In recent months I have heard a GREAT MANY oft-repeated but factually wrong myths perpetuated about the Type 99 rifle and the supposedly dangerously unsafe 'last ditch' Type 99. Let me start this little edjumacation by stating it clearly: There is no such thing as a 'last ditch type 99'. This misnomer was begun when American servicemen, many of whom could not read or speak Japanese, did some stupid things when occupying post-war Japan.
Chief among these idiocies was the firing of service ammunition in training rifles that outwardly appeared to be Type 38 or Type 99 rifles, but were actually crudely made training rifles with unrifled barrels. These were typically not marked as imperial arms and often stated clearly on them that they were drill or training rifles (in Japanese). The predictable grenading of rifles resulted and the 'last ditch 99' was born. This perception was not helped by the crude exterior appearance of real late war type 99 rifles which mirrored the cost and time saving measures implemented in Nazi Germany in the Kriegsmodell. Another potential source of the moniker came from the Japanese Special Naval Rifle which had a cheaply cast pot-iron receiver and generally appeared to be an unsafe rattletrap to GIs.
Today we know better and the Remington 710 essentially copied the Special Naval Rifle action of WW2 in that the bolt locked directly to lugs in the barrel, the receiver serving only to hold the bolt as it was cycled. Despite a shabby apeparance, these were functionally safe rifles. But I digress. Even more clearly: The Imperial Japanese Army did not issue unsafe rifles. Every Type 99 from the first to the last underwent the same proof tests and was built to fire many, many rounds. The areas of production that saw compromise were in fit and finish and metal conservation on things like buttplates and monopods that had no real field value. This is MUCH easier to illustrate in photographic format.
For reference, the first Type 99 series production began at Nagoya in August, 1939. Here is a photo of an early Type 99, a 31st series Toyo Kogyo Type 99 made in 1940 (on top) compared to a 7th Series Nagoya late war rifle made in 1944. The bayonets shown with each rifle are of the proper vintage for that rifle. Although not unsheathed, the top blade is fullered and the bottom blade is not. The top rifle would have been issued with leather accoutrements (the leather sling shown is original to this rifle) and the lower rifle would have been issued with a mix of canvas and rubberized canvas accoutrements as depicted. Right away there are some obvious cosmetic differences, but surprisingly few functional differences. Both rifles have the same rifling (metford pattern) and are in 7.7 Japanese, though the early rifle enjoyed the excess (for that timeframe) of a chrome-lined bore.
The bolts have the same lug pattern and are functionally identical, though methods of manufacture differ. Barrel length and overall length is the same and both are battle-sivhted to 300m. And one rifle incorporated an (ineffective) stabilizing monopod for long-range shooting and anti-aircraft sights that were not oft used in combat.
Factory markings of the Toyo Kogyo: And the Nagoya: Next you'll notice the receiver markings. This is an important point - despite the crude appearance, the IJA accepted this late war rifle into the Emperor's service and it was marked and issued as a full Type 99. A few hundred rifles after this 7th series was made, Nagoya stopped stamping the receivers 'Type 99'. This should be regarded as another time-saving measure introduced to the 'substitute standard' variants, generally characterized by fixed sights, short hand guards, and cruder external finishes. The 'substitute standard' is not to be confused with 'last ditch' as per my comments above.
What was basically intended was that until some point point, probably around the time they dropped the Type 99 receiver script, the intent was that after Japanese victory, the rifles with shortcuts on them might later be upgraded to the early type 99 pattern with things like monopods and dust covers. The final months of the war ushered in some last changes like the omission of sling swivels, omission of the dust cover slots in the receiver, etc.
This last one is odd considering dust covers had not been installed at most factories since 1941. Now let's look at sights. The early Type 99 had aiming arms that could be deployed to shoot at low-flying aircraft. This might be the most useless feature ever fielded by a ww2 belligerent.
Essentially unless you were shooting at a WW1 biplane, you wouldn't hit a damn thing. Also, the optimistic idea that Japanese infantrymen would direct effective fire (in volleys) out to 1500m was a nonsensical leftover from the Russo-Japanese war when area-fire machine-guns had yet to be fielded in any numbers. In practise, IJA troopers used the 300m battle sight, and in the late-war rifle, the 300m battle sight pitcure remained totally unchanged. The sighting profile of both rifles is identical. Next we move to the front sights. Both rifles use the same blade adjustable in the same manner. The original pattern front sight guards were dropped mid-war as the protection they offered was dubious to begin with and took valuable machining time to produce.
Today you often see them mis-shapen on issued rifles, giving testament to their fragility. You will also note the early rifle has a finely form-stamped and machined set of barrel bands while the later rifle's bands are made of bent and welded flat stock. The latter was much cheaper to manufacture and worked just as well. Perhaps no image will better illustrate the sacrifice of form over function as Japan's war fortunes worsened than the following photo.
From the bolt root to the bolt face, both bolts are identical, though the later war bolt has less post-machining polishing on the body and the chrome lining is omitted from the bolt face. Here the similarities end. The early war bolt was forged as one piece and carefully machined to contour, all machining marks polished away and the whole assembly was mated to a sheet metal dust cover that was likely the product of Japanese observers on the Western Front in 1917. The late-war bolt was made from a cylindrical ingot to cut down on machining steps with the bolt handle left only as a short stub. A crudely cast (from low grade steel) bolt handle was then welded to the bolt body and the seam ground flush.
The cocking piece was made without serration and the arc weld joining the gas shield to the shaft was left undressed to act as the 'serration' to provide grip. Both bolts are indiscernibly similar in smoothness and function. If anything the late-war bolt is a little easier to operate as it is not slowed by dust cover friction and the handles are a little longer owing to the extra length needed to facilitate handle welding. Finally, nothing screamed cheap to US servicemen like a wooden buttplate crudely nailed to the stock. This is a clear attempt by the Japanese to conserve steel after the US NAVY had ruthlessly culled the Japanese merchant fleet. The wooden plate is functional but certainly adds to the cheap appearance of the substitute 99.
As a final word, Major General Julian S. Hatcher, in Hatcher's Notebook was clear in his defence of the action, including the late-war action. In his opinion, backed by tests at Aberdeen Proving Grounds, the Arisaka was stronger than even a late-production M1903. Doesn't sound very 'last ditch' to me. For clarity on this matter, Hatcher cited that the Arisaka was loaded up to 120,000 psi at which time the testing was stopped with no observed failures.
All other military bolt actions tested started to have blown extractors at around 70,000 psi and started shedding locking lugs at around 90,000 psi. Some of the bolt actions tested were the 03 Springfield, 1917 Enfield, and the German 98 Mauser. Hopefully that clears a few things up and lays some myths to rest.
I love the comparison but have to take issue with the condemnation of the aircraft sight wings. I see a lot of criticism about the rifles, the sights, the dust covers, the monopod, etc but frankly, these were very innovative additions to the rifles and far from useless. The criticism probably comes from the general prejudice against anything Japanese from WWII. As an officer in the US Army, I received instruction on how to shoot down aircraft with my M-16. I was also expected to provide training to those under my command in how to do so. Now if the modern US Army still has it's soldiers shooting at jet and armored helicopter aircraft with a 5.56 round, it is not a stretch to say that an impact could be made with a much heavier and more powerful Japanese round against slower and less armored aircraft. And for the record, the most common aircraft likely encountered by an infantryman was most likely going to be a liason/spotter aircraft which were as slow as the WWI biplanes and easier to shoot down.
The Japanese were pretty methodical in their weapons development. I doubt they would include 'useless' items on their rifles. They only removed them late in the war when they were trying to reduce materials, cost and time in production. Just some thoughts.
I agree completely. I've had several 99's pass thru my hands, and currently have my fathers (which he brought back from the war from Okinawa) which is a late war model. It shoots like a champ. I also just finished replacing some missing parts on a late model 99 of a buddy. He thought it was an Enfield and I asked him to show it to me. There's no mistaking an 99!
Jan 8, 2015 - Khitanan_001.cdr Format File: Corel Draw X4 File Size: 5.2 Mb Download Now desaingratis.net/download-desain-undangan-khitanan-corel. Download undangan khitanan. Dec 26, 2017 - Template Undangan Pernikahan CDR File Gratis Download ini. Free Download Undangan Khitanan untuk cucua, anak, keponakan dan. 2 Best Download undangan khitan ✅ free vector download for commercial use in ai, eps, cdr, svg vector illustration graphic art design format. Sort by unpopular. Download gratis template desain kartu nama keren.; EPS. Draw websites out of 516 at KeyOptimize.com. Contoh undangan khitanan corel draw found.
That peep that replaced the flip up sight actually seems to work pretty well, and must have been great to train recruits on usage. I have to say that the looks used to keep the prices down, which is fine by me too! Nowadays though, they aren't the bargain in my neck of the woods that they used to be! I love the comparison but have to take issue with the condemnation of the aircraft sight wings. I see a lot of criticism about the rifles, the sights, the dust covers, the monopod, etc but frankly, these were very innovative additions to the rifles and far from useless. The criticism probably comes from the general prejudice against anything Japanese from WWII.
As an officer in the US Army, I received instruction on how to shoot down aircraft with my M-16. I was also expected to provide training to those under my command in how to do so.
Now if the modern US Army still has it's soldiers shooting at jet and armored helicopter aircraft with a 5.56 round, it is not a stretch to say that an impact could be made with a much heavier and more powerful Japanese round against slower and less armored aircraft. And for the record, the most common aircraft likely encountered by an infantryman was most likely going to be a liason/spotter aircraft which were as slow as the WWI biplanes and easier to shoot down. The Japanese were pretty methodical in their weapons development. I doubt they would include 'useless' items on their rifles. They only removed them late in the war when they were trying to reduce materials, cost and time in production. Just some thoughts. Thanks for your insight!
The view on the AA sight was based on my personal opinion, not any trial or fact and it's great that it's sparked some discussion The monopod was an interesting feature as well, though in reality I believe the reason it was dropped had more to do with the height and exposure of the soldier if it were deployed - it really puts you up there and lowers cover. Since WW2, infantrymen generally want to be as low to the ground as practical. The dust cover was a good idea, but used up valuable steel better allocated elsewhere in my view. The Germans invented a similar cover in WW1, then dropped it as being to expensive for the small gain.
(we're talking economies over millions of rifles here). Thank you Claven2. My late father was in the US Navy during WW2 and was given a rifle as a war souvenir at the end of the war. It had been rendered inoperable by one of the machinists aboard his ship - something about the bolt being 'welded'. I remember him telling me that was the standing order at the time. Anyway, he gave me the rifle when I was a kid.
I recall running around in the backyard with this thing playing war games with my friends. Good gawd, the thing was heavier than I was. The rifle has been sitting in my old childhood bedroom closet for the last 40 years.
I take it out when I periodically visit my mom - not often enough since she's 2000 miles away. Even though it's been a few years, I still still have a clear picture in my mind & remember lots of details about it. I've often thought of having it restored to firing condition. I've always wanted to know more but never found the time to research it. But now for the first time, I know what it actually is. Turns out I have an early type 99, with mono-pod, aircraft sights, metal butt-plate, intact chrysanthemum, etc. The bayonet was lost long ago, in one of the many military moves we made to various bases around the globe, and there is no sling.
But now I have a place to start. Thanks again for a great article. I am new to this forum and relatively new to collecting military surplus fire arms. As you seem very knowlagable in this matter I was wondering if you can help me. I recently purchased a type 99 arisaka which from what I can tell is a Toyo Kogyo mid war type 99. I was using the bolt cycling it when it got stuck closed and then the safty piece at the back of the bolt came off. I have not been able to get it to go back on and I can not get the bolt open.
Any help you can give me would be great.
Picked up a Arisaka Type 99 rifle yesterday, the bluing is pretty damn good, the stock has a serious 'been there done that look' and the bore is pretty good, chrome lined. Looks like the rifling might be a little weak at the muzzle. The bolt is the only mismatched part, but it came with the dust cover, and 'wings' on the rear sight ( aircraft sights? ) The Mum is intact. From what i can find online, its a Tokyo Juki Kogyo factory built rifle, Series 37 i believe, the character reference online was close to what is stamped on the rifle to the front of the serial number. Serial number is 274XX ( obviously those XX are really numbers but i dont want to list the entire serial number here ) all that i could find for the build date was '1939-1945' which isnt helpful!
Its definitely an early war rifle, i just would love to know what year it was made if possible. Thanks in advance for any help or advice!
Picked up a Arisaka Type 99 rifle yesterday, the bluing is pretty damn good, the stock has a serious 'been there done that look' and the bore is pretty good, chrome lined. Looks like the rifling might be a little weak at the muzzle. The bolt is the only mismatched part, but it came with the dust cover, and 'wings' on the rear sight ( aircraft sights? ) The Mum is intact.
