I picked up my second specimen with the Star-1 stamped on the receiver. As with the first one, I went over every inch of the gun, comparing it to my Chinese Ghost, 6-digit, 2 mil, 3 mil, two Letters, 8 mil, 9 mil, and M21s. With a vernier caliper in hand, there is no single part which stands out as a different general dimension to the Chinese guns, beyond an acceptable 2-3 thousandths of an inch. And the receivers on both have Chinese Q/C stamps on the bottom flat. So, the NVA is built and assembled in China, right?
I doubt we'll answer that question today. But I do have some interesting machining differences which are consistent between the two Star-1 guns and the Chinese guns. The differences are subtle, but they may hold clues.
Pic of the Chinese carbine comparison pool.
(http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/medium/EarlyChicoms_001.JPG)
The two Star-1 guns (643369 and 642551)
(http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/medium/N_viet_SKS_014.JPG)
(http://i.imgur.com/SxIMg0Gl.jpg)
Let's start with something something basic, like the machining of the lightening cut. Both of my Star-1 guns show the mill bit tooling marks begin at the front of the bolt carrier, and move to the rear. None of my Chinese test subjects show this machine tool pattern, and all begin at the rear and move to the front. But perhaps someone else has a Chinese gun which shows the front to back machine tool travel (?), which would make this observation a moot point.
Comparison pic of 643369(top) to Chinese(bottom)
(http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/medium/machineDiff_005.jpg)
Comparison pic of 642551(right) to Chinese(left)
(http://i.imgur.com/mnCKl1Ml.jpg)
I think you have the tool travel direction backwards....
Ill have to look at all my chinese when I get home, but I can tell you that in 1960s world of machining, the direction is subject manual operation in which can start/end in either direction as long as the resulting depth etc are achieved. Even a new vs dull bit can dictate how many passes are required front/back etc. They didn't exactly have cnc milling machines that are programmed to execute the same passes in the same order etc
Have you seen the other thread? Can you post the bottom inspection stsmpings from all carbines in question?
Next up on the bolt carrier, the stripper clip guide.
Both of the Star-1 guns have the appearance of a 'squared' stripper clip guide opening, vs the multi-faceted appearance for the Chinese. This difference is only in visual outward appearance. The relief cuts on the outer edge of the openings which allow for insertion of the the clips measure precisely the same with calipers. It is only the steeper angle of the final machining of the relief bevel on the Star-1 which gives it the squared appearance.
643369 (bottom) vs 9 mil Chinese (top)
(http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/medium/NVA-9MIL_034.jpg)
642551 (right) vs Letter Chinese (right)
(http://i.imgur.com/uTAmWt5l.jpg)
Steep angle relief bevel on Star-1
(http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/medium/machineDiff_015.jpg)
Shallow angle relief bevel on Chinese
(http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/medium/machineDiff_016.jpg)
Quote from: Loose}{Cannon on October 16, 2015, 10:57:43 AM
I can tell you that in 1960s world of machining, the direction is subject manual operation in which can start/end in either direction as long as the resulting depth etc are achieved.
This may well prove out to be true. As I have only two Star-1 test subjects for the comparison, it may be that I just received two which were machined in the same direction.
But it was interesting that all of my Chinese guns with the lightening cut were machined in an opposite direction.
Interesting note. My 1955 through 1958 Russian guns are machined the same as the Star-1 guns......
The stripper guides are also subject to manual machining not to mention the setup across likely dozens of machines. Do a side/side with two known dif countries and you will see 'real' machining diferences rather then simple tolerance deviations.
Dont forget about the sheer numbers in which these were made... Your '64 dated' gun could be 300,000+ off from your 9m even 'if' they are the same year, machine, operator.... List goes on and on.
True. And as previously mentioned, the machining differences which I am presenting are subtle - basic overall dimensions are identical from part to part, Star-1 to Chinese (Russian, Romanian, Yugo).
But this steep relief cut for the stripper clip guide is consistent with both of my Star-1 guns, and does not appear at all on any of my other Chinese guns, early or late (two dozen or so). The several Star-1 examples which have been presented by Saigon1965 also exhibit the 'squared' appearance of the stripper clip guide. So, this steep relief cut practice follows Star-1 examples, but does not follow any Chinese which I can personally observe.
And again, I have limited test subjects. So it will be interesting to get feedback from others with Star-1, and/or Chinese bolt carriers to compare. The more specimens, the better!
Its the same cut..... Your looking at a difference in depth in which it was cut. I remember when you brought this up before... My chinese are all over the map with subtle differences like these.
What years are your nva?
Moving to the front stock ferrule.
The sheet metal stamping for the final shape of the front stock ferrule is sharper (more squared) on the Star-1 than on any of my early Chinese guns. This is an extremely difficult phenomenon to photograph. But I'll try!
First, I have to define the region which the difference is evident. The front stock ferrule is attached to the barrel by a collar which is pinned to the barrel. Then there is a 90 degree bend to the shroud portion of the ferrule. It is within this 90 degree bend that both of the Star-1 specimens exhibit a sharper bend angle than the more sweeping bend angle on any of my Chinese guns.
Again, this is difficult to pick up with photography, but if one observes the cleaning rod hole/channel, it makes machine stamping angle the much easier to visualize. The rear of the cleaning rod channel appears much wider than the front on the sweeping bend angle of the Chinese ferrule.
Star-1 64369 ferrule
(http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/medium/NVA-9MIL_012.jpg)
9 mil Chinese ferrule
(http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/medium/NVA-9MIL_011.jpg)
Star-1 642551 (right) vs Letter Chinese (left)
(http://i.imgur.com/i15OUVQl.jpg)
Star-1
(http://i.imgur.com/WGh2kGrl.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/O84rUpPl.jpg)
Letter Chinese
(http://i.imgur.com/tgNiLrIl.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/aZkYCKel.jpg)
Both of my Star-1 are 64-prefix, about 1100 units apart
Quote from: Loose}{Cannon on October 16, 2015, 11:39:20 AM
Its the same cut..... Your looking at a difference in depth in which it was cut. I remember when you brought this up before... My chinese are all over the map with subtle differences like these.
Yes, we've discussed this before. It will be interesting to see if anyone can come up with a picture of a Chinese bolt carrier which has the same steep relief cut in the stripper clip guide. I can't produce a Chinese with this same cut.
1k serials appart and comparing to rifles that could be millions away and years apart..... Your going to find diferences
Did you notice that china was experimenting with dif stock ferrules made from possibly dif locations having dif shapes in.... 1964?
Wait... Last year you showed this funky ferrule and said it was on an nva. Whats this on?
(http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/medium/NVA-9MIL_011.jpg)
Quote from: Loose}{Cannon on October 16, 2015, 12:21:51 PM
Wait... Last year you showed this funky ferrule and said it was on an nva. Whats this on?
Not the NVA, but a 9-mil Arab Contract.
But I could equally show a stock ferrule from two dozen other Chinese guns, and none would have the same sharp bend as the two Star-1 guns.
Hmmm.
I'm not seeing any sharp bend thats distinctly dif here that proves to be a dif country.
If I get home and take pics of very very minor production differences... Will one be made in Nam?
1964 chinese saw a experimentation with the ferrules.... Your showing one right here in this picture. If china can do this within the same year and then back again... How is a 'sharp bend' that I cant even see relevant aside from extremely minor production differences within china?
(http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/medium/NVA-9MIL_011.jpg)
Quote[With a vernier caliper in hand, there is no single part which stands out as a different general dimension to the Chinese guns, beyond an acceptable 2-3 thousandths of an inch. And the receivers on both have Chinese Q/C stamps on the bottom flat
So in your honest opinion.... What is the hardest evidence we have to date, and where do you think they were produced?
Didn't Saigon go to nam and planned to get some kinda proof of indigenous production of an exact copy of a chinese weapon using primative skills and zero history of prior weapons manufactur? He hasn't said a word about it since his return and it makes one wonder why..
Quote from: Loose}{Cannon on October 16, 2015, 12:33:53 PM
Will one be made in Nam?
Whoah! Jumping to conclusions! :)
I have no idea where any of these small parts and bolt carriers were produced/machined. If I had to guess, it would be China.
But I hope that I am finding subtle differences between my two Star-1 guns and all of my Chinese guns. Hoping that others will look at their Chinese guns to find parts which are machined/stamped in the same fashion. Though I have a lot of Chinese guns, I don't have enough to make a statistically significant conclusion.
*yaaaaaaawn*
Did I miss anything new while I was sleepin?
think1
Doesn't look like it.
rofl2
Hey.... A production facility capable of making an exact copy of every component on a Chinese sks could have been supplying China with all the parts. dead1
rofl2
Next up, rear sling swivel (and a possible split in Star-1 stock numbering pattern).
The rear sling swivel bracket on both of my Star-1 guns show a single punch stamp to reinforce the collar loop to the base.
(http://i.imgur.com/TfPy0Kdl.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/5qNtMwql.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/70Yu5L4l.jpg)
Now compare to a Chinese letter and M21
(http://i.imgur.com/eRFMFezl.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/OZ0dDUdl.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/9Zv0UAYl.jpg)
The loop shapes are also different. Star-1 pictured first, M21 pictured second.
(http://i.imgur.com/zOeSdfpl.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/xzHDAXel.jpg)
A few interesting notes:
1. Although I did not find the similar punch stamp and loop shape on any of my other side-swivel Chinese guns, I did find a rear sling swivel with the same pattern on my North Korean and a Sino-Banian with a retrofitted beech stock.
2. The stock numbering font (width) changed between the two Star-1 stocks at some time between serial numbers 642551 and 63369.
3. Are we having fun yet? :)
Worm! You're back!
Wake the heck up!
QuoteI did find a rear sling swivel with the same pattern on my North Korean and a Sino-Banian with a retrofitted beech stock
.
Good... Seems you have a chinese with a similar swivel. thumb1
Pretty sure those are spot welds....... The mark left kinda depends on how long the operator zaps it for, and of course when/where... Newb/veteran.
Next??
Quote from: martin08 on October 16, 2015, 01:56:37 PM
Worm! You're back!
Wake the heck up!
*looooong stretch* *wipes eyes*
:o
1958 3m Jianshe...... Next
(http://chinesesks.weebly.com/uploads/2/9/2/2/29221347/550953461.jpg)
As requested, the Q/C stamps on the bottom of the receiver flats. Also included the barrel/receiver assembly numbers.
Star-1, 643369
(http://i.imgur.com/nKzOe6hl.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/UYBLPm3l.jpg)
Star-1, 642551
(http://i.imgur.com/TdWIoCPl.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/U5n5OJil.jpg)
Quote from: Loose}{Cannon on October 16, 2015, 02:12:34 PM
1958 3m Jianshe...... Next
So, now you're saying that my 64-prefix Star-1 is a '58 Jianshe???
8)
Yes, I did find the same style on a Sino-banian, too. And the Type-63. So were these made in Taiwan?
No.. But your nva could be 1958 chinaman. rofl
Seriously... Its a Chinese part that could have sat in a bin for x years.
Stock finger relief cut. Chinese Letter (top), Star-1 (bottom)
When did the size of the finger relief cut enlarge during the Chinese sequence?
(http://i.imgur.com/HrCk0PXl.jpg)
Incidentally, the larger finger relief cut is also present on my M21 No's 8 and 9
Here's a pop quize...
What country sks used a 1-2 digit year dedignator at the beginning of the serial that numerically increased each year as the rest of the serial reset to #1?
Ill take 1961 6m for $800 Alex...
Everything your showing is some version of pre65 china.
Quote from: Worm on October 16, 2015, 01:52:43 PM
*yaaaaaaawn*
Did I miss anything new while I was sleepin?
think1
Doesn't look like it.
rofl2
WOW! Long time no see, welcome back....
Quote from: Loose}{Cannon on October 16, 2015, 02:38:44 PM
Ill take 1961 6m for $800 Alex...
Correction... I believe the letterguns is where the long finger cut transition was..
Quote from: CARBINE on October 16, 2015, 03:06:18 PM
Quote from: Worm on October 16, 2015, 01:52:43 PM
*yaaaaaaawn*
Did I miss anything new while I was sleepin?
think1
Doesn't look like it.
rofl2
WOW! Long time no see, sell me back....
Long time! dance2
Quote from: Loose}{Cannon on October 16, 2015, 02:41:12 PM
Everything your showing is some version of pre65 china.
Yes, and I'm showing the parts construction/machining on only two 64-prefix Star-1 guns. Wish we could have a few more Star-1 guns to give a better sample. It could be that my two received parts lots from one Chinese lot, and other Star-1 guns received parts from other Chinese lots.
But maybe something is established. If my guns have Chinese stocks, and the large finger relief cuts began during the letter series run, then the Star-1 guns are at least newer than 1959-60.
So, we are making progress.
Then to the two-digit year indicator followed by the incremental production serial numbers, which is entirely logical/accepted, do the features which appear on the Star-1 also follow the general parts availability which were present on 1960-1965 Chinese guns?
Yes? No. Not on any of mine from that 60-65 period (front stock ferrule, bolt carrier machining), but I have only a limited selection to compare. And maybe? Let's see if others can come up with pictures of the same stock ferrule (sharp) stamping, and stripper clip guide (steep) relief cut on the 6-9mil guns. If these part machining practices are specifically found on 60-65 Chinese guns, then perhaps the Star-1 guns were being assembled at Jianshe right alongside the /26\ - and that's a healthy possibility.
But if the same machining practices are not found on 60-65, might the evidence point to a dedicated set of small part or finish machines, and/or parts finishing and assembly on a dedicated line which was separate from /26\? And who knows where that finished assembly took place. We do know that random-year blank Chinese receivers were getting stamped with the Star-1, and with a sequential rolling serial, wherever that final production facility existed.
Then the side-topic: The font on the stock number. I just noticed that today, so I'm not sure if the different fonts follow a solid break, and falling somewhere in between the two serials of my guns? Suppose I should start looking at other Star-1 examples from around the web.
This would all be assuming the Chinese could not have scrubbed or recycled previous parts or even used random old stock parts... Remember your import marked IC 12m with Russian stock?
Assumptions will kill the truth.
Finding pre 60 parts on a nva in no way shape or form equals assembled somewhere else.
Agreed. By using the phrase "assembled somewhere else", does that imply that we know where they were assembled in the first place? :)
Anyway, good topic, and good discussion.
