Gunboards Forums banner

New Sokolov Mount

9K views 58 replies 9 participants last post by  Kirby 
#1 ·
Just picked up this Sokolov Mount with the different pattern of controling the elevation and depression.

This example features a pin and three holes rather than the usual slot and clamping bolt.

Quite why it was produced and what possible advantages it could offer over the usual pattern is questionable.

The mount has the Tula mark and I would date it to the 1930's.

Any comments? Are there any examples in the states. They do appear fairly commonly in photographs if you loook.
 

Attachments

See less See more
2
#28 ·
Hmm... that last photo is interesting REME. Do you guys think the trigger lever is brass? The pad does not look brass but the lever itself does. I don't know guys, I think something else is going on here. I would love to find out its brass but my guess is that something else is going on here, IMHO.
 
#29 ·
There are a number of pre 1941 photographs showing the Finns with the slotted mounts, in fact I think all the mounts that came from Finland where so . I have a photo of the guns stacked up in storage that clearly shows the Finnish mounts with the slots. This in fact how I remember all the mounts, on checking more pictures I come across the three hole mount inRussian use during WW2, and just pre war, plus yet another Russian training sheet from the late 1930's also showing the three hole mount

Perhaps post 1939, the Russians picked up on the Finnish modification and encorporated it. The Finnish photographs are from the 1930's and can be found in Markku Palokangas Military Small Arms of Finland 1918-1988, especially interesting is, Vol 2 page 423 three hole mount with a training 1910, and page 425, 1933 photograph of slotted mounts which are not the earlier slotted mount with the 5 semi formed holes in Sako workshops

Can it be that we have taken the Finnish slotted mounts as the norm, and then compounded this with the Soviet slotted version to believe that the slotted version is the next version after WW1. The three hole mount is certainly documented from the mid / late 1930's, is the slotted mount in reality one of the Russian 1941 modifications based on the Finnish Maxims.

So do we have any consensus that on Russian use / Production we have :-

1. WW1 and 1920's slotted mount with five semi formed holes - Evidenced by Imperial and early Soviet Manuals
2. Mid 1930's onwards three hole mount - Evidenced by late 1930's manuals and SCW mounts Museum shots in DPB, plus WW2 photographs
3. 1940's onwards slotted mount - Post war pics of US Army, plus example in USMC Museum

Finnish mounts having being modified slotted from the late 1920's / early 1930's - Evidenced by Finnish photographs of the period

BTW, almost a seperate thread, I think the trigger lever on the Moscow Maxim is steel, it is just aged with rust.
 
#31 ·
There are many different shades of green and OD on the mounts, jackets, ammo cans, etc and not one coloor that is correct or common. I have had at least half a dozen colors matche dup at the paint stor with a muint or a jacket, etc and usualy it is close enough to satisfy me. Most paint is either a flat or semi-gloss, with an occasional almost gloss finish. Take a mediium sized part that has as close to a uniform color that you want and little or no other shades of any color or black on it and the paint store can make a pretty good analysis of it for you. Behr paints has worked well for me, recently, and before that the Sherwin-Wiliams store matched up colors well. Behr are all acrylics which wil last in the can a while. The enamel is getting hard to find.

Bob Naess
 
#32 ·
David

Based on the currently available information I would agree with your production history of the mounts.
Indeed 1941 mentioned by one of the Russian posters may wel be the date of the change over.

Does anyone know if the slotted version appear in any manual. My manual is aprox 1947 and still shows the three holes.

The mounts are a subject in their own and I always try to get a different variation when ever I buy from Rytons.
It would be interesting to know how many of the late war lightened version were produced with the large diameter holes driled down the side rails.

Neil
 
#33 ·
Neil,

I have two dates for changes, being 1931 and 1941 from my Russian texts, albeit for different changes, plus changes in 1944/5 for the feed trays, which comes from Dolf

There are post war manuals on the web, but if I was to hazzard a guess, they probably still carry forward the pre war diagrams.