From what i can find online, its a Tokyo Juki Kogyo factory built rifle, Series 37 i believe, the character reference online was close to what is stamped on the rifle to the front of the serial number. Serial number is 274XX ( obviously those XX are really numbers but i dont want to list the entire serial number here ) all that i could find for the build date was '1939-1945' which isnt helpful! Its definitely an early war rifle, i just would love to know what year it was made if possible. Thanks in advance for any help or advice! Looking in Don Voigt's book, the TJK series 37 was made from III'42 to IV'43. You do the math to guestimate by the serial number where it might fall in that time frame.
The 'X's don't count.:) In all seriousness,I have yet to see where somebody has accused someone of stealing a gun because they listed the serial number. In the case of some of these rifles, the complete number could be a factor in identifying certain parts that were only used on that particular series or period of manufacture. Dean (the other one) (I'm looking at page 28, 2010 edition of Don's book). Congrats on your first T 99, and welcome to the boards. Just be careful, they are known to be addictive!
I converted the Japanese fiscal year data to calendar quarters for us dummies; so when you read the chart it is done in 'normal' calendar quarters. The 37th series probably was a 'slow' series and mfg.
Stretched longer than most 100k rifle series. Given the uncertainty of the data available, as pointed out in the T 99 book, I would guess 27K was reached sometime between Sept 1942 and March 1943. Oh is that why people don't list all the serial numbers on their guns? I was always wondering what the concern was. I have seen a few on Gunbroker where they actually blur out the first 3 numbers, so you can't even confirm a year of manufacture, let alone a month. Regards PatThe only 'true' stories of serial numbers being abused is 2nd hand from a couple of dealers who claim that someone bought their gun (lugers in this instance), swapped their mismatched parts and sent it back as not nice enough. As a former 'dealer' the solution is obvious, you know your gun before you send it out and if it arrives back like this, you tell them, sorry it has been messed with, NO refund.
On line, it is a urban myth that you should worry about the serial number, as said above, I have never heard a true story of someone claiming it was 'theirs'. Yeah, but you have to be careful of the slings. I saws a 99 in a GA pawn shop several years ago, it had a woven rope or string sling.
Later I told the late Roy Cooper of Birmingham about it, he had a son in GA and the son visited the pawn shop bought the rifle for Roy. The rifle was in a display Roy had at a Birmingham show A viewer looked at the rifle and told Roy, 'That rifle was stolen from me, I recognize the sling.' Roy immediately told the speaker of the history of his obtaining the rifle and offered the rifle free to the former owner.
The gentleman declined saying insurance had paid him more than the rifle was worth and Roy should keep the rifle. I believe it is now in the Blevins collection. But i dont want to be the first guy that some anti gun liberal picks randomly off of the internet to mess with!!!Yes, pretty much paranoid. You will find scores of rifles ID'd by their full serial number online; here, on online auctions, in books, too many to count, of course this is JMO and the opinion of most of us on the boards. But do what you like! It's still a pretty much free country. However, a partial serial number is of little use to a researcher, so when you want info, you have to give info!
These 'when was is made' questions always kinda grate on me, especially with the T-99s. They were only made for 5 years and there's an early to late regression in features so it's not that big of a deal for me & never has been. The 6.5mm rifles are a different matter since they were made for a much longer period of timeI agree, it sure is a little odd; the second question is usually 'When was it made?' , right after the first question of 'What is it?' Sure is a lot of interest in the date of mfg. I'm much more interested in 'Where was it used/found and by whom?'
For today’s Friday Field Strip, we’re looking at the Japanese Type 99, a rifle with more than meets the eye. The Type 99, commonly but somewhat erroneously called the “Arisaka”, is a rifle that was once widely known as a crude, last ditch weapon of the Japanese Empire, but which has since become well-respected among modern collectors and historians, with many even considering it to be the best bolt-action of the Second World War. The Type 99 was a development of Kijiro Nambu’s Type 38 rifle, shortened, and rechambered for Strangely, two other 7.7mm cartridges were in use with the Japanese armed forces at the time; in use with the Navy for aircraft machine guns, and in use with the IJA in their machine guns. The 7.7mm rifle round, however, was a distinct development, dating back to the Russo-Japanese War. In that conflict, Japanese soldiers observed that was giving lackluster terminal ballistics, especially at long ranges. As a result, the IJA undertook to develop a more powerful round, of 7.7mm caliber.
