The Arisaka Type 99 - Early war vs. Late war - a comparison

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rtfd338

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. Thanks.

---

I'm guessing that you have an easy fix. With the bolt all the way closed, raise the muzzle to near vertical and then pull the trigger. (Hopefully the rifle isn't loaded!) Firing pin will likely fall out. If not, shake the rifle a bit. If that doesn't work, try wading though this long thread or post a clear photo looking into the rear of the bolt. Or both!

Click on link below:
Type 99 Bolt Assembly

ETA: For the firing pin to fall out, it must be oriented properly. Make sure the sear lug is at the bottom!

Wanted to bump this old thread up, because it helped me identify an Arisaka Type 99, from a really bad grainy photo. Thank you for this post, detailing the changes in the Type 99 over the course of WWII.

Grainy pics:
I.D. That Grainy Picture!


.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aragorn243

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 Japanese 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 know this is an old thread. But I believe my comment with this quote could add to a greater understanding of how this would relate to the subject of infantry in air defense.

Aragorn243 neglected to mention how that defense against aircraft was accomplished. I think we may assume what he is referring to has not changed radically since I received that training in 1974.
We were trained to point our rifles straight up set on auto (no burst select) and on command, all fire as one. The theory being throw up a wall of small arms fire the attacking a/c must fly through, the concentration of fire having some probability of causing some damage at least.
This is with full auto.
Trying to achieve the same results with bolt action rifles simply cannot compare and training individual soldiers to hit such a target has always proved utterly impracticable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jim

I know this is an old thread. But I believe my comment with this quote could add to a greater understanding of how this would relate to the subject of infantry in air defense.

Aragorn243 neglected to mention how that defense against aircraft was accomplished. I think we may assume what he is referring to has not changed radically since I received that training in 1974.
We were trained to point our rifles straight up set on auto (no burst select) and on command, all fire as one. The theory being throw up a wall of small arms fire the attacking a/c must fly through, the concentration of fire having some probability of causing some damage at least.
This is with full auto.
Trying to achieve the same results with bolt action rifles simply cannot compare and training individual soldiers to hit such a target has always proved utterly impracticable.

---

You have to remember it was volley fire. This wouldn't have been one guy trying to do this, rather the whole platoon. Yes I agree that full auto would be better for that purpose, but having the capability to even somewhat aim for those targets would still be better than nothing. Volley fire does work, its all about quantity in the general area. You can still get a fair bit of lead down range with bolt actions, might not be nearly as much as a M16 on full auto, or a MG, but it is still something.

To the OP, the dust cover originated from the Russo-Japanese war, as it was extremely dusty conditions which would jam up there rifles. It also happens to be part of the reason the Arisaka Type 30s were replaced, and attempted solutions like the Type 35 came to be.

Started reading this thread but stopped early on as there are so many mistakes and incorrect info in there I couldn't continue. It's a decent start to proving somethings but much of the comparisons in there are incorrect from the hooked bayonet paired with the Daley 99 short rifle made in 1941 not 1939, to the lather accoutrements that should have been issued with it even though canvas slings were already in full use by that time