I wonder if their are any US Manuals on the use of captured Soviet / Chinese equipment from the Korean War period, however that leaves a 5/6 year gap following the end of WW2.

Following that forward, the feed blocks are again interesting, the one you kindly picked out at Ryton for my 1932 MAxim, is a contoured block, but it is mid war production due to the rough castings. The pre war trays have the same contours but are much better finished. It seems that the good quality feed blocks without the contoured top were are the late war pattern but fitted at the time of the post war refurb programme, and were probably supplied new and numbered to the guns at that time.

Somehow, the best solution would be to build a grid showing the changes with a defined refeence point such as the instruction manual or photographs, and at the same time denoting if it is a Russian or Finnish mod.

At least then we could build a database which could be shared, or contributed to.

David
 
#34 ·
David

We had a discussion here about feed blocks. I don't know if you know the answer.

http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?142636-Russian-Maxim-Feed-Blocks

When you say a contoured block I assume you are refering to the pre-war pattern?

The difference in quality between the war-time and post-war production late war feed blocks for the steel belts is also substantial.

Although I have them dated as early as 1944 no one has produced any evidence yet of their war-time use.
 

Attachments

#35 ·
Don't forget the aluminum feedblocks, which are high quality, apparently only made during the war and appear to exist in several varities, such as with or without top belt release and several patterns of lower pawl handles/levers.
Neil: you mention "post-war" made feedblocks. Having never come across a feedblock with a date past 1945, have you? A post-war feedblock would only have been made to rebuild 1910s, so did the Russians make these? Or did other countries?
Is there a description of the alterations made by the Russians to the feedblcoks to use the steel belts, and when did this appear to happen? I'd like to know the specs for the feedblocks used with fabric and those used with steel belts. I have a lot of feedblocks and can't determine any difference between early pattern and late pattern as far as the pawls, and internal configuration. External characteristics changed as did craftsmanship and finish.
The Finns had steel belts from 1932 on, the M32 belts for their AVI made Maxims, but, as far as I know, the Russians didn't issue a steel belt for 7.62X54R calilber MGs until the SG43 was issued. The M38 DSHk used a steel belt, which is the only Russian MG using steel that early. Need some information about the alleged alteration to the feedblocks, when it occurred and what the changes were. The additiion of a top pawl release appears to have been early, but would not have been done for steel belts. It is interesting that osme of the aluminum wartime feedblocks didn't have the top release pawl.

Bob Naess
 
#36 ·
Neil,

I think think that there are five types of Russian feed block.

1. The 1905 or earlier bronze block with the wooden roller and bronze ears + later modification to take metal belt. (Mine is illustrated in DPB on my ex Finnish '05, but the 1905 modified feed block came from either Bulgaria or Roumania on a WW1 period 1910, so I swopped the feed blocks around to put the correct block onto the correct model)

Motor vehicle Drawing Vehicle Technical drawing Auto part


2. The 1910 standard steel block manufactured from 1910 through and in WW2 for cloth belt with tabs rather than a bar underneath,and later modified to accept metal belts during WW2. I call this the contoured feedblock with the feed pawls from your pic.

Bumper Automotive exterior Auto part Vehicle Family car



3. Brass and Alloy light weight blocks from the 1920's

4. The WW2 cast blocks with the under bar for quick release - now I don't know if these where made for cloth only or for both, my gut feeling is that they were made for cloth and later modified for metal belt, as such they form a sub set of 2 above

Auto part



5. The all purpose 'Universal' feedblock that will accept cloth or metal belts, these have a stronger flatter top. I have seen a Russian source show the 1910/41 with filler cap, modified long slot mount, simplified rear sight and 'Universal' feedblock described as the 1941 modifications, but I believe that this is the last modified state that became a standard at the end of the War. The pics that Dolf has of the USMC museum 1944 Maxim plus his own 1944 Maxim, both show the 'Universal' feed block numbered to what appear unrefurbished guns, ie the top cover markings are sharp and do not look scrubbed. In addition there is the slotted mount shown. Have a look and see what you think in DPB.

Vehicle Scale model Car
Machine Auto part Floor Metal


I will try and hunt down some more pics, attached pic of the 'Universal' block on a refurb 1910 in Russia, plus my cast feed block above for comparison

David
 
#37 ·
Thanks for the pics. I have examples of all the different feedblocks, although all the aluminum ones I have are wartime, with combinatiion Cyrillic letters and numbers. I have yet to come across an aluminum one numbered indicating it was made in the 1920s.

I am curious what specific changes were made to the 1910 feedblock that distinguishes one used with cloth belts compared to one used with steel belts. Aside from changes in the contours of the exterior, what differentiates the two types on the interior? I can't find any differences except for the addition of the top pawl release lever. I have exmaples of very early standard blocks without the top pawl release and also wartime aluminum blocks without the release. Also I have 1910 bronze blocks with and without the release. The 1905 blocks didn't have the release, and I haven't seen any on any of the early bronze Maxims that have a top belt pawl release.
The variety of lower pawl release levers and handles doesn't affect the use of cloth or steel belts.
The drive arm, upper feed shuttle and pawl and lower pawls all are identical on all the feedblocks that I have, so I can't understand what changes were made to alter them for steel belts.
Having fired many 1910s using both cloth and steel belts, the difference is not evident either.
Is there any evidence that feedblocks were manufactured after 1945?

Bob
 
#38 ·
Here is an example of a 1949 dated feed block.

You can see the difference in the finish between the war-time and post-war models. The bottom pin is also slightly different on the two models. 95% of the Ryton imports have been fitted wirth these irrespective of their date of manufacture and 95% are of post-war manufacture.

All the feed blocks have also been of steel manufacture with my only aluminum example coming from the states as a swap for a steel one. I also did a swap to get an example of the early type bottom pawls. I assume for shooting a steel feed block with the linked bottom pawls is more relable than an aluminum one.

I don't recall any of my early feed blocks giving the impression of being cast.

The same goes with the rear sights with the vast majority of early guns being fitted with the late pattern.

Neil
 

Attachments

#39 ·
Thanks Neil. However, what indicates that it was manufactured in 1949 and that the date is not to indicate that it was for a rebuild, etc? Any notion of the maker and if it was Russian or not, if it was made in 1949? The other stamps indicate some info about the factory, etc, I would assume?
Linking the bottom pawls really has no conneciton with the functional reliability of the feedblock for shooting. The advantage is that it only requires one hand to move the pawls out of position rather than fumbling aorund with two separate tabs to do the same thing. The top and bottom pawls must be retracted at the same time for the loaded belt to move back out of the feedblock, so connectng the bottom ones makes that action much easier.
In my opinion the lack of the relief cuts on the top of the feedblock as with the earlier styles was just to save machine time. It makes no difference as far as the function of the part.

Bob
 
#40 ·
Most feed blocks have a date on them so quite if this is a manufactures date or rebuild we will perhaps never know.

The only pointer here is the very poor standard of machining on the war-time dated example I posted earlier to this one.

They must have had large stocks of the late pattern feed block available from the war if they did not manufacture post-war.
 
#41 ·
Bob

This extract is from the Russian language Maxim magazine and refers to the new feed block for cloth and metal belts.

"The feed block was also a focus for improvement. In order to use both fabric and metal ammunition belts, Lubenets developed a machine-cut steel receiver, to which a special upper-pin switch was fitted to assist unloading. When firing, the ammunition belt would move to the left. The metal belt could only be removed after depressing the switch. In the new receiver, lengthening of the upper joint of the slide lever and increasing the angle between the upper and lower joints achieved greater recoil of the slide rightwards and a more reliable pick-up of the cartridge on the belt. A universal receiver for metal and fabric belts was an important step forward. Nevertheless, in order to make full use of the considerable stockpiles of canvas belts, receivers exclusively for these belts continued to be manufactured throughout the duration of the war".

