Wow, that's the best example I've seen of cast parts vs. the milled. Excellent photo spread, jmaurer! That really helps define the vast differences of manufacturing during that time and the end result quality due to the processes. There's going to be other factors such as experienced machine operators vs. trainees. But this is a great addition to the cast parts subject.

(I had to go hug and hold my /26\'s and /416\'s for a while after this.  )


firstchoice

[Sindone]

That is a great observation Jmaurer. Maybe I'll stop by the Gun Shop and see if they still have the rifle.  Give it another look over.   They did have a stamped one a few years back that I snagged. 

[jmaurer]

Best of luck, Sindone! Hope it's still there, hope it's a rare one, and I hope you get it!

[Sindone]

Do you happen to know, what are the known arsenal numbers for cast receivers?

[jmaurer]

Sindone, here's a good starting place:

http://chinesesks.weebly.com/cast-metal-receiver.html

I believe there may be a couple more arsenals identified on the board here, as well. Good luck!