This project was shelved, however, when the experience of the Great War made it clear that new support weapons like the infantry mortar had greatly reduced the importance of long-range rifle fire, and while the IJA still desired a larger round than the 6.5mm, it was not considered worth the logistical upset. In 1923, the Great Kantō Earthquake devastated the Japanese capital, damaging the Itabashi powder plant and the Koishikawa arsenal. It was determined that the latter would be too costly to repair, and so the arsenal was moved to Kokura, more than 500 miles away. This essentially halted development of the project, and, with the exception of some testing in 1929, major progress would not again begin on a 7.7mm bore infantry rifle until 1938. By 1905, the Japanese had adopted a much more effective 139gr spitzer projectile for the 6.5mm cartridge, but the development of the 7.7mm continued; whether this was because it was perceived to give even greater effectiveness (by the 1930s, the Japanese were fighting Chinese opponents armed with Mausers in the larger German 7.9mm caliber) than the Type 38 spitzer round, or for some other reason is unknown to me. The final 7.7x58mm rimless cartridge adopted with the Type 99 rifle fired a 182gr flat-based spitzer bullet of modest shape at an equally modest 2,400 ft/s muzzle velocity.
As a final note, some source documents (in Japanese) regarding the development of 7.7mm ammunition if any bilingual readers are interested. Covers the changes made to the rifle from the Type 38; while I could restate them in my own words, the information would be identical: A set of guns, consisting of an infantry long rifle and a cavalry carbine, were developed together to share as many parts as possible, with the latter expected to take over the Type 44’s role. These were further simplified into one pattern with a long and short barrel configuration. Both rifles were finished by the middle of 1939 but would not be approved until 1940, with short rifle production starting in 1941. Unlike the previous models named after the Meiji year, this was named from the start of the entire imperial calendar, 660 BC, making 1939 year 2599. The long rifle was quickly dismissed as unnecessary (we will cover it in detail separately some day) and, much like the Kar98K, the Type 99 short rifle in a cavalry configuration became the standard rifle of the IJA. While the Type 99 was mostly just a Type 38 chambered in 7.7x58mm there were some changes.
The ejector now passed through the left bolt lug entirely. The magazine floor plate was hinged to prevent its loss in the field. The front sight now featured the same sort of protectors found on Type 38 carbines. A chrome lined bore made for an incredibly strong, easily cleaned, fouling resistant barrel; perfect for island hopping and extended sojourns into wet jungle environments. The addition of a monopod was intended to assist with prone shooting in open environments and provide a resting rail of sorts on the bottom of the forestock to prevent gouging and cracking of the stock when resting on rocks and other hard, uneven surfaces. The Type 30 bayonet was carried over yet again, this time mounted to a forward band with reinforcing tangs to improve strength. The resulting rifle was an improvement over Nambu’s Type 38, shortened and incorporating several novel features.
Japanese Arisaka Type 99 Serial Numbers
These included a sliding, integrated dust cover, a folding monopod, and flip out anti-aircraft sights. Unfortunately, these three features have garnered a substantial amount of mockery and derision, but there is more to them than immediately meets the eye. To understand the first of these, we must turn to the five points Kijiro Nambu adhered to when developing the Type 38, the Type 99’s predecessor which also incorporated a dust cover:. The rifle must be easy to assemble and disassemble. The entire bolt assembly had to be simplified vs. The Mauser by reducing the number of parts. The rifle had to be strong and continue to function in adverse conditions.
The rifle should attain 100% reliability and freed from all mechanical failures. The rifle must have a dignified appearance, which will ensure that the users will not handle it carelessly or abuse it. Animation of the Type 99’s mechanism. Image source: candrsenal.com The Japanese expected to fight in all conditions: In snow, on beaches, in saltwater spray, and in humid jungles.
In adverse conditions where debris permeates all mechanical devices, a sliding dust cover was not at all a silly idea, and indeed dust covers sealing mechanisms against debris ingress have become a common feature on modern weapons, including the AR-15, AK, and many others. There is a commonly-repeated idea that Japanese soldiers discarded the “useless” dust covers of their rifles, and that is why the covers are now rare on the US milsurp market. However, this idea makes less sense than it initially appears to. Firstly, far from being useless, the dust covers are very effective, sealing the action almost totally against dust and debris. Secondly, Japanese soldiers were famously harshly disciplined troops; examples exist of soldiers being savagely beaten by the order of their superiors for failing to adequately clean their weapons; would discarding an actual piece of the weapon really be so readily dismissed as trivial?
Finally, the vast majority of earlier production rifles (before the dust covers were omitted from production for expediency reasons) appearing in photographs in the hands of Japanese troops retain their dust covers; evidently, Japanese soldiers did not so readily discard them. A more plausible explanation for the absence of dust covers on rifles in circulation in the US was suggested by Othais of C&Rsenal: Most rifles with intact chrysanthemums have a mismatched bolt.
A rifle captured with an intact mum would either have been captured off a dead body, or captured from a depot or forward base. The best way to render the weapons inoperable would have been to separate the bolts from the rifles, dumping the rifles in one pile, and the bolts in another. So when a USGI wanted to take the rifle home, he grabbed a rifle, grabbed a bolt, and went. Most dust covers were probably discarded by US troops bringing the rifles back home, or lost when the bolts were separated from the rifles’ receivers. The folding monopod, too, is a more worthwhile feature than many give it credit for. Many post-war rifles would feature integrated folding bipods that gave the shooter some additional stability when firing; the Type 99’s monopod is a simpler and cheaper, though perhaps somewhat less steady, incarnation of the same philosophy. Further, the monopod acts as a kind of guard for the forward stock, protecting it from the volcanic rocks and other hard, rough surfaces that might otherwise gouge the wood.
For a rifle expected to be used anywhere, including on Pacific islands, this would be a welcome, if non-essential feature. Yes, in the Second World War they proved useless against the high-flying, fast-moving US aircraft that became common after 1942, but the sight was developed based on experience fighting Chinese forces, who in the 1930s fielded relatively primitive, fragile, slow-moving aircraft. Chinese pilots, too, tended to be inexperienced, and flew low reconnaissance missions that would make them reasonable targets for groups of infantry armed with rifles, firing salvos. Further, at least theoretically, Japanese infantry were issued which would have been very effective against the aircraft of the period. Finally, the Type 99 was one of the first rifles ever produced with a chrome-lined bore.
While this feature was deleted in the late-war “economy” models, it truly was ahead of its time. A chrome-lined bore is an almost invaluable feature in humid climates like the South Pacific, and its inclusion in the Type 99 greatly reduced the degree to which the rifles suffered from the wet and humidity. Indeed, the US would learn the value of a chrome-lined bore not once, but twice. Famously, the earliest M16s were issued without chrome-lined bores, which in the humid climate of Indochina caused undue problems with the design, and contributed to the poor reputation that would scar the AR-15 family for decades afterward, but earlier than that, US M1 Garand rifles rusted to ruin in the Pacific theater, too: Materials to clean and oil the small arms were much in demand.
Cleaning and preserving (C&P) materials had been in short supply to begin with. Many of the M1 rifles had been issued without oil and thong cases. Often when the men had the cases they simply threw them away to lighten the load they were carrying. By 3 December the shortage of gun oil, small individual containers for oil, brushes, cleaning rods, and other C&P items was serious enough to effect operations.
A “luxury model” Type 99, complete with dust cover, monopod, anti-aircraft sights, and an intact mon. Image source: candrsenal.com For the production history of the Type 99, The Type 99 was produced by eight factories over the course of its service life. These included Nagoya and Kokura in Japan, the Jinsen Arsenal in Korea, and Hoten (Mukden) in Manchuria. Subcontractors on the mainland were Izawa Jyuko, Howa Jukogyo, Tokyo Juki Kogyo, and Toyo Kogyo, whose markings will be displayed to the right of either Nagoya or Kokura on the rifle. We’ve included some images to help explain the arsenal markings you’ll find on the right side of an Arisaka Type 99 receiver and the estimatedyears these guns were produced at those factories. These figures were provided by Don Voigt, author of the excellent book The Japanese Type 99 Arisaka Japanese rifle production serials are set in blocks of 100,000 with numbers from 0 to 99,999 before the count starts over again.
Each time it rolled over a character was placed, in a circle, at the front of the serial to mark the change in series. These were from the phonetic Japanese alphabet. The order of this alphabet was taken from a pangram poem, Iroha.