Also

"From 1942, feed blocks were produced from silumin using pressure moulds (1930 moulds were not altogether discontinued) or they were manufactured through broaching the steel".

Some of the meaning may have been lost in the translation but I don't know if this adds to our understanding of the subject. The book refers to design work stating in in 1941 but 1944 is the earliest dated example I have so far observed.

Neil
 
#42 ·
Thanks Neil. I recall you posted this info a while back, so apologies for asking aobut it again. I cna't find my copy of the museum tretise on the Maxims, which i sent out to get translated but haven't been able to find!
The addition of the upper pawl release was a necessary and important change, but does not alter the function of the feed in firing.
The cartridge can only go to the left inside of the block where it stops in the center of the feedway, which cannot be changed. Changeing the angle means that the shuttle moves further to the right, as well, if the drive slot in the left recoil plate remains in the same location. I can see that might help if the pawls are not picking up the next round on suttle movement to the right, but it does not create more drive power. It is necessary to have a couple millimteres of slack in the upper feed shuttle when the lock is inbattery to account for the thickness of the bel and steel links. On the two waqrtime orignal factory 1910s that I own, with matching numbered feedblocks the slack is appropriate, and I have run both fabric and metal belts with no feed problems. I assume they are the modified versions.
Adding length to the upper drive arm would increase the leverage of the arm and give more power to the movement of the shuttle to the left. However, it would have to be lengthened more than slightly to gain an increase worth the effort of changing all the feed arms.
I'll have to compare some of the pawl shuttle arms and the lower arms to see if the length and angle changes show up on some and not others.
I would assume that there might have been some interest in increasing the drive force of the feedblock for the steel belts, but they are only very marginally heavier than the fabric when unloaded. The drive force of the feedblock can simply be increased significantly by increasing the booster orifice slightly as the 54R round has exceptional power, and there are about 8 or 9 differrent sized orifiecs for the boosteres available to the armorers. So, in my opinion, going to the trouble of adding a few millilmeters in the length of the upper feed arm seems very picky, especially for the usually very practical and simplified approach to MG design demonstrated by the Russians!
Anyway, I'd be interested in where the information about these changes originated in the military chain of command for modifications of small arms. Is there any documentation from original sources addressing such mods, such as the Brits did with their small arms with the List of Changes?

Bob
 
#44 ·
Thanks Neil. Yes, I have to get my copy back! I've contacted the guy several times and haven't received an answer. He was not happy with doing the translation, either, but I am not sure why.

Is there a source for copies of that booklet? I have several customers who are interested in having one.

Bob
 
#46 ·
Thanks Neil. Sadly, I've ordered twice from them and never heard a word in response, so I guess my real question is where, other than Avia, can one obtain a copy?
My orignal copy came form the museum in St Petersburg compliments of a friend of mine who has been there a number of times.

Bob
 
#48 ·
Gentlemen, save your pennies :)
This issue (like many others) has been scanned by Russian gun-nut community and posted online some time ago. here's the link for download, the file is less than 5 Mb in size. You will need a DjVu reader program to read it.

Book: http://www.mediafire.com/?sg5akifaz6nfadg
WinDjView reader: http://windjview.sourceforge.net/

let me know it you have trouble with downloads.
 
#53 ·
yes, i have many. for example, the classic 2-volume set by Blagonravov "Materialnaya chast strelkovogo oruzhija" (hard to translate title properly, but it contains very detailed descriptions and analysis on many Ww2-era small arms, from pistols and up to HMGs). Also do have e-copies of the post-WW2 era reference books about foreign small arms and ammunition, and many others. Also have many scanned manuals for Soviet small arms
just few cover snapshots:
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top