The Baffling B: Early and Late

[jmaurer]

I finally had the opportunity to get some shots of the early B-series rifle, built/rebuilt as a 59/66A1. They're sub-par: haven't had the diffuse lighting available, so several are grainy or washed. Anywho, I'll try to split this spread up into more manageable batches. Please note that close-up shots of the various components make the rifle appear to be in lesser condition that it really is - I'm convinced this one is unused since assembly. I also have a sense that this rifle was perhaps made near the end of production: you'll note reused/possibly previously rejected components, the lack of drawing numbers on the stock and handguard wood, etc. The care taken during construction also seems to be less than what I regard as typical of the Yugoslav SKS.

Edited to add: I've posted all the images. Can someone please tell me how to post them so that the entire image can be seen, rather than a thumbnail version? Or is that the default to save server space (if so, quite understandable)?

Overall views:





The receiver cover (note bluing over older electropenciled inspections marks, as well as the drawing number):

[jmaurer]

The bolt carrier:

[jmaurer]

Bolt. In reviewing the images in this section, there appears to be an electropenciled number just barely visible in the race/slot in the second and seventh photos; maybe a 6- something? Would this be a drawing number? Can't say I remember seeing that before...

[jmaurer]

Recoil spring:







Gas tube:

[jmaurer]

Gas piston; not sure I've seen one with most of the smaller diameter section chromed like this:









Piston extension:

[jmaurer]

Trigger mechanism; note that a previous serial number was scrubbed. Very little indication of impact of the hammer on the firing pin.

[jmaurer]

Magazine assembly:

[jmaurer]

The receiver. Note the lack of an index mark and timing number on the barrel; the bore is absolutely mint, by the way.

[jmaurer]

The stock. Although in essentially new condition, no penciled assembly number in the safety recess, no drawing number below the immediate rear of the receiver, blued-over mangling of the upper buttplate screw, and incorrectly milled slot on the lower buttplate screw. And somebody got horsey cutting the bayonet slot! Was this a previously rejected stock, I wonder?

[jmaurer]

And finally, the cleaning rod:

[running-man]

Very neat. Great photos as usual man!  Not much to add but the bayo cutout on the stock seems to me that it was intended for a long barreled yugo...

[Boris Badinov]

The stock finish and the stock serial number look odd. I don't see a 1TRZ refurb stamp.

This could be a post import rebuild. No?

[jmaurer]

Hard to say, really. A state-side build could explain the lack of drawing numbers and/or rebuild marks on the wood, but I'm leaning toward a "new" rifle built using an old receiver, given the later bolt carrier with matching pantographed number. I say that largely because I've not seen anyone here apply numbers in such a slip-shod fashion, hence my conjecture regarding end of production - I imagine careless worker drones building rifles to fill a quota for a regime that they know is on its last legs...but conjecture is all it is.

On the road again, but I do need to check the length of the bayonet slot when I get back.

And thanks for the comments! It's an oddball, for sure!

[Boris Badinov]

I'm pretty sure a 59/66 stock. You can tell by the short distance between the inletting for the magazine and the end of the bayonet channel. It's a much longer span on standard blade bayo stocks


There's a longish split dowm the bayonet channel, starting at the fore end. That doesn't strike me as typical for a "new" build.

Did it come with a log book?

Whatever its origins, it's unique. I like it.

[jmaurer]

Regrettably, no log book. That's really the only thing that would solve the puzzle, unless Branko Bagdonovic or someone with similar knowledge were to publish on the subject.

