Is This Arisaka 1943 or earlier?

I bought this Arisaka in 2010. I have only now figured out how to post pics on Milsurps. I bought this from a woman who's Dad was a Navy Seabee in WWII. She did not know much about the gun. She only knew it hung on her dad's wall above his bar in his basement since she was a little girl. I asked if she remembered any stories of his about the war. She said he seemed proud of working on an airstrip that, "Somebody Gay" took off from. It took me a second then asked, "Enola Gay" and she said it was something like that. So, my question is...is this T-99 old enough to have been on Tinian( most Seabees Bn's went on to other islands but) and is this a real "Duffle bag" cut? I've heard sometimes they are faked. I know I have no proof anyway. I only paid $300 for it, but it would be nice to think it possible. He also "carved" "screwdrivered" his initials in the buttplate, but why twice? Last name Miller so that was no help on Ancestry.com Any thought from the experts would be appreciated.

I would date it at 1943 or earlier, but to be super sure we'l need a DECENT photo of the serial number on the receiver, including a clear shot of the symbol to the left of the '1' in the serial number.

...AND we need a clear view of the mark to the right of the "3-cannonballs" mark, which could be Toyo Kogyo OR Tokyo Juki Kogyo OR Kokura Arsenals. If this mark is a circle with two short horizontal bars inside - looks like an aiming aid or artificial horizon - then it is Toyo Kogyo. A 4-lobed round mark is Tokyo Juki Kogyo. Anything else here is an inspection mark, and the rifle is from Kokura.
...AND a clear view of the safety knob (styles altered from one series to another)
...AND a clear view of the backsight arrangement (AA-wings or attachment points yes/no)
...AND a clear view of the front band (monopod attachment yes/no/maybe)
...AND a clear view of the entire rifle. At present I cannot even if it is the long or short version. Presumably short.

Take a look at McCollum, "Japanese Rifles of WWII" and you will understand why all this is necessary. The Type 99 went through endless small variations from one series to another. And, of course, may have been fitted with a mix of replacement parts over the years..

But what is TOTALLY USELESS AS EVIDENCE is the "duffle cut". This could have been done by anyone, anytime, any place. I would simply repair it!

Thank you, more pics. No anti-aircraft sights, and no monopod either. And you can't tell on the duffle bag cut. OK. Repair it? I doubt I will. Its part of the gun. I believe her story. She just knew nothing of the rifle itself, shame. I couldnt believe she was selling her family history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SRiverrat11

I couldnt believe she was selling her family history.

---

That part is tough to understand for me as well. Take heart that someone (you) are now a steward of such a nice piece of history and will care for it and pass it on with as much of the story as you can gather.

River rat, Nice find. Regarding the duffle cut, I agree with Patrick, it should be repaired. It is really not very shootable until it is fixed. Even if you don't shoot it the forearm and handguard will slide forward everytime you handle it. It will become very annoying. Salt Flat

Ok, More pics of the reciever. Hopefully this will help. Oh! Bolt is non-matching. The few other numbers on it are. I have 10 WWII rifles. This is the only one I have with ANY story that I know. Thanks for all your help huys.

OK, I'm not a T99 expert, I'm just following the book:
The mark to the right of the "cannonball pile" stamp is not the supplementary mark for Toyo Kogyo OR Tokyo Juki Kogyo, but an inspection mark, so we are looking at a Kokura rifle.

The large recoil bolt is a feature that appeared in Series 25.
But Kokura retained the oval bolt handle throughout, so the bolt is not a Kokura bolt (and it has already been noted that the bolt does not match the rifle).

The series mark to the left of the number could just about be the one for Series 25. But Series 25 had lost the **99 mark on the receiver. But I think it looks more like the Series 22 mark. Certainly not Series 23 or 24. So I will stick with Series 22. Look at McCullum P.12 and you will understand that these marks are very difficult to distinguish if they are not clearly applied.

If it is Series 22, then the stock should have been drilled to take a cleaning rod.

My guess at present: Series 22 with later, non-original bolt.

And so, to answer the question posed at the start of the thread: yes, it would have been around in 1943.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SRiverrat11

He also "carved" "screwdrivered" his initials in the buttplate, but why twice?

---

I am not convinced that those letters are hand-carved. The strokes of the W and M are accurately parallel, and the M looks well-nigh identical to the W if you reverse the photo. I think it is some kind of unit/ownership mark, which was applied a second time (the horizontal version in the photo) because the first one was poorly struck or not in the correct orientation.

Patrick,

The finish of the rifle is consistent with substitute standard. A series 22 would have been finished better as they were not substitute standards. The series mark looks like it could easily be a series 25 which you noted. It is not consistent, they never seem to be. Shouldn't be a "Type 99" mark on a series 25. Large recoil bolt would not be on a series 22.

