/406\b Info and Data Collection

[Dannyboy53]

Power I agree on the possibility the center characters could be an eight, looking at the arsenal stamps posted in the Chinese guide, I saw at least three different variations of the 8. But making a comparison with the other stamps, I can only see a 4 in the stamp in question.

[running-man]

Another issue with this stamp being a "386" arsenal is where does that leave these:



Year 15 just like this gun, same arsenal, yet different stamps?  I'm just not buying it:

[Uzz75]

Another serial. (Found on the web)


http://www.empirearms.com/041309.htm

[Uzz75]

About Poyer, I have 4th and 5th edition of his book, and in both still present some error.
So I'm not belive in all the words he wrote.
But, the ideogram found on the book is exactly the same I have on my SKS.
Other opinion about my 0406b SKS, it's mint condition and all the parts are very fine finish, so I can believe it's an commercial production. (Commercial not means civilian market, but can be for selling to other country).

P.S. Poyer on his book, said numbered stock are alway military production.

[Dannyboy53]

Another issue with this stamp being a "386" arsenal is where does that leave these:



Year 15 just like this gun, same arsenal, yet different stamps?  I'm just not buying it:

Running-man I'm sure you have considered this but could these possibly be variations from arsenal to arsenal with respect to the 8?

[Uzz75]

Solved arsenal mark question.
...

I wrote to Poyer and he confirmed.

"You are correct, it is the Longyan factory. Their marking can be found with a wide variety of minor changes. From the photo, it appears that your SKS is from commercial production, rather than military. That would account for the different style of serial number."

My apologies, but for the life of me I can not see that character on the bottom left of the triangle being a 3. It just doesn't "Gee-Haw"!

Me too I can't see a 3 !

[Loose}{Cannon]

You need to take that book and toss it in your fireplace.   

[Loose}{Cannon]

And if I hear this cockamamie 0406bee crap again Im may go full retard.   

RM and I just went through every last one of these things.... 3,4,7,8...  Who knows! Thats why its a ? for now. Not to mention we have no clue the proper order of the numbers whatever they are.

[Uzz75]

You need to take that book and toss it in your fireplace.

I think so.
I had 4th and now just buoght the 5th.
Same errors

[running-man]

And if I hear this cockamamie 0406bee crap again Im may go full retard.   

RM and I just went through every last one of these things.... 3,4,7,8...  Who knows! Thats why its a ? for now. Not to mention we have no clue the proper order of the numbers whatever they are.

ROFL, the /0406\b will never die!!!!

OK, I'll call it ?5 from now on. 

Uzz, I'm happy to see you're keeping an open mind on this one.  Published books are great, but they can still contain errors as you've mentioned.  The theory behind the published works stands or falls based on the data, and from what I've seen in my very short 2 years of seriously looking at the data others have used is that it's incomplete, rife with errors, and is not reproducible.  All horribly bad signs when it comes to science. 

Danny, you're right, I think it has to be a different arsenal.   There is no way that a single "386" arsenal would have produced those two different guns the same year, it goes against every previous observation we've made on how the Chinese serialized their guns.  Either the ?5 stamp is not "386" (which I think is very likely), the Chinese factory system has multiple plants with the same numerical designator, just different stamps (what a logistical nightmare that would be), or these guns came off assembly lines the same year, at the exact same plant and had entirely different purposes which would have justified the changing of the stamps as well as totally different stamp placement (which I'm honestly finding a very tough sell). 

[Power Surge]

On the "0406b" thing, I'll make the same point as before...

It's already been an established "name" for this stamp. That doesn't mean it's correct, but since we don't know the correct name for it, what's the harm? Since it's already been called that various places on the net, other people searching for info on this stamp will be searching for "0406b". We are trying to collect as much info as we can, so why do we want to isolate ourselves from other people....possibly with new information?

You've already changed what you want to call it twice now, just because it's unclassified. So will it change again in the future when the stamp list gets revamped again? Nothing positive is going to come from changing the name to something with a question mark in it.

On a related note...why was the regular /406\ removed from the stamp list?

[Loose}{Cannon]

How is it going to help anything by regurgitating false information and call it something without evidence? 

We...  Changed it once, from ?14 to ?5 because many unproven stamps went bye bye.  I don't care what other people are calling it or what 3 people are using as a search term.  I'm not going to regurgitate ****ty intormation and defeat the entire purpose of sks-files.

[Loose}{Cannon]

Thats like saying. "All bad information should continue without correction because it was already established as such n such"

How fubared is that?   ..   What got us in this mess in the first place.  Its been shown and stated many times over, nobody has provided viable evidence as to what those numbers are nor the oroper order. 

[Greasemonkey]

We are trying to collect as much info as we can, so why do we want to isolate ourselves from other people....possibly with new information?

Why?  Cause there was really no tangible, lay your hands on it evidence to support what the "other people" call it. Just cause they jumped from the building roof calling it a bla bla, doesn't mean we will, it's easier to speak of it in ?14 or ?5 terms or just keep the name in limbo till a valid definitive clue or answer pops or new information comes to light. It may take a while, but it will happen. Once an agreement on info and evidence is met, and every outlandish theroy, conspiracy and wives tail is squashed, then we may/will consider adopting a name.

Just my .02 worth..  

[Loose}{Cannon]

Here is a question...   Like, where is the 0406a?     Lol.   

[Uzz75]

Someone can take an updated serial list ?

[running-man]

All stamps that don't have 'proven with clear photos' data to back them up are on temporary or possibly permanent hiatus.  There are simply too many assumptions out there when it comes to arsenal stamps, and that will come back to bite us bad one of these days.  The ? stamps will remain in ? status until/unless we can prove what factory they are the mark of.  The ? numbers will not change again beyond newly unknown stamps added to the list or, old ones removed from the list because they have been identified (leaving a permanent hole in the ? list)

This stamp is ?5.  LC is right about there no longer being a /0406\a stamp anymore.  That one was found to actually be a /0405\ based on additional examples and the /0406\a was axed.

There are enough references to various things we've called this stamp that I doubt it'll be hard for someone who is Google searching to find our information.

[running-man]

Someone can take an updated serial list ?

From the Serial data page:

?5 aka "/0406\b"
1-110016x

1-140044x
2-140525x
2-14074xx
2-140768x

1-150088x
4-150645x
6-151317x
8-151712x
9-151941x
9-151977x
9-151861x
9-151941x
12-15301xx

2-160330x
6-161196x
6-161335x

3-170694x
6-171543x
8-171891x

18-0350x (probably mis-stamped & should be a 1-180350x)
2-180535x
3-18077xx
3-180612x
3-180704x
5-181173x
5-181277x
6-181399x
10-182834x
11-183155x
12-153347x

[Power Surge]

I saw this one on GB and thought it was a 406, but we can't see the very bottom. Looking at the updated stamp list, I'm guessing it's probably a 906.

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=488856324

[Power Surge]

Here's another for the list...and it fits in sequence nicely

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=494785893