Unicorn?
Riffing off the original subject of what eventually became the barrel-indexing numbers thread-- how common was barrel replacement during refurbishment?
If replacing barrels was a standard refurb operation for the SKS45, then we should see some evidence of 1949 and 50 guns with chrome lined replacement barrels. Right?
So...
Is there such a thing as an early sks45 with a replacement chrome lined barrel?
I have an early refurbed Sneak (1950 according to serial data, though possibly 1951). It has these features:
1. early bolt (matching)
2. early trigger design (matching)
3. 45degree gas block
4. NON-chrome bore.
5. Late style magazine (Indicating at least one refurb of 1953 or later)
6. Force match stock
7. Chinese receiver cover
The late style magazine is evidence of at least one refurb after Chrome lining was introduced -- why does it still have a NON-chrome barrel?
One answer might be that it was sent as aid to Albania before the barrel required replacement.
But, does anyone else here have any evidence of 1949-50 guns with chrome-lined replacement barrels?
I can't recall ever having encountered one.
Well i have 2 50's and a '53 that don't and a 56 that does. For whatever help that is.
In all my tire kicking i don't recall chrome bores on anything other than letter guns. Whether thats an actual thing or not i don't know.
I am sure somewhere a very early gun got refurbed very late in the sks lifespan, but theres refurbed and theres refurbed.
Quote from: newchi on December 13, 2017, 07:02:50 PM
Well i have 2 50's and a '53 that don't and a 56 that does.
1953? No chrome lining?
That does not compute. Chrome lined sks45's began some time in 1951.
Maybe it just needs a good cleaning?
What do you mean by early style magazine? If you mean the non pinned ones with the floating spring, I am pretty sure those vanished very quickly...possibly before blade bayonets happened.
I do kind of adhere to the thought that barrel replacements rarely happened at all. Especially if my 49/50 got a blade rework. All of the barrel components had modifications along the way to what became the 'standard' SKS. How quickly could they need to rebarrel an SKS? Where 3 out of 4 old style components would have to be rejoined?
Has a chrome lined 49s or early 50s ever been seen....at all? I would be interested to see if any are obviously rebarreled at all....with witness marks not lining up for instance. We shouldn't see any early RSBs on chromed barrels...should we? The FSBs on 49s are different by a tad as well...the pin placement for the rear pin is a millimeter or so off from even early 50s. I wonder how valuable my seemingly bayo lug free 49 FSB is? While refurbing my 49, I actually replaced mine with one with 'lightening' cuts, and later, after realizing how stupid that was...with one from an early 50. Neither matched up to my pin placement.
I am starting to think that the blade/spike transition actually happened in the few months of 49 that these were made. Mostly because you don't see hybrid barrel components. I probably am one of the only people that actually has worked on a 49...rebuilding one isn't something that happens very often. (Unless you work for Westrifle) I had to mod my barrel pin placement in order to pin down an early 50 FSB with a for sure early 50 FSB. There are too many PITA problems with changing these components around. The barrel indexing thread shows just how much of a PITA it is even to consider it....the top vs bottom pinned stock ferrules are what really gets my goat. That is why I suspect that the transition for bayonets actually happened in 1949.
Early Russians are so fascinating to me....I really want one with a 45 degree block. Anything later just doesn't get me excited enough to buy. I only hope that this thread brings new revelations to light...or will prove my assumptions that refurbing kind of stopped at the point of barrel replacement....they only made these things for a few years, then stopped altogether.....I have yet to kill a barrel....and I have tried.
I'll be the first to admit I've never seen one. Chrome vs. non chrome is impossible to tell with any photos I have. I'd say it's impossible to tell w/o having the gun in your hands or taking some guy on the internet's word. I will add that I also don't believe the rebarreling was something done often by the Russians. By the Chinese yes, but the type 56 was in service decades longer than the SKS45 ever was. Maybe the Russians didn't have much of a need to rebarrel? I wonder how much actual firing these things saw vs. how much they were used for drills, practicing teardowns, etc.?
Justin, this is what I'm referring to as early and late style magazine.
-mag 1949-1953. Gap below the locking lug (below pic left).
-mag 1953-1956. No gap (below pic right).
(http://image.ibb.co/mUix5R/P10901571280x720_1.jpg) (http://imgbb.com/)
Quote from: running-man on December 13, 2017, 09:05:41 PM
Chrome vs. non chrome is impossible to tell with any photos I have. I'd say it's impossible to tell w/o having the gun in your hands or taking some guy on the internet's word.
I've been under the impression that its pretty easy to tell (with the Soviet guns, at least) if the photos are decent enough. The Yugos are great for comparison.
Quote from: running-man on December 13, 2017, 09:05:41 PM
I will add that I also don't believe the rebarreling was something done often by the Russians.
I tend to believe this too.
Recently, I read several references to the Molot guns as "Molot re-barrels". Not sure where the term came about. But I see no incentive for Molot to index, space, and mount the rsb, ferrule, gas port and fsb on a new barrel for a rifle that will eventually sell for a measly $200-250CA ($150-190US) on the Canadian market.
ahh...mag wise, there were those two versions, but the 49s didn't have the stud for the mag spring...so it is a third. I only know of one available right now, but there is a guy on eBay with one severely overpriced...but Canadian bastardized in the worst way. The easy way to tell is if you don't see the tiny rivet on the bottom of the mag. I wonder how many springs were lost before this correction to the design was made. :)
For reference, the T63 started life with a milled receiver and a threaded barrel. The life of said chrome threaded barrel is stated as lasting 15,000 rounds. When they changed to a pinned barrel, that number was reduced to 10,000 rounds due to structural issues with chamber wall thickness AND the cross pin itself.
Reply #2
https://clone.sks-files.com/index.php?topic=713.0
I dunno how long the russians expected the non chrome barrels to last. Perhaps ask our new member from Slovenia as the Yugo barrels are not chromed and he may have a source to get this information.
Quote from: running-man on December 13, 2017, 09:05:41 PMI will add that I also don't believe the rebarreling was something done often by the Russians. Maybe the Russians didn't have much of a need to rebarrel? I wonder how much actual firing these things saw vs. how much they were used for drills, practicing teardowns, etc.?
I'm just spitballing here...
but how practical would it have been to rebarrel as a standard refurb practice given that the 45 had already been relegated to second and third line status with the AK going into production in the same year?
They must've dumped a S-ton of the 45's in the Eastern Bloc countries-- seems more plausible that they would send them 'as-is' -- after a cursory tune-up and refurb. New barrels not included.
Fwiw... The PLA had a 3/1 ratio of sks to ak in their squads
They used them in tandem, and used more sks. This isn't a matter of one replacing the other.
Its really not much different then a Marine squad. Each squad had (in my unit) 3 fire-teams, a 240 gunner, and a squad leader. Each fire team has a m249 gunner and everyone else were riflemen with the exception of one unlucky sob rifleman in the squad also got to carry a smaw, and another was designated as an assistant gunner to the 240. Squads can be bigger depending on how many fire-teams you add etc.
But the layout is similar.... Riflemen (sks), m249 gunner (ak), and 240 gunner (t56 light machine gun). They received ALL THREE types of 56 weapons from the Russians at the same time, and used them in tandem.
T56 light machine gun.
(https://www.collectorebooks.com/jamesauction/subguns/image1/34625.jpg)
I'm
Quote from: Loose}{Cannon on December 13, 2017, 10:25:14 PM
Fwiw... The PLA had a 3/1 ratio of sks to ak in their squads
They used them in tandem, and used more sks. This isn't a matter of one replacing the other.
I'm with you on that.
Not the same with the Soviets, though. They produced the m91 and 91/30 for 60years and the AK variants for 70years. The SKS at just over 8 years, seems to have been a stop gap. A placeholder that filled the bill while kinks and logistics of AK production were "stamped" out so to speak.
If they had already determined to ditch the SKS45 as a front line weapon when it went into production-- it seems impractical to spend the time and money on a rebarrel when it was far easier to tune it up and dump it into the moat of eastern bloc nations. Either that or crate em up and relegate them to 2nd, 3rd line defense storage.
n'est pas?
