SKS Test! Tula or Izhevsk?
- Thread starter luv2roll
- Start date
PinkyPlinker
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Kenora, ON
It's a Tula letter gun, with an Iz cover. I saw this one for sale and noticed that. Lately there have been some "not as they seem" guns from very well known and respected sellers...
Definitely NOT a 1953 Iz.
Definitely NOT a 1953 Iz.
Well that didnt take long. You are correct sir! The cat is out of the bag
I have a question for you PinkyPlinker: So how do I get this well known and respected seller (whom I suspect you know who it is) to take this sks back without me paying for the shipping and insurance? (They maintain its a 1953 Izzy)
Last edited:
PinkyPlinker
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Kenora, ON
The star on the receiver is the Tula marking. After 1954 Iz was no longer making SKS
Dante, no worries - believe me, when I got the sks I had to put on my glasses and double check it as I was in disbelief. To say that I was disappointed with this rifle is an understatement because I paid a premium for 1953 Izhevsk and what I got was a mismatched Tula letter gun.
Last edited:
Good on you! I'm too late to the party! May I ask where you saw it for sale? Perhaps just a non-definite hint? I would have jumped at the chance
to buy this SKS myself and I doubt that I would have noticed the star until much later.
Is the reciever cover serial number the same as the rest of the rifle? If it is, is it noticeably altered? Not that it matters, it is now a more interesting SKS.
PinkyPlinker
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Kenora, ON
I bought my latest SKS from a different CGN member, also with excellent rep. It was also not as advertised. I think members would be very very surprised to hear which two members. I have no need to name anyone as my issue was resolved to semi-satisfaction for me. I won't mention this source either as I have no dog in this fight.
I contacted the dealer last week and have exchanged a few detailed emails with them to explain the issue to them incuding pictures.They are currently standing by their assertion that it is an 1953 Izhevsk and have stated that if I would like to return it I will have to cover the cost of return shipping and insurance. I don't think its fair for the customer to be required to pay to return an item that was misrepresented. I am not saying that the retailer intentionally did a bait and switch, but I did not get the 1953 Izzy that I paid for.
Last edited:
