Type 2 paratrooper problem

Hello all, thought I would share something interesting that happened to me today. I went to the range with my type 2 paratpooper Arisaka. I just got it and this was the first time to shoot it. On the third shot the aircraft sight popped up on its own. Upon inspection I found that the barrel had moved about half an inch forward, confusing me on how and why until I got it apart.

Just in case someone that reads this is not familiar with a type 2, it is basically a type 99 that the Japanese cut in half and made it into a take-down rifle so paratroopers could jump with them.

The chamber and barrel are both forward of the break, and I had assumed were one piece. I was wrong on this, the barrel slides onto the chamber and is held on by what appears to be the 1940's version of red loctite. Color me surprised. And I don't know the service life of red loctite, but it seems to be less than 70 years.

Thankfully not much gas or debris flew out, so no harm no foul to me, and other than a crack in the top hand-guard and of course the old locktite giving out there's no damage to the rifle.

Did anyone else know about the loctite?

Yow!
Somehow, that just doesn't seem right to me! You don't suppose somebody pieced back together a cut rifle?

That dosent sound right to me either!..........:ugh:

In the world of Firearms, when you shoot a rifle calibre cartridge. Many/ Approx 20 Tons per square inch is generated upon firing!
The Barrel where it fit's into the interrupted thread block. WOULD have originally have a machine thread on it. And correspondingly, the block would have had
a matching female thread to suit!

Applying some kind of liquid thread sealant would have simply been madness! Not to mention dammed right Bloody Dangerous!!!!!!

To my mind, tis is a lash up that someone has concocted to convert a common rifle. Into a much rarer variant or Weapon!

That's been cobbled together.

I disagree that this is a chop job done by Bubba. Here is an article by nambu world on the type 2 and Ian McCollum with one in an early forgotten weapons video.


Nambu World: Arisaka Type 2 Paratroop Rifle

Forgotten Weapons Interview with Duncan McCollum - YouTube

I'm going to have to do some research to find a schematic for this rifle, but everything about the rifle I own matches everything I can find so far with authentic type 2's. Also the work itself looks period accurate and well done.


If you know of somewhere I could go to find a schematic or have a type 2 and are willing to take the wood off the front end and take a few pictures please let me know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by r.pettit

I disagree that this is a chop job

---

So, I didn't see where he showed us the chamber was swaged into the barrel with knurling and locktite...but if you say so.

Pulled this off of Google under Schematic Arisaka Type 2

I agree, those links don't address this specific issue. I was just trying to show the type 2 is real and can be authentic. I pulled these first two images from google and the third is mine put mostly together with red still showing to tell where it came apart, but in the google images you can see multiple layers of metal which match up to mine, implying (to me, anyway) that they are constructed in the same manner.


I'm as flabberghasted as everyone else seems to be that it's constructed this way, that's why I brought it up.

Well, that's how I would sleeve it together if I was trying to blow it by someone too. Follow the contours and lines. Give it a minute, there's guys here will know for sure. If it's real, they'll come forward and tell you.

If it is real and the locking agent on these rifles is becoming suspect then I feel the site and most knowledgeable of members should put out a warning or at least a notice of some kind and have the owners of these types check them over not as a scare mongering tactic but try to save someones hand or worse. Just an idea

Sorry but I think you got ripped big time:

http://www.texastradingpost.com/militaria/type2aa.jpg

Note the locking lug. Lucky you didn't lose a finger or worse.

Another:

http://picturearchive.gunauction.com...thumbnail1.jpg

Another:

http://picturearchive.gunauction.com...bf96647db1.jpg

I have never seen a rifle of a take down type that wasn't solid through the rear locking lug. There is no reason to not make it that way. The barrel of these is solid through the locking lug as shown by the schematic. Looks like at best, someone cut the barrel off an original right at the "break" and someone later on tried to hide the break.

Here's a picture of mine assembled, minus some screws, locking lug is there and the same. Looks just like the two pics you just put up. The part that separated is forward of the locking lug and the chamber.

As I'm rereading through everything I fear I have come off as combative/argumentative. That was not my intent, I'm just trying to keep adding information and pictures as best I can. If these two parts had not separated I would have never thought to myself an how they are connected.

If this is a garage job that someone has done themselves then I assume the point was just to replace the barrel. What I would love to be able to do is to take the wood off of another type 2 and see if the chamber, which is on the forward half and has the locking lug on it, is one milled piece with the barrel or if the barrel is attached there to. If the barrel and chamber isn't one solid piece on another rifle then I would have to assume the Japanese did them all this way.

I've sleeved chambers before (including a Type 99 LMG to 7,62x39 for a fellow), but never considered using a barely press fit sleeve as the way to join assemblies like this. Mostly because as soon as high pressure gases enter the front join face, it would begin to act like a piston to drive the assembly apart. It's one thing to have a sleeve come loose on a one piece barrel, but this idea....very bad indeed. I've looked at a number of these rifles over the years, but never even had any inclination to think it was put together in such a way. Nor remember being mentioned in any of the various reference books, dating back to WHB Smith and Melvin Johnson. You'd think Johnson, as a firearms designer himself, would notice such a thing!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmoore

it would begin to act like a piston to drive the assembly apart.

---

Like it did.

If I was trying to make something valuable out of something in parts...this is how I'd do it. Can't see the military doing it. I'd think the barrel would have the extension for the bolt lugs screwed on and the chamber in the barrel. Like everyone else.

The only way to solve this issue is get another Type 2 and do a non-destructive test on the chamber end of the rifle. A x-ray shot of the chamber end of the another Type 2 should solve the question.

While I for one am not and expert on the Type 2 rifle it is not possible that the Japanese changed the rifle as production deteriorated as the war progressed to maybe this modification? Just a thought.

But if this issue with the Type 2 is indicative of all Type 2 production. There can be several thousand of these time bombs ready and waiting to go off if anyone wants to experience shooting a Type 2 rifle.

As community we have contacts with many of the world's arms museums, one maybe willing to solve to do a non-destructive test on the Type 2 if we put feelers out. The results could prevent someone from getting seriously hurt or killed.

--fjruple

I simply cannot imagine the Japanese doing any such thing. They had a long history of making firearms and made quality ones despite the misconceptions caused by servicemen trying to shoot training rifles.

Why is the final front ring "wavy"? All other examples I can find show a clearly defined sharp edged ring. I'd speculate that is where the cut occurred and it was damaged in the process.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fjruple

As community we have contacts with many

---

Post # 10 has already asked if there is a way to ascertain whether a warning should go out but it has to be found exactly what is going on with this rifle and fast, if its a Bubba then it may be a one of, BUT if its like Aaragon says a war time expedient in production then the issue becomes very grave indeed and the word should go out. I am certain the persons in the know will see to this. I spotted that earlier on the action Aaron with the front ring I thought it looked like some one had hit it with a hammer, but who knows of the rifles life in between then and now!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CINDERS

If it is real and the locking agent on these rifles is becoming suspect then I feel the site and most knowledgeable of members should put out a warning or at least a notice of some kind and have the owners of these types check them over not as a scare mongering tactic but try to save someones hand or worse. Just an idea

---

I have asked one of my contacts at a major US military museum and arsenal to check their historical records to see if they have any in depth analysis of the Type 2 Paratrooper ever being conducted. I have also forwarded copies of the Type 2 Paratrooper photos in question to illustrate the issue involved. My POC in the past has been very responsive to my requests. I don't know if they have a Type 2 Paratrooper in the museum to conduct a non-destructive analysis. My POC does have many contacts threw out the US military museum system that probably can answer the question. I will let the forum know the reply I get back.

Cheers

--fjruple

It might be a clue that the usual thread locking compounds weren't invented until about 1953. And whilst the Japanese did have some leading edge materials science applications during the 1930s (the 7000 type series of aluminum for example, first seen in Zero fighters, I'm pretty sure!), I would expect if they did such shenanigans in building up the take down rifle, they would have used solder or braze. But I can't think of why!

Let's get back to the basics of gathering evidence: Do not ASSUME anything!

"... by what appears to be the 1940's version of red loctite. Color me surprised. And I don't know the service life of red loctite, but it seems to be less than 70 years..."

What makes anyone think that the remains are of a kind of Loctite? And what is Lockite? It is a trade name - hence my capitalization - not a chemical designation. Different types of adhesive are and were made under this trade name.

There was a reddish artificial resin available in the 1940s : resorcinol or phenol-resorcinol(?) - the artificial resin apparently used as an adhesive in the well-known reddish-colored K98k laminated wooden stocks. But do not assume that is the red stuff on this rifle either! So maybe I'm just muddying the waters.

As to the "time-bomb" potential - the military mind that invented the kamikaze concept would have been quite capable of producing rifles with a severely limited service life expectancy. More muddying of the waters, I know...

So although I agree with the critical comments already posted, and it looks to me like an evil piece of Bubbary, on technical or military-sociological grounds I cannot totally exclude the possibility that it was indeed so manufactured.

Which leaves the already presented and most valuable suggestion to clear up this matter: an X-ray examination of another paratrooper rifle. If another is found to be assembled in this manner, then one must reckon that either they were generally constructed in this way or that there is an unknown number of fakes floating around.

In either case it would be a matter of responsibility that those possessing them do not fire them AND do not pass them on without a proper warning AND that the hazard should be publicized. That is more important than any technological fantasies.

Just further muddying the Germans were in cahoots with the Japanese armed services so maybe they found another use for this adhesive rather than gluing stocks together

Sorry, I don't buy any of that. If it's correct, there's enough guys here that will know and they'll tell us instead of guessing.

I propose that either they were all built that way or none were built that way. The war expediency doesn't cut it because they did not start producing simpler rifles until late in war and they were simply simpler construction, elimination of not needed parts, etc. Only at the very, very end were they putting together rifles that might be unsafe.

All that being said, I think the first thing to be eliminated would be a Type 2 paratrooper rifle. They sure weren't conducting airborne operations late war and they would concentrate on the simpler straight design.

So in my mind, that eliminates the late war expediency argument.

As for them all being built that way, I just don't see it.

And yes, all "kind" of a guess but when we can look at a schematic which shows it as one unit, I think that's pretty strong evidence.

The chamber of a rifle is the rear part of the barrel , the barrel is screwed into the receiver . The chamber is not a separate part . The barrel on the rifle in the post has been cut off where it screws into the receiver , the chamber has been drilled out and sleeved to hold the rear and the front of the barrel together . The rifle is ruined , it is not safe to shoot with out a new complete barrel installed .

I believe Bob Q hit this correctly. The stub has been knurled to create a tighter fit then some sort of adhesive was used to hold it together. OP, I am sorry you seem to have been duped with the purchase of this rifle. I am very pleased you were not injured when this rifle came apart. If I were you I would contact the seller and request a full refund with shipping each way.

If that is not an acceptable option then I would start canvassing for a replacement barrel but be aware these are somewhat matched and may require some fitting to obtain proper head spacing and lock up.

Seems to me someone stubbed it. The ingenuity and massive size and strength of the receiver ring and extension would be greatly diminished by a chamber that was press fit at the neck which would allow gas control problems. If it was manufactured this way wouldn't you do it at the base of the cartridge.That portion of the barrel at the sight collar does not look right. I have never seen loc-tite of any sort on a knurled a press fit, makes me think someone was worried. Imagine trying to index the collar and extension and front site. How would you hold everything and push it together and if you did, the knurling would gall to withstand chamber temperature. A type two I detail cleaned and test fired about a year ago gave me no inclination of any sort of manufacturing technique pertinent to this discussion. It was an awesome work of art with all parts serialized except the screws and mainspring. However the Japanese did jump once and threw their rifles out first in a swamp and couldn't get to them resulting in a pistol fight, They were in a hurry to develop the rifle but didn't consider vibration an issue? The heft of the front ring and extension/Barrel joint were overbuilt. I don't know if they would sacrifice those strengths for a pressed chamber arrangement. 22,000 built that would make me want to keep one of those. Who would have
guessed they were pressed? wow I'm gonna get the rifle from my buddy and my new dentist may x-ray it for me. and then we'll know. give me some time.

I was wondering about the locking wedge. I can see the bail on the head of the wedge, and I saw the lug under the chamber that the wedge fits in front of when the rifle is assembled.
I own a Type 2 Paratrooper like yours and it is a good shooter.

Was the wedge fully pulled out to the right and then the front half of the rifle assembled, and then the wedge was fully screwed in?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marsh gun

Who would have
guessed they were pressed

---

No one, because they aren't.