more likely that i am crazy, but have a look for yuhselfs.
See pics #2, #3, and #5:
https://www.tactical-life.com/firearms/chinese-type-sks-rifle-56-7-62x39mm-2/
Partial serials on the stock and carrier: 222419 on both. The really crappy part of receiver photo #3 is the "Tactical-life.com" water mark partially obscures the last three digits of the receiver serial. But what is visible looks to be 4222XXX and consistent with the stock and carrier.
(Full disclosure: Pics #4, and #9 are of a different gun (see the '30' on the pistol grip) which, I happen to own and which I am convinced is the the gun the author is referring to when he states," The serial number on the receiver had a “3” preceding the primary serial."
Here's a link to my rifle, the one in the photos with the all white background:
http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?621418-3mil-Type-56-Hold-out-from-the-Century-Arms-cache-From-quot-Arsenal-twenty-five-quot
Can't tell...
I think the rifle in question appeared in this issue:
(https://image.ibb.co/ioQCEb/Military_Surplus_2014_Cover.jpg) (https://imgbb.com/)
Anyone got a copy of it?
What issue,m
Date on the cover says 2014. Century facebook page has the photos of the rifle posted in March of 2014:
https://www.facebook.com/TacticalLife/photos/a.374563880235.201088.374380835235/10152285151000236/?type=3&theater
Online article was published September 13, 2013.
(http://preview.ibb.co/gYkOLG/sks_historical_top_10_2014_bolt.jpg) (http://ibb.co/bGPuSw)
It has what looks like an original stock, and its a bottom swivel. The side swivel came about in the 3m
Thanks for the un-obstructed photo. It looks like a '4'. But I'm guessing it more likely a light strike '3'. Just like the '3' on the second gun I linked in the OP.
http://forums.gunboards.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=1668010&d=1476891272
It can't be a 2 milas the S/N range is incorrect (in case anyone was thinking that, I know I was when I first saw it). I'd guess a 3, but damn that's a poor photo to try and determine what it is...
Has to be a six digit, 2 mil, 3 mil, (or 4 or 5). That style S/N on the bolt carrier and piece parts wasn't around terribly long...
Its a 3.... I blew it up and found its a very cool lighting anomaly. I'll highlight it and post it when I get home tomorrow if need be.
(http://preview.ibb.co/kJTSEb/IMG_20171207_002339.jpg) (http://ibb.co/cCNnEb)
(http://preview.ibb.co/cEuOnw/IMG_20171207_003014.jpg) (http://ibb.co/kp9CfG)
I hate to say it, but that sure does look like a 4 to me. Maybe we can reach out to the owner and get some better pics?
It would be interesting if it was. Remember, we found 16, 25, and 26 mil Jianshes, which were not believed to be made. It's possible there could have been a very small run of 4 mils before the Latin letter adoption took affect.
I guess... I would love to allocated the letter guns to one year. A 4 with that high of a count would be a full years worth.
But.... Its not a 4. :-X
3 million: 3025478 to 3227681... -------- 227k rifles
Quote from: Power Surge on December 07, 2017, 02:44:24 PM
It would be interesting if it was. Remember, we found 16, 25, and 26 mil Jianshes, which were not believed to be made. It's possible there could have been a very small run of 4 mils before the Latin letter adoption took affect.
Where is this 26m?
With a grand total of about 40 pixels in the photograph of the numeral in question taken from the wrong angle...it's pure speculation one way or the other but I would not call it a 4 unless a good clear picture shows up. As Carl Sagan said: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (not like this is a discovery of a wormhole in Evansville Indiana or something, but you get my drift). :))
Quote from: Loose}{Cannon on December 07, 2017, 03:10:51 PM
I guess... I would love to allocated the letter guns to one year. A 4 with that high of a count would be a full years worth.
But.... Its not a 4. :-X
3 million: 3025478 to 3227681... -------- 227k rifles
I'd like to see a 4 too, would clear up quite a bit of messiness, but I think the chances of it being a 4 are slim and falling.
For it to be a 4, there would need to be >222k of them made. The 3's started from 0, the letter guns all started from 0000's, odd that these 4's would either not start from 0's (continuing the 3's perhaps one could say....except the 3's ended at ~3,234k), or there would be 222k of them out there and this is the first one ever seen. Too much data doesn't jive for it to be a 4. I personally see a 3 when zoomed. dntknw1
Looking at the photo in the original size pic that LC grabbed off of Tactical Life, if the numeral in the hundreds place is a 4, then the numeral in the millions place is definitely not a 4.
Oh geez.... I did those closeup pics on my phone. Just got home and seen how bad it is..... on a regular pc you have to get outta the chair and get like 10 feet back. Then you see what I see. rofl
Yup... Im serious as a heart attack, I would love to find a 4 or 5.... its like spotting Sasquatch or Nessy. thumb1
The main thing here is.
The 4s and 5s have been looked for by countless collectors over many many years and not a single one has ever showed up. The other guns we have identified recently have production totals in the neighborhood of 20k and we have several examples documented while hardly anyone as been looking for them.
Quote from: Phosphorus32 on December 07, 2017, 05:41:22 PM
Looking at the photo in the original size pic that LC grabbed off of Tactical Life, if the numeral in the hundreds place is a 4, then the numeral in the millions place is definitely not a 4.
This.
In the original photo link in my OP, the watermark obsucres the 4 in the hundreds place. In the photo that LC posted without the water mark in the way, I'm with P32 -- the first number is definitely not a 4.
Quote from: Boris Badinov on December 08, 2017, 05:06:27 PM
Quote from: Phosphorus32 on December 07, 2017, 05:41:22 PM
Looking at the photo in the original size pic that LC grabbed off of Tactical Life, if the numeral in the hundreds place is a 4, then the numeral in the millions place is definitely not a 4.
This.
In the original photo link in my OP, the watermark obsucres the 4 in the hundreds place. In the photo that LC posted without the water mark in the way, I'm with P32 -- the first number is definitely not a 4.
Self admittance of being crazy ... I would suggest a shrink and a medication regimen. Maybe you should lay off the firearms too... thumb1
Quote from: Greasemonkey on December 08, 2017, 08:26:39 PM
Self admittance of being crazy ... I would suggest a shrink and a medication regimen. Maybe you should lay off the firearms too... thumb1
You sound just like my parole officer. :)
...
Also, I'm not saying it doesn't still look like a 4. It does.
But it doesn't look at all like the one number we know for certain to be a 4.
When in doubt... throw it out. :)
Quote from: Boris Badinov on December 08, 2017, 09:18:30 PM
Quote from: Greasemonkey on December 08, 2017, 08:26:39 PM
Self admittance of being crazy ... I would suggest a shrink and a medication regimen. Maybe you should lay off the firearms too... thumb1
You sound just like my parole officer. :)
...
Also, I'm not saying it doesn't still look like a 4. It does.
But it doesn't look at all like the one number we know for certain to be a 4.
Half a mason jar and I couldn't even see a 4... Sure it moved, swayed and blurred a little..but it still was just a 3 to me when it did manage to stay still rofl