Just got an unissued 1951 Tula in the mail and something struck me as odd.
At present, I have an unissued '51, a '52 refurb that looks as though only the stock and gas cylinder got changed, and a '54 unissued. I also had a 55/66 no-date in issued, but non-refurb condition for a while until recently. I've owned tons more SKS's over the years, but my previous ones were beat up or refurbed ones from when that batch came in from Syria 15+ years ago.
The only thing that gives me pause about the '51 is that the bayonet isn't gold tinted, though it 100% for certain was never issued. No wear marks on the bolt at all, un-blued chamber, not a mark on the gun, and the forward gas block is squeaky clean and spotless. No evidence of firing on the bolt face either. Not sure when the gold bayonets first started, but I had thought it was some time in 1951?
I don't know if this holds true for most rifles given the small sample size I was comparing directly to one another tonight, but it seems to me that build quality got significantly better as Tula production progressed.
The 1952 is markedly better fit and finished than the 51 and the 54 is markedly better than the 52.
Comparing the two guns with the greatest comparative difference is the '51 and '54. Neither gun was issued and both are pretty much mint.
The '51 left the factory with a poorly fit and somewhat crooked buttplate. The buttplate was not fully seated at all, I had to relieve a few thou of wood under it on one side to make it seat properly. Would have taken Ivan 30 seconds to do - not sure how it managed to leave the factory this way. The buttplate itself is a less finished stamping than on the '54. It is rough-sanded to 200 grit on the face of it and the perimeter still has a lot of scaling that wasn't sanded off from the original sheet of hot-rolled steel. It's all been blued over. In contrast, the '54's buttplate was inlet to commercial clearances and was nicely polished everywhere. It was electro-pencilled matching while the '51 plate was not.
Next we look at the receiver cover. The inside of the '51 looks like it was hogged out by a crazed beaver. The '54 looks like it was done with a nice sharp end mill ball cutter. Much better finished as well.
The bolt carried also stands out. the sharp edges were all nicely broken on the '54 carrier, while the '51 was left crisp and sharp in a lot of areas with a lot of file marks in evidence on the underside. Not as well finished.
The rear sight base/gas block on the '51 seems much cruder. The slot for the tang is actually crooked by a degree or two which is likely why the front sight is cranked over a bit to compensate. On the '54 it's perfectly aligned. I checked it with a laser. It's perfect.
The barrel on the '51 is out of alignment by about 0.75 degrees, while the '54 is bang-on.
I could go on, but the gist of it is I think that as production progressed and the Soviets recovered from the horrors of WW2, their production standards increased accordingly.
I'd love to see a '49 to see if this trend continued backward.
The one area where I can say the '51 is superior though seems to be the stock itself. Aside from the buttplate it seems to be better made, the shellac finish is better, and so is the overall fit to the action. The markings are also not too deeply struck like on the '54. They are just the right depth.
Anyone else have similar observations?
PS: My thanks to Weimajack for hand-picking the nice '51 for me.
At present, I have an unissued '51, a '52 refurb that looks as though only the stock and gas cylinder got changed, and a '54 unissued. I also had a 55/66 no-date in issued, but non-refurb condition for a while until recently. I've owned tons more SKS's over the years, but my previous ones were beat up or refurbed ones from when that batch came in from Syria 15+ years ago.
The only thing that gives me pause about the '51 is that the bayonet isn't gold tinted, though it 100% for certain was never issued. No wear marks on the bolt at all, un-blued chamber, not a mark on the gun, and the forward gas block is squeaky clean and spotless. No evidence of firing on the bolt face either. Not sure when the gold bayonets first started, but I had thought it was some time in 1951?
I don't know if this holds true for most rifles given the small sample size I was comparing directly to one another tonight, but it seems to me that build quality got significantly better as Tula production progressed.
The 1952 is markedly better fit and finished than the 51 and the 54 is markedly better than the 52.
Comparing the two guns with the greatest comparative difference is the '51 and '54. Neither gun was issued and both are pretty much mint.
The '51 left the factory with a poorly fit and somewhat crooked buttplate. The buttplate was not fully seated at all, I had to relieve a few thou of wood under it on one side to make it seat properly. Would have taken Ivan 30 seconds to do - not sure how it managed to leave the factory this way. The buttplate itself is a less finished stamping than on the '54. It is rough-sanded to 200 grit on the face of it and the perimeter still has a lot of scaling that wasn't sanded off from the original sheet of hot-rolled steel. It's all been blued over. In contrast, the '54's buttplate was inlet to commercial clearances and was nicely polished everywhere. It was electro-pencilled matching while the '51 plate was not.
Next we look at the receiver cover. The inside of the '51 looks like it was hogged out by a crazed beaver. The '54 looks like it was done with a nice sharp end mill ball cutter. Much better finished as well.
The bolt carried also stands out. the sharp edges were all nicely broken on the '54 carrier, while the '51 was left crisp and sharp in a lot of areas with a lot of file marks in evidence on the underside. Not as well finished.
The rear sight base/gas block on the '51 seems much cruder. The slot for the tang is actually crooked by a degree or two which is likely why the front sight is cranked over a bit to compensate. On the '54 it's perfectly aligned. I checked it with a laser. It's perfect.
The barrel on the '51 is out of alignment by about 0.75 degrees, while the '54 is bang-on.
I could go on, but the gist of it is I think that as production progressed and the Soviets recovered from the horrors of WW2, their production standards increased accordingly.
I'd love to see a '49 to see if this trend continued backward.
The one area where I can say the '51 is superior though seems to be the stock itself. Aside from the buttplate it seems to be better made, the shellac finish is better, and so is the overall fit to the action. The markings are also not too deeply struck like on the '54. They are just the right depth.
Anyone else have similar observations?
PS: My thanks to Weimajack for hand-picking the nice '51 for me.