What I'm curious about is where are you guys getting the year approximations? I've never seen a source for these and McCollum doesn't make any sort of mention of dates/series/etc.

When would a series 8 Nagoya have been made? And a production variation 9 bayonet?

Wow! I had no idea this would be so complicated. It is my only Arisaka. Patrick, you said you think its a unit/person ID mark? I also thought it looked very uniform. He was a Seabee. Maybe something from the Machine shop did the initials. I know his name was Albert W. Miller, so that would match the AWM, but I'm still confused and just learning. Patrick, I also really appreciate the time you have obviously spent with this. I am working on becoming a contributing member. I know I will use this site many more times. Heck, 8 WWII rifles, 2 pistols is nowhere near enough. Thank You again, Guys!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Salt Flat

I agree with Patrick, it should be repaired.

---

Salt Flat. If I choose to repair it, and not saying I will. Can I find that "How To" info here? I thought 2 or 3 dbl end sharpened wires and wood glue wood work, but I have no plans of ever firing it. I cleaned the stock not too long after I got. It was covered in something sticky. Every time I touched it I had to wash my hands. Then I thought of it hanging over a bar for 40 or 50 years and decided to clean it. I did not, however clean the barrel.

River rat, I have repaired them by drilling a 1/4 inch hole in each half (about 1 1/2 inch deep) and use 1/4 inch threaded rod. Pre-fit all the pieces to make sure everything will fit properly. Put some wax or parting agent on the barrel and the complete monopod band, inside and out. Then mix up some good epoxy of the thick gel type. Fill both holes and coat the mating faces, assemble everything together (threaded rod, forend, handguard and bands) and make sure it is all aligned. Remove any squeeze out excess epoxy at the joint prior to sliding the monopod band into place. I warm the hole thing up with an electric heater to make sure it cures right. Watch out for the monopod screw hole and cleaning rod hole (if it has one), you will need to place your splice holes to avoid these. Let it set at least a day and clean up any excess. Take it out and shoot it! Salt Flat

The Series mark looks most like Series 22 to me, maybe Series 25, but I'm leaning towards 22. If its Series 22 I would date it to 1942, especially seeing as its got quite a low serial number.

I don't think the stock is original to the rifle. If its a Series 22, it would have (at the very least) a monopod rear barrel band, and as mentioned above that recoil bolt wouldn't be on a Series 22.

There are a few peculiarities with this rifle.

We can get rough dates from production numbers found in the book Military Rifles of Japan. McCollum is good, but Honeycutt is better.

Series 8 Nagoya would be made in 1944. No idea about bayonets sorry...

The more I look at the OPs photos, and at my books the more I think its a Series 25...

..especially seeing as it has no front sight ears....

A series 22 would be a regular rifle with everything. Even with a later stock this doesn't fit a series 22. That leaves a series 25 but it would have to be a very early series 25 due to the metal butt plate and the Type marking.

Nice catch on the missing sight ears. I didn't notice that.

One more question. With so many types of Arisakas, and the bolt not matching, should I be concerned with head spacing if I do decide to shoot it?

Odd as it seems, we are discussing only one type of Arisaka, the Type 99. Theoretically, the parts are interchangeable throughout the entire series so long as it has that mum stamped on it. It met the standards of the military. Nearly all the changes were made to simplify production without sacrificing function or safety. Later models got rid of the luxuries, were polished less, and used less metal on parts that were not essential to the operation.

I would be a bit concerned in that the bolt was made by a different manufacturer but that in itself may not be all that unusual either. Most people wouldn't know that anyway.

Those that didn't get the mum stamped on them should not be fired, they were probably never intended to be fired. These are training "rifles" or school rifles that were put together to look like a rifle but not function as one.

Thanks Aragorn. I was wondering because Seaman Miller probably picked this rifle out of a souvenir pile.. Then went over to the bolt pile and grabbed a bolt. OK showing my ignorance on Arisakas. I guess a type 38 bolt wouldn't even fit in a Type 99? So the bolt pile, while having type 38 bolts would not fit a type 99, would it?it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aragorn243

Odd as it seems, we are discussing only one type of Arisaka, the Type 99. Theoretically, the parts are interchangeable throughout the entire series so long as it has that mum stamped on it. It met the standards of the military. Nearly all the changes were made to simplify production without sacrificing function or safety. Later models got rid of the luxuries, were polished less, and used less metal on parts that were not essential to the operation.

I would be a bit concerned in that the bolt was made by a different manufacturer but that in itself may not be all that unusual either. Most people wouldn't know that anyway.

