I wanted to create a new thread so we can start fresh. This is what I along with a few others have come up with a while back. Thanks to Saigon posting many pictures of his awesome collection earlier this past year, it brought forth a lot of discussion. I feel it's time to maybe revisit. So, check it out, discuss, tell me I'm dead wrong if ya want :)
This is the flag used in 1945-1955, when the Viet Minh flag was used, not the current flag of Vietnam.
(http://i1324.photobucket.com/albums/u604/mspeth23/imagejpg1_zpsf4de6679.jpg)
This is the 56' onward Flag of Vietnam
(http://i1324.photobucket.com/albums/u604/mspeth23/imagejpg2_zps1ab9af34.jpg)
Notice the very obvious difference.
Now, this very early 62 thousand serial NVA, notice the star:
(http://i1324.photobucket.com/albums/u604/mspeth23/imagejpg9_zps1b3a39e6.jpg)
And, notice the rest, serials that come AFTER the above picture:
(http://i1324.photobucket.com/albums/u604/mspeth23/imagejpg10_zps91c419bc.jpg)
(http://i1324.photobucket.com/albums/u604/mspeth23/imagejpg11_zps2f2c9393.jpg)
(http://i1324.photobucket.com/albums/u604/mspeth23/imagejpg12_zps6598b4a8.jpg)
(http://i1324.photobucket.com/albums/u604/mspeth23/imagejpg13_zps2b02e0f0.jpg)
From this alone, I feel it's safe to assume the early 62 thousand serial'd NVA with the early Viet Minh flag is either a late 1955 or 1956 marked rifle. I believe they were very quickly changed over to the new flag, and we see that with the later serial'd rifles. This, if true, would disprove the idea that the first two digits represent the year produced. Why would they be using a Viet Minh flag in 1962 when that particular flag was dropped in 1955? 7 years later? And the NVA marked rifle WITH the Viet Minh flag just so happens to be one of the earliest with a low 62 thousand serial?
Now, could these be Chinese made, and Vietnamese property marked...?
Here we have a very early Chinese, notice the stamps.
(http://i1324.photobucket.com/albums/u604/mspeth23/imagejpg4_zps25ff233b.jpg)
Notice very similar stamps on an NVA:
(http://i1324.photobucket.com/albums/u604/mspeth23/imagejpg5_zps2956a1e2.jpg)
These stamps do vary between the NVA rifles, and between the Chinese rifles, so many do not look exact, but very similar.
Here is another NVA, BLANK, except for a number 7!
(http://i1324.photobucket.com/albums/u604/mspeth23/imagejpg7_zps539c42cf.jpg)
Here is another Chinese, not as early as the first, but still early Chinese, blank:
(http://i1324.photobucket.com/albums/u604/mspeth23/imagejpg8_zps6369205c.jpg)
Chinese SKS's are also commonly found with a single digit underneath the receiver, similar to the last shown NVA.
The NVA's show no pattern when it comes to stampings underneath the receiver, or elsewhere. It does not progress from early with many markings to late with none, like the Chinese do.
The NVA's also feature exact machining traits that the early Chinese SKS's have.
I have a very strong suspicion that these NVA marked rifles, having no specific pattern of traits and QC stamps, were of a specific "run" of Chinese made rifles sent to the NVA as aid.
There, they were probably randomly chosen & serial'd, along with a property marked NVA </1\>.
So, I could be way off, but this is what I've been led to believe after seeing the evidence. Regardless of whether or not they are actually Vietnamese made or not, which they still very well could be and I could be dead wrong, they are no matter what, an awesome variant to have.
I'm just askin, so go easy :)
Ok, NVA fatty star flag was in use till 1955, China was just getting started in SKS production in this 55/56 time frame. Did they have enough production/inventory in 55/56 to bleed off rifles to the NVA? Later years of production I can see, but later wouldn't explain the fatty NVA star, when they changed to the skinny NVA star in 56.
So, did the NVA "property" stamp simply run a year or two behind the flag change?
Were fatty star marked rifles/parts initially made in China with inspection stamps, then later skinny star rifles true NVA production minus inspection stamps? Looks like even the serial fonts changed with the star, as did the "1" inside the star..
Or, maybe, China made the major components/rifle sterile, bled off, 5 for me, 1 for you, production to support their neighbors, the NVA just stamped what marks/serial they wanted.
I know, more questions than answers, but the Viet. fatty/skinny star flag change vs. Chinese production start up and lack of on hand inventory kind of conflict, unless I'm just way off. :)
I have another "just asking" comment...
So you are comparing the QC marks on a known early Chinese manufactured sks to the QC marks on the suspected NVA manufactured sks. Even though they are not the exact stamps, but similar location and style you are assuming they were Chinese manufactured and sent to NVA where the property marks and serial # was added?
I ask why when we see Russian QC marks (O), (K), etc.. all over Chinese, Romanian, Albanian, etc.. manufactured sks's you are not assuming that Russia manufactured them rifles and sent them to China, Romania, or Albania?
Good questions,
Carl, I'd say you're probably right that they ran a few years behind. I can't imagine them running 7 years behind.. Possibly 58' or 59'? When China introduced the Side swivel? Don't know, but it would make sense.
I'm not sure why China would Star-1 the rifles when hey had the M21's that seem to be their export-type. I truly think the fat star is the Viet Mihn star, it is identical.
Early Flag, early star.
Early NVA rifle, early star.
Someone on the other forum once said (when arguing that these were NVA made) that they needed to boost moral, and that is why they began production. Well, why? Why set up shop when EVERY other weapon you have is imported? Why not get some blanks, and start stamping away?
bbush, the reason so many of us believe these were Chinese made is because Vietnam had NO weapon production, even through the 60's. They received all their aid from other countries.
They are IDENTICAL, down to the T, to the Chinese guns. The stamps under the receiver and on the Carriers & Bolts all tell us that these weren't gradually made.. Because there is NO pattern. A 62 and a 64 could have none and a 63 might have many. This means, that they were more than likely serial'd AFTER all of them were made. Aid? Probably.
Have a looksy at this:
During the Cold War, North Vietnam's military production was insignificant and practically all weapons and ammunition were imported. During the mid-1960s Communist China furnished most of the small arms and small arms ammunition and many of the trucks, while the USSR supplied most of the other combat material.
From the 1970s to 1991, the Soviet Union was the main supplier of military hardware to Vietnam.
Since 1991, the Chinese have been the biggest supplier of military goods to Vietnam. The Vietnamese have now produced their own equipment and repaired existing equipment.
Look up Arms Industry - Vietnam. You will find very similar comments.
So.. They hadn't made most of their own equipment until 91'? But magically made perfect SKS's in the mid 60's? I don't buy that for a minute. They would have skipped the expensively made SKS and made the more efficient and cost effective AK platform. I wouldn't be surprised if there are </1\> Ak's out there also. It was a move to make them look more well prepared and equipped than they were. This would've been a good tactic for their own troops.
Quote from: Worm on January 16, 2015, 11:14:00 AM
bbush, the reason so many of us believe these were Chinese made is because Vietnam had NO weapon production, even through the 60's. They received all their aid from other countries.
They are IDENTICAL, down to the T, to the Chinese guns. The stamps under the receiver and on the Carriers & Bolts all tell us that these weren't gradually made.. Because there is NO pattern. A 62 and a 64 could have none and a 63 might have many. This means, that they were more than likely serial'd AFTER all of them were made. Aid? Probably.
Again not disagreeing, "just asking"
So again comparing these to the early Chinese that had Russian QC marks all over them. Why do we not say the Russians built them and shipped them to China where the serial # was added? We just assume that Russia sent them left over parts and supervised them when they first started assembling them. Could China have done the same thing with NVA? I just don't see why China would make blank sks's to send to NVA and have them apply property marks and serial #'s. When they were already sending them tons of clearly China marked and serial numbered sks's at the same time. Or are you saying these property marks were applied in China?
Sorry, didn't mean to sound.. well mean, if I did. It's a good question, I'm not saying it isn't.
I believe they're Chinese because of the QC marks that are identical to the Chinese, Not identical to Russians, etc. The pictures I provided above aren't the only ones out there. Russian guns all have QC stamps throughout their production correct? We find NVA's with nothing but a single number, which is a very common Chinese trait.
Why would they have been property marked there? Well.. It was NVA's property.. Most of the time Property marks are applied when in the country with the property mark. Serialized? Could've been China, could've been Nam', Don't know. Why start with 62 thousand? Well, it might make it look like there's 60,000+ rifles. Instead of a couple thousand altogether? Just another "dunno",
What I do know? That it makes no sense that N. Vietnam had their own production at the time, when it's pretty clear they never had their own production for a long, long time after.
No offense taken, trust me I have tougher skin than that. thumb1
Like I said not disagreeing, I am just asking the questions that pop in my head when I think about it. There are a ton of "I don't knows" so I just feel its tough to say any of it is 100% certain. Kind of like everything with sks collecting. Also I don't own an NVA so I'm not arguing it so try and keep my precious rifle priceless. chuckles1
Lol I hear ya, there are def a lot of idk's, but like I said, it just doesn't meake sense that they produced their own. I do like to get the gears turning though rofl2
They had all the support in the world, though.. Why produce a few thousand SKS rifles? I see it as a move to make it look liken they had their own production. This makes their troops & the enemy look like they are stronger than they actually are.
QuoteI just don't see why China would make blank sks's to send to NVA and have them apply property marks and serial #'s. When they were already sending them tons of clearly China marked and serial numbered sks's at the same time.
My guess, look at all the crested/property marked Mausers floating around South America, which 95% were all made in Europe. it wasn't until later most countries started their own arms production. Brazil with the Fabrica de Itajuba-Brasil, Argentina started up, even Mexico was known to start producing limited numbers of rifles.
Wouldn't the M21 come along after the initial NVA marked weapons, makes one wonder?? Like Germany did in WWII, change maker markings randomly to confuse those who study the other sides weapons in an effort to hide estimated manufacturing volume and true maker..
yup, yup, probably, & yup! thumb1
That's exactly what I'm saying, except Vietnam was years behind Mexico, Brazil, & Argentina.. Am I right?
Bbush..
The early chinese rifles have QC stampings on the bottom of receiver in a similar fashion to the russians, but the are not the same. The qc stampings on the bottom of the "nva" are infact the same as the chinese. Worm was simply saying that these chinese qc stamps on the nva do not follow a pattern like the chinese do where they are present in first few years and gradually disappear. The nva stamps are all over the place.
Quote from: Worm on January 16, 2015, 12:57:41 PM
yup, yup, probably, & yup! thumb1
That's exactly what I'm saying, except Vietnam was years behind Mexico, Brazil, & Argentina.. Am I right?
Yup, considering at least both Brazil and Argentina were producing the FN Fal by the very early 60's, I believe Mexico, made a FN Fal in limited numbers, then switched to H&K G3, I don't know the date, but they did produce both under license.
Quote from: bbush44 on January 16, 2015, 09:46:55 AM
I have another "just asking" comment...
So you are comparing the QC marks on a known early Chinese manufactured sks to the QC marks on the suspected NVA manufactured sks. Even though they are not the exact stamps, but similar location and style you are assuming they were Chinese manufactured and sent to NVA where the property marks and serial # was added?
I ask why when we see Russian QC marks (O), (K), etc.. all over Chinese, Romanian, Albanian, etc.. manufactured sks's you are not assuming that Russia manufactured them rifles and sent them to China, Romania, or Albania?
Brian, that's a great point.
Without muddying Worm's answer too much, here's my personal take on the (o) and (k) marks on the barreled assemblies. Russia made them all - all Romanian, all Russian, and all pre /26\ 6 mil Chinese (Albanian lugs are *much* different and I haven't really compared the Yugos yet, but the non chromed lined bored make me think it's unlikely). Those big three barreled receiver assemblies from '56 to ~'60, if you put them side by side by side w/o knowing what they were or having any identifying S/N or arsenal characteristics on them, would be pretty much indistinguishable. Everything down to the font of the barrel/receiver match number (that all go from 0-35, indicating a block of 36 barreled receivers assembled at a time) is way too similar for me to conclude that they were produced at different plants.
I think what it boils down to is that we can't just wave our hands and say "this is an XX characteristic therefore YY is true", and then in the very next breath say "even though this shows XX, YY is not true for this set of guns" without some solid evidence to support that claim.
Here's an example of this line of thinking:
The Chinese, in the 1970 to '75 timeframe (and '88-'94) really seemed to use the two digit actual year prefix in many of their their smaller arsenals. Certain arsenals, such as /26\, never did this though. So how can anyone say that these NVA guns, with the odd 62 through 65 S/Ns, are not 1962 - 1965 year of manufacture? If we really break it down, we can put together a line of reasoning against this '62-'65 manufacture that goes like this:
- Feature characteristics (barrel lugs, bolt carriers, bayo lugs, bayonets etc.) all point to very early Chinese/Romy & late Russian production, in the timeframe of '56 to '60
- QC on the NVA guns characteristics point to very early Chinese/Romy & to a lesser extent, late Russian production, in the timeframe of '56 to '60
- Star changes of the flag occurred in the '55 to '56 timeframe. It is likely that star stamp changes on the gun either mirror this with perhaps a bit of lag. When taken with the rest of the evidence, this makes it more likely that that these marks were applied in the timeframe of '56 to '60, nearer the actual change than a '62-'65 estimate..
- Just looking at dates really makes it seem unlikely:
'62-'65 No evidence of Russian SKS production.
'62-'65 No Evidence of Romanian SKS production.
'62-'65 Chinese production (/26\ 7 mil to 10 mil) was quite different than what is seen in the NVA examples.
Just looking at the S/Ns that have been recorded, it goes from a low of 620030 (likely started at 620001), a jump to a 63 prefix at around 630195, a jump to 64 at around 641188, and a jump to 65 at around 654718 with a high of 655805. It looks like a sequential rolling S/N scheme with maybe 6000 rifles in the entire run. The Romanians did not use a sequential rolling S/N scheme with an incrementing prefix. The Russians did not use a sequential rolling S/N scheme with an incrementing prefix. The Chinese did use a sequential rolling S/N scheme with an incrementing prefix, but only in their very early guns, We also know the incrementing prefixes were not well defined or standardized in the very early production guns, as I believe 1957 actually had 3 different marking schemes (ghost->six digit /26\->2 mil /26\), so that's another ding against 62XXXX meaning 1962.
Most everything points away from these being fabricated from scratch in North Vietnam. Some data points to Russia, but the bulk of data point towards China. Interestingly enough, much of the early China data we've got points to Russia anyhow.
Playing devils advocate a bit here:
Along with the different star stamp, the 62XXXX gun in Saigon's photo above has a totally different font than the 63XXXX-65XXXX descendants. It looks much like the font in Izhevsk guns, while the 63XXXX-65XXXX are more reminiscent of Tula/Chinese/Romanian stamps.
The 6000 total production run is so small, how the hell is it that we have 30 some odd verified examples as VN bringbacks?! That's 1/2 of 1% of the total number of guns made that made it back to the US. In all of the chaos of the Vietnam conflict, that number just seems highly unlikely to me.
What's to say these aren't all just scrubbed guns, all parts and receiver stamped with a new number, new stocks, an NVA star, and reblued?
QuoteJust looking at the S/Ns that have been recorded, it goes from a low of 620030 (likely started at 620001), a jump to a 63 prefix at around 630195, a jump to 64 at around 641188, and a jump to 65 at around 654718 with a high of 655805.
Has a Chinese SKS been seen with a serial in this range? Or in the 6xxxxx range period?
QuoteThe 6000 total production run is so small, how the hell is it that we have 30 some odd verified examples as VN bringbacks?!
Ok, consider Albanian production
QuoteThese add up to 14580 "known" guns based on the high/low S/Ns. If you take into account all the ‘holes’ in between years and assume that the S/Ns reset to 0000 in ’76 thru ’78, then you get at least 15906 carbines produced. Unless there is a massive (massive compared to the number of rifles that made it into the US) block of guns missing, it’s clear that the total production run is far less 20k rifles.
While they produced a few thousand more over a given time period, the number ain't that great compared to Russia, China, Yugoslavia or even Romania. Actually, break it down year to year, NVA had roughly the same or greater amounts made in 2 or 3 years than the Albanians did in 10 years of production.
QuoteThat's 1/2 of 1% of the total number of guns made that made it back to the US. In all of the chaos of the Vietnam conflict, that number just seems highly unlikely to me.
Bringback weapons, look at the ratio of Mum'ed Arisakas to defaced Arisakas, LK5 marked Mas 36s to any other Mas 36, or even North Korean examples. Bringbacks, in some examples, I would be surprised if they consist of a half a percent of state side weapons. I have a papered French Mas 36 from Vietnam, how many of those do you actually see?
Quote from: Greasemonkey on January 16, 2015, 02:46:30 PM
QuoteJust looking at the S/Ns that have been recorded, it goes from a low of 620030 (likely started at 620001), a jump to a 63 prefix at around 630195, a jump to 64 at around 641188, and a jump to 65 at around 654718 with a high of 655805.
Has a Chinese SKS been seen with a serial in this range? Or in the 6xxxxx range period?
Highest six digit with early features I know of is a 349k /26\. The 2 mil /26\s go up to 2,416k. 600k is way out of any range I'm familiar with with any prefix. I know there are some very high 11 mil /26\s with 11,525k numbers. I've never seen anything close to XX,600k though...
Quote from: Greasemonkey on January 16, 2015, 02:46:30 PM
QuoteThe 6000 total production run is so small, how the hell is it that we have 30 some odd verified examples as VN bringbacks?!
Ok, consider Albanian production QuoteThese add up to 14580 "known" guns based on the high/low S/Ns. If you take into account all the ‘holes’ in between years and assume that the S/Ns reset to 0000 in ’76 thru ’78, then you get at least 15906 carbines produced. Unless there is a massive (massive compared to the number of rifles that made it into the US) block of guns missing, it’s clear that the total production run is far less 20k rifles.
While they produced a few thousand more over a given time period, the number ain't that great compared to Russia, China, Yugoslavia or even Romania. Actually, break it down year to year, NVA had roughly the same or greater amounts made in 2 or 3 years than the Albanians did in 10 years of production.
QuoteThat's 1/2 of 1% of the total number of guns made that made it back to the US. In all of the chaos of the Vietnam conflict, that number just seems highly unlikely to me.
Bringback weapons, look at the ratio of Mum'ed Arisakas to defaced Arisakas, LK5 marked Mas 36s to any other Mas 36, or even North Korean examples. Bringbacks, in some examples, I would be surprised if they consist of a half a percent of state side weapons. I have a papered French Mas 36 from Vietnam, how many of those do you actually see?
Yup, I'm not questioning the 6k NVAs. it just seems that getting 1/2 of 1% of them here in the US as bringbacks is a *really* high ratio. How many guns were destroyed, never captured, captured but not allowed to be brought back, or simply lost on the battlefield? Maybe there weren't all that many SKSs out there in the first place? and maybe 6k NVA guns were a large percentage of the total SKSs out there? That's what the data seems to say to me, but who knows? This is a tough one because we have so few data points.
The simple fact that the serials are a ROLLING sequencing serial eliminates the question of what percentage is not represented within the data. The highest serial number is your estimated production or that particular run of rifles. Granted it will be a very slight bit low due to not having the exact high serial for the end of the "65" prefix.
5,805 is the magic number with a safe assumption yo say 6,000 nva property marked chinese rifles.
Remember.. this is NOT our only block of serials that stray from the "normal" chinese serial practices. The early M21 is the perfect example having 3 variation and a dif serial block set for each.
M21 NA 187x, 7536x
M21 No 80128x, 81018x, 91142x, 91923x, 93431x, 94237x, 94262x, 94693x, 94907x
M21 N 01896x, 01959x
Crap, I forgot all about the M21s having those high six digit S/Ns!
The M21s and NVA's are certainly 'similar' when it comes to having an 'odd' prefix not in line with the rest of Chinese ghost / /26\ production for the time period. From our admittedly tiny dataset, the 900k M21s sure don't look like a rolling number though and there could be 40k of those made. If 40k is the issue #s, having a capture / battlefield pickup ratio at the same 0.5% as the NVAs means there should be in the neighborhood of 200 of them in the US. Interesting. think1
Ah yes.. The M21. Still not clear as to what the M21's true purpose was. They were around in the beginning periodically until the end.. And if they were meant to conceal China's support for a certain country, then why were they sent to Nam along with plenty of other year of production chinese sks's?
Ack, caught myself about to thread derail. Continue, gentlemen.
Fascinating!
This is why I love it here so much.
I really have to work up the courage to talk with my 'Nam vet father in law/landlord about the very touchy subject of guns. He has a gaggle of buddies who oft make the pilgrimage to Vietnam to remember...or whatever they do there. The wife says he has a couple guns, but never knew him to hunt...and I am sure at least one of his buddies may have a bringback. Based on his extensive book collection regarding the subject, perhaps he can sidestep the massive amount of money I owe him, ignore the fact I collect SKS's...and become interested in helping out in possibly providing more information via his veteran contacts for historical purposes.
What scares me a tad is that he is a New York resident, and a highly law abiding one. I would be sickened if he or any of his friends surrendered any of these due to the silly laws there.
You can bet on it. Pretty sad when people forget they are Americans & give in to illegal laws, unjust laws that infringe on our rights. But people do because of fear.
It would be cool if you could find out what he's got, if he has anything, and if he still has anything. Report back! :)
KW - Please feel free to add the 64 serie photos to this thread for comparision -
Saigon1965 -
Thankya Saigon thumb1
Old thread but more info to contribute since I'm late to the party. This is a lot of info from a few books and declassified Top Secret and Secret CIA documents crammed into a summary. Clearly the country of origin for the /1\ SKSs is North Vietnam but this doesn't really answer the question at hand of whether they actually produced the weapon in whole but this does provide a little more insight surrounding this period of time. Long write-up so bear with me.
Background: At the time North Vietnam had a large measure of independence within the Communist Bloc, and it avoided committing itself to either side in the Sino-Soviet dispute. They avoided taking a clear-cut stand in favor of either party and had continually worked to bring the two together. Ho Chi Minh pursued the role of mediator, with at least superficial success, at the 1960 all-party conclave in Moscow, and had persisted in his efforts to heal the breach. Ho’s skill and his prestige a senior Communist statesman, an associate of both Lenin and Stalin, has contributed to North Vietnam’s ability to avoid committing itself when other Bloc parties had done so.
In any event, Moscow, Beijing, and Hanoi almost certainly agreed on the classic principle of combining military and political action, with the differences being a matter of degree and emphasis.
North Vietnam had received extensive economic support from the Sino-Soviet Bloc. The initial phase of the Bloc aid program consisted largely of grants to support the North Vietnamese economy after the partition in 1955. Foodstuffs and other consumer goods were dispatched under these grants as well as equipment and materials for economic reconstruction. The reconstruction effort was merged into a broader buildup of the economy in 1956, which required additional financial aid during the period 1956-1960. A third round of financial assistance was extended to North Vietnam in 1960-1961 to support the economic development anticipated during the First Five-Year Plan (1961-1965). The Sino-Soviet conflict probably had some adverse effect on Bloc coordination of the foreign aid program in North Vietnam, but to what extend is hard to determine.
During this period Communist China was the largest contributor of aid to the development program of North Vietnam.
(http://i1287.photobucket.com/albums/a632/Bunker9939/Declassified%20Docs/Declassified_2A_zpsfd17c37e.png) (http://s1287.photobucket.com/user/Bunker9939/media/Declassified%20Docs/Declassified_2A_zpsfd17c37e.png.html)
Ho Chi Minh regarded the Soviet Union and China as Vietnam's big brother and big sister, and he hoped for united Sino-Soviet support for his revolutionary cause in Vietnam. Russian and Chinese leaders agreed to give Hanoi full support. The growth of U.S. military involvement in South Vietnam, culminating in the formal establishment of the U.S. Military Assistance Command in Vietnam (MACV) in February 1962, which caused Russian and Chinese leaders deep concern. In order to meet Hanoi's urgent needs, Moscow and Beijing gave high priority to supplying arms and military equipment to Hanoi.
Before 1965 the Communist forces fighting in South Vietnam were equipped for the most part with old French models, holdovers from the French-Indochina War, as well as captured U.S. equipment. Weapons of Free World origin accounted for almost 60 percent of those captured in South Vietnam. North Vietnam’s inventory of military equipment before 1965 consisted largely of older infantry equipment left by the French and some ground equipment, propeller aircraft, and naval craft supplied by Communist countries during the years 1954-64.
Only limited amounts of Soviet and Chinese weapons were in use at this time. Military production in North Vietnam was limited to small amounts of infantry weapons, mortars and grenades. Vietnam served primarily as the funnel for the infiltration into South Vietnam of military supplies from other countries.
After mid-1965, Communist military forces in North and South Vietnam were equipped increasingly with a modern family of weapons supplied by Communist countries. Communist China and the USSR were the major donors of military equipment to North Vietnam and to Communist forces in the South, but some infantry weapons, mortars, rockets, and light artillery came from North Korea and the Eastern European countries. Most of the more complex material for the defense of North Vietnam came from the USSR, including heavier field and antiaircraft artillery, the SA-2 missile system, more advanced radar and aircraft, and various types of armored vehicles. China supplied most of the infantry weapons, mortars, and rockets used in South Vietnam. Small quantities of equipment and weapons from North Vietnam, North Korea, East Germany, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Romania were also used in Vietnam. Most of the weapons observed in the South since 1965 were manufactured since the Korean War. Although the USSR and the Eastern European Communist countries had supplied weapons manufactured primarily in the late 1950’s, most of those were still used extensively in their own armies. Some Chinese observed equipment had reached South Vietnam six months after leaving the factory.
With the initiation of the Rolling Thunder program in 1965 and Hanoi’s increasing direct involvement in the war in the South, both North Vietnamese and Viet Cong regular forces were equipped with modern weapons, including types that were standard equipment within the Communist donor countries. North Vietnam’s defenses were greatly expanded and strengthened by the introduction of MIG-15/17 and supersonic MIG-21 jet fighters and the SA-2 missile system as well as by the addition of light and medium antiaircraft artillery and radar. The USSR was the major contributor to the buildup of North Vietnam’s air defense. Communist China upgraded North Vietnam’s naval capability and provided most of the infantry weapons used by North Vietnamese and Viet Cong forces. The European Communist countries are not known to have supplied appreciable quantities of weapons to North Vietnam or to Communist forces in the South.
North Vietnam had to rely on outside assistance for the vast amount of infantry weapons and ammunition required for its forces in North Vietnam and for the reequipping of the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese forces fighting in South Vietnam. Only a few light infantry weapons, grenades, and ammunition were manufactured in North Vietnam. Communist China was the major source of infantry weapons, and smaller amounts were supplied by the USSR, the Eastern European countries, and North Korea. Most of the combat material that furnished Communist forces in South Vietnam was infiltrated from North Vietnam through Laos, although small amounts were infiltrated through Cambodia.
(http://i1287.photobucket.com/albums/a632/Bunker9939/Declassified%20Docs/Declassified_1_zps5b8c9667.png) (http://s1287.photobucket.com/user/Bunker9939/media/Declassified%20Docs/Declassified_1_zps5b8c9667.png.html)
(http://i1287.photobucket.com/albums/a632/Bunker9939/Declassified%20Docs/Declassified_5_zps8a2735a7.png) (http://s1287.photobucket.com/user/Bunker9939/media/Declassified%20Docs/Declassified_5_zps8a2735a7.png.html)
Here is another CIA declassified document authored in 1968 (declassified in 1998) that outlines the first observation of weapons in Vietnam. This doesn't include observations after 1968. I only highlighted the 7.62mm carbines observed in country at that time up to 1968. In the case of North Vietnam it was first observed in 1965. Throughout this document the CIA Analyst notes North Vietnam as producing limited amounts of small arms and ammunition, to include the SKS. But again, that doesn't necessarily prove to the level of production.
(http://i1287.photobucket.com/albums/a632/Bunker9939/Declassified%20Docs/CIA%20-%20Weapons%20Observed%20in%20Vietnam-1_zpsegxhhdch.png) (http://s1287.photobucket.com/user/Bunker9939/media/Declassified%20Docs/CIA%20-%20Weapons%20Observed%20in%20Vietnam-1_zpsegxhhdch.png.html)
We do know they produced weapons long after the Vietnam War as the video shows but that doesn't prove the level of production (likely with aid and assistance) during the Vietnam War. Here is a known example of the TUL-1 LMG produced in Vietnam in 1990 as additional info.
(http://i1287.photobucket.com/albums/a632/Bunker9939/Declassified%20Docs/appart13_zpshrrzgxif.jpg) (http://s1287.photobucket.com/user/Bunker9939/media/Declassified%20Docs/appart13_zpshrrzgxif.jpg.html)
(http://i1287.photobucket.com/albums/a632/Bunker9939/Declassified%20Docs/appart10_zpscywtpnvb.jpg) (http://s1287.photobucket.com/user/Bunker9939/media/Declassified%20Docs/appart10_zpscywtpnvb.jpg.html)
(http://i1287.photobucket.com/albums/a632/Bunker9939/Declassified%20Docs/appart12_zpsjak6whrf.jpg) (http://s1287.photobucket.com/user/Bunker9939/media/Declassified%20Docs/appart12_zpsjak6whrf.jpg.html)
I have seen this last document listing the weapons before... Believe GM found it buried deep in a slew of other docs. My issue with it is, Its not proof. Its simply an account of what guns were found in the conflict at the time. Anyone picking up an NVA property marked sks would more then likely simply record what they see. A chinese gun with no typical chinese arsenal stamp but having a star1 property mark would be recorded as NVA.
Its quite literally no different then one of us picking one up at a funshow and saying 'oh looky, an NVA sks'.
Another issue I have. :o
That list simply says '7.62 carbine'. Could be anything really.... Not exactly clear about what its referring to in the first place.
Even the 7.62 K-50m is a carbine and its widely mislabeled as being made by the NVA, but it was in fact just a very crudely converted Chinese T50. :). So they couldn't even make a stamped gun yet alone an exact clone of a milled T56.
Modern Firearms - K-50M (http://world.guns.ru/smg/vietn/k-50m-e.html)
K-50m was nothing more than an adaptation of the Type 50, the Type 50 was China's copy of the Soviet PPSh-41. One of the main differences between a Type 50 and a K-50m, was the K-50m was modified to use a MAT-49 style wire stock, and a few other small changes. And the Chinese Type 50, largely used box magazines, not drums. Now, the French MAT49, left overs from the IndoChina War, another that was hybridized by the commies, instead of being chambered in the normal 9mm, the Chinese as I understand rebarreled it and modified it to use 7.62x25, and up'ed the firing rate.
QuoteMilitary production in North Vietnam was limited to small amounts of infantry weapons, mortars and grenades.
So many questions...
Now, one thing of interest, The PPSH-41, Type50, K50-m, MAT49 and AK, RPK, even possibly the Soviet Sniper rifle in 7.62, what do they have in common short of all being available in 7.62? They are all stamped weapons. Now, from a logistical point, they, stamped weapons, are super quick and easy to produce and use very limited resources(a plus when Uncle Sam is banging on your door), they could be made in any tiny little machine shop, like, a bike builder. Resources were a high priority and in demand, does it make sense to waste blocks of steel for an obsolete weapon or to build an aircraft or other usable item, and use some left over sheet metal for a bunch of stamped receivers. Why would one even attempt to try to machine and produce the SKS at that time, while under duress from war, comparatively, it was clearly obsolete, low capacity, fairly difficult to manufacture and a resource/material hog. Now to be given an SKS as aid for use, and just stamp it as yours is one thing, but why try to produce it, when they could stamp a Ak, PPSh or ?? receiver out of a shovel or any thick sheet of metal and just have China supply the barrels. A weapon like the Ak and been around for what, 15 yrs and it was proven. The boys in the jungle would not know the difference nor would they care what or who made it, if it went bang, thats what they were after.
Also, North Vietnam didn't really have much in the way of weapons making equipment or ability or maybe the technical know how prior to this time, weaponry was provided by the Communist nations or later, by war capture weapons. Personally, I've seen thousands of nations weapons, but never a NVA, till the SKS, they went from making no weapons prior, to instant SKS manufacturing, good theory, but I don't buy it. So, to go from being supplied by others on both sides to suddenly becoming expert weapons makers, machining and cranking out SKSs is pretty difficult. Again, being supplied with sterile SKSs and some barrel blanks and producing a home made stamped weapon vs a totally machined weapon is a quick, easy, not to mention, a more believable operation.
Just my .000002 cents. :)
Even the quoted mortars and RPGs could be stamped out, I mean an RPG-2 is a chunk of exhaust pipe with a few modifications and a firing group shoved on it, they could made along side an Ak and simple pull and chuck grenades, those wouldn't be a stretch either. Also, what does the CIA Analyst deem as a carbine, assault weapon and rifle, terms then could vary widely vs. terms used today. Technically, a K98K and Swiss K31 are carbines, every bit as much as a Mosin M44 7.62 carbine.
And no one mentions the Czech weaponry, the Cz52s, Cz52/57s and Vz 58s used there, more 7.62 weapons. In Cambodia, the Vz 24 and Vz 26 were pretty popular, and could have trickled into the NVA hands, both in 7.62x25.
Quote from: Loose}{Cannon on September 13, 2015, 10:10:38 AM
Another issue I have. :o
That list simply says '7.62 carbine'. Could be anything really.... Not exactly clear about what its referring to in the first place.
Even the 7.62 K-50m is a carbine and its widely mislabeled as being made by the NVA, but it was in fact just a very crudely converted Chinese T50. :). So they couldn't even make a stamped gun yet alone an exact clone of a milled T56.
Modern Firearms - K-50M (http://world.guns.ru/smg/vietn/k-50m-e.html)
Granted there is no FOM or equivalent designator assigned in these documents but I have little doubt that they are not referring to the 7.62 SKS Carbine and not homemade weapons produced in VC workshops.
I’m generally with you on this but I believe it does suggest, not prove, North Vietnam (country of origin) was involved at some level. Possible these rifles were either being assembled or some level of manufacturing (even if it was just stamping the receiver numbers and stigma) was taking place that is unknown to us. Could have possibly been with either USSR or China support/assistance but the CIA documents make a clear distinction between the two countries of origin. If it was simply China, they would have said so, similar to the M21.
Here is the complete listing of 7.62 weapons from that document. When looking at the countries noted for the 7.62 carbine (USSR, China, East Germany and North Vietnam), we know for sure the first three are SKS producers. Almost all declassified documents related to small arms used during the Vietnam War, and even the Indonesian-Malaysian Confrontation, will refer to the SKS as 7.62mm carbine, with a distinction between other 7.62 weapons.
(http://i1287.photobucket.com/albums/a632/Bunker9939/Declassified%20Docs/7.62mm%20Weapons%20Vietnam%201968%20Report_zpsdwzo4xke.jpg) (http://s1287.photobucket.com/user/Bunker9939/media/Declassified%20Docs/7.62mm%20Weapons%20Vietnam%201968%20Report_zpsdwzo4xke.jpg.html)
We also know that both Russian and China had advisors/troops in Vietnam. Could either of them aided in the Star 1 weapons? We don’t know that answer but we do know the estimated CIA numbers of troop involvement. Also, Laos and Cambodia were areas with numerous logistics and support infrastructure.
Quote from: Loose}{Cannon on September 13, 2015, 08:04:00 AM
I have seen this last document listing the weapons before... Believe GM found it buried deep in a slew of other docs. My issue with it is, Its not proof. Its simply an account of what guns were found in the conflict at the time. Anyone picking up an NVA property marked sks would more then likely simply record what they see. A chinese gun with no typical chinese arsenal stamp but having a star1 property mark would be recorded as NVA.
Its quite literally no different then one of us picking one up at a funshow and saying 'oh looky, an NVA sks'.
Perhaps it IS the sks they are referring to but the above mentioned is a very real probability, and GM makes some very good points as well.
Agree! I have some T56 assault rifle info that is somewhat related that I'll post later on this evening. Doesn't answer the question at hand but just more info.
Not trying to go all conspiracy theorist, but, first things, first, it is declassified CIA documents, from the Cold War era, exactly how much of it is a best guess, and how much is fact. How much of it is blown up or out of proportion, to suit the D.C. bean counters and keep the desk heads happy.
Could very well be "Assembled in North Vietnam" from parts "Made in China" , it happens to this very day, why would the '60s or the commies be any different?
At first, they both denied involvement in the conflict, maybe with super secret sterile rifles the NVA stamped as theirs, later, maybe China didn't care, and up'ed the ante, M21 this, M22 that, Type 56 this, Type 54 that, also Soviets started to pump in metric crap tons of stuff also. What could we really do at that point, we had our hands full in the jungles Vietnam?
Now imagine, a worse case scenario for that time, the U.S. trying to invade mainland China, to halt NVA military support, during that whole mess with crazy Mao in office and Khrushchev and later Brezhnev backing the Soviets with paranoid itchy trigger fingers, and then figure in the loopy Cuban Castro and finally, the other totally wigged out guy still fuming and pissed from the '50's, Mao Zedong.
And it is intriguing how the documents get more and more vague as time passes, I mean look how loosely the CIA documented Grenada. Oh, about 8000 plus small arms or so.. "MOSTLY" some Warsaw pact, so this means on the flip side, some were, Nato, who knows. Besplode One would think, they would have accounted for any and everything captured given more modern times.
Again, CIA involvement, I'd take with a grain of salt.
(http://i1016.photobucket.com/albums/af283/C13mechanic/yugo%20charts/DOC_0000696919_zpsvbda7nvr.jpg) (http://s1016.photobucket.com/user/C13mechanic/media/yugo%20charts/DOC_0000696919_zpsvbda7nvr.jpg.html)
Now compare the total small arms information from the statement on Grenada from the office of the Prime Minister of Jamaica at the time Edward P.G. Seaga
(http://i1016.photobucket.com/albums/af283/C13mechanic/yugo%20charts/42_zpshtyuz83m.jpg) (http://s1016.photobucket.com/user/C13mechanic/media/yugo%20charts/42_zpshtyuz83m.jpg.html)
To me, the circumstantial evidence is moot and can be debated until the end if time. I mostly like to look at the hard evidence. The type of stuff you can see, hold, touch, smell, and taste if you like.
Board user Saigon was kind enough to post very detailed pics of 5 star1 property marked chinese guns in the past. As a former machinist and having nearly all years of Jianshe production in my collection, It is of my opinion that ALL characteristics are exactly identical to early Chinese rifles of the same time period. All other countries are NOT identical to one another other as the Jianshe guns and the star1 guns are.
Lets get to the meat and potatoes... :)
Inspectors within production facilities are assigned oddball stamps in which they apply to components in which they check. This is most commonly dimensions and tolerances of dif portions of a completed component. This is nothing new and most will say 'welp yeah', but when it comes right down to it.... Its about as close to a smoking gun as you may find. The ability to accurately identify a specific inspection stamp unique to one country and investigate where it is/isn't found.
I have been sitting on this one for a while.. Below you will see three of Saigons rifles. The center/bottom location of the receiver is where many of said inspection stamps are found, especially on early chinese carbines. As time progressed in the T56, these dwindled down to almost non existent.
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee269/mrcoinring/mrcoinring001/Screenshot_2015-09-13-15-45-21.png)
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee269/mrcoinring/mrcoinring001/Screenshot_2015-09-13-15-30-28.png)
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee269/mrcoinring/mrcoinring001/Screenshot_2015-09-13-15-28-39.png)
As you can see in the pics above, they all have a common stamp that looks like half a 'diver down' stamp which are all the exact same size as each other.
Note below pictured on my Chinese 1962 Jianshe '7m' gun having the exact same stamp... thumb1
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee269/mrcoinring/mrcoinring001/IMG_20150913_160533725_HDR.jpg)
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee269/mrcoinring/mrcoinring001/IMG_20150913_160348141.jpg)
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee269/mrcoinring/mrcoinring001/IMG_20150913_160604448_HDR.jpg)
Gentlemen - Here's another for the debate -
A documented bring back RPG-2 or B40 in Vietnam -
Obviously Chinese made with a NVA property mark -
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5348/17576866672_affbe702d4_c.jpg)
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7686/17391366068_573a05f8c0_c.jpg)
When did China start making those?
I understand they were licensed and I hear that some of these were also made in VN -
I have yet to come across an example purely made in VN -
Quote from: Saigon1965 on September 13, 2015, 08:01:32 PM
I understand they were licensed and I hear that some of these were also made in VN -
I have yet to come across an example purely made in VN -
Good luck on your search. :-X
I looked it up, you guessed it, the chinese version was the Type 56 rpg. So by your serial # its a 1965 which is well into the erra when the Chinese were simply sending Chinese marked SKSs. thumb1
Thanks LC -
The serial range is neat - My birth year!
Thanks LC! Excellent stuff…no doubt whatsoever the same stamp! That answers the one question regarding if the Chinese were involved with the star 1 manufacturing, which I think most have believed to be the case but in varying levels of certainty or uncertainty.
The second question may never be answered as to whether North Vietnam had any hand in the production or if it was solely the Chinese. I’d love to know exactly where the star 1 markings were applied, be it China or North Vietnam or somewhere else for that matter. Probably doesn’t even matter, other than dotting another ‘i’.
Quote from: Saigon1965 on September 13, 2015, 07:48:35 PM
Gentlemen - Here's another for the debate -
A documented bring back RPG-2 or B40 in Vietnam -
Obviously Chinese made with a NVA property mark -
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5348/17576866672_affbe702d4_c.jpg)
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7686/17391366068_573a05f8c0_c.jpg)
Here's another North Vietnamese B40 variant. North Vietnamese markings "Giai Phong" meaning "Liberation and the "B" in B40 means "Ba do ka", Vietnamese for bazooka and of course the 40 represents 40mm.
(http://i1287.photobucket.com/albums/a632/Bunker9939/North%20Vietnamese%20B-40%20variant/2_zps0ch7eya5.jpg) (http://s1287.photobucket.com/user/Bunker9939/media/North%20Vietnamese%20B-40%20variant/2_zps0ch7eya5.jpg.html)
(http://i1287.photobucket.com/albums/a632/Bunker9939/North%20Vietnamese%20B-40%20variant/1_zps3rc4wdux.jpg) (http://s1287.photobucket.com/user/Bunker9939/media/North%20Vietnamese%20B-40%20variant/1_zps3rc4wdux.jpg.html)
(http://i1287.photobucket.com/albums/a632/Bunker9939/North%20Vietnamese%20B-40%20variant/3_zpsmomq7vb3.jpg) (http://s1287.photobucket.com/user/Bunker9939/media/North%20Vietnamese%20B-40%20variant/3_zpsmomq7vb3.jpg.html)
LC, do you know if the M21s also has that same stamp on the receiver and are the Star 1 barrels made of the same material as the Chinese during this time period? IMO (which means nothing) the North Vietnamese at some level had their hand in this, in country. It may have been just applying their NVA property mark or possibly more but I don't think they were completely absent in the various weapons displaying the Star 1 marking.
Need more date on the three early m21 variation in regards to that stamp, and everyones opinion means something here. thumb1
Other then the barrel contours and milling being the same etc... No, I have not had samples tested for metallurgical comparison. :))
Is the RPG you posted thought to be genuine nva?
The rpg you posted is drastically different.
Also very very crude compared to the Chinese, if this one is infact a Vietnamese unit. Kinda proves some of our thoughts on the the issue of them not exactly having the abilitly to manufacture the FAR more elaborate milled SKS. The rpg isnt exactly complicated or elaborate if you catch my drift.
I know they made 'some' things and were not entirely incapable of some level of production, but look at that thing and tell me they (at that time) could have made an exact clone of the T56 right down to the QC stamps and perfectly matching milling etc and I call BS. An rpk is a tube with a trigger. :))
Quote from: Loose}{Cannon on September 13, 2015, 11:45:35 PM
The rpg you posted is drastically different.
Also very very crude compared to the Chinese, if this one is infact a Vietnamese unit. Kinda proves some of our thoughts on the the issue of them not exactly having the abilitly to manufacture the FAR more elaborate milled SKS. The rpg isnt exactly complicated or elaborate if you catch my drift.
I know they made 'some' things and were not entirely incapable of some level of production, but look at that thing and tell me they (at that time) could have made an exact clone of the T56 right down to the QC stamps and perfectly matching milling etc and I call BS. An rpk is a tube with a trigger. :))
No I'm with you...I don't believe they could manufacture the SKS in it's entirety but I do believe there was possibly some level of work going on. Like I said, possibly just applying their markings but I don't believe they were absent completely.
Here is the link with detailed photos of that B40 in case anyone is interested in the other photos.
Sword of the Motherland Historical Foundation (http://www.russianwarrior.com/STMMain.htm?1947RPG2_detail.htm&1)
All I can say is, all the components appear to be identical to the same era Chinese sks. To me, its a rather redundant concept to have parts shipped only to have to assemble them. Wouldn't it make more sense to ship the parts already assembled? This reminds me if RMs stament about one truck being taken out and destroying all the gasblocks with it..... How you going to put any of them together? rofl
I mean.... If the kurds need a hummer and we air drop them components to build one, how is that helping? bat1 :)) At some point there needs to be common sence.
I agree and makes perfect sense...not disputing that at all. We may never know where the Star 1 markings were applied but my guess is somewhere within Vietnam and I may be alone with that opinion. Here is presumably one of their underground facilities, which is the only pic I've seen of any facility during the Vietnam War (other than VC workshops), assuming that to be the case. Not saying it has anything to do with the discussion but interesting photo nevertheless.
(http://i1287.photobucket.com/albums/a632/Bunker9939/Vietnam/Vietnam%20Underground%20Factory_zpsowfxcc5l.jpg) (http://s1287.photobucket.com/user/Bunker9939/media/Vietnam/Vietnam%20Underground%20Factory_zpsowfxcc5l.jpg.html)
How would a NVA/Chinese any different than any other contract weapon, just how many Mausers are made by one nation, but crested and stamped ownership by the buyer, just about all the South American Mausers are, 98% of them were either made in Germany, Belgium, or Czechoslovakia. The M47 Madsen, made in Denmark, marked all over as Colombian, all of the Fn-49, Fn-FALs, Hi-Power pistols, Browning shotguns.
It's no different at all and I'm not disagreeing...I really don't know but vetting everything I can think of as to why not for discussion. We would also have to discount all intelligence reports to date and agree that they did not have their hand in the SKS at all and China shipped them complete with the Star 1 markings being applied in China. Like I said, not disagreeing but I'm not completely sold either.
Quote from: Bunker on September 14, 2015, 12:43:50 AM
It's no different at all and I'm not disagreeing...I really don't know but vetting everything I can think of as to why not for discussion. We would also have to discount all intelligence reports to date and agree that they did not have their hand in the SKS at all and China shipped them complete with the Star 1 markings being applied in China. Like I said, not disagreeing but I'm not completely sold either.
I dont think that the CIA docs presented in this thread are evidence of much of anything... and we have just that one report. Just my 02. Remeber, guy picks up gun and said gun has a star1 and instantly reports nva carbine. If the report is in fact refering to an sks, it reported what was observed, not what it actually was not to mention a gun made for the nva could still be concidered an nva weapon.
I really dont know if the stamp was applied in china or in NV as I'm not sold on either one at this point. I dont think its a stretch the nva had reps in China marking destination aid rifles, and they could have been star1 stamped in NV also.
To me, where the stamp was applied isn't the meat and potatoes... Its the salt and pepper. These guns are nva marked and thier collectability and value are not effected by where the stamp was applied or if its a Chinese rifle with a property mark. These guns don't need papers if you know what I mean.
Quote from: Greasemonkey on September 14, 2015, 12:31:33 AM
How would a NVA/Chinese any different than any other contract weapon, just how many Mausers are made by one nation, but crested and stamped ownership by the buyer, just about all the South American Mausers are, 98% of them were either made in Germany, Belgium, or Czechoslovakia. The M47 Madsen, made in Denmark, marked all over as Colombian, all of the Fn-49, Fn-FALs, Hi-Power pistols, Browning shotguns.
Another good point GM...
I buy that! I've seen several intel reports and I'll see what I can did up. Didn't save a whole lot but they are really talking "Country of Origin", and what that defines I don't know but they make a clear distinction between USSR, China, North Vietnam and the like, and they must have done that for a reason, otherwise they would all just say China. I believe I seen one that lists the M21 as China (country of origin). Again, I don't know but like you said, it's really just salt and pepper.
Welp.. If i were to investigate the origins of weapons and I were the first to record/report such a critter that was only nva marked along with a serial #, I would report it as an nva weapon. The problem is.... Some years later, I think the story does not start nor does it end there.
The star1 is only surface deep, and I do not believe NV actually made the guns.
That I surely agree with!
But, how can a nation who had no weapon manufacturing tech or knowledge, all of the sudden manufacture an SKS. It took a while for Russia to work out the bugs, I'm sure China had a time. You can't make bikes and coolie carts one day, then an SKS the next day
Ok, you know the game, I have a niggling feeling, you and I have played it, elsewhere thumb1 ;) , let's play, what if!! What if, in '62-'65 the NVA stamped their mark and serial on the Chinese, the war wasn't raging quite yet, it was on simmer. They had time to piddle, stock up, and stamp rifles. After '65, the coals were being poured to them, B52 bombers and Iowa class battleships were all the rage, they told China send us what you have, anything, stamped or not, enter the M21 stuff.
So, where does this leave us, a once sterile Chinese SKS with actual NVA stamps, stamped by NVA peoples, or the Chinese just property stamped the NVA rifle. The latter of which kinda would make some sense, since China stamped the M21 and the M22 as a contract weapon, why not just stamp the Star1 for the NVA and just ship it. They get them, uncrate, load and go. In the end, it's a 50-50 guess either way.
Sure they may have made small arms, stamped weapons, you can make a Ak receiver in your garage, Kyber Pass, they can make an Enfield out of a truck fender and a Webley out of a railroad spike. But, lets see them machine an SKS receiver.
And, again, would you be willing to bet your life, your collection, something of extreme value on the accuracy of those intelligence reports. Sure, it's our Government agency, our hard earned tax dollars at work, they wouldn't dare produce fraudulent information, now would they. Their own history and known twisted web of lies, cover ups, scandals and what not, throws them out of the equation, period.
Now :), lets just ask the big one, clear the air, get it out in the open, cause it's weighing heavily on everyone’s mind who is reading this........ :o would a bonafide "true blue" Star1 NVA stamp have any more value than a Chinese stamped Star1 NVA mark? I mean, in the end, it's all about the $$$$, right. chuckles1
I follow you kind of and I'll say again, I'm not disagreeing with anyone. I do believe these rifles came from China, no doubt in my mind, LC clearly proved that, but I said and I'll say again, where they got marked was my question, which LC eloquently stated is the salt and pepper, which I agree, and much more than we know now or knew then is yet to be discovered. I fully agree.
Not sure what you mean by we played some game before, I'm way to old for that stuff and I don't play games with anyone and frankly I take offense to that, can you please elaborate? Sorry if I offended anyone, that was not my intention. My intention was to learn and have a good discussion. I'll drop the subject entirely...again sorry.
Offence was not my intention thumb1 I was mistaken, and suffered a flashback from a former time.
Where they got marked is anyones best guess, truthfully it may never be known. There are 9 million whys and very limited answers. Much like 99% of the foreign weapons, the nations who owned them don't release much info, if any, much less, formerly communist nations. Call it, fear, still stuck in the Cold War, even time could have flat out erased the info, so, there may be no right answer. Even some domestic weapons, info is sketchy.
It boils down to 2, with a curve ball thrown in for extra measure in choices, either China stamped them or North Vietnam stamped them. Now, given there are two separate, slightly different NVA stamps, that adds the curve ball, maybe China stamped a batch, then the NVA stamped a batch.
This item belongs to a friend - He got it from the Vet - Lonnie Patten - Lonnie found out he had only some time left on this earth and began to sell off his stuff -
Lonnie brought home "a lot" of stuff -
Please read the article below - It describes the action and the said RPG -
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5786/21421185915_cdb3b7b5cf_c.jpg)
Something to think about here - A documented bring back SVD in the same collection -
Note Star 1 and the "Made in the Soviet Union" stamping -
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/492/18129499954_82e017ba61_z.jpg)
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8859/18725853866_186a027ef3_z.jpg)
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/526/18129509394_5173c5dd53_z.jpg)
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5638/20798499114_25193b7b43_c.jpg)
The rpg also has a star2 stamp and not a star1. rofl
I guess I'm failing to see the connection on these other weapons and what they have to do with the T56.
I am just trying to provide some additional weapons from same era with different markings and perhaps it'll hit something for us in our search -
Quote from: Saigon1965 on September 14, 2015, 05:53:43 PM
I am just trying to provide some additional weapons from same era with different markings and perhaps it'll hit something for us in our search -
Its interesting I guess, but out if all the dif nations of sks that was used by NV, none of them were marked with the country of origin like that SVD.
Just a little more info to add to what Saigon1965 posted. I also have several pics of this Russian SVD along with the paperwork that I saved some time ago. Other than the fact that it’s a rare weapon and I wish it were mine, it was produced at the Izhevsk Plant in 1972 and the 603 is dated Dec 1974. Here are three more relevant photos of that rifle.
(http://i1287.photobucket.com/albums/a632/Bunker9939/Dragunov/Russian/Star%201%20Marking/pix720881109_zps7l3ntese.jpg) (http://s1287.photobucket.com/user/Bunker9939/media/Dragunov/Russian/Star%201%20Marking/pix720881109_zps7l3ntese.jpg.html)
(http://i1287.photobucket.com/albums/a632/Bunker9939/Dragunov/Russian/Star%201%20Marking/pix720881250_zpsa34ivwdt.jpg) (http://s1287.photobucket.com/user/Bunker9939/media/Dragunov/Russian/Star%201%20Marking/pix720881250_zpsa34ivwdt.jpg.html)
(http://i1287.photobucket.com/albums/a632/Bunker9939/Dragunov/Russian/Star%201%20Marking/cardv_zps7hukkq7y.jpg) (http://s1287.photobucket.com/user/Bunker9939/media/Dragunov/Russian/Star%201%20Marking/cardv_zps7hukkq7y.jpg.html)
Here is an Arsenal /26\ 3M series that also has some form of the Star 1 on the buttstock and what looks to be a faint star to the left of the serial number on the receiver. This rifle has been discussed on a few different forums and maybe you guys have discussed it as well. The markings are unusual and don’t fit the norm but nevertheless it contains some form of the marking being discussed here. The experts here may have more insight into this particular rifle.
(http://i1287.photobucket.com/albums/a632/Bunker9939/Chinese%20SKS%203M%20Series/Star%201%20Marking/image_zpsaqilsrl1.jpg) (http://s1287.photobucket.com/user/Bunker9939/media/Chinese%20SKS%203M%20Series/Star%201%20Marking/image_zpsaqilsrl1.jpg.html)
(http://i1287.photobucket.com/albums/a632/Bunker9939/Chinese%20SKS%203M%20Series/Star%201%20Marking/image_zpsj1cnvrl4.jpg) (http://s1287.photobucket.com/user/Bunker9939/media/Chinese%20SKS%203M%20Series/Star%201%20Marking/image_zpsj1cnvrl4.jpg.html)
(http://i1287.photobucket.com/albums/a632/Bunker9939/Chinese%20SKS%203M%20Series/Star%201%20Marking/image_zpssvekce2w.jpg) (http://s1287.photobucket.com/user/Bunker9939/media/Chinese%20SKS%203M%20Series/Star%201%20Marking/image_zpssvekce2w.jpg.html)
(http://i1287.photobucket.com/albums/a632/Bunker9939/Chinese%20SKS%203M%20Series/Star%201%20Marking/image_zps4ljq8xxw.jpg) (http://s1287.photobucket.com/user/Bunker9939/media/Chinese%20SKS%203M%20Series/Star%201%20Marking/image_zps4ljq8xxw.jpg.html)
The /26\ may be a 1958 rifle but we have no idea when it arrived in Vietnam and the same story with the Chinese B40 Saigon65 posted, as China exported a lot of those to VN. The Star two is a new twist though and what if anything does that tell us? May not even relate to the SKS but interesting to me. However, the B40 “Liberation” I posted was supposedly first manufactured (and I say the loosely) in North Vietnam in 1971. I will verify that with a few books so don’t hold me to that yet.
So, all this tells us is the USSR, China and possibly North Vietnam (provided I can validate the B40 with a high degree of certainty) produced weapons that contained the Star 1 marking, and from 1962 (maybe earlier, we don’t know) until 1972-74 timeframe. Possibly a break between 1965 and the SVD we see but not enough data to know one way or the other at this time. I’ve read that some M21s also had the Star 1 marking but I don’t know if that is true and at this time I cannot validate that. I'd be interested to know if anyone has seen an M21 with the Star 1 marking or other /26\ rifles for that matter.
Very neat stuff Bunker - Thanks for posting these -
The star 1 appears on so few and various weapons but nevertheless - Quite interesting -
I don't see a star on the 3m receiver at all... :-\ And the trouble with the stock stamp is that anyone could have done it. Its a large stamp with a much smaller 1 in the middle which isn't consistent with anything I have seen. Heck, I can go down to hobby lobby and duplicate that right now.
Quote from: Bunker on September 15, 2015, 04:23:15 AM
Here is an Arsenal /26\ 3M series that also has some form of the Star 1 on the buttstock and what looks to be a faint star to the left of the serial number on the receiver. This rifle has been discussed on a few different forums and maybe you guys have discussed it as well. The markings are unusual and don’t fit the norm but nevertheless it contains some form of the marking being discussed here. The experts here may have more insight into this particular rifle.
...
I'd be interested to know if anyone has seen an M21 with the Star 1 marking or other /26\ rifles for that matter.
I know nothing about SVDs, and arguably not very much about Chinese Type
54 56 SKSs, but I'll toss out what I'm seeing here. That stock has an original 1/4 tall x 1/10 wide lettering for the original 6 digit S/N stock stamp. It is not a great resolution photo an I can't tell if it matches the receiver S/N or not. It's possible that it does as I *think* I see a "31" as the last two numbers, but more interesting is the S/N restamp in the very tall but narrow lettering. The Chinese did not begin to use font even remotely that large until much later in production. You really start to notice the larger font in the 10 mil /26\ series when many other changes occurred.
(http://i1352.photobucket.com/albums/q647/jelucer/Chinese/T26/10194496_receiver.jpg~original)
(http://i1352.photobucket.com/albums/q647/jelucer/Chinese/T26/10194496_stock.jpg~original)
This factory stock has numerals are equally wide as they are tall (roughly 3/8" x 3/8" whereas the ones in your image are at least the same height if not taller, but a bit narrower) and they have a full 5 digits (0 to 99k ) to be able to track 100k guns at a time, unlike the 4 digits of the restamp S/N you show which would only have been able to track 10k guns at a time.
Here's an interesting one I found in my records. 7 million /26\ (1962 manufacture) with a clearly replaced/refurbished stock (should have a side swivel on it). Unfortunately no clear photos of the right side of the stock, but very similar (I'd say the 1's & 2's look identical) font to the star 1 example you show.
(http://i1352.photobucket.com/albums/q647/jelucer/Chinese/T26/7037212_receiver.jpg~original)
(http://i1352.photobucket.com/albums/q647/jelucer/Chinese/T26/7037212_stock.jpg~original)
I've never seen an M21 N
o marked with anything remotely like a star 1, though with so few known examples out there, that's probably not surprising.