Can Anyone Please Help Identify This Rifle?

Looks like an Arisaka with the bolt cover removed.

It's of course a straight bolt, similar to a M1895 Steyr in 8x56R Hungarian and a K31 Schmidt-Rubin in 7.55x55 Swiss . There are experts here who will know for sure.

Kinda hard to tell for sure...definitely seems reminiscent of an Arisaka...bolt doesn't look quite right for that though (granted I'm not terribly familiar with all of the variations on them, so it may just be one I don't know!)

As for Red Wind...that doesn't look at all like a straight pull. The first picture seems to show a nice and solid chunk of metal immediately rear of the bolt handle.

You are probably correct.

Well, JMHO - but that ain't nothing like the Arisaka 99 I used to own, and it CERTAINLY isn't a straight-pull action like a Steyr M95 or Swiss Schmidt-Rubins. I own two K31's.

No idea what that is, but I'm sure it's neither of those.

Got it.

It's a Type I Arisaka.

http://members.shaw.ca/nambuworld/typeipix.htm

You're welcome .

kozak6

Good job with the ID! I had an Arisaka Type 38 so I knew it wasn't that and this rifle had more of a European design to it, somewhat like an 1895 Steyr.

''somewhat like an 1895 Steyr"

Click to expand...

That part was good to hear. I think I'm gonna have to enroll in Mil-Surp Identification School as soon as I can pile up a few bucks together!

Actually, the idea of having a Japanese rifle made in Italy was the brainchild of one Adolf Hitler, who wanted his allies to help each other. Italy needed money and Japan needed rifles, so the "Type I" (the letter "I" for Italy, not the numeral 1) came about. It is not a bad rifle, though pretty much an unnecessary one. Whether the story about the Japanese Navy not being able to get rifles through the Army is true or not, it appears that some Naval Landing Parties (called "Jap Marines" by American GI's, though Japan had no marine corps as such) did use them. Most in this country were taken from depots in Japan after the war, many unissued.

The two piece stock was made to Japanese specifications; forced on them because of the lack of suitable wood for normal stocks, the Japanese believed the two-piece system was better and stronger, and they required it in the Type I even though wood for one-piece stocks was available to the Italians.

FWIW, the bolt will not interchange with the Italian Carcano bolt; the ejector is in a different place.

Jim

P.S. The identification as a Mannlicher is understandable; the Italian rifle is the Mannlicher-Carcano combining the Mannlicher magazine system with a Carcano-designed one-piece bolt.

JK

Glad someone identified this! And now I know why that safety was so familiar looking!

In one of my books there is a picture of the rifle on page 304 and then it has another picture on page 318, and the authors of the book says at the time of the writing there was no logical explanation for Japan's use of the rifle or how it got to Japan.

F. Guffey

The original agreement was signed in 1937, with production completed at all three factories by early 1939. Japan was at war with China, but WWII had not started yet in Europe, so the rifles would presumably have gone from Italy to Japan by normal commercial shipping.

Jim

The two authors were not referring to ship, plane, train or truck; they were talking about one rifle being used by two countries.

F. Guffey

The Type I was never used by Italy; it was used only by Japan and chambered only for 6.5x50 Arisaka, loading from the standard Arisaka clip. It won't chamber the 6.5x52 Italian cartridge or load from the Italian Mannlicher-type en-bloc clip.

As to "one rifle being used by two countries", had they never heard of Mausers, some models of which were used by a half-dozen or more countries. It sounds like the authors of that book might not be very knowledgeable.

Jim

Think what the world of knowledge would be like without Google.

They placed the gun in Italy with the manufacturer; they got the part about being used in Japan. All without Google, the book was printed in 1948.

It is not easy for me to get the book out because it is fragile, and then more times than not it is a thankless job.

F. Guffey

It sounds like the authors of that book might not be very knowledgeable.

Click to expand...

There are newer books, but my "go to" in that area is still (pre-Google) Military Rifles of Japan by Honeycutt and Anthony. Many gun books today are just a rehash of old books and sometimes Internet or TV garbage that the writers accept as gospel. (Like the TV show on Bonnie and Clyde that showed an AK-47 and an SKS; just what every well-equipped 1934 gangster had tucked away in his new Ford flathead V8.)

Just FWIW, I have had two Type I's; the first was not in good shape, and I traded it and boot for the one I have now, which is in excellent shape and appears unissued.

Jim

In this book they discussed the use of 'TYPE' instead of model and then went straight to a Japanese MODEL instead of type, it was a mistake? The Japanese made and they were not going to correct it but did point out it was an exception.

F. Guffey

and then they pointed out the smoke hole, one rifle had the smoke hole and the other did not.

F. Guffey

I have not seen any authoritative information on the Japanese name for the "Type I" rifle; that term seems to have originated with American collectors. One source calls it the "Special Naval Rifle", but again gives no explanation for the name, and a "last ditch" Type 99 has also been called that. That there are no type markings and no Imperial chrysanthemum may be easier to explain in that the rifle was neither developed nor manufactured in Japan so it might not have been considered to be truly the property of the Emperor. (The Japanese used many weapons made for them in China or elsewhere which were never given a standard "type" nor bore the Imperial seal.)

I have never seen the absence of a gas escape port used to distinguish a Type I rifle from an Arisaka, but it is true that the Italian-made rifle has none, nor does the Italian Mannlicher-Carcano.

A general note on "shiki", though. While we normally would use the term "Model" for a weapon designation, it has become conventional to translate the Japanese symbol "shiki" as "type." Derby has traced that translation to a WWII U.S. Army manual and there may be no better information. A Japanese commercial catalog, c. 1935, originally printed in English, uses "type A" and "type B" but there is no indication that the word has any meaning other than the normal one. Japanese military model numbers are not used; the "type A" pistol is what the Japanese Army called the Type 14, the "type B" is the Type 94.

Jim

I

have never seen the absence of a gas escape port used to distinguish a Type I rifle from an Arisaka, but it is true that the Italian-made rifle has none, nor does the Italian Mannlicher-Carcano.

Click to expand...

When testing a Japanese rifle I cover the smoke holes with a white towel. After firing I check the towel for black soot strains. The stains indicate a worn out barrel. I do the same if the rifle has one smoke hold.

Back to the two rifles, one had a smoke hold, the other did not. I assumed if the rifle has a smoke hole it went to Japan; and then I assumed if the rifle did not have a smoke hole it was not a Type 1.


F. Guffey

have never seen the absence of a gas escape port used to distinguish a Type I rifle from an Arisaka, but it is true that the Italian-made rifle has none, nor does the Italian Mannlicher-Carcano.

Click to expand...

The picture posted by Hurricane does not appear to have a gas hole; meaning it is the first Type 1 you have ever seen with out a gas escape hole or it never made it to Japan vie truck, boat plane or train.

The pictures furnished in the old book shows a receiver with the gas hole and another without the gas hole. They identify the rifle with the gas escape hole as being a Type 1.

I would suggest Hurricane determine how the rifle is chambered, I have had a 6.5mm257 Roberts reamer for years, the reamer solves all of the perceived and real problems with the 6.5mm50 chambering. For me there is no such thing as a problem with finding and being able to afford ammo.

F. Guffey

I have seen a dozen or so Type I's, and owned two, and none I have seen had a gas escape hole, and the regular Carcano action does not. I think the book you cite is in error, but of course, it is easy to tell a Type I from an Arisaka by other characteristics, the most obvious being the safety.

BTW, what is the title of that book? It might have been one of several put out during WWII or shortly after, before any serious research was done on Japanese weapons. Some of the stories that came out of the PTO were plain funny, including the silly "surrender pistol" and the idea that Japanese soldiers couldn't shoot straight because their eyes were slanted.

Jim

All I have ever seen in person or pictured, Type I has no hole, Type 38 got two, Type 99 has one.

As to books, I really like Roy Dunlap's 'Ordnance Went Up Front' but he did not see all the guns there were to be seen and did not appear to categorize them all just right.

The Type I is uncommon but not really rare. There are a couple for sale "on the net" right now.

Here is another source of pictures and a comparison with the Type 38.

http://members.shaw.ca/nambuworld/typeipix.htm

Jim