Calling All 45 Gurus - Two Digit SerNo???

[Phosphorus32]

EVERY tidbit of information here is appreciatedand leads to cracking the Russian's SKS production code. In any case, I've learned that a 2-digit code, IMO, doesn't justify the $1,999 "Buy Now" price - unless perhaps it's a non-refurb, xclnt condition Izzie.

 

Uh, no. If it has full bring back papers, photos of the vet picking it up from the field, and a bfpu T-33 to go with it, yeah, I'm in for 2K or better   For this one, no.

[running-man]

Going through my safe I found a 2 digit S/N. I was surprised that it is on a 54 Izzy, due to the fact that it had 2 letters before the digits. I thought that in 54 they had one letter before and one after the digits. The stock and bayonet are not original to carbine. The stock has only S/N on it and the bayonet is black.

https://ibb.co/album/npv5wF

'53 and very early '54 Izhevsk guns had identical S/N formats as the Tulas.  They changed to the X###_X formats sometime in mid '54.

[Bob_The_Student]

pcke2000 - about the '52 Izhevsk you mean they started making parts in '52, started the manufacturing process? Or do you mean "researchers" have
                 seen a '52? I have never heard of a '52 but I learn something knew every time I ask a question. I'll be honest that book will probably not
                 be referenced by me very often anymore. Let's just say I have lost faith in obtaining real info from it. Thanks


jstin2- that's a beauty '54 at least the parts you posted. Thanks


Running-Man- I understand that things change with the learning of new info and manufacturing processes and how that can change before a book is
                     printed. I have the 5th edition ("The SKS Carbine") which is a 2014 copyright. So had any of the serial number information been
                     debunked before then? You said you have study SKS's for 20 years if you were hearing or determined that the serial number information
                     was inconclusive then I have to question why it would've been printed. Of course I'm speculating on this because I don't know when you
                     knew what you knew and what they knew and how they claimed to have their info. But it just seems that info hasn't panned out that I
                     have obtained from this particular book. NOT ALL but enough. I think of the M1 Carbine and how guys have Larry Ruth or Craig Riesch as
                     their go to books for information on the Carbines. Is there any SKS book that is so revered as M1 Carbine books I stated. I'm sure there
                     maybe some info in these books that may have changed also I'm ok with that. However, can anyone tell me in "The SKS Carbine" editions
                     have they been saying blued bolt/ bolt carriers are original and "polished" is for refurbs (page 90) for all 5 editions? If so it really calls into
                     question their research, IMO of course.
                     Thanks

[Boris Badinov]

My advice: Don't use that source as a reference for anything regarding the SKS.

It's got some facts, sure. But it makes a whole lot of claims which are poorly sourced, many of which are now provably imprecise or wholly incorrect.

Use all of the sks forums, but stick  sks-files and gunboards ak/sks subforum for corroboration.

[Phosphorus32]

pcke2000 - about the '52 Izhevsk you mean they started making parts in '52, started the manufacturing process? Or do you mean "researchers" have seen a '52? I have never heard of a '52 but I learn something knew every time I ask a question.

The suggestion of a 1952 Izhevsk comes in S. V. Monetchikov's book Историа Русского Автомата (History of the Russian Automatics) that is primarily about Kalashnikovs. Chapter 15 is a short chapter on the SKS and the 1952 could even be a typo. The sentence is found in the translation of the book, included as a CD, and reads: "Serial production of Simonov carbines were spent in 1949 Tula Arms Factory, and in 1952 - the Izhevsk Mechanical and continued until 1956"

Two inaccuracies, production of the SKS-45 only lasted "until 1956", which we know is incorrect. Tula produced the letter suffix guns in 1956-58. The suffix letters Д, И and К for 1956, '57 and '58 are also associated with years on AK-47s and Makarovs, so this year code is verified. The other inaccuracy is the year that production started at Izhevsk. 1952 seems very unlikely since 1953 is already reduced production compared to 1954, based on rarity of examples. No examples of a 1952 Izhevsk have been observed.

There are no excellent monographs devoted to the SKS.

You will want to take a look at this article, if you haven't already:
https://sks-files.com/index.php?topic=4210.0

[Greasemonkey]

Running-Man- I understand that things change with the learning of new info and manufacturing processes and how that can change before a book is
                     printed. I have the 5th edition ("The SKS Carbine") which is a 2014 copyright. So had any of the serial number information been
                     debunked before then? You said you have study SKS's for 20 years if you were hearing or determined that the serial number information
                     was inconclusive then I have to question why it would've been printed. Of course I'm speculating on this because I don't know when you
                     knew what you knew and what they knew and how they claimed to have their info. But it just seems that info hasn't panned out that I
                     have obtained from this particular book. NOT ALL but enough. I think of the M1 Carbine and how guys have Larry Ruth or Craig Riesch as
                     their go to books for information on the Carbines. Is there any SKS book that is so revered as M1 Carbine books I stated. I'm sure there
                     maybe some info in these books that may have changed also I'm ok with that. However, can anyone tell me in "The SKS Carbine" editions
                     have they been saying blued bolt/ bolt carriers are original and "polished" is for refurbs (page 90) for all 5 editions? If so it really calls into
                     question their research, IMO of course.
                     Thanks

In certain circles the SKS Carbine book is as revered.. Most weapons like M1 carbines, M1 Garands, and alot of Amercian weapons most of the information on production is available, even most information is available on Enfield and such. Then you have Lugers, P38s and Mausers... these were absolutely researched to the ends of the planet. Trying to compare the information on say an M1 Carbine to whats information is available for an SKS is almost like comparing a common apple to a kiwi fruit.

With SKSs your back to dealing with the the Iron Curtain, Cold War and Communist nations and their "you die if you tell secrecy", so with them, everything is a best guess, speculation and estimate based off features, known information and other things. They will not release any information to this day, but sometimes little bits leak out here and there from people who were serving there. With these books, you also have old 3rd hand importer information thrown in, other collectors information thrown in along with what information was guessed at, and it's all written by people who have probably never fondled, much less shot an SKS and it creates a huge mess.

Over the years, there have been times we have discussed things with these said collectors.... those discussions never ended well, even after showing them the proof, numbers etc.  It goes no where and, well if one looks, those discussions probably still remain elsewhere...

[running-man]

pcke2000 - about the '52 Izhevsk you mean they started making parts in '52, started the manufacturing process? Or do you mean "researchers" have seen a '52? I have never heard of a '52 but I learn something knew every time I ask a question.

The suggestion of a 1952 Izhevsk comes in S. V. Monetchikov's book Историа Русского Автомата (History of the Russian Automatics) that is primarily about Kalashnikovs. Chapter 15 is a short chapter on the SKS and the 1952 could even be a typo. The sentence is found in the translation of the book, included as a CD, and reads: "Serial production of Simonov carbines were spent in 1949 Tula Arms Factory, and in 1952 - the Izhevsk Mechanical and continued until 1956"

Two inaccuracies, production of the SKS-45 only lasted "until 1956", which we know is incorrect. Tula produced the letter suffix guns in 1956-58. The suffix letters Д, И and К for 1956, '57 and '58 are also associated with years on AK-47s and Makarovs, so this year code is verified. The other inaccuracy is the year that production started at Izhevsk. 1952 seems very unlikely since 1953 is already reduced production compared to 1954, based on rarity of examples. No examples of a 1952 Izhevsk have been observed.

There are no excellent monographs devoted to the SKS.

You will want to take a look at this article, if you haven't already:
https://sks-files.com/index.php?topic=4210.0

P32, I think another inaccuracy in that quotation is that Tula started production in '49. We have verified 1948 production SKS45s carbines *and* individual receiver covers in the wild. Now maybe these weren't produced at Tula, but that begs the question, how is it that the author knows the '48s weren't built at Tula while the '52s were built at Izhevsk?  Surely there is some evidence he would have to cite that says so.  I don't put a ton of stock into this individual source, much like the many sources that claimed the SKS45 was used on the Belorussian front in WWII which has been shown to be completely incorrect in both the weapon used and the units and theater mentioned.   

[Worm]

Value is subjective. People will pay extra for what they feel is worth more. In MY opinion, low serial numbers would only matter to me if it was a first year production rifle (and I knew it was an early production prefix, too). Otherwise, for example, any 1951, 52, 53, etc Russian w/ a serial of "1" is still "later" than any of the previous year. But, to each their own.

[Loose}{Cannon]

Good discussion.

Why do you guys have to make so much sense?

[Direct Connection]

Oh yeah, The good ol rn serial illic number #23 gun. This particular specimen might or might not have been an earlier production of the year 1952. Just before were the 1951's 50"s and 49's.

She's still as beautiful as the day of production

[Matchka]

P32, Bunker's account of the SCS, et al - extremely interesting. Any update on Ruslan's book?