Now, let's find some pics of positively identifiable Chinese guns with the stock ferrule and stripper clip guide features. I need that info!
You ever see my brand new in cosmo 1970 jianshe with all late 60s features minus a milled fcg and one piece gas tube? Pure evidence of china reusing older versions of components to build a new gun. thumb1
QuoteAgreed. By using the phrase "assembled somewhere else", does that imply that we know where they were assembled in the first place? :)
Its kinda like air-dropping a humvee in 3,000 disassembled parts to the Kurds and tell them to have at it. rofl2. What kinda sick definition of help is that?
At some point commonsense and personal belief will reign in...
Quote from: Loose}{Cannon on October 16, 2015, 04:07:35 PM
You ever see my brand new in cosmo 1970 jianshe with all late 60s features minus milled fcg and one piece gas tube? Pure evidence of china reusing older versions of components to build a new gun. thumb1
I keep hearing ya. But I'm not seeing the pics! Pics! Pics!
And I understand the 'parts lots from storage' concept. But there are general breaks in Chinese assembly where we stop seeing one early feature, and start seeing later features - eventually dwindling the early featured parts.
Both of my Star-1 guns are consistent with the features which I have shown, and granted they are only 1,100 numbers apart, but I can find none of my Chinese guns with those features. None. So, let's find some of those features and post up pics (like the rear sling swivel on the '58)!!!
1970 1.5MIL - Chinese SKS Guide (http://chinesesks.weebly.com/1970-15mil.html)
QuoteBoth of my Star-1 guns are consistent with the features which I have shown, and granted they are only 1,100 numbers apart, but I can find none of my Chinese guns with those features. None. So, let's find some of those features and post up pics (like the rear sling swivel on the '58)!!!
One issue...
I still have yet to see any differences in the ferrule and all I see in the stripper guide is a dif in depth of cut on whats likely done my hand. :-\
I see the lightening cut direction (opposite), but ill bet you $10 I'll find one cut that direction that came out of china on a chinese serialed gun. :)
Quote from: Loose}{Cannon on October 16, 2015, 04:23:48 PM
1970 1.5MIL - Chinese SKS Guide (http://chinesesks.weebly.com/1970-15mil.html)
Beautiful gun!
But doesn't have the steep relief cut in the stripper clip guide, nor the sharp-stamped front stock ferrule.
Quote from: martin08 on October 16, 2015, 04:34:57 PM
Quote from: Loose}{Cannon on October 16, 2015, 04:23:48 PM
1970 1.5MIL - Chinese SKS Guide (http://chinesesks.weebly.com/1970-15mil.html)
Beautiful gun!
But doesn't have the steep relief cut in the stripper clip guide, nor the sharp-stamped front stock ferrule which is a figment of my imagination.
Fixed it for ya. Roflmao
So... Let me see if I got all this straight. :P
The chinese sent all these parts down the Ho Chi trail with no ferrules or stripper cuts and said.. "I know your under rolling thunder and all, but make it happen as we did 99% for you and feel you can finish the job for national pride"? chuckles1
Since we know China was in possession of Russian parts they held onto and used on chinese guns as late as 12m.... You look at any Russians to see if they have what Im not seeing?
Here ya go. :-X
(http://i1185.photobucket.com/albums/z348/padams8888/Weird%20font_zpsy4tu3bne.jpg)
Have you looked at a 1964 spike notched ferrule?
This is a good thread, it's nice to see detailed portions of guns that aren't all that common and that 99% of collectors simply don't have access to. Having said that, I'd caution against reading too much into any one particular detail simply for the fact that the sample set is so small and the variability among Chinese type 56's of the same 'year' is so large. The question of where the NVAs were produced isn't going to be answered with this thread, but nonetheless it will provide good data that can help get us there.
Here's my take on things:
Bolt carrier lightening cut - the cut is really not fundamentally different between the examples M08 has posted. The start point, speeds, feeds, and dwell are different and those are operator specific and as LC correctly points out the manual machinery used to make this hardware makes it really difficult to rely on such cosmetic features as an indicator of where something was made. I've got images of Sino-banians within the same year that have both styles of mill marks. Unfortunately, this feature isn't one that is typically photographed well by the well intentioned guys who post their guns on boards or in auctions. Not a lot of detail in many photos I'm afraid, but enough in the three below to see that it's widely variable.
(Click on photos below for full size)
(http://i1352.photobucket.com/albums/q647/jelucer/Chinese/IOs/65982_right_middle.jpg~original)(http://i1352.photobucket.com/albums/q647/jelucer/Chinese/IOs/238887_right_center1.jpg~original)(http://i1352.photobucket.com/albums/q647/jelucer/Chinese/IOs/2380880_right_center.jpg~original)
Stripper clip guides - this one is very much like the lightening cut, except to add in even more uncertainty we don't know that these chamfers weren't hand worked into each carrier. Getting into the stripper slots with a manual mill to create the chamfer is a tough order. On some I could speculate that a maybe large 1" flat bottomed endmill went in and kissed that sharp edge a bit, but others honestly look like a guy with a well used file went in and went to town. Indeed, a look over a few hundred bolt carrier tops from my Sino-Banian photo archive shows a pretty wide variation in this feature with some looking very similar to M08s NVA while others look very much like M08s Chinese example. There are others still that look almost square on top with very little, if any, chamfer generated. This angle is dependent on setup as well as depth of cut. Just because of the geometry involved, small variations in angle and depth could lead to the features looking very very different.
(Click on photos below for full size)
(http://i1352.photobucket.com/albums/q647/jelucer/Chinese/IOs/58502_bolt_carrier.jpg~original)(http://i1352.photobucket.com/albums/q647/jelucer/Chinese/IOs/187970_bolt_carrier.jpg~original)(http://i1352.photobucket.com/albums/q647/jelucer/Chinese/IOs/240588_bolt_carrier.jpg~original)(http://i1352.photobucket.com/albums/q647/jelucer/Chinese/IOs/6410_bolt_carrier.jpg~original)(http://i1352.photobucket.com/albums/q647/jelucer/Chinese/IOs/6410_bolt_carrier2.jpg~original)
Stock ferrule - This one might be more indicative of a true difference. These parts were forged and then milled to final dimensions (with the cross drilled retaining pin hole and the cleaning rod hole milled in as well). The oddball 9 mil Chinese M08 posts is a pretty good indication that the dies for this part did indeed change over time and we simply can't take for granted that subtle changes to the ferrule necessarily indicate they were made by a different source. Of course on the flip side we can't say that any changes are meaningless, but it could well be that certain parts assembled onto a gun from XY year were actually fabricated en masse several years before and were simply waiting to be utilized on some assembly line.
Stock swivel - I've got to agree with LC on this one, it looks like spot weld variations to me. As the electrodes wore or were swapped out, I could see the shape of it turning from a dot to a rectangle. Interesting to note that the side swivel on the NVA stocks (among other things like wood type etc) would seem to preclude that the Russians/Romanians/Yugos were involved with these. Furthermore, the side swivel taken in conjunction with the П battle sight setting really points to the Chinese in my opinion. Every other indigenous production from EG to NK to Alby had a unique RSL, but these NVAs kept with the standard П just like the early Chinese did...
Stock font - This one again points to the Chinese letter gun series. With the Chinese letter guns, we see transitions between different types of fonts on original stocks. The early Chinese builds all had identical fonts up through the 3 mil /26\ series. The letter guns continued the small 1/5" tall x 1/10" wide font (which looks very similar to the early NVA stock fonts) but we see a definite transition to 1/5" tall x 1/4" wide font along with the a transition to an increased length of the safety finger groove cutout.
All very good data you've posted here, I'm appreciative of you in bringing it up. These are only my opinions, but I think the data we do have backs it up quite well. We try not to get wound around the axle here (well maybe LC does at times rofl) but it's nice to have detailed discussions about stuff like this. thumb1
clap1
QuoteWe try not to get wound around the axle here (well maybe LC does at times rofl)
rofl. You love it
Hey... Threads still open, nothing deleted, and nobody banned. thumb1
Quote from: Loose}{Cannon on September 13, 2015, 05:51:42 PM
To me, the circumstantial evidence is moot and can be debated until the end if time. I mostly like to look at the hard evidence. The type of stuff you can see, hold, touch, smell, and taste if you like.
Board user Saigon was kind enough to post very detailed pics of 5 star1 property marked chinese guns in the past. As a former machinist and having nearly all years of Jianshe production in my collection, It is of my opinion that ALL characteristics are exactly identical to early Chinese rifles of the same time period. All other countries are NOT identical to one another other as the Jianshe guns and the star1 guns are.
Lets get to the meat and potatoes... :)
Inspectors within production facilities are assigned oddball stamps in which they apply to components in which they check. This is most commonly dimensions and tolerances of dif portions of a completed component. This is nothing new and most will say 'welp yeah', but when it comes right down to it.... Its about as close to a smoking gun as you may find. The ability to accurately identify a specific inspection stamp unique to one country and investigate where it is/isn't found.
I have been sitting on this one for a while.. Below you will see three of Saigons rifles. The center/bottom location of the receiver is where many of said inspection stamps are found, especially on early chinese carbines. As time progressed in the T56, these dwindled down to almost non existent.
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee269/mrcoinring/mrcoinring001/Screenshot_2015-09-13-15-45-21.png)
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee269/mrcoinring/mrcoinring001/Screenshot_2015-09-13-15-30-28.png)
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee269/mrcoinring/mrcoinring001/Screenshot_2015-09-13-15-28-39.png)
As you can see in the pics above, they all have a common stamp that looks like half a 'diver down' stamp which are all the exact same size as each other.
Note below pictured on my Chinese 1962 Jianshe '7m' gun having the exact same stamp... thumb1
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee269/mrcoinring/mrcoinring001/IMG_20150913_160533725_HDR.jpg)
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee269/mrcoinring/mrcoinring001/IMG_20150913_160348141.jpg)
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee269/mrcoinring/mrcoinring001/IMG_20150913_160604448_HDR.jpg)
good stuff, thanks for sharing everyone. thumb1............ very nice collection Martin. 8)
On a lighter note... Anyone ever taken a look at true-blue indigenous nva firearms of the period?
(http://cdn.net.outdoorhub.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2014/07/Viet-Cong-1911-copy-NRA-Museum.jpeg)
(http://www.forgottenweapons.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/junglegun3.jpg)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/f6/0a/f5/f60af5e37c83187c3a4f99dc7c8952f3.jpg)
(http://41.media.tumblr.com/fe4c7f3f9108e93405c2ea62c02e6beb/tumblr_n7u6c7Y0bQ1qdrno0o2_500.jpg)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/4d/08/70/4d0870766ab9c0862371d94348171af7.jpg)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/a0/29/72/a02972cb25ee421906222b0048d5dfe9.jpg)
(http://picturearchive.gunauction.com/8489181548/7131419/b39874d2aed97c5b424db04f2b823880.jpg)
(http://picturearchive.gunauction.com/8489181548/7131419/bb2a6dacef67a091d9e1f91b609dcc02.jpg)
(http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g327/confederatewarlord/vcspring.jpg)
(http://peteralanlloyd.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/peter-alan-lloyd-viet-cong-BACK-laos-secret-war-vietnam-war-4.jpg)
(http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c240/saigon1965/Vietnam%20war%20photo%20collection/pix783610636_zps6515978d.jpg)
Thanks for the pics and input RM, LC, et al.
The reason for presenting subtle machining differences which I observed on the two Star-1 guns was to make an attempt to develop a time frame, and the possibility of a dedicated production program... within China.
The theory that the NVA was a contract run at a Chinese factory is not a new concept. Here's a link to a thread which I posted almost 4 years ago.
http://russian-mosin-nagant-forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=2468 (http://russian-mosin-nagant-forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=2468)
I wasn't the the first one, the only one, but one of the few who would pitch the Chinese-built theory back then. And it wasn't always welcome. But after procuring a Star-1 gun, I couldn't find major part manufacturing differences such as existed on the North Korean or the East German SKS. The Star-1 was just like a Chinese.
With the presentation of the parts machining practices which I put forth today, are we looking at 6,000 guns which were built in very small lots (as many as the NVA could afford at a time) from 1962 to 1965?
Or are we just looking at four different lots from the same year of production, 1959, 60 or so.
Specimen condition. When have we ever seen a Star-1 gun which is in the same spectacular condition as some of the Jianshe Arsenal bringbacks from the mid-1960s production. There are many nearly flawless M21s or 8-14 mil /26\ bringback guns. But most of the Star-1 guns are really well used, if not abused. Is it because the Star-1 guns were not built into the 1965 year, but instead had already seen five or more years of jungle carry? Some food for thought on specimen condition.
Welp... If is possible the serials simply represent a block of serials not used in early production.
The highest 6digi I have recorded prior to the 2m jump was 411,505. That leaves almost 600,000 unused serials in the early chinese serial sequence. No 1m have ever been seen from this time period and dont apply to 1956 so I doubt they would have been used even on the nva.
I've never been a huge fan of simply assigning a '62-'65 date for the NVAs based on the first digits of the S/N. The continuous incrementing S/N keeps popping up in the back of my mind as totally inconsistent with the way the Chinese have serialized guns from the 6 mil /26\ series (1961 based on the Nth SKS-Files S/N progression theory) onwards. Maybe it truly is an NVA built gun and the S/N is something they came up with on their own. It would be very much like what the Albanians came up with, except the Albys used a year suffix instead of a prefix. The problem is, the Albys have clearly different components and features. You can differentiate a model 561 against a T56 from 100 feet away. Not so with an NVA/star 1 marked gun. Even breaking it down to the side swivel and stock font on some of them doesn't really tell you much.
Why could they not be serialized in china by NV reps? Has nobody ever gone to another country to inspect and serialize rifles they bought or whatever?
Reminds me of the US making mosins and having inspectors here.....
We also have a good idea that serial Numbers were applied last, so could they not have been sent rifles ready for NV to serialize themselves?
They are Chinese rifles all right, exactly how and when it went down are about the only questions I have.
I still wanna know why the fat rounded star on the '62' guns, but a sharp pointed star on the rest. dash3
So mulling M08's quote:
Quote from: Martin08Or are we just looking at four different lots from the same year of production, 1959, 60 or so.
over in my head, I'm thinking of a way that this could be plausible - assume:
Serial number follows the standard Chinese Nth SKS-Files year of production theory: 6XX,XXX = 1961.
