Thought to ask this forum to ensure that I provide the correct information if I decided to let this go.
This SKS  has all the matching numbers that I am seeing on the stock and other places. 

Based on my research. Im not exactly sure ...
http://chinesesks.weebly.com/dating-the-chinese-sks.html

• 1979: 24 million /26\ marked guns, S/N ~24,000,001 to at least 24,224,003.

• 1988: SKS D, new production, accepts standard AK magazines.

What do I have and estimate value on this ?
Reason is that I might have to let this go if this doesn't meet the California Laws if I move (In a year or two).
I rather to start a fund for precision rifle.  

Thanks in advance

Standard Chinese SKS, If you want to sell it fast $350.00 If your willing to sit on it for the right buyer $450.00.

Thanks - Guys, 

Just what I thought :) 

You are  missing  the bayonet.  Even though it looks in very good condition  I wouldn't  pay much for it because  of the missing  bayonet.

There are way to many sks in this. Country  that have not been altered for one like yours to have much value.  Honestly   for me $300 would be on the high side.

The missing bayonet  lends suspension  that the rest of the rifle has been altered  and that really  hurts the value.

Just added the missing bayonet on the SKS.

Its now completed set which I think I will test it on my local forum first before posting it here.

Thanks

Technically- it is illegal to put a bayonet on a Chinese SKS brought in after I believe the Bush 1989 ban. Since dates of manufacture cannot be verified (because China will not release any information), the BATF considers them not to be C&R eligible, meaning they had to remain as they were imported after the ban (no bayonets and no after market folding stocks). I see Chinese SKSs with this stuff all the time so I do not think the official law is enforced. If you obtained it before the 1989 ban (and have proof of such) then you can do anything (short of making them full auto) to them you want.

Makes no sense since it ONLY applied to the Chinese ones.

Perhaps this has changed over the years, but I think "technically" it's still on the books.