Need Help with the History of a Chinese "Ghost" (Possible IC)

[Dorff]

Just recently came into possession of an SKS that my grandfather bought in the early/mid 90s and I need some help nailing down its history.  I have done my research (here and Yooper John's among many other places) and I am fairly confident that it is one of the so called "Ghost" or "Sterilized" Chinese SKSs.  It has no arsenal markings, but what looks like Russian inspector markings, Cyrillic on the rear site, and serial number 193950, which fits in the expected Ghost range (S/Ns 2,292 - 213,617), as well as the blade bayonet, heavy barrel lug, etc. that would be expected from a 1956-1957 early Chinese model.

However, the more interesting part (but obviously less ideal for a collector) is that it is in a phenolic stock and has a replaced magazine/bolt (S/Ns 373733, 371474).  It also has the CAI ST. A. VT SKS 762 CHINA import mark on the barrel (which makes sense as a late 80's import), but no Norinco marking.  My understanding is the CAI imports in that time period were either the Middle East refurbs/new builds (Israeli Captures from Lebanon/Syria or Egyptian contract purchase, whichever theory you support) and commercial market builds directly from Norinco.  As far as I can tell this rifle fits neither profile exactly.  The stock appears to be uncommon for a non-commercial import, but I know that my grandfather never changed it and based on the wear and aging on the stock and the sling (leather is so stiff that it was impossible to take off the sling when I cleaned it), it seems probable that it was imported in that fashion.

My conjecture is that it saw service somewhere (Vietnam?) and was then either refurbed in China in the late 60's/70's and sent to the Middle East or never left China and was refurbed by Norinco in the 80's for resale, but never stamped by them (certainly a possibility).  The answer appears to be related to whatever the true story is with the jungle stocks (I cannot seem to find a good answer from anyone about when those started appearing; I know Yooper John cited '64 and '66, but there seem to be many others who do not think they were around until the 80's).  Any experts able to offer an opinion on what they think this rifle's story might be?  Pictures below and thanks in advance for the help!

-Dorff















Additional images

[carls sks]

hi Dorff and welcome. good to have you here.  I'm new at this myself, so won't be able to help much (sorry  ).  just wanted to welcome you. very cool to get it from your grandfather too. 

[Dorff]

Thanks Carl!  Glad to be here.  The funny part is that my grandfather and my dad always thought it was a Russian SKS that somehow made it to the Viet Cong because of the stock/sling, but they never did any real research.  But in my mind it is still definitely a great pickup by my grandfather.

Also, realized I didn't include my picture of the trigger assembly above; it is from the original gun, stamped 193950.  If anyone needs more photos, just let me know.

-Dorff

[Loose}{Cannon]

Hey Dorff...

Since your sks was imported, it pretty well rules out any Vietnam connection as we have zero evidence of these rifles returning back to china after the conflict. These stocks have been seen used as replacements all over the world including here in the US so the stock alone cannot offer much as far as its provenance. The same can be said about the serial number as they have been both imported from various sources both recent and vintage and non imported as bring backs. 

The only tangible source of its history imho will be found in the import mark.  This is a fairly early Century import mark that suggests a middle east connection, and most likely an IC captured by Israel from either Syria or the PLO in one of several conflicts. 

How it came to have the fiberglass stock is anyone's guess. These rifles were pretty well used and the stock could have been installed by Century, distributor, buyer, or maybe in the ME, but its doubtful to me.

[Dorff]

Thanks for the input.  I was not aware that there has been no evidence of the weapons used by the PLAF or the Chinese troops supporting them returning to China, but that was a long shot guess as it is for some reason why it would need the replacement parts.

While I certainly agree that the stock itself doesn't say much, it is curious to me that the magazine and bolt carrier were replaced as well.  In my mind, the most plausible explanation would be a factory refurb in China prior to export to the ME.  Of course the stock/sling could have been separate importer/distributor replacements, but that would seem somewhat unusual to me given the condition of the stock.  If there were so many cheap resin stocks coming over in that time period, why not use a new stock?  Of course, none of this is evidence, just speculation, but it does not seem like that piece is entirely irrelevant.

[Loose}{Cannon]

These stocks were imported new... Just like it appears on your gun and were loaded with cosmo.

The metal condition of your gun does not indicate a chinese refurb. Chinese refurbs also almost always receive scrubbed and re serialized replacement parts. Your gun is much much more indicative of lower level parts swapping like widely seen on the IC guns and also the recent imports from Albania.

So... Its quite the opposite from the way your looking at it.

[Dorff]

OK, fair enough.  I did not know the factory replacement parts were typically scrubbed, but that would make sense.  Piecemeal replacement it is.

Did the new stocks really have as much wear as is seen in those images?  Maybe the pictures I took did not do it justice, but it is pretty dinged up to have been a replacement stock after import unless the replacements themselves were already used.

-Dorff

[Loose}{Cannon]

Im not seeing any heavy stock wear.  Im seeing a trio of light family use.  These stocks were fairly fugly to begin with.

[Dorff]

Haha, not going to disagree with you on the look, but the heft is actually pretty good.

That said, I'm not so certain that wear is explained by normal family use, especially since I don't think that it was a particularly high volume gun for my grandfather (he was much more of a birds/trap guy) and it has been sitting unused in one of my dad's gun safes for the last few years.  But maybe the guy who had it before my grandfather went nuts with it, who knows. 

Thanks again for the insight.

-Dorff

[Loose}{Cannon]

If he bought it mid 90s...  It had almost 10 years since import in which it could have received the stock. 

[Dorff]

Certainly true if most of these early model ICs were mid rather than late 80's imports.  Can't understand why someone would do that unless the previous stock was in real tough shape...but hey, people do all sorts of stupid things to their firearms.

[Loose}{Cannon]

May be surprising these guns with wooden stocks were used and abused by jihadi states.

Some people have removed brand new matching wood stocks simply because they like the fiberglass and sometimes a misassociation with nam. 

[running-man]

I don't have much to add beyond what you guys have talked through already.  I don't think that these fiberglass stocks should be elevated to mythical status but at the same time they shouldn't be outright dismissed.

A user named rscid on the 'other' boards posted up a crate of fiberglass stocks along with what he said was "an extensively documented 1968 dated Type 26 in the fiberglass jungle stock. It was brought back in June 1971 by an Air Force LTC."  I'm assuming that he dated it using the old 1956 + millions system which would make it a 12 million series.  The inverted takedown lever would seem to reinforce this idea. (click on any image to enlarge)



Unfortunately he didn't show the DD603 for this gun nor did he show the actual receiver or S/N.  (he did show some images of instructions of where to go to get the war trophy paperwork completed along with a map)  Given this, one could come to many conclusions:

• The gun is in the same condition it was in when it left VN.
• The gun has been modified by the Air Force LTC or any subsequent owner to install the fiberglass stock.
• The least likely is that the gun is not what it appears to be and isn't even a VN bringback.

I suspect the second is closest to the truth, but we simply don't know, so perhaps this raises more questions than answers.

The crate of jungle stocks is more interesting in my opinion.  They are still in the grease, and it's clear that the case is sized to perfectly fit the stocks and not complete firearms. 



I have seen a couple of Sino-Banians of the recent imports come into the US with Jungle stocks.  Were the stocks swapped out by the importer, swapped by the Albanians in Albania or were they swapped by the Chinese in China?  It's all speculation at the moment because the data pool is so small.


Both of your 373733 and  371474 components had to have come off year 2 guns with a 2 million prefix.  Only year 1, 2, and 3 guns have six digit numbers on subcomponents in this font (/26\ type 56s from 6th year and onward all shortened the subcomponents stampings to 5 digits). 
Year 1 doesn't fit because the ghosts only went up to ~213,XXX while the year 2 six digit /26\s only went up to ~350,XXX. 
Year 3 doesn't fit because the 3 mil /26\ series only went up to approximately S/N 3,234,XXX. 

The "CAI ST. A. VT" import stamp on the barrel is regarded by us at SKS-Files as being a fairly early CAI stamp on SKSs.  Early 80's is my best guess on it.  It's also been assumed that for guns not exported from China, the "Norinco" stamping was perhaps not included as the importer had no way to identify who actually fabricated the rifle.  Additionally, remember that government regulations continually changed requiring updated minimum information (country of manufacture, caliber, importer's name / home city/state), new minimum depths / text size, and non-roman letter character prohibitions in S/Ns so this could have been the root cause of certain changing stamps (the short lived run of light CAI etchings on the receiver covers for example).

[Loose}{Cannon]

(leather is so stiff that it was impossible to take off the sling when I cleaned it)

The sling...

Welp, They all were made some time ago and are stiff as omar kadafi, especially when 'new' and not broken in... Like yours.

In addition to RM, I dont doubt these stocks were found in nam, or that their intended purpose may have been to combat the nam environment, but the OPs rifle is not a bringback and exhibits no indication of being imported from china.  That being said, it was in the US for circa 10 years prior to his grandfather purchasing.  This stock on this gun tells us..... Nothing.

[Loose}{Cannon]

Maybe slight off topic, but in retards to the rscid gun I 'believe none of what hear and only half of what I see'.  If the gun is so well documented, then we should see a dd603 specifically stating it had a fiberglass stock at the time of capture. Just because the rifle itself is documented says nothing about what an owner could have done with it.

Again, I have little doubt these stocks could have been used as replacements in nam... I do however believe it to be nearly impossible to prove a gun was captured and brought back with it given the availability of stocks in the US and the condition most bb stocks were/are in.

[firstchoice]

Without adding any credence to any theory on this Type 56, the first thing I noticed about this carbine was the unique wear on the jungle stock, and the "it looks like it was imported with that stock" feeling, (yeah, I know), before I read the comments that followed. The unique crescent bolt carrier slap to the right side of the stock would be done how in civilian life? If it was done in civilian life, it would have been done for one purpose, to deceive, and I can't reconcile that with this carbine. As to whether the stock was used and then put on the carbine after import, who knows? But it would be the first resin stock that I saw that was actually used out of country, brought into the US and then installed on a correct era carbine. (RM's find over on the other board, notwithstanding) LOTS of ifs, there. Interesting Type 56 Dorff! Thanks for sharing!

firstchoice

[Loose}{Cannon]

Where are you seeing a carrier slap?   All I see is a gouge on the right side which is the wrong side and too far forward.

[Dorff]

Still scouring over the rifle to see if I can find any additional markings, but there is not much I can point to besides what are clearly inspector markings on the internals.  I have added six new pictures in the original post (trigger assembly and additional pictures of the stock wear), in case they help anyone (sorry the thread is getting so image heavy).  Of course I would certainly like to think that the wear is due to the stock being put on overseas prior to import, but I have to agree with Loose Cannon that there is not really any firm evidence that is the case.  Maybe somebody can make that case, but it is likely indeterminable.

-Dorff

[firstchoice]

Just my opinion that, coupled with a nickel will get you five pennies. Were the butt plates any different on these stocks, like the sling mounts were? I have one of these stocks, NOS, but I'd have to pull it out of storage to look at it to see about that. Everything on the stock just seemed "consistent", down to the wear on the butt plate. Again, none of this proves anything, other than it's a well worn resin stock on a period correct carbine.

firstchoice

[Loose}{Cannon]

Just one issue.  Its import marked.   

The Blade cut version has a bottom swivel while the spike version has a side swivel.  I think the butplates may be a little dif also.