The stock fitment with the ferrule is a bit sloppy as well, with some vertical "rocking", possibly with somewhere around the receiver/magazine interface serving as a pivot. I don't think that would cause the split, but with the missing wood in the routed bayonet channel, and compression of the foremost sides of the stock towards the center, I think the stock could be cracked. Or, if the underside of the bayonet when folded were banged, it could sandwich itself in the open area and act as a literal wood splitter. I'll look for signs of this, as well. That's what I thought initially, seeing the dent in the magazine box. However, there's no finish loss on the dent, and after seeing the other substandard parts used (buttplate screws, force-matched trigger mechanism, etc.), I figured it was a late-assembled gun made with the last bits available. While not directly supporting that theory, the chrome-lined long barrel 50456 uses a production-series receiver (without letter prefix) for what I'm guessing is a "proof of concept" build, so I don't think the arsenal would have been averse to using what was at hand and fit the spec. The unit of one of my good friends that was in the first Gulf War was issued rifles that had been refurbished to "A2" specification - at least one used an XM177E2 receiver, and a few had new condition Vietnam-Era barrels with chrome-lined chambers and "black" bores (no chrome). But they had round handguards, so job done! Incidentally, those were issued in such haste that the guys did not have a chance to zero the rifles before hitting the field!

[Boris Badinov]

Jmaurer--

Let me start out by saying that my intention is not offend. But there some significant holes in the hypothesis that you propose for the origin of this very interesting rifle. From the photos, the most likely explanation for this anomalous build,  is a post import conversion of an M59 to an M59/66

One of the first things I notice is the absence of any importer stamp. I see no indications in the metal that an importer stamp was scrubbed and the surface re-blued. And there is no import stamp on the barrel. And the un-modified magazine rules out a Canadian border jumper.

Second, the stock. I've seen a lot of near pristine late production C series 59/66 examples from the 1989 serial range-- and those rifles give no suggestion that the Zastava arsenal was making do with whatever parts they could gather up. Additionally, the stock finishes  on those late rifles are quite different from this rifle stock. By comparison, the stock on this rifle appears to have undergone significant stripping and refinish.

There is also something about the stock serial that doesn't look right-- given the indications that the stock has been refinished, the serial number looks incongruously fresh and untouched by the refinish. Not to mention that one would expect to see a 1TRZ rebuild stamp on an early B-series rifle that was converted to and M59/66.   


IMHO, the most likely explanation for this rifle is that the original barrel was heavily corroded, and a previous owner (with considerable skills)  converted it to an m59/66.

[jmaurer]

Hey Boris, I'd never take offense from learning, especially if I'm way off base! I really appreciate your input, and respect anything you have to offer. I've learned a lot from your posts for quite some time now.

I think another strong argument against an arsenal rebuild in Yugoslavia with an old receiver is the lack of index and timing marks on the barrel. That just doesn't seem like an arsenal practice. But blast the thumbnail-type photo presentation! Depending upon how they display for you, take a look at the seventh photo in the receiver section as it opens via ibb.co; the barrel is marked "IAI I KNOX TN 7.62X39 M59/66 YUGO" (Intrac Arms International, if I remember correctly). I think that outfit morphed into Tennessee Guns, at least in part? Doing a bit of browsing, at least one reference indicates IAI imported stuff from IM Metal in Croatia circa 2000-2004. Could this be a not-quite-arsenal-specification put-together, similar to the simplified 59/66 rifles sold by Aim Surplus as M59s? I don't know any details about those, but it would be interesting to see if there are any clues along that line. Incidentally, I just crossed paths a few weeks ago with a guy that was peripherally associated with Tennessee Guns years ago, and this one may be worth reaching out to him to see if I can find when it may have been imported, at least. Don't know if that would help any, but it's worth a shot!

And yes, anything I can come up with is only a guess. I just have a weakness for weird Yugoslavs, and this one will be added to the rest, including the enigmatic star-marked Yugo. Also, turns out I was wrong on the story about the M16 barrels: my buddy's unit was equipped with rifles that already had the "black" barrels CONUS, which were replaced before deployment with fully chrome-lined barrels. They hit the field with mechanical zero, without an opportunity to confirm. He was already a gun bug at the time, and noticed a lot of incongruities.

[Boris Badinov]

Hey Boris, I'd never take offense from learning, especially if I'm way off base! I really appreciate your input, and respect anything you have to offer. I've learned a lot from your posts for quite some time now.

I think another strong argument against an arsenal rebuild in Yugoslavia with an old receiver is the lack of index and timing marks on the barrel. That just doesn't seem like an arsenal practice. But blast the thumbnail-type photo presentation! Depending upon how they display for you, take a look at the seventh photo in the receiver section as it opens via ibb.co; the barrel is marked "IAI I KNOX TN 7.62X39 M59/66 YUGO" (Intrac Arms International, if I remember correctly). I think that outfit morphed into Tennessee Guns, at least in part? Doing a bit of browsing, at least one reference indicates IAI imported stuff from IM Metal in Croatia circa 2000-2004. Could this be a not-quite-arsenal-specification put-together, similar to the simplified 59/66 rifles sold by Aim Surplus as M59s? I don't know any details about those, but it would be interesting to see if there are any clues along that line. Incidentally, I just crossed paths a few weeks ago with a guy that was peripherally associated with Tennessee Guns years ago, and this one may be worth reaching out to him to see if I can find when it may have been imported, at least. Don't know if that would help any, but it's worth a shot!

And yes, anything I can come up with is only a guess. I just have a weakness for weird Yugoslavs, and this one will be added to the rest, including the enigmatic star-marked Yugo. Also, turns out I was wrong on the story about the M16 barrels: my buddy's unit was equipped with rifles that already had the "black" barrels CONUS, which were replaced before deployment with fully chrome-lined barrels. They hit the field with mechanical zero, without an opportunity to confirm. He was already a gun bug at the time, and noticed a lot of incongruities.

Aha! I totally missed the import stamp. 

That changes my mind. It still doesn't strike me as a new build from Zatsava. Seems more likely that it could have been a theater expedient assembly from cached parts in one of the breakaway states-- like Slovenia or Croatia-- during the Balkans conflict. Which-- for me at least -- would explain the unusual finish on the stock, the wonky serial, and the split in the bayo channel. 

Now that I've seen the import stamp, I like it even more. 

[running-man]

jmaurer, I didn't catch that this photo:



is showing a crack in the stock and *not* a bayonet that stops halfway up the bayo slot.  No idea how I could have thought I was looking at a bayonet in that photo as it's clear the stock is not attached to a barreled receiver! 

So forget what I said about long barrel anything, it clearly doesn't show anything like that.

If your photo had shown a bayo, then this is what popped into my head from my long barreled Yugo that has an M59 stock:



but even then it would have indicated the carbine was a LB Yugo (which it isn't) with an M59 stock with a std. bayo groove. 

Sometimes I think I'm getting too old for this stuff. 

I think this carbine is a buildout of a shot-out M59 into an M59/66A2 at an arsenal other than 1.TRZ.  Bosnia (or Slovenia, Croatia, etc.) after the breakup is certainly plausible.

[Boris Badinov]

jmaurer, I didn't catch that this photo:



is showing a crack in the stock and *not* a bayonet that stops halfway up the bayo slot.  No idea how I could have thought I was looking at a bayonet in that photo as it's clear the stock is not attached to a barreled receiver! 

So forget what I said about long barrel anything, it clearly doesn't show anything like that.

If your photo had shown a bayo, then this is what popped into my head from my long barreled Yugo that has an M59 stock:



but even then it would have indicated the carbine was a LB Yugo (which it isn't) with an M59 stock with a std. bayo groove. 

Sometimes I think I'm getting too old for this stuff. 

I think this carbine is a buildout of a shot-out M59 into an M59/66A2 at an arsenal other than 1.TRZ.  Bosnia (or Slovenia, Croatia, etc.) after the breakup is certainly plausible.

Don't worry, RM. I totally missed the import stamp.  And im pretty sure i looked at that photo more than once.