Again just spitballing.
Welp... How many rounds would the avg russian sks shoot in the 50s? I think not many when its likely life was 10 to 15 thousand rounds.
I dunno... Who has the figures on sks use vs ak, or if they were used in tandem like the chinese utilized them?
Quote from: Justin Hell on December 13, 2017, 09:58:06 PM
ahh...mag wise, there were those two versions, but the 49s didn't have the stud for the mag spring...so it is a third. I only know of one available right now, but there is a guy on eBay with one severely overpriced...but Canadian bastardized in the worst way. The easy way to tell is if you don't see the tiny rivet on the bottom of the mag. I wonder how many springs were lost before this correction to the design was made. :)
I also have never seen one of these in the wild, so I wonder if it even had a spring at all....it really isn't necessary, so it might have not even been included until later. If someone has/finds one of these...I am in the market, and I will pre-lube myself before seeing the price. Canadian modded ones need not apply, or I probably would have forked over $55 for the one on eBay. The mag in my 49 currently does not match either the 49 or the early 50 the rest of her parts came from. That wouldn't bug me so much if it was the correct one. Bleeding minutia will kill me someday. You should see how many differentish copies of KISS Alive! I have...its kinda pathetic. :)
Quote from: Boris Badinov on December 13, 2017, 10:56:09 PM
I'm Quote from: Loose}{Cannon on December 13, 2017, 10:25:14 PM
Fwiw... The PLA had a 3/1 ratio of sks to ak in their squads
They used them in tandem, and used more sks. This isn't a matter of one replacing the other.
I'm with you on that.
Not the same with the Soviets, though. They produced the m91 and 91/30 for 60years and the AK variants for 70years. The SKS at just over 8 years, seems to have been a stop gap. A placeholder that filled the bill while kinks and logistics of AK production were "stamped" out so to speak.
If they had already determined to ditch the SKS45 as a front line weapon when it went into production-- it seems impractical to spend the time and money on a rebarrel when it was far easier to tune it up and dump it into the moat of eastern bloc nations. Either that or crate em up and relegate them to 2nd, 3rd line defense storage.
No and yes.... while Izhevsk was the choice for Ak production, and the Ak was chosen for front line service... in 1948 Izhevsk was still producing the Mosin M44, somewhere right in there that ended. All the while the SKS45 was supposedly starting production at Tula. But...with the Ak.. it required a whole different tooling and set up... what’s the Mosin, it's totally machined, what’s the AVT, SVT, PTRS and SKS, totally machined.. probably about the only experience Russia had with stamped weapons was the PPSH, and that was a total different design and a pistol round, not a rifle round.
QuoteThere were many setbacks during early production. The first models had stamped sheet metal receivers. Difficulties were encountered in welding the guide and ejector rails, causing high rejection rates. Instead of halting production, a heavy machined receiver was substituted for the sheet metal receiver. This was a more costly process, but the use of machined receivers accelerated production as tooling and labor for the earlier Mosin-Nagant rifle's machined receiver were easily adapted. Partly because of these problems, the Soviets were not able to distribute large numbers of the new rifle to soldiers until 1956. During this time, production of the interim SKS rifle continued.
http://www.mouseguns.com/ak47info/ak47info.htm
So... technically the SKS was a stop gap weapon.. stamped weapons in theory are quick and easy..but it took a quite a while to figure production out. This is why Russian machined receivers popped up for a while. Ak production still happened but at a very slow pace, they were machining them, not stamping. Also, this is why there are about a half dozen Russian Ak receiver types.
So...somewhere in those years, I'm sure the SKS was used, trained with, shot heavily. What else would they use.. they threw states money and labor at production of these smaller caliber weapons. They just didn't sit on their hands for 6 or 7 years, military life, unknown to us conflicts, wiping out WWII POWs', prisoners in Gulags, life went on.. You really cant expect a man or military to practice with obsolete hardware like the Mosin M-44/M91-30, then hand him a Ak and expect him to be proficient in combat. And the early "actually" working, functional Ak examples I would imagine would go to special forces, elite or higher echelon troops, until supply was enough to support the normal poboy infantry. Then given the size of their military and distribution across that huge country then took a even more time.