Those that didn't get the mum stamped on them should not be fired, they were probably never intended to be fired. These are training "rifles" or school rifles that were put together to look like a rifle but not function as one.

---

Just by chance I found what I believe to be a Series 22 Kokura receiver in my spare parts box. The series mark doesn’t look exactly like any of the diagrams either but looks closest to the series 22. One thing I noticed -- my receiver has a little better finish than river rats, another thing that makes me think his is a series 25. Salt Flat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aragorn243

Theoretically, the parts are interchangeable throughout the entire series so long as it has that mum stamped on it.

---

Possibly with the Type 99. Type 38 bolts seem to come in two basic variants as regards geometry of the locking lug faces: 90° to the bore and inclined plane. (like the M1917, etc.)

Have yet to note that drama with Type 99s. Whether the headspace issue is worth pursuing is up to the user. Have yet to have a problem with Type 99s, matching bolt or not, but... (Type 38 bolts have been found to vary a good bit, though- almost as much as US '03 bolts!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aragorn243

What I'm curious about is where are you guys getting the year approximations?

---

Interpolation between 1939 (introduction) and 1945 (end of production).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aragorn243

Shouldn't be a "Type 99" mark on a series 25.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patrick Chadwick

But Series 25 had lost the chrysanthemum stamp on the receiver.

---

Sorry, brain slipped there, I should have written "...lost the 99 stamp.." as you have rightly pointed out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aragorn243

Large recoil bolt would not be on a series 22.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patrick Chadwick

The large recoil bolt is a feature that appeared in Series 25.

---

Well, at least I got that right!


P.S: And I still say that a "duffle-cut" is a piece of vandalism that should be repaired, even if the saw was wielded by Gen. McArthur himself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Salt Flat

The series mark doesn’t look exactly like any of the diagrams either but looks closest to the series 22.

---

It looks like a "22" with a well-rubbed second horizontal stroke.

I get the impression that the Type 99 was in fact a long succession of intermediate types, or rather mixes making total nonsense of the collector's passion for "all-correct" models. By the time this rifle was made, the factories would have been putting together anything that more-or-less fitted, regardless of "correctness".

And I still say that the duffle cut is a piece of vandalism that destroys the proper functioning of the rifle and should be repaired!

Patrick, since you feel so strongly, and have general all around agreement. I will start learning how it should be done. Then I must find the time to do it. I'm oilfield trash and work a lot. I'm at a drilling rig right now. Thank you .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patrick Chadwick

It looks like a "22" with a well-rubbed second horizontal stroke.:!

I get the impression that the Type 99 was in fact a long succession of intermediate types, or rather mixes making total nonsense of the collector's passion for "all-correct" models. By the time this rifle was made, the factories would have been putting together anything that more-or-less fitted, regardless of "correctness".

And I still say that the duffle cut is a piece of vandalism that destroys the proper functioning of the rifle and should be repaired!

---

Patrick Chadwick isn't alone on the subject, but I'm a bit more understanding of the rationale behind it. GI in a faraway place with little resourses at hand has limited options to get a souvenier shipped home. He wasn't worried about collectors' opinions. Just wanted something to display or use as a reminder. Many of these rifles were never shot after being returned. Just forgotten. Now they need your help!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmoore

Patrick Chadwick isn't alone on the subject, but I'm a bit more understanding of the rationale behind it. GI in a faraway place with little resourses at hand has limited options to get a souvenier shipped home. He wasn't worried about collectors' opinions. Just wanted something to display or use as a reminder. Many of these rifles were never shot after being returned. Just forgotten. Now they need your help!

---

Thank you, jmoore. Those are my feelings. I wonder if he didn't do the cut right after he did the initials. As another way to keep it from being stolen. That said, I do not believe he would ever have cut it if he didn't think he had to, to get it back home without being confiscated.

Thank you another time jmoore. You got me thinking. I have not put this in any of my other posts.I did not think it important, but, there is another AWM carved into the "trigger housing"? Right behind the guard. Did he mark this rifle so much that rear-esheclon pukes would pass up his for someone else's? A possibility?

Could be any of a number of reasons why he marked it so vigorously. All purely speculative at this point.

When I was in the Marine Corps we went on ships to practice amphib. landings. Seabees were on the ship too. To unload and assemble the big steel pontoons on the side of ship. The ships crew didn't like them much more than they liked us. Seabees are not part of a regular ships crew, but that's how they would have travelled. They would have been subjected to a lot of navy officers wanting souvenirs with little protection. Its a theory but I think a good theory.

Your type 99 is a early series 25. They were mfg. like the series 24s. The later series 25s were "last ditch". The bolt is not Kokura.