Meet SKS #4 to replace the one I foolishly sold last year...

collector67 said:
Bead blasted bayonet= REFURB...if it was unrefurbed, the bayo would be as shiny as the bolt assembly. ( I have one, and they are hard to find)
Click to expand...

Are you sure? I will be mighty pissed if I paid a premium for a refurb. Perhaps some of the old veterans can chime in on this one. I won't say you're wrong, but I won't trust one opinion. EVERY '54 I've seen, and I've seen many, have a dull/matte silver finish on them. I thought (and I am always open to other viewpoints) is that by '54 the Russians had made a number of small changes/improvements, including coating the bayonets, probably to help control corrosion.

My opinion is that the early bayonets, like on my '51, were polished steel, and later a dull coating of some sort was applied. In some cases the bayonets yellowed over time, perhaps due to the effects of cosmoline. I also don't believe the Russians were 100% consistent in their processes, and perhaps a few were polished and the remainder were coated in '54 (and in other years?). One thing I have learned in owning numerous refurbs (most sold), and now two non-refurbs is that there are slight variations in the SKS for any given year. For example, I have a "rare" '52 with a bayonet lug that is of a "transitional" nature, as it has both the recess features of later SKS's, but has a straight cut (not angled) inner ear of pre-1952 examples. Some SKS's have double wound operating rod springs, some have standard operating rod springs, etc.

This '54 has no refurb marks of any sort, the wood is definitely original. The cartouches are sharp, and dare I say sloppy. The metal finish is definitely original. All metal parts are matching. The screw that holds the bayonet in place shows no signs that it saw a screwdriver since the factory, the dimples that help to hold the bayonet screw in place are perfectly aligned. The matte coating on the bayonet also looks aged, with a very slight hue of yellow (probably cosmoline).

In summary, I highly doubt this SKS went through any sort of refurbishment process, and I hightly doubt the bayonet was replaced or the original purposely bead blasted and coated, with the screw put back into perfect alignment with the punch dimples without any evidence of marring, etc. And I have never seen an all-matching "refurb" with the original wood but with a replacment bayonet.

I will await the opinions of individuals like curtton, woodbeef, weimajack, and other experienced collectors and/or sellers that have handled hundreds, if not thousands of SKS's.
 
Last edited:
Now I've never owned a 54 Tula. But I have had both early and late 54 Izzy non-refurbs. The early ones were shiny,the late ones matte. With the Tulas there's no way of knowing when they were made within that year. If Tula did the same as Izhevsk,there will both bayonets used during that year. All of my 55 dated Tulas and Letter Series non-refurbs came with the matte bayonet.
 
In summary, I highly doubt this SKS went through any sort of refurbishment process, and I hightly doubt the bayonet was replaced or the original purposely bead blasted and coated, with the screw put back into perfect alignment with the punch dimples without any evidence of marring, etc. And I have never seen an all-matching "refurb" with the original wood but with a replacment bayonet


Take a magnifier, and if you don't see any avidence of double punch marks at bayonet screw, well this bayonet never been replaced.

I realy don't know why they can take time to replace a bayonet on a brand new rifle. Russians are like all of us, they don't have time to lost.
 
Over the last few years the CGN community has seen Russian SKS's marketed as New/Unissued, Non Refurb, matching numbers ect ect ect. From reading this forum and other U.S. based forums, there does not seem to be hard documented facts only opinions of individuals that are deemed experts when it comes to the SKS. If a Russian SKS is sold as New, there should not be any interpretation to that. The real grey area is the UNISSUED term, could not unissued also mean new, or unissued after refurb? Once again its all up to individual interpretation. If the OP is happy with the product he believes is a unissued Russian SKS that he paid a premium for that should be all that matters. In my opinion and the opinion of others, New/Unissued and Unissued SKS's are few and far between. Maybe the OP was lucky and I hope he was............
 
bjs7293 said:
Over the last few years the CGN community has seen Russian SKS's marketed as New/Unissued, Non Refurb, matching numbers ect ect ect. From reading this forum and other U.S. based forums, there does not seem to be hard documented facts only opinions of individuals that are deemed experts when it comes to the SKS. If a Russian SKS is sold as New, there should not be any interpretation to that. The real grey area is the UNISSUED term, could not unissued also mean new, or unissued after refurb? Once again its all up to individual interpretation. If the OP is happy with the product he believes is a unissued Russian SKS that he paid a premium for that should be all that matters. In my opinion and the opinion of others, New/Unissued and Unissued SKS's are few and far between. Maybe the OP was lucky and I hope he was............
Click to expand...

I appreciate the comment. I was lucky, and I agree with you that we can NEVER really know if it was unissued or not. It was sold to me from weimajack as "unissued and non-refurbished". Personally, I couldn't care less if it was unissued or not, what I am MUCH more concerned about is whether or not it was refurbished. All evidence says no.

The proclamation from the other poster that it is a "REFURB" is what alarmed me. I am comfortable in knowing that other respected and knowledgeable members have 1954+ non-refurbs with matte silver bayonets. There's nothing else on this rifle to indicate its a refurb.

from Russian SKS sticky:
sks45bayo51024x5761-1.jpg

On the above pic, right side. Here’s are my other Russian bayo, from left : original matte silver, gold coated on silver, gold coated on shiny steel , painted black (refurb) and lastly blued (refurb).
 
No it is ok if you tell me they are there, i believe you, that is the feature that impress me the most on a unrefurbished SKS... Cheers. JP.
 
caramel said:
No it is ok if you tell me they are there, i believe you, that is the feature that impress me the most on a unrefurbished SKS... Cheers. JP.
Click to expand...

May be is out of topic but I want to share with you:I was today at Gun show in Detroit,I did not see any Russ SKS only Yugo in fair and good condition between 250-350$ only one in exelent condition at 450$ ,Romanian in fair condition at 200$,all looked junk.No chance to see the beauty of refurbished RUssian or new Military chinese.
 
bjs7293 said:
Over the last few years the CGN community has seen Russian SKS's marketed as New/Unissued, Non Refurb, matching numbers ect ect ect. From reading this forum and other U.S. based forums, there does not seem to be hard documented facts only opinions of individuals that are deemed experts when it comes to the SKS. If a Russian SKS is sold as New, there should not be any interpretation to that. The real grey area is the UNISSUED term, could not unissued also mean new, or unissued after refurb? Once again its all up to individual interpretation
Click to expand...

amen
 
Last edited:
weimajack said:
Yes, this rifle is from my personnal collection.

It's a very nice rifle, but with some damage to the stock from shipping.

When it's time to ship guns, IZH are not very serious.

I have another one, it's a IZHEVSK dated 1954, absolutely mint, and a tack driver.

I keep it:D
Click to expand...

Yes your 54 Izzy non-refurbed is a very nice one,Sir.
 
This is my 1954 Tula that I got from Frontier about 4 years ago. No refurbishing on this one, all original....the laminated 1950 be low it is (obviously) refurbished.



 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom