Quoted:Here’s another photo showing the triangle 26 arsenal stamp and the Cyrillic serial number on the receiver. You can also see a ding from a charging handle showing that this rifle got bumped pretty hard while in the rack.
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/99594/IMG_8014_jpeg-3209922.JPGHere’s another photo showing the left side mounted sling loop and the serial number on the stock, which obviously doesn’t match the serial number on the receiver. In fact, this being a Sino Soviet rifle, anyone who knows anything about Chinese SKS rifles would immediately know that at some point it was retrofitted with the later production Chinese style stock and bayonet. And if someone didn’t know that, I actually mentioned it in the original post.
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/99594/IMG_8015_jpeg-3209925.JPGHere’s another photo of the wrist area of the stock, showing the distinctive grain of the chu wood stock As well as remnants of the Chinese orange shellac finish.
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/99594/IMG_8016_jpeg-3209928.JPGHere’s a close-up of the front portion of the stock, again, showing a very distinctive chu wood grain, as well as remnants of the orange finish. While not the original stock, it is very clearly a Chinese chu wood SKS stock. I’m not sure how anyone could look at this and conclude otherwise.
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/99594/IMG_8017_jpeg-3209930.JPGHere’s a photo showing the bolt carrier and rear site. Although the serial numbers do not match, it appears that the operating parts are all Sino Soviet.
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/99594/IMG_8018_jpeg-3209932.JPGI’ll leave it to you guys to decide if the grain pattern is a “bazillion times wrong”. Whatever that means. Perhaps that is a technical term employed by elite appraisers of SKS rifles. I know I’ve never heard that expression before.
I don’t get paid to appraise SKS rifles. But as a trial attorney, I do get paid to establish who’s being truthful, and who is a liar. Hopefully, this follow-up post helps with that. If not, I can provide more evidence if my antagonist is willing to Provide any objective evidence that this rifle is not a Vietnam bring back. If I’m wrong, I will admit it. All he has to do is show me one of those four things that disqualify it as being a valid Vietnam trophy. I will remind everyone that I said in the original post that the capture papers are long gone, so this is just another SKS. It’s not for sale and never will be during my lifetime so I have nothing to gain by misrepresenting its providence. But if someone can look at a photo and immediately pronounce it “100% BS,” and then claim that there are four things that are “way off,” That person bears the burden of proof to back up his claims.