SKS and the number 1
- Thread starter vettefever333
- Start date
let me know if you ever wanna sell the remaining, i promise to treat them well .
My wife bought my 1954 Tula from LeBaron last week and the guy showed her one with a circle/arrow instead of a star/arrow telling her it was more of a collectable than the Tula. She bought the Tula anyway because she liked the looks of the stock. I think the Markham Lebaron still has a lot of SKSs from the IZH armory. I think I have caught your bug because I feel like going to get one. The one he showed my wife was a 1950.
let me know if you ever wanna sell the remaining, i promise to treat them well .
I sold them before I realized that the new shipments were frankenpinned. Had I some psychic ability I would have bought all 36 that the local store brought in. Instead, I only bought 7. Now I must fill the holes in my collection with rifles that are less than desirably plugged.
i have one complete set (minus 49) of IZH (non-frank) and im working on the second set.
yeah, if i knew about the franken pin, i would have drove all the way to moving target and personally inspected and purchase as many as my car could carry.
oh well, im happy with what i got .
Here's a more likely hypothesis. The number likely means either the height of the front sight base or a reference to the height the standard threaded foresight when adjusted to hit the factory test target. Probably the latter so that armorers in the field could quickly adjust the front sight back to "close" if a recruit got monkeying with it
Got them both from WestRifle. They arrived looking better than the pictures on his website. They filled a difficult hole in my growing collection.
Heres my collection
1950 Refurb stock- "early" No # or marks
1950 "late" non refurb- No # with insp stamps
1954 izh non refurb- #1 with insp mark
1956 non refurb- "l" mark also gas block has a "l" mark
So plz tell me did the russian forget to mark half of mine with these #s ?????????
I say the #s are just insp marks
1950 Refurb stock- "early" No # or marks
1950 "late" non refurb- No # with insp stamps
1954 izh non refurb- #1 with insp mark
1956 non refurb- "l" mark also gas block has a "l" mark
So plz tell me did the russian forget to mark half of mine with these #s ?????????
I say the #s are just insp marks
Just for the info of those interested: the acceptance for the C7, C8 and C7A1 when I was at the factory was based on firing 3 shots to check semi auto function and to establish zero (the amount of allowable adjustment of the front and rear sights on the C7/C8 was limited by acceptance specification, the C7A1 had no rear sight so it was just function fired and group tested) and then a semi auto 10 shot group was fired. If there was a problem in the first three shots we could remove the gun and rework it. After the rest of the test started it counted as a failure. This group was checked for size and the MPI had to remain within a specified region to allow for individual zeroing in the field. The guns also fired a fully automatic FUNCTION test during which on a sample basis the rate of fire was determined. There was a max and min rate of fire allowed. Failures in accuracy, zero, semi or full auto function were tracked and if too many occurred a whole production lot could be failed (including the passed guns).
A couple of interesting notes: I won't say the group size as the mount that was used held the butt and the front sight in clamps and if you think about any M16 derivative that places the pivot pin and takedown pin between the mount points. Also the shots were NOT individually aimed, just rough zeroed with the three shots and then the string was fired. My experience - and i'm pretty sure i have more recorded testing than pretty much anyone around dealing with Diemaco guns specifically - was that you could reasonably expect the aimed group at 100 yards to be equal to or better than the mount group at 50 metres. I had several hundred guns fired and reviewed the factory records and found this over 10 years to be almost 100% true. The mount DID make that much adverse difference. Luckily it was also consistent so the results, while not great, were reliable. For this reason it would be tough to identify truly "match grade" guns but I do know when I selected a good shooter in the mount it never let me down in front of a crowd. My personal demo gun was with me for 10 years and it shot tens of thousands of rounds and on my last day it shot almost as good a group as it did at acceptance. (A bit over a MOA versus a bit under when new.)
The crazy thing with rate of fire was we had to slow down our Canadian guns. I will not slag anyone else as I don't know their factories but I can say that our guns when I was at Diemaco were built to the drawing package dimensions and they were VERY good. I am quite certain that it was the attention to detail of the manufacturing people and the pride they showed in machining and finishing parts so well along with our assemblers who took their time and put together a really REALLY great M16 type rifle that made the difference. The optimum tolerances achieved and the really good internal finishes just came together to make our rifles function that much smoother. And a smooth gun cycles faster and cleaner and thus we had to watch the rate of fire tests that we didn't go too fast! Fun stuff really.
Lastly just since I am sure someone will be interested, in every lot (usually a month's production) we fired a 6000 round endurance test. There were a number of allowable stoppages according to the spec and the test would still be a pass. How good were our guns? When I was there we averaged less the ONE stoppage for all causes per endurance test and that included misfires of our IVI C77 ammo. Basically the guns were so good we were doing as much ammo testing as gun testing! (Oh and FYI the C77 ammo in the early days was REALLY accurate. We had some other issues but man would it shoot well compared to pretty much any other SS109 compliant stuff.)
We also did a interchangeability compatibility test which involved taking 10 tested and accepted guns, disassembling them and switching the parts around so essentially no two parts that started in contact would be in contact after reassembly. Then the guns were retested and they had to pass.
In the early days of the program when the gun was going through acceptance there were even more tests as well as independent confirmation at outside labs but that is for another day (and if anyone is interested).
Phil
A couple of interesting notes: I won't say the group size as the mount that was used held the butt and the front sight in clamps and if you think about any M16 derivative that places the pivot pin and takedown pin between the mount points. Also the shots were NOT individually aimed, just rough zeroed with the three shots and then the string was fired. My experience - and i'm pretty sure i have more recorded testing than pretty much anyone around dealing with Diemaco guns specifically - was that you could reasonably expect the aimed group at 100 yards to be equal to or better than the mount group at 50 metres. I had several hundred guns fired and reviewed the factory records and found this over 10 years to be almost 100% true. The mount DID make that much adverse difference. Luckily it was also consistent so the results, while not great, were reliable. For this reason it would be tough to identify truly "match grade" guns but I do know when I selected a good shooter in the mount it never let me down in front of a crowd. My personal demo gun was with me for 10 years and it shot tens of thousands of rounds and on my last day it shot almost as good a group as it did at acceptance. (A bit over a MOA versus a bit under when new.)
The crazy thing with rate of fire was we had to slow down our Canadian guns. I will not slag anyone else as I don't know their factories but I can say that our guns when I was at Diemaco were built to the drawing package dimensions and they were VERY good. I am quite certain that it was the attention to detail of the manufacturing people and the pride they showed in machining and finishing parts so well along with our assemblers who took their time and put together a really REALLY great M16 type rifle that made the difference. The optimum tolerances achieved and the really good internal finishes just came together to make our rifles function that much smoother. And a smooth gun cycles faster and cleaner and thus we had to watch the rate of fire tests that we didn't go too fast! Fun stuff really.
Lastly just since I am sure someone will be interested, in every lot (usually a month's production) we fired a 6000 round endurance test. There were a number of allowable stoppages according to the spec and the test would still be a pass. How good were our guns? When I was there we averaged less the ONE stoppage for all causes per endurance test and that included misfires of our IVI C77 ammo. Basically the guns were so good we were doing as much ammo testing as gun testing! (Oh and FYI the C77 ammo in the early days was REALLY accurate. We had some other issues but man would it shoot well compared to pretty much any other SS109 compliant stuff.)
We also did a interchangeability compatibility test which involved taking 10 tested and accepted guns, disassembling them and switching the parts around so essentially no two parts that started in contact would be in contact after reassembly. Then the guns were retested and they had to pass.
In the early days of the program when the gun was going through acceptance there were even more tests as well as independent confirmation at outside labs but that is for another day (and if anyone is interested).
Phil
lejarretnoir
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- 162km from Connaught
Good to hear about Diemaco and our own gun quality for Canada. I have shot the C7 at Borden before the Elcan scope development. Very accurate to 500 yards. I remember a General or two that were very interested in our scoped AR-15's.
As to 1, 2, 3 marks on SKS front sights bases. Once you get a refurb barrel installed do they X out the old number and retest for new? I still have a hard time believing the Soviets tested the SKS45 for "Sniper Grade". They experimented with that in 1949 and gave up according to info I read.
Now that would be a rare find for SKS collectors in possessing one of those!
As to 1, 2, 3 marks on SKS front sights bases. Once you get a refurb barrel installed do they X out the old number and retest for new? I still have a hard time believing the Soviets tested the SKS45 for "Sniper Grade". They experimented with that in 1949 and gave up according to info I read.
Now that would be a rare find for SKS collectors in possessing one of those!
Good to hear about Diemaco and our own gun quality for Canada. I have shot the C7 at Borden before the Elcan scope development. Very accurate to 500 yards. I remember a General or two that were very interested in our scoped AR-15's.
As to 1, 2, 3 marks on SKS front sights bases. Once you get a refurb barrel installed do they X out the old number and retest for new? I still have a hard time believing the Soviets tested the SKS45 for "Sniper Grade". They experimented with that in 1949 and gave up according to info I read.
Now that would be a rare find for SKS collectors in possessing one of those!
I'm following this same logic on this one. How many other Soviet carbines were tested for accuracy before being placed into service? This would be like Louisville Slugger home run testing every bat before shipping, either it works or it doesn't and are all going to be very similar in function.