We’ve listed the alphabet in order in the attached image. Most collectors to date have referred to this number method in terms of a “series” in which the first production run of 100,000 without a prefix are known as “Series 0.” We found this to be a bit confusing but not entirely important to ‘correct’ because serial prefix production was not universally linear, with blocks of serials given to individual factories. So rifles from Nagoya’s 11th run would be produced about the same time as rifles from Kokura’s 25th. Ultimately, the Type 99 short rifle only served for about four years and never replaced the previous Type 38.
The Japanese decision to enter WWII against the United States and Britain ultimately led to extreme production demands and shortages of raw materials. Put more and more pressure on Japan radical changes were made to speed manufacture of rifles from inferior materials. The Type 99 underwent adjustments in fits and spurts, ultimately transforming one of the greatest bolt actions made into one of the worst. The monopods were dropped early on, the aircraft wings later, cleaning rods were shortened and then ditched, chrome was done away with, wood fittings became rougher cut, metal quality diminished, finishing became nearly non existent, sling swivels became crude holes and slings became rope, adjustable rear sights became fixed holes and sight protectors were dropped, upper handguards were shortened, plumb shaped bolt handles became cylinders, and more. The final product was crude and simple.
Arisaka Type 99 Rifle Serial Numbers
With thousands of these on the mainland at the end of the war, it’s no wonder the U.S. Soldiers brought home such a poor opinion of the rifle. But these “Last Ditch” Type 99s are so far removed from their original design they could almost be called another model entirely.
One aspect of this increasing simplification of the rifle’s production that Othais made very clear to me in our conversation about the rifle is that while features were deleted, and the crudity of production was increased, one element never sacrificed was the quality of the steel used to make the weapons. All “last ditch” Type 99s are safe to fire (provided they are in good working order), and while the Japanese eventually did run low on high quality steel with which to make the rifles, their response was not to create and issue dangerous guns that would surely explode when fired, but to devise a different rifle entirely, the “Naval Special Rifle”, which locked a high quality steel bolt to a high quality steel barrel, set in a cast iron receiver, thus saving on valuable materials.
These are a distinct pattern of rifle to the Type 99. A “last ditch” late model Type 99.
Note the extremely simple sights, barrel-shaped bolt handle, and lack of a top front handguard. Image source: candrsenal.com Type 99 production ended with the cessation of hostilities in 1945, when its service life for all intents and purposes ended as well. The rifles would soldier on other hands in later conflicts in the Pacific and Asia, but when the Japanese took up arms again in 1954 with the creation of the Self-Defense Force, it was not Type 99s that were issued, but surplus US M1 Garands.
Overall, the Type 99 is an underrated and underappreciated rifle, which thanks to its sound design and chrome-lined bore is a strong contender for the title of “best bolt-action rifle of the war.” Paradoxically, the last-ditch late-war examples are also some of the worst bolt-actions of the war, and have contributed significantly to the rifle’s mediocre reputation among American milsurp enthusiasts. That, however, is beginning to change as appreciation grows for the fascinating and eminently collectible Type 99. A very big thank you to Othais, of C&Rsenal, who helped tremendously with ensuring the accuracy of the information presented in this article.
I learned a lot about the Type 99 by talking to him, and it’s well worth your time to pay and a visit, where you too can learn all sorts of cool things. All his images and videos in this article were used with permission. Is available at this link here.
Also, contains some period information on the rifle. Anyone wishing to read the markings on their Type 99 should consult. Great video and accurate information. I have been collecting Type 99’s for years now, and currently own 30 or so (including substitute 99’s), and I can honestly say they have been the most fun to collect and research over the years. I can also add that they are generally the most pure WWII rifle that can be found today without being rebuilt/ reissued, etc.
Believe it or not, more Arisaka’s were surrendered/ captured post WWII with the matching dust cover than we have been led to believe (tales of the gun signified this claim). It was in fact the most common part to loose while removing bolts post war. There were many Japanese soldiers that fought their entire service with a dust cover attached to their rifle. If we really think about it, how much louder is the dust cover rattling in the receivers linear travel than the bolt cycling itself? The arisaka action is almost unique in itself to not call it a Mauser derivative. The 2 biggest mauser-esque features include 2 frontal locking lugs with an interrupted lug for the ejector, and the mauser-style claw extractor.