As for chrome plated barrels, the easiest way, try to blue the inside of the barrel or chamber... bluing won't stick to chrome and it leaves no issues with firing later. If they were using a hard chrome process...thats some dull crappy looking stuff, like the bayonets, it doesn't even hardly resemble chrome. I'm sure they experimented with that as well.
Quote from: Boris Badinov on December 13, 2017, 07:17:52 PM
1953? No chrome lining?
That does not compute. Chrome lined sks45's began some time in 1951.
Maybe it just needs a good cleaning?
Well, i havent actually shot that one ever so maybe.
Soviet military didn't completely phased out use of SKS until the end of 1980s.
Quote from: pcke2000 on December 15, 2017, 11:57:06 PM
Soviet military didn't completely phased out use of SKS until the end of 1980s.
True.
But the introduction of the stamped receiver AKM in 1958 signaled the obseletion of the SKS. Conspicuously, the same year that SKS45 production ended.
Even the production of the milled receiver AK's had been thoroghly optimized by the mid-1950's. Certainly by the late 50's the Soviets would have already had an ample stockpile of AK's to begin replacement of the SKS45. And though the SKS may have remained "in service" until 1980, what reason would the Soviets have for issuing (let alone rebarreling) the SKS45 as a main battle rifle after 1959-60?
The period between the end of WW2 and the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan in December of 1979 was a relatively eneventful stretch for the Soviet Red Army.
-Intervention in Hungary, 1956: 6 days
-Intervention in Czechoslovakia, 1968: 2 days
-Contested border standoff with Chinese Red Army, 1969: 7months- total casualties of both sides was fewer than 1000-- not a hot war really, and more like a luke warm skirmish.
By the very early 1960's, the Soviets would have more than enough AKs to supply the small force sizes involved in these conflicts. Even in the 1956 action Hungary.
If the sks was so outdated at the very time of its indoctrination..... why they make so many and for nearly 10 years?
Before any speculation, I still have not seen any evidence Russia did NOT use the AK and SKS in the same fashion as the Chinese..... in tandem.
And the evidence that they did issue the SKS and AK in the 'same fashion' as the Chinese throughout the 1960's and 1970's is...?
?
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17/marlon1985/ss04.jpg)
I think the 1958 end of SKS production is a pretty significant indication of the Soviet intentions regarding the SKS.
Quote from: Loose}{Cannon on December 16, 2017, 10:58:45 AM
?
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17/marlon1985/ss04.jpg)
Gonna need some context for the photo. Photo of from what date?
Is he soviet? East German? Polish? Hungarian?
An Albanian with a Type56?
Also how does this demonstrate the "same fashion" as the Chinese?
I dont have any context for the photo, but it looks 1960s Russian uniform to me! rofl
Quote from: Loose}{Cannon on December 16, 2017, 11:06:42 AM
I dont have any context for the photo, but it looks 1960s Russian uniform to me! rofl
Hmmm, looks Hungarian to me.
Especially the moustache.
Moustache not typical for Soviet recruits, yes?
Maybe even yugoslavian with an M59, but soviet seems very unikely...because of the moustach.
I'm sticking with the 1958 end of production being the most significant eveidence of Soviet intentions regarding the SKS. Coupled with the introduction of full production stamped receiver AKM in 1959.
The dates speak volumes.
Ok, ok... Russians didnt use the sks.
QuoteBy the very early 1960's, the Soviets would have more than enough AKs to supply the small force sizes involved in these conflicts. Even in the 1956 action Hungary.
dntknw1
(https://pp.userapi.com/c626421/v626421761/457c4/1nVTZXyKJDs.jpg)
Looking for post 1960 evidence of AK and SKS supplied and implemented in the "same fashion" as the Chinese.
Active production of a weapon implies the intention to dedicate resources to the upkeep of that weapon while still in service. The 1958 end of SKS45 production carries the implicit suggestion that the soviest had no such intention.
Im sure they had the intention of up-keeping the 45s they made post 1958.
