Russian SKS45: ID FAQ Collectibles .... update feb 8th, 2011

djankle said:
Here is the Russian SKS I picked up from Frontier Firearms. Its a 1954 Tula.
Click to expand...

That's a typical 1954 all-matching mild refurb. Like with two of my SKS's, refurbishment on your SKS seems to be limited to a replacement laminate stock. Take comfort in knowing that non-refurbished SKS's are as rare as hen's teeth, and yours is the next best thing. Laminate is way stronger and more visually appealing (IMHO) than the solid arctic birch stocks anyway. She will make a fine shooter. Also, your stock appears to be a "new production", probably placed during arsenal refurbishment; meaning, it was not off a donor SKS.
 
Last edited:
Kurgan, I find the earlier models to be the nicest of the examples Ive seen. I grabbed a '50 Tula #3 refurb from a local dealer for $200 and I have to say its much nicer than my '54 Tula laminate. Machining is a bit better and the stock is fatter like a Chinese mil. SKS.
1122011547b.jpg

1122011548.jpg
 
supernova said:
Kurgan, I find the earlier models to be the nicest of the examples Ive seen. I grabbed a '50 Tula #3 refurb from a local dealer for $200 and I have to say its much nicer than my '54 Tula laminate. Machining is a bit better and the stock is fatter like a Chinese mil. SKS.
1122011547b.jpg

1122011548.jpg
Click to expand...

That is nice. Now compare the profile of both bayonets. You will see that the earlier bayonet is thicker. You will also notice various weight saving features on your '54 as compared to your '50.

I agree, the earlier Russians are nicer.
 
The Kurgan said:
That is nice. Now compare the profile of both bayonets. You will see that the earlier bayonet is thicker. You will also notice various weight saving features on your '54 as compared to your '50.

I agree, the earlier Russians are nicer.
Click to expand...

I noticed all these things immediately and was quite surprised. Theres so much more to these rifles than just cheap plinkers
 
Just bought my second SKS. First is a 1952, second is a 1950. Both are refurbed Tulas. One things I noticed as I was inspecting them together post cosmo cleaning of the 1950, was that all of the metal parts on the 1950 save for the gas tube are a flat, parkerized type finish while the 1952 has the black paint treatment. Is this normal on the 50?
 
The Kurgan said:
I made an observation that I haven't seen discussed.

Note the profile differences between the 1951 (right) and 1952 (left) Russian SKS bayonets. The1951 bayonet is thicker. This was one of several incremental weight saving measures to the SKS design employed by the Soviets after 1951.

In case you're wondering, all metal parts on the 1952 SKS were professionally parkerized and then Arma-coated in olive green by Mr. Murdoc (Barret Arms).

6247849294_ebca8543a6_b.jpg
Click to expand...

Is it just installed upside down on your 52?
 
fenceline said:
Just bought my second SKS. First is a 1952, second is a 1950. Both are refurbed Tulas. One things I noticed as I was inspecting them together post cosmo cleaning of the 1950, was that all of the metal parts on the 1950 save for the gas tube are a flat, parkerized type finish while the 1952 has the black paint treatment. Is this normal on the 50?
Click to expand...



The refurbs that have the black phosphate treatment are fairly rare.
 
Woodbeef said:
The refurbs that have the black phosphate treatment are fairly rare.
Click to expand...

Sweet! Looks like I got one then. The only metal that doesn't have the black phosphate finish is the gas tube. Even the spring loaded portion of the bayonet is in black phosphate. The magazine has a line engraved through the original serial number, and the stock is ###XX'd out but everything else matches up. It's a low 10** serial number.
 
Last edited:
Curtton said:
The Kurgan, i finally got around to looking at the extention rod spring , i have the single strand in my 1951 and also found a two sided milled extension rod in my 1952 .

so im asking other members if they have a single strand spring or a two sided milled extenstion rod in their SKS, if so what year?


typically extension rod and spring on the top and the two sided milled extension rod and single strand spring on the bottom.
P1090960.jpg
Click to expand...

I know this is an old question, but I have the single strand spring and typical extension rod in my 55/56 Tula (identified by the star on the left side of the receiver).

BTW, all parts are matching except the stock, handguard, and top cover. The interesting thing about the top cover is that there's NO arsenal identifying marks on it, although it does have the refurb mark and the serial number stamped into it. The font of the number is the same as on the receiver, but the spacing of the numbers is wrong (2-3x the space between the first number than there is on the other 3).
 
Curtton said:
SIGNS OF FIRING.

This procedure is strictly from observing, there are no hard rules. basicly what you are looking for signs of wear or changes since it was issued.

-Start from the front with the muzzle , check the crown for re-bluing or paint .
-The bayo screw to see if more than two punch holes are made .
-The bolt face. is it clean and shinny? no primer ring .
-Wear on extractor, is the EP worn .
-Wear on top and under the bolt .
-Any mark left by the extension rod on front of carrier?
-Wear on the rail the carrier travelled.
-Marks on feedramp, chamber and bore.
-Wear on mag follower and locking shoulder.
-Wear on the trigger group, face of the hammer, tip of the sear disconnect.
-Look inside gas tube for wear.
-Carbon or pitting on the front gas rod .
-Wear at the tail end of the gas rod.

You are looking for worn areas where bluing suppose to be, like on butt plate. im sure i missed a few more but you get the idea.

Bear in mind your rifle has been test fired so you are looking for signs it been fired more than 5 times.
Click to expand...

Well I just purchased a 1953r Tula SKS which appears to have no refurbishing marks, no forced matching and every stamped/penciled serial # is the same. The stock is laminate and was really rough on the inside and an overly tight fit for take down. The crown isn't entirely bare but it looks like the chrome spilled over the edges a bit. The rear sight isn't painted and I can't find any signs of wear or that the rifle has actually been fired. The face of the hammer just has a few tiny dings in it which appear to be from me dry firing it. So my question is: has this rifle most likely never been fired, and do I have something rare? I paid $240 for the rifle and the dealer couldn't tell me a thing about it. Thanks!
 
Last edited:
DarceMegarce said:
Well I just purchased a 1953r Tula SKS which appears to have no refurbishing marks, no forced matching and every stamped/penciled serial # is the same. The stock is laminate and was really rough on the inside and an overly tight fit for take down. The crown isn't entirely bare but it looks like the chrome spilled over the edges a bit. The rear sight isn't painted and I can't find any signs of wear or that the rifle has actually been fired. The face of the hammer just has a few tiny dings in it which appear to be from me dry firing it. So my question is: has this rifle most likely never been fired, and do I have something rare? I paid $240 for the rifle and the dealer couldn't tell me a thing about it. Thanks!
Click to expand...

Sometime, russian didnt put refurb mark during refurbishing. The correct stock for a 1953 should be hardwood not laminate. I dont believe in "unfired" SKS since they must had fews rounds for function testing before going in storage or whatever. Your 1953 may have seen very little use but the stock was likely replaced.
Jocelyn
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom