Ran across this one last night. Lots of good mis-information:
https://youtu.be/7jXEq2uP0B8
1950 (or possibly 1951-52)carbine with 1949 cover, scrubbed and re-stamped to match?
Ouch! I couldn't watch all of it. Too bad he can't get his video camera to focus on the serial number of the receiver cover, but the "2" looked to be very straight, like the font shown on this forum post, unlike the receiver SN. 45 degree gas block that to his credit he correctly identifies as the second type, yet he still insists it's a 1949 despite the wrong gas block and a clear refurb mark on the cover calling that into question.
I don't know enough about them to argue, but his claims of the year mark being "chiseled" in to the top cover made me laugh chuckles1. I, also, could not get through it.
The cover is authentic. But it's also the only part of the rifle that can be dated to 1949.
always enjoy vids on sks, thanks. 8)
On page 3, I have a post on 1950 transitions. It also has the transitions of the receiver cover latch pins. That being said, I looked back at some pictures of a 49 heavy refurbished that I had owned( R-M has pictures of it - collection -WO3249). It had matching S/N on receiver and receiver cover( engraved date and tula star). Bolt(spring loaded F/P) and carrier were forced matched. Blade bayonet(silver) and stock ferrule for a blade and a laminate stock. But in question, it also had a 45 degree gas port, short tab receiver cover latch pin, blade bayonet and my opinion before was that mine was not actually a 49 due to these 3 features. Now maybe one of the production lines was actually changing over? I am not saying that this sks is a 49 but if there are other rifles like this then maybe.
Quote from: jstin2 on November 26, 2019, 05:21:22 PM
I am not saying that this sks is a 49 but if there are other rifles like this then maybe.
If you pause the video at 5:26 you can see that the tab on the cover latch pin is the type3, short tab. This suggests that it is a late 1950 (or later) gun. The guide hole for the latch pin would have to have been machined to accommodate the larger nub on the latch pin
Left. Early design with the narrow channel for the nub.
Right. Later design with the wider channel to for the wider nub.
(https://i.ibb.co/HNJ4QTm/sks45-cover-latch-guide.jpg) (https://imgbb.com/)
Boris Badinov- This why I mentioned the latch pin transitions in previous post, but if you pause at 9:26 it looks like it has a narrow channel for the hub(early style). I don't have my 49 anymore and I didn't take a picture of this, so I can't check.
Quote from: jstin2 on November 26, 2019, 06:57:46 PM
Boris Badinov- This why I mentioned the latch pin transitions in previous post, but if you pause at 9:26 it looks like it has a narrow channel for the hub(early style). I don't have my 49 anymore and I didn't take a picture of this, so I can't check.
Here's a screen grab. The channel cut is angled like the late design, and not rounded like the early design. Wider than the early example in the photo above, though possibly narrower than the cut in the later example.
(https://i.ibb.co/GRJL5zV/sks45-cover-latch-guide2.jpg) (https://ibb.co/w4LXz5K)
You are right, screen grab does look like it is angled and not rounded.
Quote from: jstin2 on November 26, 2019, 07:30:39 PM
You are right, screen grab does look like it is angled and not rounded.
1949 D.O.M is not entirely out of the realm of possibilities. But it's got a
lot of strikes against.
It would be nice to see the all of the serials up close, in focus and in HD
Found another example of 49 with blade - On page 4 under 49/50 Tula SKS. Also I hadn't entered my 49 in my album but it was in this post. Here are pictures of it
https://ibb.co/album/fVeoVa
Notice short tab with early design with narrow channel for nub?
Quote from: jstin2 on November 26, 2019, 09:02:45 PM
Found another example of 49 with blade - On page 4 under 49/50 Tula SKS. Also I hadn't entered my 49 in my album but it was in this post. Here are pictures of it
https://ibb.co/album/fVeoVa
The serial font on the cover is markedly different than that of the receiver. Same with the trigger and magazine.
Strong indication of a 1950 with a 1949 replacement cover
This is the best shot of the cover serial that I could muster. Though blurry, the "Д" on the cover appears to be more robust whereas the "Д" on the receiver is slender. The other characters are too blurry to distinguish any differences.
(https://i.ibb.co/mcn3pTP/20191126-213049.jpg) (https://imgbb.com/)
In the 50 transitions, example #6 short tab. It has a wider channel and is angled. On my example with the short tab, it has a narrow and rounded channel. Now on the 49/50 post there was debate also about both being a 50 with a 49 cover. R-M had good points about this. Love those Ruskies and the debates that they cause. I also doubt that only one person stamped the entire rifle, multiple people with stamps that might have been slightly different due to use and strength of impact. Vodka may have had an effect on S/Ns.
That's an impressive collection of early transitional carbines you've stacked up btw.
(I also don't disagree that vodka may have played a part during repair, refurb and reassembly.)
I documented the the changes of the receiver cover latch pins in 1950. My question is where does the short tab with narrow rounded channel for the nub fits in?
https://ibb.co/album/d36tFa
If at the top you select oldest rather than most recent, it will show the progression.
My example of this is the short tab and narrow channel is
https://ibb.co/album/fVeoVa
I'd be leery about basing any progression off a sample size of one...and a heavy refurb at that. We don't know whether the receiver cover is original, the takedown latch is original, the takedown shaft and cross pin are original, or whether the Russians might have utilized NOS components that were lying around mid-build.
It would seem to me the progression would be from rounded narrow channel to squared wide channel with corresponding changes in the diameter of the cross pin pressed into the takedown lever shaft, but as we've seen in Chinese gun progression from bottom sling swivel to side swivel back to bottom swivel, things don't always progress in the orderly way you'd expect them to. dntknw1
As an aside, all guns with a second S/N digit of Я are either labeled as 1949 or 1950 in the database. I have no other years known for that letter in the second prefix. Not sure what that tell us beyond what we already know, but I believe that gun in the video to be a '50 since the verified '49s in the database have O and P prefixes and all have 90° gas blocks. Additionally, these '49's have a single line of text across the back of the receiver cover like this:
(https://i.ibb.co/HBF5Rq5/P-2340-receiver-cover.jpg)
I have guns in the database with '49 covers that are '50 guns as evidenced from sister gun examples (i.e. CЯ374 & CЯ1610 have a '50 cover and '50s features yet CЯ1927 looks like this):
(https://i.ibb.co/sgx07Jw/C-1927-receiver-cover-top2.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/QrJvvKJ/C-1927-receiver-cover.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/TRrtz83/C-1927-receiver.jpg)
Not hard to conclude that these guns received scrubbed '49 covers during refurb that were then restamped to match (with two line S/Ns and mismatching fonts)
There is a good chance that these were 50's that originally had the stamped eyelet latch. Due to their frailty, they probably broke frequently. At refurb it would be no problem to get a blank latch(short or long tab) and drill a hole for a small nub. Question is, why would they not put original receiver cover back on? Unless cover was damaged trying to remove pin.
Quote from: jstin2 on December 01, 2019, 01:32:02 PM
There is a good chance that these were 50's that originally had the stamped eyelet latch. Due to their frailty, they probably broke frequently. At refurb it would be no problem to get a blank latch(short or long tab) and drill a hole for a small nub. Question is, why would they not put original receiver cover back on? Unless cover was damaged trying to remove pin.
I've only ever seen the late loop takedown levers on guns with a И"_" prefix. I think the part was tough to stamp & bend within tolerances and they changed the design to something much more manufacturable after a very short and mostly unsuccessful run. You just don't see those late loop takedown levers on any other guns. It's the Edsel of the SKS world.
I think that question was answered long ago (on the Canadian boards oddly enough as a response to a majority of members over there taking the receiver cover at face value 100% of the time instead of looking at them with a skeptical eye): We know they scrubbed and swapped covers routinely pairing early parts with late guns and late parts with early guns. The why is generally unknown, but it happened quite often during refurbishment. The pin damaging the cover is pretty low down on my list of likely causes though.
Here's a '57 with a '49 cover:
(https://image.ibb.co/gk2sEK/AT1733-receiver.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/efxETe/AT1733-receiver-cover.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/kpnsEK/AT1733-receiver-cover-top.jpg)
Here's a 56 with a '49 cover:
(https://i.ibb.co/5k7z7Bv/T-6809-receiver.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/FYB67nC/T-6809-receiver-cover-mismatch.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/7R0Ph4d/T-6809-receive-R-cover-top-mismatch2.jpg)
Here's a '49 with a '53 cover:
(https://i.ibb.co/v1wpWgm/BM716-receiver-cover-top.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/M86C7vt/BM716-receiver-cover.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/NxctG71/BM716-receiver.jpg)
There is no way you can argue with facts along with pictures. I took a closer look at the sks shown in the 49/50 tula sks and it looks like the receiver cover has been scrubbed by the way it fits into the receiver. Also finish is different from receiver. Scrubbing the cover would remove a layer of the metal to eliminate the existing S/N. A flush fit with receiver would not be seen afterwards. If I still had mine, I would check it out. I did check that it was top pinned(moved stock ferrule), so it was not made for a spike bayonet. It has been shown that the 49's and very early 50's had 90 degree gas port, forged eyelet receiver cover latch pin and spike bayonet and bottom pinned stock ferrule (early 50 still in question about spike bayonet). Stock for a spike bayonet is different than a blade bayonet.
jstin2,
how is the stock for a spike bayo different than a blade bayo?
I have documented this before and will show this again. Also the stock ferrule is different, bottom pinned for spike. Spike left, blade right. I would also state that although arctic birch stock were used for the production of the sks, laminate stocks were made later to replace damaged stocks including ones with a spike bayonet(example of my 50 with spike).
https://ibb.co/gJYOew
I'm sorry, silly me. I was thinking about the difference in the HANDLE of a bayo.