A few places Russia might have been involved possibly not in an official capacity in the late 50's early 60's...in an unofficial capacity meaning weapons were secretly supplied by the Soviets.
The Bay of Pigs conflict, building Fidel Castro up, I bet Cuba is full of Russian goodness.... I mean there were Soviet ballistic missiles there, why not SKSs... also the Guatemala and Nicaraguan conflicts, mostly anything in East Germany.. The first Indochina Wars, even diddling around with North Korea... maybe a few others...any where Russia had an interest, but the underground supply lines and plausible deniablity will prevent the proof of involvement from ever showing.. It was the Cold War, everything was super secret, there might even been conflicts we don't know about or that were blamed on someone else.
Russia I bet built and supplied alot of obsolete hardware to tiny places possibly like Cuba and places in Africa or the Middle East, at least until their own weapon supplies caught up or they just supplied the technical info to nations who had the capability of arms production like Romania and China or even North Korea.
It will be hard to track and prove bonafied SKS use without photos, photographers of the time wanted the wicked cut a man in half, scary weapons, they didn't want a bland semiauto rifle.. no one cared about it, no one really feared it during that time, the SKS pretty much took hind tit and was over shadowed by the Ak, because it was unknown and scary at the time. 98% of photos of any over seas conflict..the Ak is front and center, even today in the Middle East... when terrorist are shown..whats the weapon..the Ak.
Cuba loves some SKSs.... Bet they are Russian.. Can't be from the Havana arsenal...no room for a cigar on the side... rofl2
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/3a/6b/0b/3a6b0bc0e99f448b499bf0c939677f04--aviators-armed-forces.jpg)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/9c/b6/22/9cb6221127180057774979af5ac32c9f.jpg)
Quote from: Loose}{Cannon on December 16, 2017, 12:15:17 PM
Im sure they had the intention of up-keeping the 45s they made post 1958.
I don't doubt it.
But upkeep and re-barreling are two entirely different things. (rebarreling being the operation that I doubt occurred commonly or at all.
Probably not. I doubt they were shot 10k+ rounds. Mystery solved?
So.. how do we know that they didn't plan on it. If they knew what barrel was installed and say.... someone went stupid during the Cuban Missile Crisis and WWIII happenend, they already had a contengency plan for quick complete rebuilds already in place. The stakes due to the nuclear age were now higher than during WWI and WWII.
One would always plan on the unexpected, it's being prepared for a worst case scenario. If nukes took out the main weapon factory's, smaller fuctioning shops could pick the slack up and rebuild them reusing receivers already made with little difficulty.
Maybe I'm wrong.. but always having a Plan B and a Plan C, maybe even a Plan D for weapons availibility and service during war makes sense. This was pretty much proven it would work by the last experiment.. if you could produce the barrels or had access to new, it's a simple swap over.
Quote from: Loose}{Cannon on December 16, 2017, 05:07:34 PM
Probably not. I doubt they were shot 10k+ rounds. Mystery solved?
I don't know.
This was the question I was asking when I posted the "Re: Soviet Re-arsenal re-barreling" that ended up in the indexing revelations.
But that thread branched into the indexing revelations and the initial inquiry seeemed to have been left with a consensus that rebarreling was a fairly simple process and probably a common practice during refurb.
(tbh, in my earliest replies this morning, i thought that was the thread I was responding to.)
Here's the thing...
When Russia was making these things, the mind-set of the cold-war and the unforeseeable future would lend them reason to have the ability to swap barrels at will to keep these carbines serviceable if the need arise. thumb1
Quote from: Loose}{Cannon on December 16, 2017, 08:01:13 PM
Here's the thing...
When Russia was making these things, the mind-set of the cold-war and the unforeseeable future would lend them reason to have the ability to swap barrels at will to keep these carbines serviceable if the need arise. thumb1
So the answers are "probably" and "probably not". ?
As it reads, it appears you've offered both responses.
Bingo...
Not sure whats so complicated about it. Did they rebarrel on a mass scale... probably not because 99% of them likely never reached the threshold requiring replacement, even the non chromed bores. Did they have the capability and capacity to design the carbine to easily receive a new barrel if need-be..... you darn skippy.