More About Japanese Weapons

[Subdeacon Joe]

An interesting page

 

 

 

Quote

In December 1941 the typical Japanese foot soldier carried a 6.5mm Arisaka Type 38 bolt-action rifle. Arisaka’s bureau had copied this rifle more or less exactly from the 1898 Mauser, except for the use of the smaller calibre, their one major contribution to the design being the addition of a sliding metal bolt cover. Intended to keep dirt out of the mechanism, this was not a successful innovation, as the cover made a great deal of noise when the bolt was operated, and the Japanese soldiers tended to discard it in the field whenever possible. The Arisaka was known neither for its power nor its reliability, as declining standards of manufacture resulted in a slow, sticky action and other maladies. It used a five-shot charger clip, like virtually all straight Mauser designs (ironically, the US soldiers and Marines who opposed the Japanese throughout the first year of the Pacific war were almost all armed with their own straight copy of the 1898 Mauser, the ’03 Springfield, which did however fire a much more powerful .30-06 cartridge). The smaller calibre employed made for no real savings in length or weight, as the Arisaka weighed in at over nine and a half pounds. A sniper version, known as the Type 97, was also made in small numbers, fitted with a low-powered scope sight.

The limitations in range and hitting power resulting from the 6.5mm ammunition were supposedly noted during the China campaign, with the result that a new variant, the Type 99, was introduced in 1939. It was pretty much the old Arisaka, with one major difference. The Type 99 was chambered to fire a much more potent 7.7mm cartridge, which had in the initial stages of its design been copied directly from the British .303-inch round, which the Japanese were already using in some of their machineguns. Another distinguishing feature was a thin metal rod which fitted under the barrel, and could be extended to brace the rifle against the ground like a flimsy monopod. Otherwise there was not much difference between the Type 99 and the earlier rifle. The new Type 99 did not really get into service in large numbers until the second half of the war, 1942 or later, although by 1944 it was the main rifle in the hands of the troops facing the Americans in the Marianas and the Philippines, and was also being encountered frequently by the British in Burma. But the older 6.5mm Arisaka remained in widespread service until very late in the conflict, and was never completely replaced. The smaller rifle had one advantage in jungle combat, and that was its relatively limited report and muzzle flash (and the Japanese had a pretty good smokeless powder, at least until manufacturing went down the tubes late in the war) made it harder to locate the source of its fire in heavy foliage. Also, the shorter ranges of the average combat in the close cover of the jungle disguised one of the 6.5mm Arisaka’s greatest shortcomings, its lack of range, as the weapon was still capable of being plenty dangerous out to at a quarter mile or so (440 yds or 400 meters), which was the maximum for most serious infantry combat in World War II at any rate. But the greater punch of the 7.7mm not only resulted in better stopping power, but also could make a difference in shooting through all that foliage with lethal effect.

 

 

[Rip Snorter]

I wonder how many guys in the WWII Pacific Theater got messed up by a captured "Knee Mortar".

[Subdeacon Joe]

10 minutes ago, Rip Snorter said:

I wonder how many guys in the WWII Pacific Theater got messed up by a captured "Knee Mortar".

 

My guess would be not many.   Word would likely spread quickly to  Not Try That. 

 

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/japanese-knee-mortar.html

[Chantry]

I used to own a Type 99 in 7.7mm Japanese.  The build quality was pretty good and the action was pretty smooth, with no sticking when working the action.  The Chrysanthemum had been ground off, the mono pod, bolt cover and  "wings" attached to the rear sight to provide lead for shooting at aircraft were all missing.  I've certainly run across worse small arms designs from any number of countries.

[Tom Bullweed]

I bought one 6.5 and one 7.7 in the late 1980s when Rose's sold milsurp guns for $50-$100.  Neither was as fun or cheap to shoot as my many SMLEs or Swedish Mausers.

Japan didn't have enough large hardwood trees, so the buttstock is a two-piece dovetailed situation.  These were known to splinter or break during hard use.

[watab kid]

16 hours ago, Chantry said:

I used to own a Type 99 in 7.7mm Japanese.  The build quality was pretty good and the action was pretty smooth, with no sticking when working the action.  The Chrysanthemum had been ground off, the mono pod, bolt cover and  "wings" attached to the rear sight to provide lead for shooting at aircraft were all missing.  I've certainly run across worse small arms designs from any number of countries.

i had one that still had the crest and the aircraft sights as well as the monopod - i dont recall what processed me to sell it but it was around the same time i sold most of my US collection , 

 

i also had a nambu pistol - no ammo so that was easy to get rid of from my side , 

Edited April 19 by watab kid