1949 Russian SKS with correct stock and bayonet

[pcke2000]

Here is some barrel evidence that suggests a 1949 d.o.m:

As far as I can tell, the "stepped" barrel is a 1950 development. Every 1949 that I can remember does not have the machined ring or step.

Check your 1950, 45° gas port carbines. I checked mine, and it has the step.

The absence of the machined step on the auction carbine supports possible 1949 d.o.m. , imo.

Not necessarily. My two light refurb early 1950 transitional (both with s/n prefix EB) do not have the step.

[Boris Badinov]

Here is some barrel evidence that suggests a 1949 d.o.m:

As far as I can tell, the "stepped" barrel is a 1950 development. Every 1949 that I can remember does not have the machined ring or step.

Check your 1950, 45° gas port carbines. I checked mine, and it has the step.

The absence of the machined step on the auction carbine supports possible 1949 d.o.m. , imo.

Not necessarily. My two light refurb early 1950 transitional (both with s/n prefix EB) do not have the step.

It certainly bolsters the notion that "E-" serial prefix marks the transition between type1 and type2 designs.

The barrel step alone is certainly not definitive, but I think there's a strong case for 1949 because it exhibits three type1 design features in conjunction:

90° gas port + lower mounted ferrule pin + NO barrel machine-step

[running-man]

Here is some barrel evidence that suggests a 1949 d.o.m:

As far as I can tell, the "stepped" barrel is a 1950 development. Every 1949 that I can remember does not have the machined ring or step.

Check your 1950, 45° gas port carbines. I checked mine, and it has the step.

The absence of the machined step on the auction carbine supports possible 1949 d.o.m. , imo.

Looking through my files, it looks like the step is a mid to late 1950 development.  There are several '50s with 45° blocks that have no step, and others with 45° blocks that have the step.  All 51's and beyond have the step it seems from my initial quick look.  The step may simply be that the machinist took material of the barrel down past the end of the FSB to 100% guarantee a flush fit up front instead of cutting it so close that you can't see it.  W/o pulling a FSB on a '49 it's impossible to know what's actually underneath. 





vs all the rest:

[Justin Hell]

Here is some barrel evidence that suggests a 1949 d.o.m:

As far as I can tell, the "stepped" barrel is a 1950 development. Every 1949 that I can remember does not have the machined ring or step.

This if from yoopers site. Its a good side by side comparison photo. The "step" is hard to spot until you know where to look:


This is the barrel from the curious auction rifle:



Check your 1950, 45° gas port carbines. I checked mine, and it has the step.

The absence of the machined step on the auction carbine supports possible 1949 d.o.m. , imo.

Looking through my files, it looks like the step is a mid to late 1950 development.  There are several '50s with 45° blocks that have no step, and others with 45° blocks that have the step.  All 51's and beyond have the step it seems from my initial quick look.  The step may simply be that the machinist took material of the barrel down past the end of the FSB to 100% guarantee a flush fit up front instead of cutting it so close that you can't see it.  W/o pulling a FSB on a '49 it's impossible to know what's actually underneath.

Had I actually noticed the step/steplack while replacing the neutered FSB on my 50 with a proper replacement 50, it would explain a LOT of the troubles in doing so.  The step is likely to allow for easier replacement/assembly with regard to the FSB.  The pin location would be massively crucial when swapping out say a damaged FSB...because there is zero play without the tapered step to allow for a little fitting. Unless I do some drill work, a second pin, despite appearing to have a clear channel, cants the sight. I have replaced a few FSBs in the past, none were such a monumental PITA....  It continues, between the lack of that pin, and needing to fabricate a new one for my receiver cover latch pin...I haven't completed the project I started nearly four years ago, and still haven't completed the thread to go along with it.  My back burner is huge...

This is why I suspect this was just an evolution of the design for the armorer's benefit.  It is a neat feature to notice and use to identify these suckers.

[fisherl3]

So now that I made my introduction, I can say that I now own this 1949 from Rock Island.  So it does have the correct 1949 stock (see photo).  The groove is shallow and the metal is not notched.  The other observation I read about was on the bottom of the gas block.  I don't know why it appeared notched on Rock Island's picture.  Maybe it was a shadow?  However everything looks standard with no notch.  Another observation was in regard to the bayonet being faked due to the gap.  I  think it's possible this bayonet may be correct.  I included a picture of a M44 bayonet next to my SKS's.  The M44 is longer when side by side.  It would have taken lots of milling to make it fit and the finish doesn't reflect metal work.   I'm open to any additional insights there.  I'm here to learn.  The final observation was the take down lever not being original.  This observation is correct as came with a stamped take down part. However I made things right and added the proper loop take down. 

[Justin Hell]

It does indeed take a lot of milling to whittle down an M44 bayonet. I have done it. They have to be shortened at the tang end and the diameter needs to be reduced to fit into an SKS handle. It's a pain in the neck!  I actually use it on one of my bubba guns...simply because I put so much labor into doing it, well...it looks pretty cool too.

The SKS spikes have a noticeable ridge on the tang under the bayonet handle.
I can only find this one photo....in the third post in this thread.
https://www.gunboards.com/threads/any-good-pictures-of-a-1949-russian-sks-bayonet-out-there.293030/

The photos from the auction site didn't seem to show that...and it looks just like my faux bayo.  I could be wrong...I just didn't see it.  Same with that odd reflection perhaps?

BTW...your photo's didn't show up...but a lot of others in this thread seem to be missing at the moment too...could just be a host server is down.

Congrats on scoring this one....we obviously were paying attention.

[pcke2000]

Agree with Justin Hell. It is a modified M44 bayonet.

[Shoot The Refurbs]

Agree with Justin Hell. It is a modified M44 bayonet.

I still am having trouble seeing the features on this particular bayo that would distinctly identify it as an M44, as opposed to a 49'?
If it's a fake it's a pretty darn good one to me, but again I could be missing something.
I know 49's with spike bayos are borderline unobtanium but if there's a place that could help me understand this better, it's here.
Would someone here that is lucky enough to be a 49' owner be willing to post a pictorial explanation for a slow knuckle-dragger like myself?
Would also be great to have a reference if ever any of us here are lucky enough to spot one in the wild again.   

[Justin Hell]

I tried to get the photo from that post but photobucket didn't seem to want to let me...probably because it thinks I am in Mexico.

There was a 49 bayo on eBay for the longest time...so long they even sold the straight eared collar off of it...yet didn't reduce the price!  It had a nice photo that shows the shape of it's profile.  They are occasionally seen for sale by Canadians, and not as hard as they used to be to obtain.

Of course a better pic of that particular spot on the 49 in question would help.

[jstin2]

In my album there are pictures of a spike bayonet. Click on picture and click again to enlarge.
https://ibb.co/album/kP3zJv

[Justin Hell]

the ridge around the inside of the bayonet handle is what I am referring to....that edge is what is visible of a collar like ring around that portion of a 49 spike.

[Shoot The Refurbs]

Just to make sure I understand correctly, this is the portion where the ridge is located?
And the ridge IS present on an original 49' but NOT the M44 fakes?


Sorry I'm slow on the uptake today, I had to break out my bestest flavored crayon for this. 

[pcke2000]

Just to make sure I understand correctly, this is the portion where the ridge is located?
And the ridge IS present on an original 49' but NOT the M44 fakes?


Sorry I'm slow on the uptake today, I had to break out my bestest flavored crayon for this. 

Correct, that's an obvious difference compared to M44 bayonet. I will try to find a better picture.

[fisherl3]

Well I did say that I came here to learn.  Thanks for the info regarding the ridge on the 1949 bayonet.  I went back and took photos of that specific area.   To my relief, my bayonet has the ridge.   




pic of a star

[Bob_The_Student]

Fisher, I think we can all agree that the only way to be certain that the bayonet is correct, is to sell me the rifle for a small price. This is the ONLY way to get to the bottom of this!   

I'm happy for you either way. I'd be ok with having a '49 without a bayonet to be honest!

[pcke2000]

Here is a better pic of correct 1949 spike bayonet

[pcke2000]

Interestingly, correct stock and front ferrule (for cruciform bayonet) are much more rare than correct spike bayonet itself, at least in North America.

[pcke2000]

To fisherl3: your magazine may not be period correct.

[Justin Hell]

To fisherl3: your magazine may not be period correct.

Those are the molars of the hen.

[Boris Badinov]

fisherl3-


From your latest photos, it sure looks as if the bayonet may be an original 1949 cruciform intended for an SKS45

Can you remove the bayonet and post photo of it without the adapter/handle?