1950 Transitional (PIC HEAVY)

[padams8888]

Transitional Russian 1950 that I found on GB. I thought the stock was a refurb 50, but it looks to be a 1952 Tula stock. Definitely a refurb. It also has the spot weld on the stock retainer blade cut, which is the original 1949 cruciform bayonet retainer that has been modified. (IIRC) Barbecue paint throughout.....replacement rear sight leaf. Spring loaded firing pin and milled loop receiver cover retainer pin. The bayonet is very rough textured towards the tip.....sorta like flashing. No lightening cuts on the inside of the rear receiver. Definitely has the friction trigger block safety. Front edge bull-nose block on the receiver cover with no vertical holes.  The etching on the cover of the arrow is pretty crooked. Intermediate rod has the solid wire spring. The barrel interior is a head scratcher...I suppose it was probably changed during the refurb process....but it appears to be chrome lined....or just in good shape un-chromed.
Would have been nice to see the 90 degree block still on there.....but it still retains the straight eared bayonet collar.  Serial numbers are not chalked...it's dried cosmoline....and here's the kicker.....zero carbon or powder in the rifle....gas block is shiny inside...appears un-fired since import!
Anyway...adding the pictures for any reference.

[Loose}{Cannon]

I dont think thats a spike stock ferrule.... those have a much smaller profile iirc. This one looks like the V was cut to deep... but was still originally a V.

[padams8888]

That very well could be.....I'll look again....

[Power Surge]

It's definitely a blade v notch. I bet the reenforcement weld was added during refurb. If you look at fhe picture, you can see the metal distorted into the cleaning rod hole. Something in this rifles past life was pushing that bayo against the gun pretty hard.

[Loose}{Cannon]

Looks more like the original V notch was cut too deep and it was corrected.

[padams8888]

Sounds very plausible.....that did look pretty deep.  I'll have to go back and look at another retainer I have  and check it as well.

[armedhippie]

 IIRC...The spot weld was done during the original build. Unless the stock ferrul was changed during refurb to a replacement, you'll find this same spot weld on all transitional '50's ( for that matter most '50s I believe). Its just an early feature like the straight eared bayo lug.From what I gathered when researching mine, When they switched to the blade and noticed the cut was much deeper, it was done as a preemptive wear and tear measure. Kinda like the extra stock pin in the grip area on replacement stocks. Except done before. Not sure when they stopped doing it.

[running-man]

IIRC...The spot weld was done during the original build. Unless the stock ferrul was changed during refurb to a replacement, you'll find this same spot weld on all transitional '50's ( for that matter most '50s I believe). Its just an early feature like the straight eared bayo lug.From what I gathered when researching mine, When they switched to the blade and noticed the cut was much deeper, it was done as a preemptive wear and tear measure. Kinda like the extra stock pin in the grip area on replacement stocks. Except done before. Not sure when they stopped doing it.

This.

Every transitional '50 I've ever seen has the spot weld. I believe the post 50 ferrules are just a bit longer than the '49 spike ferrules, allowing the necessary clearance for the bayo yet not breaking into the cleaning rod hole.

[Loose}{Cannon]

Are you saying these are 1949 spiker ferrules that were modified?

[armedhippie]

Not from what I gathered when reading up on em but they very well could have been uncut for spiker ferrules that were instead cut for blade. Basically a "test in the field" theory since what they were used to on the M44 and '49 SKS were all spikers.

Would definitely be worth looking into to see if later ferrules are of a different size than the '50s and if the '49s are still a different size. Maybe even just a different depth of cut for the blade clearance and then  they just decided the spot weld wasn't needed.

[running-man]

Are you saying these are 1949 spiker ferrules that were modified?

I've long believed that.  Though now that I read what Hippie says, maybe I'm all wet?  I haven't actually looked into it in detail come to think of it.   

Let's see what I can dig out of the archives:

1949 guns:
Nice one with the original ferrule, a proper '49 stock, and a cruciform bayo, see how everything lines up nicely?


Here is a '49 with a replacement stock, but hasn't had the spike to blade modifications done to it.  Look at how much overhang the stock has on the ferrule:


Here is a '49 (well supposedly a '49, it's a refurb 90° gas block, hoop takedown lever, with a '49 cover) with the conversion to a blade bayo (same gun is shown in both photos below, EM972).  The stock is clearly a laminated replacement and it overhangs the ferrule quite a bit.  The ferrule is very square looking and sharp:



Here's another E series '49, same condition as the above,but you can see the stock overhang really well:


Here is a transitional '50 (supposedly, maybe it's simply a refurbished '49) with the same ferrule mods:




I'll look for some post '50 ferrules next, a quick scan tells me they may be tough to find, nobody is interested in photographing those on post '49 guns it seems! 

[Power Surge]

From those pics, it looks to me like they notched existing parts. And since they were thin stampings, they probably felt putting such a deep cut for the new blade bayo might weaken the ferrule to the point of cracking at the cut and added the weld to beef the area up.

[pcke2000]

if I remembered correctly, the original front ferrule for the stock cut for spike bayonet is smaller than that on the stock cut for blade bayonet.

[Loose}{Cannon]

if I remembered correctly, the original front ferrule for the stock cut for spike bayonet is smaller than that on the stock cut for blade bayonet.

Iirc, the ferrule for a 49 spike had no notch at all and was a good bit smaller. 

[running-man]

if I remembered correctly, the original front ferrule for the stock cut for spike bayonet is smaller than that on the stock cut for blade bayonet.

I always thought this too Lt. Ke. Looking through my photos I'm not so sure anymore.  It appears maybe the V-cut for the bayo on later ferrules simply isn't as deep.  Ridiculously hard to tell differences in ferrules from the photos I currently have. I'm only through 1952 though, so maybe something from the later years jumps out at me.

[Loose}{Cannon]

Remember this? 

[Loose}{Cannon]

What I'm saying is....   The ferrule made for the spike is not even the same size.  Its not a matter of just cutting and reinforcing them.   

[pcke2000]

if I remembered correctly, the original front ferrule for the stock cut for spike bayonet is smaller than that on the stock cut for blade bayonet.

I always thought this too Lt. Ke. Looking through my photos I'm not so sure anymore.  It appears maybe the V-cut for the bayo on later ferrules simply isn't as deep.  Ridiculously hard to tell differences in ferrules from the photos I currently have. I'm only through 1952 though, so maybe something from the later years jumps out at me.

when I have time, I'll take a look at my collection and double check it.

[Loose}{Cannon]

I think your going to find a size/profile difference. 

[CrazySquid]

This topic got me to dig out my transitional 1950. It's got all of the 49 features except for the original thinner 49 stock and bayo. Looks like some work may have been done around the notch for the bayo, including the weld, but if so, it's been sanded down. 1st pic before oiling her down.