Perhaps the second digit of this run is actually a progression of time indicator. It wouldn't be the first time we've seen something like this. We found that the /?5\ (or /0406b\ if you prefer [and LC just had an aneurysm chuckles1]) guns have what appears to be a month prefix with an nth year of production code immediately after it (see /406\b Info and Data Collection (https://clone.sks-files.com/chinese-sks-military/17/406b-info-and-data-collection/154/)) Maybe this is similar or the second digit is counting something else like a production quarter or build team or something.
6000 rifles is a pretty small production run in the grand scheme of things. If these are indeed 1961 guns, we know the 6 mil /26\ guns suffered mightily from the chilling effect of the Sino-Soviet split, with the factory barely able to churn out 20k T56s in that series whereas prior and later years were measured in the 100's of thousands.
With these guns, the 6XXXXX S/N is present on all piece parts. Very different from the Chinese practice of only assigning the last 5 digits to the piece parts like was done on /26\ guns through the 6 mil series and beyond. I can't see them sending out a completed gun with zero markings on all piece parts to the NVA, they had to assign them to the proper guns after fitting somehow. They would have been S/N'd with the full S/N on all piece parts at assembly as heres no way they would have left the 6X prefix off every piece part for the NVA to add on later. Having NVA 'assistance' at the build arsenal is certainly plausible I think. This is a good though provoking thread...
THAT is a very interesting thought. Thinking of the early m21, they sure knew how to throw an oddball into the mix.
Quote from: Loose}{Cannon on October 17, 2015, 12:15:54 AM
I still wanna know why the fat rounded star on the '62' guns, but a sharp pointed star on the rest. dash3
Yeah, I think Worm was on to something, but the '55-'56 date of the flag transition just doesn't fit the rest of the data (side swivel, small/large font, 600k S/N, etc). Even w/o the feature discrepancies, it's a tough pill to swallow to think that the Chinese were producing star marked guns for aid when they were just spooling up production themselves. Heck the Russians were still churning out Tulas at that time. I think there's got to be some kind of time lag we're just not understanding here.
Quote from: Loose}{Cannon on October 16, 2015, 11:59:34 PM
Why could they not be serialized in china by NV reps? Has nobody ever gone to another country to inspect and serialize rifles they beought or whatever?
Reminds me of the US making mosins and having inspectors here.....
We also have a good idea that serial Numbers were applied last, so could they not have been sent rifles ready for NV to serialize themselves?
They are Chinese rifles all right, exactly how and when it went down are about the only questions I have.
Oh boy, what if thumb1
What if China was training the NVA to manufacture them. Russia went to China with partially made rifles, too teach and train them, the Soviet-Sino, it was a very limited run, followed by a few years of Russian technical overwatch and proofing. So the NVA go to China, get the neccesary enginering and associated training for manufacturing barrels, proofing, and overall crash course in mass small weapon production. All the while, the weapons the NVA side made while training in China, were marked as so. China also trained Albania a few years later.
Vietnam had very little if any weapons production ability prior to this time frame. To say they just jumped up and cranked out ~6000 or so SKSs with no weapons manufacturing training is hard to believe. Their ability to build weapons had to come from, who else, but China. If they could build the SKS after the training, building a native homegrown AK later would be a cake walk. After all, why build an already obsolite weapon.
And what if, the Star1 difference, is possibly just not another factory that opened in China that was closer to Vietnam. The NVA crew and production were moved closer to 'nam to save or cut down on transit cost/ time or some other unseen reason. That same Chinese factory later had one of the factory numbers other than /26\.
Hey Matt.. How many bringback 6m /26\ guns have you seen?
The training and joint production NVA officials/inspectors would only make perfect sense. It is the usual practice for manufacturing expansion from one country to another. Heretofore, we had only seen this practice with Russia as the trainers, and China, Romania, Yugoslavia as the trainees, and followed shortly after by East Germany and North Korea.
There would simply be no precedence for an independent company to set up shop and start cranking out the SKS. So, China was the Mentor, and North Vietnam was the Student.
So, 1961 was a year with low 6mil production yeild. The Russians were shown the door that year, granted. But the Chinese had already shown the ability to produce tens upon tens of thousands of units at Jianshe. Are we seeing low 6 mil yield because the Russians made an exit, or because the Chinese started cranking out guns with different markings, and the M21 and Star-1 in particular. And the Chinese had far more production in 1961 than their indigenous output would indicate.
Clues/thoughts:
1. The pregnant Star-1 and the skinny Star-1. Do we have a solid break point? This is a tough clue to decipher.
2. The break in stock font came in the middle of a batch run on the 64-prefix guns.
3. Condition. Does the relative condition in which the Star-1 guns can be found rule out production into the year 1965? I think so, or we would find late Star-1 guns in great condition, when compared to early Star-1 guns. We don't see that phenomenon of increasing condition as guns get newer - they are all pretty much equally beat up.
4. Receiver Q/C markings. Another tough call. We have a consecutive pair to examine, and the receiver markings are totally different.
5. Features/machining. We have a front ferrule which seems to come from a single batch/run of parts. We seem to have the same guy with the coarse file who relieved stripper clip guides in his own signature steep angled style. Side swivel, long trigger relief cut. Do we have enough pics to support similar features throughout the prefix stamp run?
Quote from: Loose}{Cannon on October 17, 2015, 09:08:00 AM
Hey Matt.. How many bringback 6m /26\ guns have you seen?
Unfortunately, I'm not as great at compiling data as I am at compiling guns. But I don't have any 6mil bringbacks. I have Ghost, three early M21's, 8mil, 9mil, 13mil, two Star-1, NK and DDR.
I have never seen a 6m bringback posted anywhere.
I'm also confident the chinese were much more dependant on the soviets for components (especially barrels/receivers) then people may realize.
I do not believe the m21 is from 61, but even if so, the nva marked guns plus the m21 plus the 6m totals all combined land FAR short of a normal production year.
I believe the 6m and nva marked guns could have been scraped together using whatever they had left to work with while they got the issue sorted out. We know by the 62 7m production was almost back to normal.
I have...
Soviet Sino
Two ghosts
One 57 6digi
Two 57 2m
Two 58 3m
Two 59/60 letters
One 61 6m
One 62 7m
One 63 8m
In the timeframe for comparison. Unfortunately the carrier on the 6m does not have a serial matching. I know John Galt and Fenceline have one...
Apologies. I've been so concentrated on micro-features that I haven't even posted pics of the entire gun.
Note the leaching of the black pigment into the stock around the small metal parts.
(http://i.imgur.com/SxIMg0Gl.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/3ucYUlal.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/jj1rqYvl.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/wbM5Frul.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/o4JueHal.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/44wv2bdl.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/maqrzAyl.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/L2R4Ahyl.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/bUFK2EPl.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/eLcw9gSl.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/wJFfMKwl.jpg)
I think the downturn in the 6 mil /26\ guns is a very real phenomenon brought about by the Sino-Soviet split. You're talking 200k+ T56s in '57 & '58, to anywhere from 240k to 360k guns in the '59 to '60 timeframe. '61 comes along and we drop to ~20k, then '62 comes and you see at least 170k if not more 7 mil /26\s again.
Just for fun, I added in known early M21s and these NVAs to the ~20k number for the '61s:
M21 No 8XXXXX: ~10180
M21 No 9XXXXX: ~49070
NVA marked: 62-65 prefix: ~5800
Total would be ~86000. While a higher number, this is still a marked decline from the years immediately before and after.
Yup... I totally agree
Behold... The matching carrier on John Galts 6m.
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee269/mrcoinring/mrcoinring001/IMG950775.jpg)
I'm not really up on when Q/C stamps disappeared completely, so I'm not sure if the following M21 pics will help or hurt the 1961 production theory.
M21 No 801374, no Q/C stamps
(http://i.imgur.com/UqGNoSBl.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/HdZ6Ca5l.jpg)
M21 No 916112, no Q/C stamps
(http://i.imgur.com/kDcd7q2l.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/lCjto3fl.jpg)
M21 No 946939, no Q/C stamps
(http://i.imgur.com/WvTfdrzl.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/JDHLfV9l.jpg)
NVA given spare, blank, non-serialized parts and receivers because they simply put in a request to China.
Couple NVA guys in a hut start serializing the guns using old pregnant star until they get new updated star and use that.
By serializing their own, AND starting at a high number like say, 62,000, they fool three groups of people:
-Their own into boosting confidence, making themselves look stronger to their own people being they are now "producing weapons" and holy ****! 60-somethin-thousand!
-The West for a similar purpose, into underestimating the NVA's capabilities.
-And us future collectors, so we kill ourselves over the mystery.
The end.
WHY BOTHER MAKING A COUPLE THOUSAND OF YOUR OWN SKS'S WHEN YOU HAVE THEM COMING IN BY THE THOUSANDS?
It's a fun mystery n' all but, I do think we're making this way too difficult.
Regardless, I'm gonna pay $1k for an NVA IF i feel like i need to be in the market, which, I never will be being I only own one sks now anyways.
Now, $2k+? In my opinion you'd have to be smoking somethin' pretty damn good to pay that for one, but to each their own.
These will always be called NVA sks's, regardless if China made them or not, which in my strong opinion, they did. NVA flag? NVA gun. But, not NVA made, just no possible or logical way.. from what I can gather.
Laff... Worm
M08... You seen the progression page? They more or less went poof around the letter guns, but I have seen post letter guns 'sometimes' have one or two random stamps. This is why I believe the nva marked guns and likely 6m were recycling parts and or using up old stock. Even a complete receiver in a bin will have QC stamps from when it was completed as an individual part.
Quote from: Greasemonkey on October 17, 2015, 04:10:49 AM
Quote from: Loose}{Cannon on October 16, 2015, 11:59:34 PM
Why could they not be serialized in china by NV reps? Has nobody ever gone to another country to inspect and serialize rifles they beought or whatever?
Reminds me of the US making mosins and having inspectors here.....
We also have a good idea that serial Numbers were applied last, so could they not have been sent rifles ready for NV to serialize themselves?
They are Chinese rifles all right, exactly how and when it went down are about the only questions I have.
Oh boy, what if thumb1
What if China was training the NVA to manufacture them. Russia went to China with partially made rifles, too teach and train them, the Soviet-Sino, it was a very limited run, followed by a few years of Russian technical overwatch and proofing. So the NVA go to China, get the neccesary enginering and associated training for manufacturing barrels, proofing, and overall crash course in mass small weapon production. All the while, the weapons the NVA side made while training in China, were marked as so. China also trained Albania a few years later.
Vietnam had very little if any weapons production ability prior to this time frame. To say they just jumped up and cranked out ~6000 or so SKSs with no weapons manufacturing training is hard to believe. Their ability to build weapons had to come from, who else, but China. If they could build the SKS after the training, building a native homegrown AK later would be a cake walk. After all, why build an already obsolite weapon.
And what if, the Star1 difference, is possibly just not another factory that opened in China that was closer to Vietnam. The NVA crew and production were moved closer to 'nam to save or cut down on transit cost/ time or some other unseen reason. That same Chinese factory later had one of the factory numbers other than /26\.
^ all of this
All the differences in QC marks, milling differences, production techniques, etc, between all the NVA examples we can observe, pretty much tells me these were thrown together from thousands of previously-already-made parts. Throw in a few thousand side swivel stocks (probably used side swivel because that's probably what China was producing at the time they gave the NVA the parts.. pick a year) and you have yourself a few thousand NVA sks's ready to be serialized.
Or hell, maybe China made AND serialized all the guns as a special requested order from the NVA.
QuoteNot accepting that the first two are year of manufacture indicates one of two statistical impossibilities.
Oh yeah... How so?
QuoteOne if which is that no bring backs with overlapping SN exist in the US which would be over a billion to one
How does this prove anything!?! How does the consecutive serialization prove the first two digits represent 1962,63,64 !?!?
Quoteor that all Bringback NVA rifles are in the bottom half of those produced per year which is about 8 million to one
Wait... what?? Bottom half what?? 8m/one.. Wtf are you talking about?
GREAT explanation as to why we MUST believe the guns were made in 62,63, and 64. dash2 OK1 dead1
Hey matt... One of my ghosts has your mystery stripper guide cuts also. thumb1
Time frames on military aid to N. Vietnam from two different sources. Emphasis on dates are mine.
CHINESE AID:
...the north Chairman Mao remained concerned about the U.S., in his opinion “the most ferocious enemy of the people of the world.” Thus, when senior North Vietnamese leaders, to include General Giap, formally requested Chinese military aid in April of 1965, the response would be swift and sure. The PRC President would tell the Vietnamese that the Chinese people and party were obligated to support the North and therefore “…we will do our best to provide you with whatever you need and whatever we have.”
http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/20thcentury/articles/chinesesupport.aspx
RUSSIAN AID:
During the 1950s and early 1960s, Moscow had employed a hands-off policy towards the conflict in Southeast Asia. Premier Nikita Khrushchev, for instance, wanted to avoid yet another nuclear standoff as had happened in 1962 in Cuba. But his successors Alexey Kosygin and Leonid Brezhnev wanted to please the hardliners in the Soviet military and consequently ramped up military aid.
By the Spring of 1967, a river of aid was flowing from Russia into North Vietnam.
By the late 1960s more than three-quarters of the military and technical equipment received by North Vietnam was coming from Moscow. Sergei Blagov writes in Asia Times that "Moscow contributed weapons essential to North Vietnamese defence capabilities..."
Vietnam War: The critical role of Russian weapons | Russia & India Report (http://in.rbth.com/blogs/2015/04/30/vietnam_war_the_critical_role_of_russian_weapons_42917)
Quote from: Dannyboy53 on October 17, 2015, 11:07:50 PM
Time frames on military aid to N. Vietnam from two different sources. Emphasis on dates are mine.
CHINESE AID:
...the north Chairman Mao remained concerned about the U.S., in his opinion “the most ferocious enemy of the people of the world.” Thus, when senior North Vietnamese leaders, to include General Giap, formally requested Chinese military aid in April of 1965, the response would be swift and sure. The PRC President would tell the Vietnamese that the Chinese people and party were obligated to support the North and therefore “…we will do our best to provide you with whatever you need and whatever we have.”
http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/20thcentury/articles/chinesesupport.aspx
RUSSIAN AID:
During the 1950s and early 1960s, Moscow had employed a hands-off policy towards the conflict in Southeast Asia. Premier Nikita Khrushchev, for instance, wanted to avoid yet another nuclear standoff as had happened in 1962 in Cuba. But his successors Alexey Kosygin and Leonid Brezhnev wanted to please the hardliners in the Soviet military and consequently ramped up military aid.
By the Spring of 1967, a river of aid was flowing from Russia into North Vietnam.
By the late 1960s more than three-quarters of the military and technical equipment received by North Vietnam was coming from Moscow. Sergei Blagov writes in Asia Times that "Moscow contributed weapons essential to North Vietnamese defence capabilities..."
Vietnam War: The critical role of Russian weapons | Russia & India Report (http://in.rbth.com/blogs/2015/04/30/vietnam_war_the_critical_role_of_russian_weapons_42917)
Well...that's really interesting. Could the NVA guns be built from leftover Russian parts? Has anyone done a dimensional comparison between the NVA star and the Tula stamped or soviet-sino stamped stars???
the prefixes are not dates. they are numbers.
Danny... I think the chinese support/aid goes back much further.
http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/20thcentury/articles/chinesesupport.aspx
QuotePost-war support, 1955-63
In 1954, with the ending of the First Vietnam War, and the Big Power Geneva conference, Vietnam would be split into two nations, North and South Vietnam. In the north Ho and the party’s attention would be focused; at least for several years, on consolidating power and economic development. The inevitable Communist collectivization and tribunals began with confiscations, arrests, localized uprisings and the execution of 15,000 Vietnamese before order could be restored by the PAVN. [41] The CMAG returns to China in September of 1955 having accomplished its mission, quite possibly one of the most successful advisory missions ever. [42]
China would continue; however, to provide substantial levels of military aid for North Vietnam to the tune of $106 million from 1955 to 1963, effectively giving the North the resources needed to begin the insurgency in the South. [43] Thus, the North Vietnamese would form the National Liberation Front, NLF, in December of 1960 and the People’s Liberation Armed Forces, PLAF, the following year in 1961. Both the NLF and PLAF would be more commonly referred to as the Viet Cong, or Vietnamese Communists. [44]
A campaign of terror and assassination against the South Vietnamese government would soon begin as thousands of officials would be killed or kidnapped by Viet Cong insurgents. [45] The United States would not sit idly by during this period but began an ambitious program of military aid to the fragile government of South Vietnam. The stage was set, for a second war in Vietnam which would be, once again, fought largely with Chinese military aid.
You're right, it does. But I only brought up the time line relevent to the conversation sir! You guys will break through to some solid info on this subject one day.
Chinese Chinese Chinese.... Not a single russian QC or proof in sight. BUT China appears to have been heavily dependant on russia for some parts (likely barrels and receivers) up to the 1960 erra.
Scrapped together from misc parts on hand likely in 1961. My .02
Quote from: Dannyboy53 on October 17, 2015, 11:37:23 PM
You're right, it does. But I only brought up the time line relevent to the conversation sir! You guys will break through to some solid info on this subject one day.
Oh... Welp all these guns had to be made prior to 65 simply because of the blade bayo. :). But... Im sure the actual date of entry could have been sometime later. I just dont want readers thinking 'no aid from china pre 65'. Its all good danny! thumb1
I absolutely agree, for many years China has used North Vietnam and North Korea as "buffer" states, classic example is the war in Korea. Supplying both through the years with whatever they wanted/needed.
Quote from: Loose}{Cannon on October 17, 2015, 11:42:02 PM
Chinese Chinese Chinese.... Not a single russian QC or proof in sight. BUT China appears to have been heavily dependant on russia for some parts (likely barrels and receivers) up to the 1960 erra.
Scrapped together from misc parts on hand likely in 1961. My .02
I am not denying the Chinese connection. But seriously.... open the picture of your soviet-sino from the guide page and bring up a pic of a late NVA gun's serial and put them side by side. It's the same exact star.
Stars have 5 sides.
Some stars are pregnant though.
Quote from: Power Surge on October 18, 2015, 12:41:17 AM
I am not denying the Chinese connection. But seriously.... open the picture of your soviet-sino from the guide page and bring up a pic of a late NVA gun's serial and put them side by side. It's the same exact star.
The Star-1 is 2.5mm larger than the Tula star, and is located about an inch forward of the Tula star location.
Quote from: martin08 on October 16, 2015, 12:07:12 PMYes, we've discussed this before. It will be interesting to see if anyone can come up with a picture of a Chinese bolt carrier which has the same steep relief cut in the stripper clip guide. I can't produce a Chinese with this same cut.
Martin, this is a steep cut in the clip guide from our Chinese rectangle [0306] gun, S/N 21007XX. Pinned barrel, cast rear site base, no lightning cuts on any parts.
Neither my Russian nor other two Chinese have this.
(http://i1254.photobucket.com/albums/hh618/smithdblueDannyboy53/Odds%20and%20ends/Chinese%20clip%20guide_zpsxvjyglir.jpg)
I have early chinese that go both ways... About 50/50. Here are a few I took pics of where the final tool path direction matches your nva marked guns.
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee269/mrcoinring/mrcoinring001/IMG_20151018_100318549_HDR.jpg)
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee269/mrcoinring/mrcoinring001/IMG_20151018_100212050.jpg)
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee269/mrcoinring/mrcoinring001/IMG_20151018_100104438_HDR.jpg)
I can furnish photos if needed but my Russian & two /26\ guns (3 & 11 mill) show lightning cut tools marks running from front to finish up at the rear of the bolt carrier.
The three I posted, the last tool path travel went from rear to front... Ending at the front. This is how m08s nva marked guns are.
Quote from: martin08 on October 18, 2015, 09:17:20 AM
Quote from: Power Surge on October 18, 2015, 12:41:17 AM
I am not denying the Chinese connection. But seriously.... open the picture of your soviet-sino from the guide page and bring up a pic of a late NVA gun's serial and put them side by side. It's the same exact star.
The Star-1 is 2.5mm larger than the Tula star, and is located about an inch forward of the Tula star location.
Ok...so someone has checked that, lol. Good to know thumb1
Here are my three bolts that have the tool marks running front of bolt to rear of bolt.
TOP: 3mill /26\
MIDDLE: 11 mill /26\
BOTTOM: Russian
(http://i1254.photobucket.com/albums/hh618/smithdblueDannyboy53/Odds%20and%20ends/SKS%20bolts%20lightning%20cuts_zpsbr7vvso4.jpg)
Quote from: Dannyboy53 on October 18, 2015, 12:09:23 PM
Here are my three bolts that have the tool marks running front of bolt to rear of bolt.
TOP: 3mill /26\
MIDDLE: 11 mill /26\
BOTTOM: Russian
(http://i1254.photobucket.com/albums/hh618/smithdblueDannyboy53/Odds%20and%20ends/SKS%20bolts%20lightning%20cuts_zpsbr7vvso4.jpg)
He's looking for Chinese that go the other direction, Danny. He said it backwards, but he's looking for Chinese that start at rear and end at the front.
My opinion, yeah, I'm gonna throw a wrench into the works, the machine marks say and mean nothing, nada, zero, zilch....... :o Hold on to them panties for a second, and let me explain.....
Lets go outside the whole NVA/Chinese mumbo jumbo bla bla, outside the box, if you will.
Here we, well I have two carriers, one cut machined forward, one cut machined backwards
(http://i1016.photobucket.com/albums/af283/C13mechanic/Romanian%20sks/SAM_1890_zpsfggdakr2.jpg) (http://s1016.photobucket.com/user/C13mechanic/media/Romanian%20sks/SAM_1890_zpsfggdakr2.jpg.html)
Now, the issue is, one is a 1957 Romanian, the other a 1960 Romanian. Huh, Imagine that. Maybe the cut direction is based off the operators mood or was he a righty or a lefty. But apparently the machine cuts both ways at the operators will, given these are both machined at the Cugir factory. I'm sure there was no it has to be cut this way or that way, it just had to be cut, cause they said so.
I'm a certified machinist, and I'll throw my 2 cents in...
From a production standpoint, it makes sense to use whatever method produces more parts in a shorter time.
If you setup one bolt carrier in the mill, and then mill it from left to right and it's done, it would be a huge waste of time to have to move the cutter back to the starting point for the next part. It would make more sense to leave it where it is, and then cut the next part in the opposite direction.
Now, this also depends on if it was more important to have a good cut, or more important to just rough the material out. The cutter cuts different depending on direction.
Starting at the right, and cutting left, would be a conventional cut. That cuts fastest, and is good for roughing out material. Cutting from the left and cutting right, is called a climb cut. It is not good for roughing, but leaves a nicer finish.
Notice how the bolts that are cut right to left have a much more crude machine finish? That's a conventional cut.
Now, here's the thing.... these are not soft aluminum. These are hardend steel bolt carriers. There is NO way they'd have done a single pass climb cut on these - you'd burn out the cutter in a hurry taking out that much material on a climb cut.
So, im MY opinion, this is not a case of one direction vs the other direction. This is a case of some bolts just got a single rough pass right to left, and other bolts got a second pass back to the right. Now why is that the case? Well that's really the question being asked here.
And yet another wrench in the machine....This time Yugoslavian "B" and "C" M59s
(http://i1016.photobucket.com/albums/af283/C13mechanic/yugo%20charts/SAM_1899_zpsjnlwq6in.jpg) (http://s1016.photobucket.com/user/C13mechanic/media/yugo%20charts/SAM_1899_zpsjnlwq6in.jpg.html)
Proof milling machines have human dictated free will, do I go front to back or back to front, just like wiping ones backside. chuckles1
Thanks for all the pics and input on machining practices, folks. It makes it clear that the only consistency is 'inconsistency' - as long as the job gets done and the gun works.
With the advantage of having two specimens to examine closely, I was hoping to be able to highlight the similar machining features, which might help define a particular factory and/or time frame for production.
Everything still points to Jianshe, but alas, a year(s) of production is still not established. With the condition observation of Star-1 guns on the whole, my gut does tell me that they were built before the 62-65 time window.
Welp.. Further thinking.
The 58 3m had changed to side swivel mid year and had a narrow font stock #, but did not have the long finger groove in the stock.
The 59/60 letter guns are a mixed bunch (we dont know order of letters) of narrow font narrow groove, and wide font long groove.
1960 6m are wide font long groove.
I really hate putting any emphasise on the stock fonts because their usage is somewhat undefined and sporadic.
I've got to agree Matt! Are you aware of any hard data that people use to point to '62 through '65 being a year designator on these guns? I mean besides the "Look it says "62XXXX" right on the receiver, it must be made in 1962!" It very well might be that the year is indeed what it says, but these guns would be the absolute earliest "Chinese" guns to bear this style of dating, preceding the suspected 1970 '70' marked guns by a full 8 years and the known 1972 72-XXXXX S/N marked guns by 10!
The reason I ask is that the 70-76 prefixed Chinese guns typically have the prefix only on the receiver (with a few exceptions for some short 5 digit total length numbers) and the piece parts are marked with the 4 or 5 digit rolling S/N. These NVA marked guns have a full six digit S/N stamped throughout all parts. The final verified year of the Chinese doing this would have been with the 3 million series /26\ guns (1958). The letter prefix guns (1959 & perhaps 1960) obviously did this as well, but there is only a 5 character S/N on all the piece parts. The 6 mil /26\ guns (1961) show us that the Chinese adopted the 5 numeral S/N on piece parts and you don't see full S/N on non-receivers from then on until certain oddballs show up with the smaller arsenals in some 20+ million series.
In this respect, these NVAs have much more in common with the late 3 million /26\ and letter prefix series (1958 through 1960) than they do with the 6 through 10 million /26\ series (1961 through 1965). Everything I see collectively (S/Ns, QC stamps, feature sets, etc.) seems to point to much earlier manufacture than '62 through '65, but unfortunately there is still no individual smoking gun. Maybe one day we'll find it! thumb1
With the long finger groove on the nva.... I would think they have to be post 1958 because that feature showed up on the letter guns.
Unless anyone has seen an original nva stock with the narrow groove?
Quote from: Power Surge on October 18, 2015, 12:21:20 PM
He's looking for Chinese that go the other direction, Danny. He said it backwards, but he's looking for Chinese that start at rear and end at the front.
Oh...okay, yall know I'll be messed up for a day or two over this!! :o
Brain hurts.
Interesting stuff. Power Surge, I really appreciate the machining description. Pardon my naïve question (since my machining expertise is limited to knowing how to spell the word machinist) is the "circle" an indication of the starting point of the cutting tool or the end point?
martin08, you should buy a lottery ticket, having all 10 of the Chinese bolt carriers spanning many variations and years all end up with the same appearance is a 1 in 2^10 (1/1024) chance, so that is remarkable :o
Quote from: Phosphorus32 on October 20, 2015, 03:01:15 PM
Interesting stuff. Power Surge, I really appreciate the machining description. Pardon my naïve question (since my machining expertise is limited to knowing how to spell the word machinist) is the "circle" an indication of the starting point of the cutting tool or the end point?
martin08, you should buy a lottery ticket, having all 10 of the Chinese bolt carriers spanning many variations and years all end up with the same appearance is a 1 in 2^10 (1/1024) chance, so that is remarkable :o
It would be the end of the machining operation.
^^^^^^^
Hello Gentlemen -
I am glad to see the discussion regarding NVA SKSs is alive and well -
I've nothing to add - I had wanted to go to VN with my Father but could not make the trip -
It would of been an explortation trip as the goverment is still quite secretive about the past and present -
Best regards -
Saigon1965
Quote from: Loose}{Cannon on October 16, 2015, 01:12:16 PM
Didn't Saigon go to nam and planned to get some kinda proof of indigenous production of an exact copy of a chinese weapon using primative skills and zero history of prior weapons manufactur? He hasn't said a word about it since his return and it makes one wonder why..
Gotcha.. I could have sworn you went and came back. :-\
You might be thinking of Crazysquid LC:
On the prowl in Cambodia in Russian SKS - Page 2 of 2 (https://clone.sks-files.com/russian-sks/19/on-the-prowl-in-cambodia/561/msg13684#msg13684)
Nope