Russian Re-Arsenal Information

F

fonestar

Regular
Rating - 100%
88   0   0
Location
Whitehorse, YT
I'm getting more and more into the history of some of these Russian rifles...

Does anyone have any information on when Russia ran some of it's re-arsenal/refurb programs? 1970s? 1980s?

I am aware of the Diamond shaped marks and such but is there any way to tell the year that your SKS, SVT or M91/30 was refurbed?

I am guessing that the rifles must have already been ten or twenty years old or so when they were refurbed?

Also, if the SKS was never a front line rifle and didn't really see combat (1949 - 1956 or so) then what was the cause for the re-arsenal program?

Did they really burn through that many rounds live fire training with them?
 
IMHO, all of the Soviet imports had at least some maintenance/upkeep performed during their time in the USSR. However, not all of them are true refurbs The terms re-arsenaled and refurbished are often incorrectly used.

The condition of the Soviet imports suggest that there are two basic categories of carbines imported.
1) Issued, service carbines that were lightly to heavily used and lightly to heavily refurbished.
2) un-issued rifles which spent possibly their entire pre-import life in Soviet storage.

Carbines from the second category will not bear any of the traits typically associated with heavy refurbishment. But there is some overlap of less invasive traits (like blued or painted muzzles, dipped/blued bayonets, and EP serials on the buttplates). But their condition, as well as some markings and traits indicate that the Soviets had an organized system of upkeep and maintenance, even for their deep storage small arms that never saw issued service.

There were only two soviet arsenals for the sks45, but there were likely hundreds of facilities (small and large) throughout the USSR where full rebuilds or minor, scheduled storage-maintenance regimes were performed. So it would be difficult to say when, and how often such procedures were done.
 
Last edited:
I see... thanks for that. Still not sure why so many needed to be rebarreled though? Did they have something like the Canadian Rangers that were putting thousands of rounds through them? Even the non refurbs usually seem to have decent barrels.
 
Soviet 7.62x39 bi-metal jacket is very hard on barrels. Probably 6-10 k rounds and the barrel is done.
Most SKS didn’t see a lot of shooting, being issued to non-fighting trades. They were carried a lot and cleaned daily, year after year, with the issued steel rod from the muzzle end.
Some may have been used for training, fresh conscripts were sent to bootcamp for a few months, and while each individual did not shoot a lot, the shared guns at the range were heavily used.
 
fonestar said:
I see... thanks for that. Still not sure why so many needed to be rebarreled though? Did they have something like the Canadian Rangers that were putting thousands of rounds through them? Even the non refurbs usually seem to have decent barrels.
Click to expand...

TBH, There isn't any evidence yet to suggest that any of the imported SKS45's were ever re-barrelled. Though it is entirely possible.

But you never see chrome lined barrels on verifiable 1949-1951 guns, or their 90° and 45° gas ports replaced with the updated curved designs.

The chinese guns, however, often exhibit possible indications of re-barrel-- in particular where there are font dissimilarities between the matching barrel-to-reciver timing numbers (left side of receiver, below the woodline).

see how the number "20" font match on this Chinese type56? The possible indication being that the barrel and receiver are an original matching pair:

But here the "35" fonts are different, suggesting that the barrel may be a replacement.


It's not definitive, but the Chinese Type56's were heavily used, whereas the SKS45 was virtually obsolete when it went into production in 1949. I am not aware of any Soviet imports with such indications or other evidence of possible rebarrel.
 
Last edited:
fonestar said:
I see very good information, thanks. BTW what was their bi-metal jacket bullet? Copper and...?
Click to expand...

Steel jacket plated with tombac (copper-zinc alloy). Standard bullets had lead and soft steel core (~50/50 by weight). There are many other bullet designs though, some very recent
 
fonestar said:
I'm getting more and more into the history of some of these Russian rifles...

Does anyone have any information on when Russia ran some of it's re-arsenal/refurb programs? 1970s? 1980s?
Click to expand...

If you're getting into history... SKS, SVT, M91/30 were not Russian rifles (unlike Berdan, Berdan II, MN 91), they were Soviet and that's important to understand history of those rifles. Especially refurbishing that happened in various countries, back then all parts of USSR.

You question is too broad, maintenance, refurbishing and re-arsenaling was continuous process that had been happening until the end of USSR and many maintenance practices remained unchanged in independent countries like Ukraine, Belurus etc, after USSR ceased to exist. For the sake of simplification you can say "refurbishing" as we usually refer to it happened around 1950-1960x, for MNs and SVTs, not sure about SKSs.


fonestar said:
I am aware of the Diamond shaped marks and such but is there any way to tell the year that your SKS, SVT or M91/30 was refurbed?
Click to expand...


Diamond shaped mark IS NOT sign of refurbishing. To tell the truth there's no such thing as "refurbishing markings" at all. There are repair markings and there are arsenal markings, presence of any of them could mean many things, not just refurbishing. You never can't tell if rifle is refurbished just by single markings.

Generally speaking there's no way to tell when firearm was refurbished, however certain arsenal markings (MO, for example) includes the year. Can you call aresnal re-haul made in 1947 "refurbishing"? Up to you. But it was not what most people call refurbishing. Also certain markings existed only within certain time periods so that might give you a clue.

fonestar said:
I am guessing that the rifles must have already been ten or twenty years old or so when they were refurbed?
Click to expand...

As there were many programs to maintain firearm expect that they had various criteria, not just age of firearm.

fonestar said:
Also, if the SKS was never a front line rifle and didn't really see combat (1949 - 1956 or so) then what was the cause for the re-arsenal program?
Click to expand...

Who said SKS was never a front line rifle? Tell this guy to read USSR government decree #2611-1033, dated 18 June 1949.
As I said before - there were many programs and many criteria to refurbish rifle. Many of SKSs had seen very extensive service so they were refurbished also because of that.

Feel free to read this page and browse the site other pages for more information, there's BTW detailed info on grading. SVT-40 section for this site was written by me, but the whole site is maintained by one the the best experts is Soviet firearm - Ratnik.
https://www.m9130.info/repair-depot-modifications
 
Last edited:
From the end of WW2 until the Afghan invasion in 1979, the soviet troops were not involved in any major conflicts. In 1974 they transitioned to the AK-74 and the 5.45x39.

It stands to reason the SKS45 was never a front line weapon-- especially considering that the soviets were able to put the AK into full, robust production by 1956.
 
Boris, is that you again with your "logic" and "theories"? I thought you proved your competence what, year ago in some SKS thread?
Stop thinking and start reading finally. Following your logic until 1979 there were no "front line weapon", just because there were no major conflicts.
Actually I don't like the term "front-line weapon", it's made up. Let me put it this way - SKS and AK were accepted into Soviet Army service simultaneously, same day by the same decree, and were in service simultaneously for decades. They were intended for different purposes, and they were used accordingly. They were both integral parts of "M43 stelkovyj kompleks" (firearm system, or ecosystem if you will). They were not replacing of following each other. That is my main point. But I'm sure you're in possession of some new secret logic and knowledge and ready to share it with us. Go on.
 
Ok, genius, perhaps you can tell us all of the major conflicts from 1949 to 1956 where the Soviets fielded the SKS45 as a front line weapon...?

This is specifically what the OP refers to... or are you not in the habit of actually reading OP's?
 
Last edited:
CIA learns of the 7.62 x39 SKS AK and Stechkin 1955

OP: to your question regarding to the use of the SKS45 between 1949-1956 I refer you to this CIA report from 1955.

The linked CIA report below makes it clear that as late as 1954-55 that US intelligence and likely the Western powers were unaware of the existence of the SKS45 carbine. Not to mention the extreme measures the Soviets took to safeguard the secrecy of the new 7.62 round (i.e. 7.62x39):

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP82-00046R000500020007-7.pdf

IMO, if the SKS were a front line weapon at any time from 1949-56 it's safe to say that both the carbine and the new 7.62 round would have been spotted long before 1955.
 
Last edited:
Boris Badinov said:
From the end of WW2 until the Afghan invasion in 1979, the soviet troops were not involved in any major conflicts. In 1974 they transitioned to the AK-74 and the 5.45x39.

It stands to reason the SKS45 was never a front line weapon-- especially considering that the soviets were able to put the AK into full, robust production by 1956.
Click to expand...

I can tell you with absolute fact that the SKS was used in Angola... Amoung other guns dumped by other countries.
 
The Kurgan said:
I can tell you with absolute fact that the SKS was used in Angola... Amoung other guns dumped by other countries.
Click to expand...

The OP question is referring to front line use by Soviet forces--1949-1956.

In my post you cited above, I was also referring to Soviet use, but covering the larger period from 1949 to 1979.

Are you suggesting that Soviets chose the sks over the AK as their main issue small arm for their advisors in Angola?
 
Last edited:
Horilka said:
Boris, is that you again with your "logic" and "theories"? I thought you proved your competence what, year ago in some SKS thread?
Stop thinking and start reading finally. Following your logic until 1979 there were no "front line weapon", just because there were no major conflicts.
Actually I don't like the term "front-line weapon", it's made up. Let me put it this way - SKS and AK were accepted into Soviet Army service simultaneously, same day by the same decree, and were in service simultaneously for decades. They were intended for different purposes, and they were used accordingly. They were both integral parts of "M43 stelkovyj kompleks" (firearm system, or ecosystem if you will). They were not replacing of following each other. That is my main point. But I'm sure you're in possession of some new secret logic and knowledge and ready to share it with us. Go on.
Click to expand...

Honestly it is not even worth debating with him. Remember last time? We can throw verifiable facts at him all day long, yet he chooses to live in his fantasy land.
 
I am suggesting that some "factions" chose to carry Soviet SKS carbines in Angola. This means that the Soviets were providing these arms as offensive weapons in Angola.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom