In November, I picked up a Tula SKS off of Gunbroker, and from the photos on the listing, there was no way to tell what it was other than a Tula SKS.
Quote from: running-man on January 11, 2018, 02:56:26 PM
- 720242159 (http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=720242159) | Russian SKS 7.62 x 39 Great Condition | 10 | $595.00 | Uncertain | Uncertain | Refurbished | Good | ШH760 | Likely a '50.
I asked the seller for more photos, including the top cover, and all visible S/Ns to verify that they all matched. Upon receiving the photos, I knew I wanted this rifle. The top cover was marked 1949, with refurb markings. Based on a search of what other Tula SKS were going for, I decided to hit the BIN at $595, as there was what appeared to be a heated bidding battle brewing over it.
While I waited for the rifle to arrive at my FFL, I started to do a little research into it, and after talking to others on a couple of the SKS Facebook groups, as well as from looking at a few websites, this very easily could be a heavily refurbished 1949, or it could be a 1950 transitional SKS. It is lacking the looped takedown lever for the top cover, and it has the 45 degree gasblock, but I have read on various sources that those were two items that were sometimes replaced in refurb. The stock was replaced at refurb, and it retains its original early style bolt and carrier. The ferrule for the bayonet has been modified to fit a blade bayonet, instead of a cruciform. Beyond that, I've got nothing.
(http://preview.ibb.co/ncaQBH/IMG_6376.jpg) (http://ibb.co/e1MbJx)
(http://preview.ibb.co/dKzwJx/IMG_6379.jpg) (http://ibb.co/mAfgkc)
(http://preview.ibb.co/jGE7Qc/IMG_6382.jpg) (http://ibb.co/esAgkc)
(http://preview.ibb.co/eBgnQc/IMG_6381.jpg) (http://ibb.co/dd5E5c)
(http://preview.ibb.co/b9RnQc/IMG_6380.jpg) (http://ibb.co/jcydWH)
(http://preview.ibb.co/mtmnQc/IMG_6377.jpg) (http://ibb.co/ne3Z5c)
(http://preview.ibb.co/njmRJx/IMG_6386.jpg) (http://ibb.co/ju1FBH)
(http://preview.ibb.co/k4EDyx/IMG_6385.jpg) (http://ibb.co/mU7oWH)
(http://preview.ibb.co/mXHcQc/IMG_6389.jpg) (http://ibb.co/eCTj5c)
(http://preview.ibb.co/cwtHQc/IMG_6388.jpg) (http://ibb.co/hCFmJx)
(http://preview.ibb.co/by145c/IMG_6387.jpg) (http://ibb.co/gVoTWH)
A few dings against it being a true '49:
The receiver cover has a two line S/N instead of a single line:
(https://image.ibb.co/bDkpMH/P_2340_receiver_cover.jpg)
The receiver cover takedown lever is a late style, not the early hoop. In my experience, this is one of the least swapped out parts on any SKS45:
(https://image.ibb.co/kOmDgH/P_2340_receiver_cover_top.jpg)
Every single gun with a Ш<?> prefix in the survey has been either a verified '50 or a '50 cover with '50 features:
Ш А 1049
Ш Г 169
Ш Г 1058
Ш К 27
Ш К 37
Ш К 96
Ш К 1076
Ш Н 3113
Ш О 1237
Ш О 2219
Ш О 2419
Ш О 2659
Ш О 3136
Ш Я 125
Here is ШН3113 which looks quite a bit like your purchase feature-wise:
(https://image.ibb.co/eddtgH/H3113_receiver.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/hBTU5c/H3113_left_whole.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/dgEc8x/H3113_parts.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/njRDgH/H3113_receiver_cover.jpg)
Your gun likely has a replacement '49 cover on it. Not unusual to see the weld blob on the stock ferrule where the blade bayo V-groove is in a '50 either. All in all, you have quite a nice gun. thumb1
I have a 49 refurbished SKS similar to yours. Bolt is forced matched ( original S/N is slashed and new one engraved). Your stock ferrule probably was not modified for a blade. Ferrules for a spike were bottom pinned and blades were top pinned. Ferrules for a spike are slightly smaller to fit tapered spike stock although a regular stock could be shaved down to fit a smaller ferrule. But then you would also have to cut a V notch. Mine also has a 45 degree gas port. Stock ferrule and gas port were probably replaced at refurb. I found out a month ago how to safely move the stock ferrule. Out of curiosity, I moved ferrule to see if was bottom pinned also. Groove was only at top indicating the barrel may have been replaced also at refurb. unless 49s also came with a blade bayonet. And as with yours the latch cover lever is solid(no eyelet) but it is for the 49/50 receiver cover. S/N on mine is wo 3249. R-M, I will take some pictures and add to this post. My cover is 49 and has a refurb mark
.
https://ibb.co/album/fVeoVa
to RM:
Do all 1949 in your database have 'single-line' s/n on receiver cover? Thank you!
Quote from: running-man on February 04, 2018, 03:48:59 PM
All in all, you have quite a nice gun. thumb1
I am definitely pleased with it, and have no regrets spending what I spent on it. I've had it for two months now, and still have yet to toke it out and shoot it! Every time I have tried to go to the range it has either been raining heavily or something else has come up. Ill make it this month, though, thats for sure!
Krislhull - As you can see from the pictures that I posted and it being a 49 cover, there should be a very good chance that yours is also a refurbed 49. I know from experience that several proofs have to be made in order to prove that it is so.
QuoteEvery single gun with a Ш<?> prefix in the survey has been either a verified '50 or a '50 cover with '50 features:
Ш А 1049
Ш Г 169
Ш Г 1058
Ш К 27
Ш К 37
Ш К 96
Ш К 1076
Ш Н 3113
Ш О 1237
Ш О 2219
Ш О 2419
Ш О 2659
Ш О 3136
Ш Я 125
Quote from: pcke2000 on February 04, 2018, 05:00:24 PM
to RM:
Do all 1949 in your database have 'single-line' s/n on receiver cover? Thank you!
I have no records of '49 covers, without refurb markings or a blade bayonet that are dual line. That's one heck if a coincidence in my opinion.
One thing to think about: I believe there are so many '49 covers on 'closely related' '50 guns because of the commonality of the early reciver covers (that these covers actually fit properly w/o any modifications). '51 to '58 covers can go anywhere, but these early covers belong on early guns. You still see the occassional '49 cover on a later gun, but those are very rare.
For every carbine produced the S/Ns were the same. Now if the receiver and cover match, why replace it with a different cover? I cannot see why they would need to replace cover as it is the least worn out part. Enlighten me. Now as the latch pin being solid I don't know. I have a later 50 with stamped date and it still has a eyelet latch pin.
As I explained before. Large facilities would have no interest in keeping thousands of serialized parts together. Guns come in, get stripped down, dunked in a solution to remove bluing etc, fillet weld the old numbers, and re-blue. Poof..... New parts to make new guns with.
I know that in Canada they throw the magazines into bin and pin them to 5 rounds. And you sometimes or not get the same back (depending on importer). But I have not heard that at refurb, that they filet welded the S/Ns and then stamped the receiver cover to match receiver. Sounds like a make work project that would not be needed if cover was matching and not damaged.
I would say for the most part this appears to be a refurbed late 50, but the head scratcher is how the heck did a 49 cover mate up with a later takedown lever? I suppose you could easily drill out the hole on a 49 cover to allow for the larger pin, and then a tad on the hole on the receiver as well...but this would be a first seeing that for me.
I would like to see pics of the hole in the cover, and possibly measurements of the actual pin's diameter. It certainly wouldn't hurt to see the barrel/receiver joint for markings too.
The blobbed V ferrule is very indicative of the late 50 timeline, as is the 45 degree gas block. The only thing that makes zero sense is the 49 cover/late takedown lever.
I would chalk this one up to shenanigans during refurb vs. a component timeline candidate. I can only hope expect when I get my 45 degree Russian it is so...odd.
Justin Hell - I included a side pictures of receiver cover. And it does not look like it has been modified.
Quote from: jstin2 on February 04, 2018, 10:57:27 PM
I know that in Canada they throw the magazines into bin and pin them to 5 rounds. And you sometimes or not get the same back (depending on importer). But I have not heard that at refurb, that they filet welded the S/Ns and then stamped the receiver cover to match receiver. Sounds like a make work project that would not be needed if cover was matching and not damaged.
Good thing what I tell you isn't conjecture, we know they did this for a fact.
L-C, As I mentioned several times before, I am still learning more about the SKS. But in the same token, anything that is new should be debated and reviewed. Justin-Hell - I added some pictures to my album, ones that you had requested.
https://ibb.co/album/fVeoVa
Quote from: Justin Hell on February 05, 2018, 07:44:20 AM
I would say for the most part this appears to be a refurbed late 50, but the head scratcher is how the heck did a 49 cover mate up with a later takedown lever? I suppose you could easily drill out the hole on a 49 cover to allow for the larger pin, and then a tad on the hole on the receiver as well...but this would be a first seeing that for me.
I would like to see pics of the hole in the cover, and possibly measurements of the actual pin's diameter. It certainly wouldn't hurt to see the barrel/receiver joint for markings too.
The blobbed V ferrule is very indicative of the late 50 timeline, as is the 45 degree gas block. The only thing that makes zero sense is the 49 cover/late takedown lever.
I would chalk this one up to shenanigans during refurb vs. a component timeline candidate. I can only hope expect when I get my 45 degree Russian it is so...odd.
I will try and get some measurements later today, and will post a photo of the hole on the cover. Anyone know what the pin diameter should be for a 49/50 Tula? I will also compare the measurements I get to my Yugo M59/66 just in case.
Quotesame token, anything that is new should be debated and reviewed.
Of course.... So whats new?
Nothing wrong with these two components either, but yet they scrubbed the serials and installed them on a dif receiver at refurb.
Even a blind man can see the remnants of the process on these two, other times.... Not so much, if at all.
(http://preview.ibb.co/eBgnQc/IMG_6381.jpg)
(http://preview.ibb.co/jGE7Qc/IMG_6382.jpg)
Quote from: Loose}{Cannon on February 05, 2018, 12:52:02 PM
Nothing wrong with these two components either, but yet they scrubbed the serials and installed them on a dif receiver at refurb.
Even a blind man can see the remnants of the process on these two, other times.... Not so much, if at all.
(http://preview.ibb.co/eBgnQc/IMG_6381.jpg)
(http://preview.ibb.co/jGE7Qc/IMG_6382.jpg)
Dang, they had the 16 year old trainee working the grinder that day. No vodka ration for you Дмитрий! bat1
I just added a couple pictures of my trigger S/N for your inspection. It is quite odd that there are similar features between krislhull's carbine and mine. Dated receiver cover - 49, solid latch pin and early style cover, 45 degree port, blade bayonet and the first letter on S/N which is usually found on 50s. Also my trigger doesn't look scrubbed, but bolt carrier was.
I was just looking at survivor forum and there was a question about 2 recent 49s on gunbroker. One looks like 49 cover with 2 line S/N and refurb mark, 45 degree gas port, solid latch pin and blade bayonet. The other was similar but couldn't see S/N on cover and it looks like cover was partially scrubbed. Possible 2 more examples of krislhull and mine?? Now 49 or 50??
jstin2, I don't understand this fixation with '49 covers automatically making the gun a '49. All these guns have no other '49 features except for the early bolt which wasn't changed until '51. S/N analysis shows a strong trend of yours and the OP's Ш prefix both being '50s.
The CM2345 (https://www.gunbroker.com/item/734097440) on gunbroker has a long tab receiver cover lever. It also has this cousin in the survey:
Actual Year Prefix 1 Prefix 2 # Suffix Rec. Tula Star Refurb. Receiver Cover Year Stock Year Stock Type Refurb Stamp Refurb Stamp Location Gas Block Receiver Cover Latch Bayo Lug Receiver Type Gas Tube Latch Bayonet Importer
1950 С М 875 Heavy 1950 Refurb Hardwood Amber 1st GRAU / Balakleya Receiver Cover 45° Long Stamped Square Ear Solid Early Tall Tabbed Blade Matte CAI Unk
The ИK252's (https://www.gunbroker.com/item/736560956) receiver cover is ground so much as to almost be unreadable. It also has a cousin in the survey:
(https://image.ibb.co/fiPPdx/K946_receiver_cover_top.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/hXczBH/K946_receiver_cover.jpg)
Note the receiver takedown lever is a late hoop. The late hoops have not been observed on a '49 (yet) but have indeed been observed on a '50. These late hoops are incredibly rare, likely because the thinness of the metal at the bend caused them to break easily when the hoop was tugged with a tool. The long lug takedown levers quickly came about in early '50 and by mid '50 the standard short lug takedown lever was here to stay.
Quotejstin2, I don't understand this fixation with '49 covers automatically making the gun a '49
Or and refurb guns cover for that matter.
R-M - I see what you mean about the latch lever. When did they stop using a solid lever arm with eyelet and go to having it riveted? From what I could see 49 and early 50s had the solid arm attachment. From my limited collection, the solid arm with eyelet was being used when date was engraved. I have one that is date stamped and the arm is riveted but still has a eyelet hole. Also if the latch pin was damaged, what would refurb replace it with a stronger latch, as the eyelet holes are a week point? From what I can see, there were 3 different latch pins that could be used on 49/50 receiver cover. Eyelet with solid arm(no rivet) 1.52 mm, eyelet with solid arm(rivet) 1.17 mm and then the no eyelet with rivet.
Interesting, I didn't know about there being two types of eyelet latches.
Is the progression like this?
49 solid eyelet
early 50 stamped/riveted eyelet
earlyish 50 long stamped/riveted
late 50 short stamped/riveted
At least that nudges my 49/50 closer to being a 49.
I measured my solid eyelet shaft thickness vs. a Chinese I had loose and laying around...both actually have the same diameter, 5.5mm. The difference is the diameter of the retaining pin. I would measure those pins, but with only 11 rounds down the pipe since restoring it, mine is GONE...and the Chinese one never had it either. If one were to file down that pin to the correct diameter for the OP's cover, that would be all that is required to make that work. At this point, sans pin, I could put my loop on my Sporter....and this pinless Chinese would slip right on into my 49. For some reason, likely an optical illusion...the diameter seemed smaller to me....but they are the same. Running a file through the pin gap on the cover could also be done. ( I haven't checked out the photos you guys posted yet)
Perhaps during the lever hoopla going on in 50 they actually made some of the stamped levers with the smaller pin?
(If anyone sees a long nubbed FSB or a solid eyelet (with a pin) for sale anywhere, LMK)
Edit: I just saw jstin2's refurbed 49, and it indeed looks like it is a stamped lever with the small retaining pin. I didn't find krislhulls photos though....I am curious about his magazine though, does it NOT have the rivet for the spring post or is it just cut off in the photo? That would be neat to see an early 49 mag on a late 50 too!
Quote from: jstin2 on February 06, 2018, 04:25:10 PM
R-M - I see what you mean about the latch lever. When did they stop using a solid lever arm with eyelet and go to having it riveted? From what I could see 49 and early 50s had the solid arm attachment. From my limited collection, the solid arm with eyelet was being used when date was engraved. I have one that is date stamped and the arm is riveted but still has a eyelet hole. Also if the latch pin was damaged, what would refurb replace it with a stronger latch, as the eyelet holes are a week point? From what I can see, there were 3 different latch pins that could be used on 49/50 receiver cover. Eyelet with solid arm(no rivet) 1.52 mm, eyelet with solid arm(rivet) 1.17 mm and then the no eyelet with rivet.
Early to mid '50 is my best guess on when the changeover was made from early hoop (solid arm) to late hoop (riveted arm). If I'm reading the red text correctly and you have a late hoop on a gun, I'd very much like to see the gun and particularly detailed photos of the late hoop. As I said, these are incredibly rare and would very much like to get as much data on your specimen as possible.
I've never tracked the diameter of the cross pin, it makes sense that they would be different if there was a design change. It looks like there's a 0.013" difference in the diameter from the two pins you measured. That pin fits through the slot in the receiver cover, but it rests in a slot milled out in the receiver in the closed position (keeping the takedown lever pulled tight into the receiver while closed). I wonder if that slot changed width or position with the cross pin change? You would think it would have had to but it's not something I've ever measured.
Quote from: Justin Hell on February 07, 2018, 09:53:35 AM
Interesting, I didn't know about there being two types of eyelet latches.
Is the progression like this?
49 solid eyelet
early 50 stamped/riveted eyelet
earlyish 50 long stamped/riveted
late 50 short stamped/riveted
Justin, my understanding is:
'49 - Early Hoop
'50 - Early Hoop -> Late Hoop -> Long Tab Stamped -> Short Tab Stamped
'51 onward - Short Tab Stamped
These did get replaced, you see short tab stamped takedown levers on refurbished '49's with all other early features and matching prefix specimens with early hoop levers. I suspect they could get snagged on things and broken off or perhaps wear/spring out of shape resulting in a floppy lever that doesn't stay closed in the detent during firing. I know one of my Chinese Sinobanians has a takedown lever you have to pay special attention to as it has a tendency to work itself loose during the course of going through a full magazine.
The measurements that I gave were for the thickness of loop. Heading out, but will take pictures this afternoon.
Ahh, I was thinking it was the cross pins.
Kool beans! thumb1
R-M - I took some pictures and to help you out, I used a micrometer to take measurements. Early and middle are on my 50s and the later is on my 49 refurbed.
Pin Tab thickness Inside eyelet Outside tab Total arm length
Early - 2.01 1.62 5.08 8.93 25.30
Middle - 1.98 1.34 5.12 7.84 25.64
Late - 2.05 1.33 ---- 7.77 33.05
It was hard to measure the diameter of pin and take pictures, so measured and wrote it down.
Tab thickness is different from my first readings. On first set I used the blade of the calipers and second I used flat part.
https://ibb.co/album/imDMiv
Great stuff jstin2. Pin diameters are well within manufacturing tolerances. There is no reason this pin would cause any problems for any type of receiver cover - early or late.
The arm length is interesting. They must have wanted a bit more leverage or needed additional length for the bend in the short tabbed design. The fact that it fits into the '49's receiver detent tells me the detent locations are identical and the extra length is all in the tab.
I got some photos from jstin2 showing his late hoop takedown lever in excellent detail. I knew these were neat, but now that I get to see the nuances for the first time, they are simply awesome! (click on any photo to enlarge)
So here's a typical early hoop takedown lever:
(http://image.ibb.co/mo3hkc/P_2340_right_rear2.jpg)
(http://image.ibb.co/hv1DrH/AB1481_takedown_lever.jpg)
(http://image.ibb.co/j1nWdx/O_1037_chamber2.jpg)
(http://image.ibb.co/bKb2kc/P_413_receiver_cover_top3.jpg)
Now here's justin2's late takedown lever:
(http://image.ibb.co/hFG2kc/2005_takedown_lever2.jpg)
(http://image.ibb.co/iq4zWH/2005_right_rear.jpg)
(http://image.ibb.co/kKzBdx/2005_right_rear3.jpg)
They went from a forged lever that was either integral with the pin or at the very least welded and heavily ground to a lever stamped from sheet metal, bent in two different directions, and finally swaged onto the pin. This is a simpler method of fabrication.
When they decided to move on from the late hoop to the long tab and finally the short tab, they simplified even further, eliminating the pawl and replacing it with a dimple to fit the detent on the receiver. The whole stamping and bending operation could then be performed with a single die in one step and then easily swaged onto a pin.
(http://image.ibb.co/cxywdx/C_2535_right_rear.jpg)
(http://image.ibb.co/dyvL5c/CM4193_K_right_rear.jpg)
The extra length in in the long/short tab levers comes from the fact the dimple aligns to the same detent on the receiver, but this used to be the tip of the lever on the early and late hoop versions. Neat stuff! thumb1
Cool series of photos. Yeah that stamped lever with a big hole in it doesn't look like a weak point at all didnt do ::) :))
I've only seen the late hoops on И prefixed '50's. It will be interesting to see if any others turn up. I suspect the Russians realized they had made a design error pretty quickly based on the sudden appearance of the long tab levers. thumb1
So the real question is what is Jstin2 going to do now that his Russian SKS takedown lever collection is complete? chuckles1
Neat stuff, those late looped levers look so frail it is a miracle any survived...I also hadn't seen the long tabbed ones before either, those just look awkward. It's crazy how much change happened with those in such a short time. I really like the early looped ones best, both in looks and how they feel in use. It's too bad the machining process must have been ridiculous vs. the final design. It seems odd that the late loops seemed more complicated to make though.
I still would like to know the measurements on those tiny retaining pins though...and whether a replacement on a 49/50 with an early cover simply had a different size or different type of pin used. I thought about a pin shaped like a Battleship peg for that problem...but that sounds implausible. I can't help but try think about it until I can replace mine with something...the smallest roll pin I can find locally can't even substitute.
Right before posting I remembered seeing this the other day...it's a new aftermarket lever that is just crazy looking, and it comes with pin that looks like a Battleship peg. :)
https://www.ebay.com/itm/SKS-Rifle-RECEIVER-COVER-PIN-New-Part-BEST-BUY/282834905186?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&_trksid=p2055119.m1438.l2649
Justin Hell, until Running Man mentioned the latch pins, I didn't realize that there was a difference. It was only when I took carbines out of safe that I noticed and posted. Carbines are back in safe. Also you asked about pin diameter, I have them posted on reply #29.
:o have learned something , I didn't know they were made with a hole. thanks everyone. thumb1
Quote from: jstin2 on February 08, 2018, 09:10:20 PM
Justin Hell, until Running Man mentioned the latch pins, I didn't realize that there was a difference. It was only when I took carbines out of safe that I noticed and posted. Carbines are back in safe. Also you asked about pin diameter, I have them posted on reply #29.
I actually meant the length of the pins this time, since it seems that is the deciding factor on whether they will work with the early covers or not.
I was kidding around about your collection, and a little green with envy as I realize I will have as many Russians in the 49/50 era as Chinese by the time I get each variant seemingly possible. It might be a futile cause considering how infrequent Russians are let go by people around here. Now that the lever cat is out of the bag...I expect 50's to start becoming as sought after as 49s....maybe more so. This is fun. :)
Justin Hell - It is not only the length of pin but also the diameter of pin that makes it possible.
1950 pin length 6.95mm diameter 2.0mm
1952 pin length 7.30mm diameter 2.9mm
Now getting back to the original topic. I can now see why my carbine with a 49 cover could actually be a 50. I could see that at refurb they would replace stock ferrule, for a new stock and probably replace 90 degree gas port at same time and if eyelet latch was broken, replace it. Now as I mentioned earlier, I checked to see if barrel was bottom pinned for a spike but it was only had a top groove for a blade stock ferrule. So they didn't replace stock ferrule. Strike one. If at refurb they were going to replace 90 degree gas port, it would have to be done before the newer gas port came out (unless done in 50). Strike two. Original eyelet (49 and early 50) latch pins look pretty strong and doubt if they were damaged often and my 49 has the later 50 pin. Strike three. Serial number also takes into effect and I am out. Okay I am humbled, but there are a few iffy 49s out there with these features. And I can't see why they would change covers? And yes I know, nobody knows what went on at refurb.
Jstin2, in my experience, I have never been able to identify a gun with an obviously swapped gas block. Short of a barrel swap, I honestly can't think of a situation where one would be swapped. Having said that, I don't believe that I would ever call a gun with a 45 degree gas block a '49 regardless of the other features. We have documented examples of multiple identically configured '50's with the same prefixes with 90 degree gas blocks. If 49's with 45 degree blocks exist, one has to try to explain why the '50's with 90 degree blocks also exist.
I could very easily be wrong on this one, but until I see some hard evidence to contradict my view I think the simple explanation (Occam's Razor = swapped receiver covers which we have ample evidence actually occurred) is the null hypothesis.
As I mentioned in a earlier post, there are too many strikes against it for it to be an actual 49.
QuoteI have never been able to identify a gun with an obviously swapped gas block
Yup... I wouldn't expect to be able to. Its not like there would be any indications such as scrubbed numbers etc on a part like this.
Quote from: jstin2 on February 10, 2018, 07:28:06 AM
As I mentioned in a earlier post, there are too many strikes against it for it to be an actual 49.
Yeah, you and I got to the same conclusion, but I think the 45 degree gas port trumps anything else on these two guns. Of course, as has been mentioned numerous times before, with the refurb aspect who really knows for certain?! thumb1
I think that a lot more information has come to light on these early Russians with the data culled from Canadian imports vs. the tiny amounts that survive without bubba intervention here in the states.
It seems likely that a few component configurations existed concurrently or intermittently as parts were modified along the way. The 49/50 differences probably started late 49 and shuffled through 50's upsetting confusion in design changes. I think the differences we see between letter prefixes might prove to be priceless in determining what is likely to be original...it would be a hoot if we could figure out the entire Russian serial mystery with enough data from this mess of changes in a few months time.
Good stuff guys.
When we find 50's components on what otherwise would be considered 49's and that short period of time to have THOSE components to work with at rebuild, stock ferrules and gas blocks seem to be a major PITA...with the FSB in the way of all of it. The most likely components to need replacement would be gas blocks and barrels if horribly maintained. Later refurbs you would expect major scrubbing, and more than likely more modern replacement parts.
We should be able to narrow down a rough timeline based on the unlikelihood you will ever find:
A non chromed late gas block straight eared bayonet lugged FSB Or
a chromed early gas block angle eared bayonet FSB with a 45 degree gas block...
There has to be an order of this that even refurb wouldn't allow for.
If barrels were replaced, and barrel components were reused...shouldn't we find chrome barreled 49s with all/most original components? For that matter, non chromed barrels with late RSBs, late gas blocks, and straight eared FSBs to recycle perfectly good bayonets? Considering the Russians never used the SKS in any wartime situation enough for heavy wear, the refurb excuse for the mishmash of parts seems less likely to me than concurrent use until parts supplies were used up, heck...some of these design changes might have been test runs. (Latches seem quite likely to have been experiments.)
What seems likely to me is a concurrence of several overlaying parts changes that could have made for a sloppy mess for the 49/50s. I would find it amusing that the takedown latches might be key to isolating at least some of the changes, since there were so many latch changes in 50.
At the least, it seems like the bayonets may have run concurrently through the 49/50 border o' dates...and it seems that only pinless mags and same length cleaning rod nubs could be reliably dated to being 49 (and earlier). Everything else seems to be a bit of a shuffle between what was on hand at the time, and dated to a brief period of time (45 degree blocks for instance)....and what would make sense for even needing replacement in the time frame that could make for such confusing guns as we have recently seen in this era.
Many of us have owned a particular SKS for decades...of those, how many components have been actually worn out to the point of needing a totally new component? The amount and frequency of xxxxed out stock serials seem to indicate to me that refurbs often were done without real need for refurbishment. The same goes for scrubbed and reused components. It appears that varying degrees of refurb could happen across small to huge amounts of SKSs at any given point....the degree of care keeping original parts together seems to have a direct relationship to the degree they refurbed them.
The reasoning behind what components are serialed seem to be in direct contrast to why we consider them to be important. They would find parts that were good fit at refurb, assemble a gun and send it off to get matched. The matching likely was simply so groups could break down rifles together and still get the component conundrum solved with relative ease afterward.
I have seen modern video of Russian girls training with AKMs...and was fascinated by the degree of disassembly, and speed that they do it in. One of the first steps oddly enough is karate chopping the rear sight ladders off....WHY? Dunno, but they are serialed...so it matters not. It is the Russian way...seems completely insane to remove them...but they do it, and it friggin pisses me off the ease they do it with...despite how adorable it is seeing high school chicks taking down guns with Bruce Lee speed.
It seems to me that with this attitude, pretty much the only things that couldn't be humped from gun to gun were actually pinned in place are likely the only parts to be original to any barreled receiver. Beyond that...all bets are off on original. Brand new replacement parts could easily be stamped to match receivers, such as gas tubes, magazines...and even misdated covers. The point of serialling anything removable seems to be so that small gatherings of end users could service their weapons and not let the vodka impede on getting their slightly fit to perfection components back together.
Some great information could be culled from the gun murdering and chopping parts guys currently hard at work in Canada. You consistently see barrels offered for sale with no paint where barrel components were removed. This should indicate that barreled receivers were unlikely to be separated of their main components even under heavy refurb. Despite the small numbers manufactured in the early years, there to this day is no shortage of spike bayonets IN Russia. Refurbing to match a standard does not seem likely to me due to me not seeing (yet) one of these stripped barrels with both a top and bottom pin groove for supplanted stock ferrules to 'upgrade' to the blade standard.
Also, something to consider...we have seen actual factual pre 49 SKSs, with the Russian concept of refurbing...it would not shock me in the least since we just DO NOT see non refurb 49s...that the trial gun components between 45-48 ultimately ended up on 'production' guns in 49. I speculate that the spike bayonet was likely abandoned before 'full' production even began. There was no sense in wasting parts that hadn't even been used yet...so we end up with this partial year of 'production' that was 1949...and a whole bunch of tweaks in the upswing of production in late 49 into early 1950. By late 50, major design changes were essentially done...and the changes to come would be mostly minor and seemingly resource saving based. Heck, they even figured out how to make consistent stars on curves. :)
The inner politics of this era of Russian firearms should also be considered, in a few short years tremendous changes came. We go from the bolt action to the semi automatic to fully automatic in such a brief period the old guys must have been crapping their pants. The term conventional kind of went out the window in short order. Like going from a break barrel pellet gun to a bullpup almost overnight, the SKS seems to be the briefly made learning curve that the AK had already replaced before full production even began. The transition from wartime need for conservative ammunition supplies to post war infrastructure changing into a surplus machine also would change the mindset. These were new days, the SKS was just clinging a little more towards the old vs. the AK being the new wheel. The entire concept of ground war was changing post WWII, one man with a great weapon suddenly changes things from a mass affront method with bayonets brandished to a hiding behind something and taking out multitudes in short order...and living until the next day.
The SKS seems to be the perfect marriage betwixt practical and devastating. That is why I love the darn things so much.
Where the deer gun meets the oh, dear gun.
All hail Simonov.
Justin Hell, here is another example of somebody butchering a 49. 49 receiver cover, 90 degree gas block, early cover latch, bottom pinned stock ferrule(for spike). Now come the butchering, sanded later stock(not tapered), blade bayonet that doesn't seat properly. The stock was probably shaved off to fit smaller stock ferrule. Was on CGN today. Buyers should have more knowledge before buying. I know that when I bought my heavy refurbed 49, I just saw the 1949 date and bought. Now I know better. Live and learn.
Added pictures of spike and blade stocks where they fit into stock ferrule.
https://ibb.co/gJYOew
QuoteIt appears that varying degrees of refurb could happen across small to huge amounts of SKSs at any given point....the degree of care keeping original parts together seems to have a direct relationship to the degree they refurbed them.
Welp, now your just making too much darn sense. bat1
Sorry I have been absent from this thread for several days after I started it! I finally got the SKS to the range and it is a smooth shooter, almost better than my Yugo 59/66A1.
In all honesty, I really do not care about if it is a pure 49 or whatever. All I know is that the SKS I picked up is definitely an early version, with a few 49 features, but mainly made up of 50 features. I am happy with what I have, and I think I will refer to it as I have in the title: a Tula 1949/50 SKS, since it is made up of parts from both years.
Thanks for all of the input, and I am still going through all of the posts and processing everything. I still need to find my calipers and take measurements of the takedown pin and the hole in the top cover.