Arisaka.
- Thread starter savagefan
- Start date
Scarcity, perception as being Japanese "junk" (espescially considering the trainers and substitute-standard models), odd caliber.
Can't say anything about sporterising or the like, but I do own a full-military Arisaka I'm very fond of. They're very good guns.
Can't say anything about sporterising or the like, but I do own a full-military Arisaka I'm very fond of. They're very good guns.
- Location
- West coast of Vancouver Island
It may be cocking piece envy!
SW
SW
Yeah, too bad about the Mum. Otherwise, this T99 is all matching and correct in every way as a 1943 Toyo Kogyo transitional model (early 33rd series) and has a perfect bore. I even have the stacking rod, though it's not shown in the pic.
FWIW, yours is built on a T38 action.
FWIW, yours is built on a T38 action.
The Queens Medalist 86 said:
with a lot of 99's it wasn't the marksmanship that was an issue it was fit and metallurgy quality. cast iron recievers in a humid enviroment don't last too long. course that wasn't all 99's just the end of war rifles, which are often encountered
It's pretty much certain that cast iron receivers weren't issued for anything other than drill purpose. As a matter of fact, a late dear friend and I tried to duplicate PO Ackley's test with a late last ditch Arisaka model 99 in 7.7 calibre as well as an earlier type 38 in 6.5 calibre, they were about $5 apiece at the time and were a real pain to customise, there weren't any aftermarket add ons available either. The type 38 had been ridden hard and put away wet, the type 99 didn't have a bayonet lug and only had a fixed rear sight, the receiver was still in the rough though there was still a mum on the top, the rails, bolt lugs and face were machined rather well and the bolt handle was welded on, chamber and bore were as new, the stock was finished to the lowest standard I've seen on any military issue rifle (doubtful it ever saw service). These rifles were picked out of barrels at Kesselrings, in the good old days when even Liberals were shooters. Anyway to make a long story short, after reaming the chambers out with a 30-06 reamer and loading some cartridges up with all the2400 powder they could hold and still seat a bullet.
we couldn't blow up either receiver. The type 38 receiver used in that test is still in service today in 6mm Remington and doing fine work on a farm in Saskatchewan. I've heard all the old stories about Arisakas, and just like you, believed them. But when we learned from a few friends that were in Korea dureing the 50's about the Arisakas (type 99) that had been rechambered by the US gov't to arm Korean troops, we knew there had to be something amiss with the myths that were in vogue at that time. I now wish that I had picked up several of those at that time, cheaper than Lee Enfields and lots of bayonets, slings etc. We didn't think it woul ever end. Hindsight is 20-20. I can understand where you're comeing from, when you talk about the cast iron receivers, they certainly did look like cast iron. bearhunter
we couldn't blow up either receiver. The type 38 receiver used in that test is still in service today in 6mm Remington and doing fine work on a farm in Saskatchewan. I've heard all the old stories about Arisakas, and just like you, believed them. But when we learned from a few friends that were in Korea dureing the 50's about the Arisakas (type 99) that had been rechambered by the US gov't to arm Korean troops, we knew there had to be something amiss with the myths that were in vogue at that time. I now wish that I had picked up several of those at that time, cheaper than Lee Enfields and lots of bayonets, slings etc. We didn't think it woul ever end. Hindsight is 20-20. I can understand where you're comeing from, when you talk about the cast iron receivers, they certainly did look like cast iron. bearhunter
Here's a little trivia about the Arisaka.
When the Australian's were fighting the Japanese in Malaya and New Guinea they often scored T99s and T38s that belonged either to captured Japanese soldier or were among the corpses of the enemy.
Together with as much ammo as they could get they were used as sniper rifles.
With very low recoil, high accuracy and little muzzle flash and report, at least compared to the mighty No1.MkIII, they were excellent for effectively picking off the enemy without being located.
I'm unsure as the to marksmanship of the average Japanese soldier.
I suspect that although they spent the 1930s basically raping and pillaging their way across North East Asia their troops were better at sustained fire than sustained accurate fire, which of course is a very different thing.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
The average level of marksmanship among Australian troops on the other hand was quite high, due to program of cadet training and competition shooting implemented by the Australian government upon it's founding in 1901, and also, in a similar way to you Canucks, because Australian's made their living on the land and an accurate eye meant food on the table and stock safe from predators.
The odd thing is that despite the fact that many thousands of our boys fought the Japanese few Arisakas actually made it Down Under after WW2.
But I guess if the politicians at home were scared of the amount of .303s floating around(and they were; civilians in NSW were banned by law during the late 40s and early 50s from using rifles chambered for military cartridges) then they would've been even more paranoid about Arisakas being common items, especially with the heightened anti-Japanese sentiment following the treatment of Australian POWs in WW2.
But there you go.
When the Australian's were fighting the Japanese in Malaya and New Guinea they often scored T99s and T38s that belonged either to captured Japanese soldier or were among the corpses of the enemy.
Together with as much ammo as they could get they were used as sniper rifles.
With very low recoil, high accuracy and little muzzle flash and report, at least compared to the mighty No1.MkIII, they were excellent for effectively picking off the enemy without being located.
I'm unsure as the to marksmanship of the average Japanese soldier.
I suspect that although they spent the 1930s basically raping and pillaging their way across North East Asia their troops were better at sustained fire than sustained accurate fire, which of course is a very different thing.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
The average level of marksmanship among Australian troops on the other hand was quite high, due to program of cadet training and competition shooting implemented by the Australian government upon it's founding in 1901, and also, in a similar way to you Canucks, because Australian's made their living on the land and an accurate eye meant food on the table and stock safe from predators.
The odd thing is that despite the fact that many thousands of our boys fought the Japanese few Arisakas actually made it Down Under after WW2.
But I guess if the politicians at home were scared of the amount of .303s floating around(and they were; civilians in NSW were banned by law during the late 40s and early 50s from using rifles chambered for military cartridges) then they would've been even more paranoid about Arisakas being common items, especially with the heightened anti-Japanese sentiment following the treatment of Australian POWs in WW2.
But there you go.
