Auction just ended, anyone here got it?
https://www.proxibid.com/asp/LotDetail.asp?lid=55192431&campaign=WatchedReminder_LS_Button&utm_source=proxibid.com&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=WatchedReminder_LS_Button
Not bad really, $750/rifle. Considering what the '49 would probably bring by itself. I think there is another thread on this and that P32 was bidding on it.
$3450 cash price at RIA (not through Proxibid); plus your local state tax that RIA collects; about $200 in shipping, materials, labor; and finally transfer fees for 3 of the 4 that are not C&R (that adds $48 per semiautomatic rifle for me in WA).
I left a sealed bid of $2750, which was my predetermined pain point. I’m okay with missing it since I only really wanted the ‘49, and all those other fees would have brought my total expenses up to at least $4100 at the $3000 bid. That’s $2600 for the refurbished ‘49 and $500 each for the other three. To win I would have had to go to at least the next increment of $3500, which adds $625 (bp and tax) to the calculation above, and that puts me into North Korean territory for a bbq ‘49...ouch!
Wow. Even in the pre-Covid market that final bid (even with the associated fees) would've been phenomenal deal. In the current market...
I really hope it shows up in one of the forums.
The auction's listed serial number is: YUV837. Transliterated that would be юв . RM's database lists 6 known carbines with that serial number-- 3 of unknown date and the other 3 are 1950 d.o.m. with 45° gas ports.
The receiver cover take down lever on the 1949 seems incorrect though.
I tried to bid but it jumped so quick it kicked me and poof $3K. I decided to watch at that point. I've was watching that group for about a month.
I have to agree with pcke2000 about the receiver cover take down lever. I thought that it looked different but when pcke2000 mentioned it, then I took a closer look. On a forged lever the eyelet is parallel with the pin. This lever could be the stamped eyelet. Also the spike bayonet is not seated in stock the way it should be. Maybe weak spring?
It would have been better if more pictures were included in sale.
For posterity, here are some pics captured from RIA's website:
(https://i.ibb.co/3mFC1LH/49-Tula-Yu-V837-Left-Bayo.png) (https://ibb.co/hFdmstv)
(https://i.ibb.co/d7Fw9qQ/49-Tula-Yu-V837-Left-Full.png) (https://ibb.co/XV1rBgz)
(https://i.ibb.co/StZ3SX4/49-Tula-Yu-V837-Right-Bayo.png) (https://ibb.co/YcVLg7F)
(https://i.ibb.co/pvwyHB0/49-Tula-Yu-V837-Right-Full.png) (https://ibb.co/XZL8nr2)
(https://i.ibb.co/WngCNc6/49-Tula-Yu-V837-Right-Rec-Latch.png) (https://ibb.co/dBGZsQr)
Phosphorus32 - thanks for the pictures. It does clear up about receiver cover take down lever. It is a stamped eyelet. Now we know that 49 and early 50's had a forged eyelet lever. Now the question is if the stamped eyelet was transitioned on some carbines in 49 or is it a replacement?
That is a faked bayonet. It's an M44/T53 milled to fit a straight eared collar...ask me how I know. :P
There should not be the visible air betwixt the collar and the bayonet. A real Russian SKS spike has a bit of a heel that closes that gap and is slightly visible when installed.
It DOES however have the correct stock retaining ferrule....and it's sexy bottomed pinned self. That shows it's a 49...or earlier.
The stock may be correct...those things generally look so funky it's hard to say if it was whittled down.
The reason the bayonet doesn't close the gap could be due to a modified regular hardwood stock....something about the grip area seems a bit off.....but like I said, they are generally funky.
That is certainly one of those later loop takedown levers...which isn't correct, but at refurb might have been WHAT they made for refurbs with the early RC differences...when they were more populous in the general fray of what they had. A stamped version would be easier, and identifiable for the guy at the bench. (speculatin'). :)
The only way to tell if the stock is original or carefully milled down is to look at the end of stock and bayonet channel.
https://ibb.co/gJYOew
Quote from: Justin Hell on October 10, 2020, 09:10:20 PM
That is a faked bayonet. It's an M44/T53 milled to fit a straight eared collar...ask me how I know. :P
There should not be the visible air betwixt the collar and the bayonet. A real Russian SKS spike has a bit of a heel that closes that gap and is slightly visible when installed.
It DOES however have the correct stock retaining ferrule....and it's sexy bottomed pinned self. That shows it's a 49...or earlier.
The stock may be correct...those things generally look so funky it's hard to say if it was whittled down.
The reason the bayonet doesn't close the gap could be due to a modified regular hardwood stock....something about the grip area seems a bit off.....but like I said, they are generally funky.
That is certainly one of those later loop takedown levers...which isn't correct, but at refurb might have been WHAT they made for refurbs with the early RC differences...when they were more populous in the general fray of what they had. A stamped version would be easier, and identifiable for the guy at the bench. (speculatin'). :)
Justin Hell, you are a true genius! You are right, it is not a real 1949 SKS cruciform. It's shame that I didn't notice it, even though I do have a 1949 with a correct cruciform bayonet. For those do not know what we are talking about, please take a look at the cruciform bayonets on the following websites:
(1) https://www.yooperj.com/SKS-27.htm
(2) a real 1949 bayonet being sold on a Russian auction site:
https://meshok.net/item/210460156_%D0%A8%D1%82%D1%8B%D0%BA_%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D0%BA_%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%83_%D0%A1%D0%9A%D0%A1_%D0%BF%D1%80_%D0%B2%D0%B0_%D0%A1%D0%A1%D0%A1%D0%A0
Aww, shucks....genius likely not, observant...scary sometimes.
For example. Look closely at the 90 degree block on this....I have never seen this before, but am I crazy seeing a divot in the bottom for the cleaning rod?
Could this be how one could tell a 49 from an early 50? The stock ferrule is smaller for the no contact bayonet of course, but it seems like the gas block might have been let in for the rod too? I don't think I have seen photos of one of these at that angle...I checked my early 50, I don't have that.
All involved in actually owning one...please check! :)
You can also see which SKS stock Ram-line based their Conventional stock on with this '49.
Quote from: Greatguns on October 10, 2020, 11:22:55 PM
You can also see which SKS stock Ram-line based their Conventional stock on with this '49.
Yeah, but look inside! They are labeled SKS 1950! rofl
I am way,
way...too observant.
Quote from: Justin Hell on October 10, 2020, 11:16:05 PM
Aww, shucks....genius likely not, observant...scary sometimes.
For example. Look closely at the 90 degree block on this....I have never seen this before, but am I crazy seeing a divot in the bottom for the cleaning rod?
Could this be how one could tell a 49 from an early 50? The stock ferrule is smaller for the no contact bayonet of course, but it seems like the gas block might have been let in for the rod too? I don't think I have seen photos of one of these at that angle...I checked my early 50, I don't have that.
All involved in actually owning one...please check! :)
Wow!!! You are not crazy, I now see it too. I haven't seen this type of gas block either. Unfortunately I am away from my 1949 now, cannot check it. I will check my early 1950 later to see if it has it.
I checked my 50 with spike and there is no divot.
https://ibb.co/PTyryvB
Quote from: jstin2 on October 11, 2020, 06:52:10 AM
I checked my 50 with spike and there is no divot.
https://ibb.co/PTyryvB
That's even more intriguing actually. I didn't think of the 50 spikers...perhaps it's a 49 & earlier trait....and not as much to do with whether there is a spike on it or not vs. reducing machining time. Does the cleaning rod make contact with the gas block on your 50?
These pictures are from my album.
https://ibb.co/0D8PbqF
https://ibb.co/QDzrZLS
There is a possibility that there was a rattle during shooting and owner thought of grinding divot. With the bayonet not fitting properly, it may have left the cleaning rod loose and thus causing rattling. Looking at picture, it may be the opposite, maybe it was forcing it up too much. This may be the case if there are no other gas ports like this on record.
I just checked the Russian serial database, it shows the prefix letters on this gun to be known on a few 50s, and then a few uncertain ones, that came with 51 covers....
It sure would be nice to see all the serials on this one.
It kinda makes no sense if the gas block anomaly is a previously unseen trait, AND it has the correct bottom pinned ferrule... It makes me wonder if all the ones in the database WERE 49s with the wrong cover? I am fairly certain that this takedown lever has to be from refurb.
юв 1949? shown here
юR 1950 seen on 'known' 50 carrier I am considering purchasing.
Could this be the December 49 / January 50 crossover? think1
ю is also a known first letter on ‘49s. The first letter is a almost certainly a month code. The Soviets progressed through the alphabet but didn’t use the same letters every year, therefore ю will always be a late in the year production for the years where that letter is used.
Here are all the photos I have of other guns with a Ю prefix in the area of interest. This prefix was used through 1952 according to the database.
Not sure much can be gleaned from these, they are not the best for what we want to see. A photo of the bottom of the gas tube with the bayo extended would be ideal but we certainly don't have anything like that with these.
'49 ЮB348 (West Rifle gun):
(https://i.ibb.co/nQTccRN/B348-right-whole-WR.jpg)
'49 ЮП1084 (decommissioned in Russia):
(https://i.ibb.co/9rPJfYX/1084-right-whole.jpg)
Unknown year (has a '52 cover on it) ЮП203:
(https://i.ibb.co/wQ9LR1R/203-right-front.jpg)
'50 ЮK2584:
(https://i.ibb.co/VxsHHJB/K2584-right-whole.jpg)
'50 ЮH1131:
(https://i.ibb.co/TM4TSkK/H1131-right-whole.jpg)
'50 ЮЮ1345:
(https://i.ibb.co/WD1ZFtj/1345-right-whole.jpg)
'50 ЮЮ1090:
(https://i.ibb.co/1bttqgy/1090-left-whole2.jpg)
'50 ЮЮ1076:
(https://i.ibb.co/JdTRgf2/1076-left-whole.jpg)
'50 ЮГ2022:
(https://i.ibb.co/SXNtfFz/2022-right-whole.jpg)
'50 ЮГ1756:
(https://i.ibb.co/6vXqHpZ/1756-receiver.jpg)
'50 ЮP2056:
(https://i.ibb.co/MMLrvqX/P2056-right-whole2.jpg)
'50 ЮP278:
(https://i.ibb.co/fk1Gk5L/P278-right-while.jpg)
'50 ЮB2908:
(https://i.ibb.co/0nWnYwT/B2908-left-front.jpg)
'50 ЮB2848:
(https://i.ibb.co/89C291r/B2848-right-front.jpg)
Finally, here are known transitional 50's not of prefix Ю:
CO2934:
(https://i.ibb.co/q0Zwbmk/CO2934-left-front2.jpg)
EM923:
(https://i.ibb.co/r7cVNx9/EM923-right-front.jpg)
EB623:
(https://i.ibb.co/kQmRKjS/EB623-right-whole.jpg)
EB538:
(https://i.ibb.co/fSdbXF8/EB538-right-front2.jpg)
EБ194:
(https://i.ibb.co/pZKgpZf/E-194-right-gas-block.jpg)
and finally EБ485:
(https://i.ibb.co/jLLtGLr/E-485-right-gas-block.jpg)
Quote from: Justin Hell on October 11, 2020, 11:23:48 AM
I just checked the Russian serial database, it shows the prefix letters on this gun to be known on a few 50s, and then a few uncertain ones, that came with 51 covers....
It sure would be nice to see all the serials on this one.
It kinda makes no sense if the gas block anomaly is a previously unseen trait, AND it has the correct bottom pinned ferrule... It makes me wonder if all the ones in the database WERE 49s with the wrong cover? I am fairly certain that this takedown lever has to be from refurb.
юв 1949? shown here
юR 1950 seen on 'known' 50 carrier I am considering purchasing.
Could this be the December 49 / January 50 crossover? think1
There are six
юв prefix serials in the data base.
OF those six rifles, five have 45° gas ports and the sixth gas port one is as
uncertain
Quote from: Boris Badinov on October 13, 2020, 01:09:14 PM
Quote from: Justin Hell on October 11, 2020, 11:23:48 AM
I just checked the Russian serial database, it shows the prefix letters on this gun to be known on a few 50s, and then a few uncertain ones, that came with 51 covers....
It sure would be nice to see all the serials on this one.
It kinda makes no sense if the gas block anomaly is a previously unseen trait, AND it has the correct bottom pinned ferrule... It makes me wonder if all the ones in the database WERE 49s with the wrong cover? I am fairly certain that this takedown lever has to be from refurb.
юв 1949? shown here
юR 1950 seen on 'known' 50 carrier I am considering purchasing.
Could this be the December 49 / January 50 crossover? think1
There are six юв prefix serials in the data base.
OF those six rifles, five have 45° gas ports and the sixth gas port one is as uncertain
Perhaps then, this carbine is constructed from parts added to a 50. Maybe that's why there is a strange 90 degree block nobody has seen before with the cleaning rod divot...could it have been fabricated altogether? The real kicker is the correct bottom pinned stock ferrule though... Something besides the bayonet possibly isn't right. It could be as simple as someone pulled a populated 49 barrel and put it on a 50 serialed gun. We don't get to see the RC serial or the stock for that matter...
It would be a major pain to locate a 50 with the correct index to pull it off, but not impossible....especially if it actually happened in Russia. Since the takedown lever is obviously from a refurb, it's likely that if any weirdness happened, it likely was during a refurb. I doubt though, the bayonet was done anywhere but here.
It is certainly a headscratcher. :)
Quote from: Boris Badinov on October 13, 2020, 01:09:14 PM
There are six юв prefix serials in the data base.
OF those six rifles, five have 45° gas ports and the sixth gas port one is as uncertain
The reason I have the sixth as uncertain is that I only have two photos of it. (Edit I did some google-fu and found a few other low-res photos that still exist [barely] of it, 45° gas block) (ЮВ3009):
(https://i.ibb.co/thw4293/B3009-receiver.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/KV7WBj6/B3009-stock.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/3CVBvJ9/B3009-left-front.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/VB6h7px/B3009-left-whole.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/TRRKLF3/B3009-receiver-cover-top.jpg)
For the other ones:
(ЮВ2848 gas block seen above):
(https://i.ibb.co/89C291r/B2848-right-front.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/5LzXFy3/B2848-receiver-cover-top.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/vvyqnPr/B2848-receiver-cover.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/vvyqnPr/B2848-receiver-cover.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/m4WfRP9/B2848-receiver.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/rbmvcnk/B2848-right-whole.jpg)
(ЮВ2908 gas block seen above):
(https://i.ibb.co/0nWnYwT/B2908-left-front.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/cDHRnqM/B2908-receiver-cover-top.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/N2D2L5T/B2908-receiver.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/JCzBbrm/B2908-right-front.jpg)
ЮВ1385:
(https://i.ibb.co/L8nTnVb/B1385-left-front.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/kmLkKs5/B1385-receiver-cover-top.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/37D7qc4/B1385-receiver.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/S5r4dDD/B1385-right-gas-tube.jpg)
ЮВ1442:
(https://i.ibb.co/cYp6ryV/B1442-left-front.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/wzyNbj6/B1442-receiver-cover-top.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/V01bNL4/B1442-receiver-cover.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/q9VhdQ3/B1442-receiver.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/brgcbyg/B1442-right-front.jpg)
ЮВ2782:
(https://i.ibb.co/dpHZtWy/B2782-left-whole.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/VM2KD9R/B2782-receiver-cover-top.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/hmJ6826/B2782-receiver.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/z5Xxdw5/B2782-right-whole.jpg)
So bottom line is that there are documented 1949's with 90° gas blocks, documented 1950's with 45 degree gas blocks, and uncertain heavy refurb guns with 1951 covers that also have 45° gas blocks that are otherwise indistinguishable from their 1950 bretheren.
I'll note that it is very unusual to see "XY" prefix in consecutive years. This happens every so often, but it's so uncommon that when I see it, I make a double take to make sure I didn't make a mistake in the transcription. thumb1
Can someone please explain why the consensus is that the receiver take down lever isnt correct?
This is the best photo I've seen of the take down lever:
(https://i.ibb.co/WngCNc6/49-Tula-Yu-V837-Right-Rec-Latch.png) (https://ibb.co/dBGZsQr)
But i dont see how it is an obvious replacement. From the angle of the photograph its impossible to tell if its flat tabbed or eyelet style.
No?
Here is some barrel evidence that suggests a 1949 d.o.m:
As far as I can tell, the "stepped" barrel is a 1950 development. Every 1949 that I can remember does not have the machined ring or step.
This if from yoopers site. Its a good side by side comparison photo. The "step" is hard to spot until you know where to look:
(https://i.ibb.co/xFTgBmy/Screenshot-20200713-114748-Chrome.jpg) (https://ibb.co/1zWXPs3)
This is the barrel from the curious auction rifle:
(https://i.ibb.co/2MMXcW4/sks45-1949-barrel-not-stepped.jpg) (https://ibb.co/s11LsbY)
Check your 1950, 45° gas port carbines. I checked mine, and it has the step.
The absence of the machined step on the auction carbine supports possible 1949 d.o.m. , imo.
I checked my 50 with a 45 degree gas port, forged eyelet lever and engraved tula star and date. It does not have a stepped barrel.
Quote from: jstin2 on October 13, 2020, 08:55:10 PM
I checked my 50 with a 45 degree gas port, forged eyelet lever and engraved tula star and date. It does not have a stepped barrel.
Interesting. Thanks.
So the machined step may be a very early 1950 transition.
What is the serial prefix on your rifle?
The machined step can sometimes be very faint, almost imperceptible:
(https://i.ibb.co/995b06X/20200827-120511.jpg) (https://ibb.co/MD0cHrT)
^1950 carbine from the post here:
https://clone.sks-files.com/index.php?topic=5195.msg59157#msg59157
Quote from: Boris Badinov on October 13, 2020, 08:08:04 PM
Can someone please explain why the consensus is that the receiver take down lever isnt correct?
This is the best photo I've seen of the take down lever:
(https://i.ibb.co/WngCNc6/49-Tula-Yu-V837-Right-Rec-Latch.png) (https://ibb.co/dBGZsQr)
But i dont see how it is an obvious replacement. From the angle of the photograph its impossible to tell if its flat tabbed or eyelet style.
No?
One way or another, it isn't an original 49 or transitional 50, which isn't stamped...but milled, and considerably thicker than any of the stamped variety.
Interesting to note is the number of these 50s with stamped vs hand etched receiver covers...the serial/feature gap widens.
My early 50 EO has no step, 90 degree block, milled takedown loop.
ЕЯ 1522
Ah, yes.
The "E-" prefix guns from 1950 exhibit many transitional features.
Now I'm curious to find out the serial prefix range where the machined step first appears, or begins to appear.
Here is my 1950 пш prefix, with the machined step:
(https://i.ibb.co/VSv7cNj/20161103-111812.jpg) (https://ibb.co/bBrSM3W)
(https://i.ibb.co/kBxrCmx/20161103-111957.jpg) (https://ibb.co/KhXQvKX)
I no longer have the majority of my 50 collection, but looked at pictures on page 5, post 1950 transitions. #6 is where I could see machined step. фК 2584. Also #7
ЗВ 180
Quote from: jstin2 on October 13, 2020, 09:42:53 PM
I no longer have the majority of my 50 collection, but looked at pictures on page 5, post 1950 transitions. #6 is where I could see machined step. фК 2584. Also #7
ЗВ 180
can you post a link to the your 1950 transitions thread?
Not sure how to copy link, but go ahead and add link. Page 5 near bottom of page.
Quote from: Justin Hell on October 13, 2020, 09:08:29 PM
Quote from: Boris Badinov on October 13, 2020, 08:08:04 PM
Can someone please explain why the consensus is that the receiver take down lever isnt correct?
This is the best photo I've seen of the take down lever:
(https://i.ibb.co/WngCNc6/49-Tula-Yu-V837-Right-Rec-Latch.png) (https://ibb.co/dBGZsQr)
But i dont see how it is an obvious replacement. From the angle of the photograph its impossible to tell if its flat tabbed or eyelet style.
No?
One way or another, it isn't an original 49 or transitional 50, which isn't stamped...but milled, and considerably thicker than any of the stamped variety.
Interesting to note is the number of these 50s with stamped vs hand etched receiver covers...the serial/feature gap widens.
My early 50 EO has no step, 90 degree block, milled takedown loop.
My early 50 EO also has no step. 90 degree block, Milled takedown loop.
Hotrod - In my reply #8 I questioned if this transition was made in 49 or if it was refurbished. I questioned in another post that there must have been several production lines and if they were transitioning, it might have been in that line only. The stamped eyelet was done after the milled eyelet probably due to cost and time. The stamped eyelet was fragile and prone to breakage. Also you are right that it is not possible to say if it is a eyelet lever, but if it is not, then I would guess it was on a later production carbine. If the person who bought it, would post some pictures it would solve multiple questions. Best to know what you have and not to wonder what you don't have.
Quote from: Boris Badinov on October 13, 2020, 08:34:09 PM
Here is some barrel evidence that suggests a 1949 d.o.m:
As far as I can tell, the "stepped" barrel is a 1950 development. Every 1949 that I can remember does not have the machined ring or step.
Check your 1950, 45° gas port carbines. I checked mine, and it has the step.
The absence of the machined step on the auction carbine supports possible 1949 d.o.m. , imo.
Not necessarily. My two light refurb early 1950 transitional (both with s/n prefix EB) do not have the step.
Quote from: pcke2000 on October 13, 2020, 11:06:56 PM
Quote from: Boris Badinov on October 13, 2020, 08:34:09 PM
Here is some barrel evidence that suggests a 1949 d.o.m:
As far as I can tell, the "stepped" barrel is a 1950 development. Every 1949 that I can remember does not have the machined ring or step.
Check your 1950, 45° gas port carbines. I checked mine, and it has the step.
The absence of the machined step on the auction carbine supports possible 1949 d.o.m. , imo.
Not necessarily. My two light refurb early 1950 transitional (both with s/n prefix EB) do not have the step.
It certainly bolsters the notion that "E-" serial prefix marks the transition between type1 and type2 designs.
The barrel step alone is certainly not definitive, but I think there's a strong case for 1949 because it exhibits three type1 design features in conjunction:
90° gas port + lower mounted ferrule pin + NO barrel machine-step
Quote from: Boris Badinov on October 13, 2020, 08:34:09 PM
Here is some barrel evidence that suggests a 1949 d.o.m:
As far as I can tell, the "stepped" barrel is a 1950 development. Every 1949 that I can remember does not have the machined ring or step.
Check your 1950, 45° gas port carbines. I checked mine, and it has the step.
The absence of the machined step on the auction carbine supports possible 1949 d.o.m. , imo.
Looking through my files, it looks like the step is a mid to late 1950 development. There are several '50s with 45° blocks that have no step, and others with 45° blocks that have the step. All 51's and beyond have the step it seems from my initial quick look. The step may simply be that the machinist took material of the barrel down past the end of the FSB to 100% guarantee a flush fit up front instead of cutting it so close that you can't see it. W/o pulling a FSB on a '49 it's impossible to know what's actually underneath.
(https://i.ibb.co/1dVd3T7/796-left-front.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/pRVkT5q/796-right-front.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/48MKrKy/K1076-left-front.jpg)
vs all the rest:
(https://i.ibb.co/XWtQ3hb/P2056-right-front.jpg)
Quote from: running-man on October 14, 2020, 12:04:25 PM
Quote from: Boris Badinov on October 13, 2020, 08:34:09 PM
Here is some barrel evidence that suggests a 1949 d.o.m:
As far as I can tell, the "stepped" barrel is a 1950 development. Every 1949 that I can remember does not have the machined ring or step.
This if from yoopers site. Its a good side by side comparison photo. The "step" is hard to spot until you know where to look:
(https://i.ibb.co/xFTgBmy/Screenshot-20200713-114748-Chrome.jpg) (https://ibb.co/1zWXPs3)
This is the barrel from the curious auction rifle:
(https://i.ibb.co/2MMXcW4/sks45-1949-barrel-not-stepped.jpg) (https://ibb.co/s11LsbY)
Check your 1950, 45° gas port carbines. I checked mine, and it has the step.
The absence of the machined step on the auction carbine supports possible 1949 d.o.m. , imo.
Looking through my files, it looks like the step is a mid to late 1950 development. There are several '50s with 45° blocks that have no step, and others with 45° blocks that have the step. All 51's and beyond have the step it seems from my initial quick look. The step may simply be that the machinist took material of the barrel down past the end of the FSB to 100% guarantee a flush fit up front instead of cutting it so close that you can't see it. W/o pulling a FSB on a '49 it's impossible to know what's actually underneath.
Had I actually noticed the step/steplack while replacing the neutered FSB on my 50 with a proper replacement 50, it would explain a LOT of the troubles in doing so. The step is likely to allow for easier replacement/assembly with regard to the FSB. The pin location would be massively crucial when swapping out say a damaged FSB...because there is zero play without the tapered step to allow for a little fitting. Unless I do some drill work, a second pin, despite appearing to have a clear channel, cants the sight. I have replaced a few FSBs in the past, none were such a monumental PITA.... It continues, between the lack of that pin, and needing to fabricate a new one for my receiver cover latch pin...I haven't completed the project I started nearly four years ago, and still haven't completed the thread to go along with it. My back burner is huge... :P
This is why I suspect this was just an evolution of the design for the armorer's benefit. It is a neat feature to notice and use to identify these suckers.
So now that I made my introduction, I can say that I now own this 1949 from Rock Island. So it does have the correct 1949 stock (see photo). The groove is shallow and the metal is not notched. The other observation I read about was on the bottom of the gas block. I don't know why it appeared notched on Rock Island's picture. Maybe it was a shadow? However everything looks standard with no notch. Another observation was in regard to the bayonet being faked due to the gap. I think it's possible this bayonet may be correct. I included a picture of a M44 bayonet next to my SKS's. The M44 is longer when side by side. It would have taken lots of milling to make it fit and the finish doesn't reflect metal work. I'm open to any additional insights there. I'm here to learn. The final observation was the take down lever not being original. This observation is correct as came with a stamped take down part. However I made things right and added the proper loop take down. 8)
(https://i.ibb.co/vLSqz4Q/Stock.jpg) (https://ibb.co/nQFmkMn)
(https://i.ibb.co/C7JzJkR/take-down.jpg) (https://ibb.co/FwsKsSR)
(https://i.ibb.co/bQ7M4KR/front.jpg) (https://ibb.co/k5MsLS6)
(https://i.ibb.co/2FgNfDL/top-cover.jpg) (https://ibb.co/9pstCFf)
(https://i.ibb.co/fk4CNLd/top-cover-1.jpg) (https://ibb.co/X7Sz5Mx)
(https://i.ibb.co/tMPQcn3/bottom.jpg) (https://ibb.co/d0Jj6X7)
(https://i.ibb.co/j60sQsc/bayonet.jpg) (https://ibb.co/zn9DBDy)
It does indeed take a lot of milling to whittle down an M44 bayonet. I have done it. They have to be shortened at the tang end and the diameter needs to be reduced to fit into an SKS handle. It's a pain in the neck! I actually use it on one of my bubba guns...simply because I put so much labor into doing it, well...it looks pretty cool too.
The SKS spikes have a noticeable ridge on the tang under the bayonet handle.
I can only find this one photo....in the third post in this thread.
https://www.gunboards.com/threads/any-good-pictures-of-a-1949-russian-sks-bayonet-out-there.293030/
The photos from the auction site didn't seem to show that...and it looks just like my faux bayo. I could be wrong...I just didn't see it. Same with that odd reflection perhaps? :)
BTW...your photo's didn't show up...but a lot of others in this thread seem to be missing at the moment too...could just be a host server is down.
Congrats on scoring this one....we obviously were paying attention. :)
Agree with Justin Hell. It is a modified M44 bayonet.
Quote from: pcke2000 on December 16, 2020, 03:51:14 PM
Agree with Justin Hell. It is a modified M44 bayonet.
I still am having trouble seeing the features on this particular bayo that would distinctly identify it as an M44, as opposed to a 49'?
If it's a fake it's a pretty darn good one to me, but again I could be missing something.
I know 49's with spike bayos are borderline unobtanium but if there's a place that could help me understand this better, it's here.
Would someone here that is lucky enough to be a 49' owner be willing to post a pictorial explanation for a slow knuckle-dragger like myself?
Would also be great to have a reference if ever any of us here are lucky enough to spot one in the wild again. thumb1
I tried to get the photo from that post but photobucket didn't seem to want to let me...probably because it thinks I am in Mexico. :)
There was a 49 bayo on eBay for the longest time...so long they even sold the straight eared collar off of it...yet didn't reduce the price! It had a nice photo that shows the shape of it's profile. They are occasionally seen for sale by Canadians, and not as hard as they used to be to obtain.
Of course a better pic of that particular spot on the 49 in question would help.
In my album there are pictures of a spike bayonet. Click on picture and click again to enlarge.
https://ibb.co/album/kP3zJv
the ridge around the inside of the bayonet handle is what I am referring to....that edge is what is visible of a collar like ring around that portion of a 49 spike.
(https://i.ibb.co/x8rk2K4/49-bayonet-cut.png) (https://ibb.co/Vpk1L0K)
Just to make sure I understand correctly, this is the portion where the ridge is located?
And the ridge IS present on an original 49' but NOT the M44 fakes?
(https://i.ibb.co/FhQkrs0/Inked49-bayonet-cut-LI.jpg) (https://ibb.co/fX3Vg8n)
Sorry I'm slow on the uptake today, I had to break out my bestest flavored crayon for this. :-[ :-[ :-[
Quote from: Shoot The Refurbs on December 16, 2020, 09:44:20 PM
Just to make sure I understand correctly, this is the portion where the ridge is located?
And the ridge IS present on an original 49' but NOT the M44 fakes?
(https://i.ibb.co/FhQkrs0/Inked49-bayonet-cut-LI.jpg) (https://ibb.co/fX3Vg8n)
Sorry I'm slow on the uptake today, I had to break out my bestest flavored crayon for this. :-[ :-[ :-[
Correct, that's an obvious difference compared to M44 bayonet. I will try to find a better picture.
Well I did say that I came here to learn. Thanks for the info regarding the ridge on the 1949 bayonet. I went back and took photos of that specific area. To my relief, my bayonet has the ridge. dance2
(https://i.ibb.co/1mw5Fjp/bayo1.jpg) (https://ibb.co/nL5vxtV)
(https://i.ibb.co/pwGHDp7/bayo2.jpg) (https://ibb.co/B3dhDRp)
pic of a star (https://imgbb.com/)
Fisher, I think we can all agree that the only way to be certain that the bayonet is correct, is to sell me the rifle for a small price. This is the ONLY way to get to the bottom of this! :) thankyou1 dance2 chuckles1 nea1 nea1
I'm happy for you either way. I'd be ok with having a '49 without a bayonet to be honest!
Here is a better pic of correct 1949 spike bayonet
(https://i.ibb.co/wYPDH6B/Russian-SKS-Spike-Bayonet.jpg) (https://ibb.co/0Q6PNJm)
Interestingly, correct stock and front ferrule (for cruciform bayonet) are much more rare than correct spike bayonet itself, at least in North America.
To fisherl3: your magazine may not be period correct.
Quote from: pcke2000 on December 17, 2020, 01:01:52 AM
To fisherl3: your magazine may not be period correct.
Those are the molars of the hen. :)
fisherl3-
From your latest photos, it sure looks as if the bayonet may be an original 1949 cruciform intended for an SKS45
Can you remove the bayonet and post photo of it without the adapter/handle?
Quote from: Justin Hell on December 17, 2020, 09:08:59 AM
Those are the molars of the hen. :)
That right there is sig line material.
When mentioning about ridge around the inside of the bayonet handle, made me look at mine. There is no visible ring outside the handle but it looks like the ridge is inside handle. And if you look at Yopper's picture on reply 43 there is none showing also. Now I wonder if tula lengthen the handle to cover the ridge? Measured the length of my handle and it is 56.4 mm. diameter of bayonet at handle is 14.4 mm. I cannot measure ridge as it is inside handle and I will not remove bayonet from rifle since it has not been removed before.
I was initially reluctant to remove the bayonet in order to further inspect it. Now I'm glad that I did. I was surprised to find that the bayonet had been electro-penciled with the matching serial number. I'm guessing that this was done during the refurb? Cool either way. I also took some better pictures of the magazine. I have no idea what an original 1949 magazine looks like. But this one only has the electro-penciled numbers on it. No overstrike over other numbers.
(https://i.ibb.co/qBSfJtH/a1.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Jn143fY)
(https://i.ibb.co/dDFYtpt/a2.jpg) (https://ibb.co/89qZbxb)
(https://i.ibb.co/zF97txm/a3.jpg) (https://ibb.co/DYc8jW1)
(https://i.ibb.co/48zLT5k/a4.jpg) (https://ibb.co/k4jT8WZ)
upload image sites (https://imgbb.com/)
That little pin on the bottom near the hinge, for the spring...is absent on original 49 mags.
Very nice! It is a 1949 cruciform bayonet. Congratulations!
Bayonets with e-penciled serial number are not common.
Quote from: fisherl3 on December 17, 2020, 10:07:37 PM
I was initially reluctant to remove the bayonet in order to further inspect it. Now I'm glad that I did. I was surprised to find that the bayonet had been electro-penciled with the matching serial number. I'm guessing that this was done during the refurb? Cool either way. I also took some better pictures of the magazine. I have no idea what an original 1949 magazine looks like. But this one only has the electro-penciled numbers on it. No overstrike over other numbers.
(https://i.ibb.co/qBSfJtH/a1.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Jn143fY)
(https://i.ibb.co/dDFYtpt/a2.jpg) (https://ibb.co/89qZbxb)
(https://i.ibb.co/zF97txm/a3.jpg) (https://ibb.co/DYc8jW1)
(https://i.ibb.co/48zLT5k/a4.jpg) (https://ibb.co/k4jT8WZ)
upload image sites (https://imgbb.com/)
re-post pic of my 1949 magazine here:
(https://i.ibb.co/s1rK8Pb/Magazine.jpg) (https://ibb.co/c8d64vk)