The Type 99’s locking lugs had slightly more bearing surface than Mauser 98’s bolt lugs. It is also important to note Type 99’s did not have a formal “safety lug” per se, however, the bolt handle did in fact recess into the receiver a small amount (Type 38”s had a higher Receiver bridge behind the bolt handle).
Both Type 38’s and 99’s also inhibit a more supported chamber than most manually operated military rifles of that time. Again, great video and information as always. What I really enjoy about TFB is the enthusiasm the authors have about the subjects they write an article about, especially when little knowledge exists. We all have our preferred interests and backgrounds, however, to enjoy and appreciate the mechanics/ history of the multitude of firearms there has to be one thing present; enthusiasm. The Japanese Arisaka can be an information black hole, with as much suspense and urban legend as there is truth. Ian has also done a pretty good job at covering the arisaka(s) history. Even the desperation rifles had chrome bores.
At least the two given to me by a friend. The bores looked horrible.
Then I put a couple patches down the bores. Wow, I was pleased to see both bores were perfect. In the book, “Shots Fired in Anger” the writer said several of his men not only picked up Japanese 6.5mm rifles they used them instead of the M1s. It appears that Col. John George may have had the bore issues referred to in the article.
He said his men liked the light weight 6.5mm rifles over the M1 rifle and carbines. I’d still like to find a nice 6.5mm Japanese rifle-carbine. The bolt disassembles easily.
Take a new Vanguard, and take it apart, it mimics the Japanese 6.5s and 7.7s. Man, I wish my Type 99 was awesome. I bought the rifle sans bolt for $45, all covered with rust and looking like crap. No matter says I, I will buy a $100 bolt online and it will probably still run fine. No, apparently with a mismatched bolt and heavy rust it will not run fine Sometimes it locked up and I had to beat it open and closed, making my Mosin Nagant seem to run as smooth as silk in comparison. It even failed to fire a few times, apparently not cocking when I ran the bolt.
(The bolt is in good condition, it obviously has to do with the other components.) My plan is to A) Shoot my Mosin and Lee-Enfield more, and B) Try cleaning the Arisaka out some more and see if that helps.
Hi, I picked up an interesting Type 99 that I would like to know more about. This particular rifle has a four digit serial number and Nagoya arsenal marking.
There is one small Japanese character at the end. The serial numbers match on everything but the bolt. The mum is perfect. At first I thought this Type 99 was the typical G.I. Mismatch, but saw something on the Internet that got my attention.
It referenced a Type 99 Cavalry issue which seemed to share the same characteristics as the one I just bought. Serial number on the left side of the receiver with only one small character at the end.
It also displayed all matching numbers with the exception of the mismatched bolt. The length of my rifle is 44' The barrel is 25' I'm anxious to hear what you have to say. Thanks, Mike. Mike, Your Japanese rifle is a standart issue Type 99.it's a fairly early version with the monopod band but no monopod.but with the 'anti-aircraft' sight, good quality manurfacturing & blueing, etc. (& has the cleaning rod, too!) The 'Type 44' carbine has a folding bayonet on the front end and the Type 38 Carbine (both called Cavalry carbines) is in 6.5 cal. (and looks like a small type 38 rifle).
Japanese Arisaka Type 99
The small 'character' behind the serial number is the series marking.all Japanese rifles were made with these series markings.a quick search will identify which series yours is. (should be a fairly low series.) A big plus that the Mum is intact.but a big minus that the bolt is mismatched.but it appears to be the same 'quality' as the rifle itself so that saves it alittle.certianly still a 100% representative Japanese WW 2 service rifle. (All would match when originally left the factory) Search 'Arisaka rifle'/Japanese Type 99 rifle/ and similiar searches and you'll find a list of 'series' markings. Hope this helps. Hi, I posted photos of my Arisaka Type 99 rifle the other day and asked about it possibly being a Cavalry series. Well I did a bit more research and discovered that there was indeed a Type 99 0 series model issued.
I made the comparison with the one's I saw and mine matched. The 0 series has a serial number and arsenal marking, but no series character mark. All visible serial numbers match with the exception of an unmatched bolt. The rear sling swivel contains two screws and has an oversized loop.
In addition, the Type 99 0 series should have the monopod type barrel band, but no monopod. I was surprised to see this information and thought it might be of interest.
Comments are closed.
|
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |