Printable View
Evening all,
I was just reading up on the fascinating late war Japanese reverse engineered Garland.
My 1962 edition of Small Arms of World book mentioned they were rather poorly made with violent recoil...
I guess these rifles are very rare, I don't suppose any of our members have had the opportunity to inspect one?
The quantity made is in dispute but the Type 5 is well known. There are several in collector hands, maybe as many as a dozen. I chased them for years... I wanted to pay $800 when they were $1,000 -- then when I was willing to go the thousand they were $1,500 and on up from there. I never got one, now they bring something like $20K :(
Some if not Japanese copies of the M1 Rifle were chamber for the 7,7x57mm cartridge which was unique to this Type 5 rifle. Why the change by 1 mm is unknown as the standard service cartridge is 7,7x58mm. I have a photo of a clip of 7,7x57 that I will try and postAttachment 98394
Nice one RCS envious I is....
Thanks for the responses guys, I must admit im playing catch up with this one, I had no idea they modified the service cartridge too.
I would hazard a guess the fractional reduction in case length was to aid possible extraction related issue.
I can't see what difference 1mm would really make, but perhaps just enough.
The suggestion of violent recoil in my book, would certainly suggest a good deal of refinement was still required and must have been a handful to deal with, considering the relatively small build of the average Japanese soldier.
Anyone know how many were made?
Amounts vary but Wikipedia says: At the time, only 100 guns were completed out of the 250 in the workshop. Twenty of them were taken by the Allies at the Yokosuka Naval Arsenal on Honshu after the end of the war.
Most guesses that I have seen in the past say 50 made and parts for 50 more that were not completed. That sounds more reasonable based on what has been seen.
I recall reading that the Japanese Navy was involved with the change in the cartridge to 7,7x57mm which used a 173 gr bullet. Also recall some incomplete examples of this rifle in some collections. The Japanese would have captured both the gas trap and gas port M1 rifles starting with the Philippine invasion in 1942
I’ve always wondered why they’d bother reinventing the wheel.
“Hey, that’s a great design. We should start making 30-06 and the guns to go with it.”
Seems a lot easier to make a different ammo than to make a whole new autoloader.
I often wondered why they didn't just start making them as was...almost direct copies.Quote:
Originally Posted by rcathey
Not that easy to copy the Springfield M1 rifle - IHC had problems in the 50's and they (IHC rifles) became the favorite gift to the third world nations.
But you really have to credit Winchester, during the 1939 - 1941 time period, they were working on their own 30-06 semi auto, developed the M1 carbine
and started manufacture of the M1 rifle, and it worked !
During WWII Springfield got a couple of the new German MG-42 machine guns and tried to reverse engineer it... and failed. It ain't so easy!
BTW, GCA just got a Letter to the Editor from a member: "... about 1976 Sumner's Hardware in Ft. Knox, KY received a large group of guns from an estate. I remember examining a Japanese Garand. I didn't buy it and have regretted it for the rest of my life. I think it was $125. It was it sad shape. The action was jammed, the stock damaged, and the magazine box was missing. I didn't know what a treasure it really was. Lost opportunity."
Cheap at twice the price...Quote:
Originally Posted by bob seijas
International had problems with their production because Springfield purposefully gave them incorrect dimensions on some critical parts. H & R came to help I.H. and that's where their deceit was found. Egg on faces all around. Most of the M-1's that went to Iran were I.H.'s, from what I've read.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RCS
It's astonishing Springfield behaved that way!Quote:
Originally Posted by limpetmine
Was it sanctioned from the top, or disgruntled engineering staff with an axe to grind, taking it on their own backs?
Always something new to learn on Milsurps...
Springfield was not too kind to Winchester either but then again Winchester felt that the M1 was not ready for production. It all worked out
and there was a war going on.
I find it difficult to believe that the wrong was data was provided to IHC, that is like sabotage
IHC had a huge problem with jamming that they couldn't solve, had to suspend production for three months. It was eventually traced to the wrong spring tension on the function firing machine. The setting was provided by SA. It was found by HRA who allegedly said that SA had done the same thing to them when they started, but since they were experienced with gun manufacture, they found it out quickly. This was related to me in the early 1980s by the guy who was in charge of the rifle manufacture at IHC.
It's hard to see this wasn't carried out with some official nod, as surely SA engineering staff must have been on site at IHC to assist in getting production underway.
You could argue that such an act during a time of national emergency is out right sabotage and treasonous behaviour.
Quite astonishing.
off topic somewhat, but didn't that happen in WW1 with producing the 1911?
And in world war 1 there was a fiasco with the French light machine gun, the Chauchat.. aka shoo shoo by the us troops. The issue is that when the French were forced to make it in 30-06, there were "dimensional issues" in the chamber.... history has claimed it was an "accidental math error by French engineers converting the imperial 30-06 chamber drawings"
The Germans also converted captured examples to fire their 7,92mm cartridge.
Also read that FN in Belgium converted WW1 Franch Chaucat during the 1920's to fire the 7,92mm cartridge for Poland. A lot of work to rebuild these lmg's in something that might work.
It's stories like these that really raise the hair on the back of my neck. It makes me think of the young men that died because SA wanted to retain control of small arms design and production.
I think back on the debacle that was the rifle trials that led to the adoption of the M14. The T48 was clearly the better design.
Then there is the M16 travesty that led to many men dying in Vietnam because SA didn't want the M14 replaced.
And then there is the after war rifle trials between the M1903 and the M1917.
Springfield Armory's war cry "Not designed here by us, not adopted or built by us".
So, how much truth was there in the low numbered 1903 problem or was it SA trying to live longer in a low money environment.
I have a low numbered RIA that was a OK National Guard target rifle. It was sold at auction in the 50s and the owner used it for hunting deer every year. And such dangerous rifles were rebuilt and used in WWII.
Sorry about my rant, didn't mean to detract from the main topic of the Japanese Garand.
BEAR
Bear, it is an old story about US Ordnance neglecting other weapons such as the Lewis gun in WW1 which was designed in the US and manufactured in England. The
removal from service of almost all Model 1917 rifles after WW1 to keep the native Springfield 1903.
I wrote an article for Digest Books years ago on the US High Standard and HRA T48 rifles. Even some US troops went though basic training with the T48 rifle and as
good a rifle as it tested, it was never going to be adopted. They wanted the M14. Even when the M14 production came to an end, there was even an attempt to
salvage the M14 by having TRW produce some examples in 5,56mm using M16 magazines. Then you have the M60.
the shoo-shoo was a good rifle overall. other then the crappy magazines.
every non 1903 rifle made for ww1, was done as stop gap measures. Springfield NEVER had the ability to do the production needed so SOMETHING was needed. And all those rifles that were not the standard US rifle pattern, were ALWAYS going to get retired afte the war
Bear, I think we need a whole new thread to address some of your assertions.....
There is evil and there is incompetence and then there is just how things happen in large organizations - especially government run organizations. Quickly:
The M1903 receiver problem was due to limitations and lack of understanding at the time by systems of manufacture in 1903 - not some money issue. Heat Treat was done by eyeball and it had "always worked before" - with low pressure cartridges like the .45/70 and the Krag.
And the M1903 was lighter and more accurate than the clunky M1917 Enfield - but the real reason was that when all three Enfield Rifle makers quit making them - all the parts and support was over - and a Government Arsenal built weapon could not be sidelined by Labor Union strikes - which had happened when Civilian makers were used - cannot have that in a war. So the weapon made in US Arsenals (not commercially) got the nod. That and you could adjust the rear sight for windage and Marksmanship was still KING - read Crossman's "Book of the Springfield" - he is fair with the deficencies of the '03 - but the M1917 had a FRAGILE Ejector, to - broke frequently.
The M14 did have legit advantages over the T48/FN - pistol grip rifles suck for bayonet drill and as a marksman's rifle - at least in the viewpoint of the US.mil in that time period, easy transition for training from the M1 - and I agree. Everything must be evaluated according to where they were then - not from the hindsight of 60 plus years, if you are fair and honest. And the FN sights and trigger SUCK compared to the M14s. The FN was better for conscript dumb troops - not for US Marksmanship trained troops.
The M14 was a full pound lighter - this matters. The M14 could take a salt water dunking and be completely stripped and cleaned by the soldier - the FN required armorer's tools and time to get the salt out. During the trials, the FN choked on Sand - common stuff in the world - and Sand Cuts were eventually added - too late for trials, and the M14 was also more reliable in cold. And the M14 is still successfully in use as an accurate specialist/DMR rifle - the FN is gone. Ever try mounting a scope on an FN/FAL??
The M16s failures were NOT Springfield Armory's fault - McNamara was CLOSING Springfield Armory down in favor of civilian manufacture of our Service Rifles and KILLING the whole Armory System just as the AR/M16 was being adopted and fielded. Thus the original Armalite/Colt ARs did not have the BENEFIT of regular, full Ordnance Testing in sand, dirt, cold, ammo differences. The prototypes with IMR powder tested by the Green Berets (who cleaned the rifles, by the way) worked GREAT.
With it's original IMR powder loaded to original specs, the first AR15/M16s had NO PROBLEMS except chamber rusting from lack of cleaning and cleaning gear (fixed by chroming by Colt and issuing gear). And that was caused by a mistaken belief the Stoner design was "self cleaning" - Ha!
What messed up the AR was the introduction of Ball Powder (cheap by McNamara again - melted down OLD Battleship powder into Ball powder - expense of the Vietnam war) with too much Calcium Carbonate that gummed up the Direct Gas System - IMR powder did not. Colt, to their credit, engineered around all the problems fairly quickly and the M16 became very reliable - with a butt stock cleaning kit and lube added, too.
Without verification by more than one person, in writing - and reviewing all circumstances, I don't believe in just accepting old stories newly told by people with failing memories. Springfield was a MILITARY run outfit - and somebody should have been brought up on charges if these allegations of sabotage of the Civilian Makers was true - hell they would have sued....
I have spent most of my life reading and studying these weapons and their manufacture. Mistakes always get made, and then fixed - in all weapons systems. The early B17s were no prize, either. But unless you have extensive testing (like SA as US Ordnance Department used to do to weapons systems) the Soldier gets to do final test - which sucks. Do some more reading - "common knowledge" is frequently that - common and Wrong. CC
Wow, great post!
Dick Culver was heavily involved with troubleshooting the problems with the M-16. The way he put it was that once he had the temerity to criticize it, they said, "You grouched about it, YOU FIX IT." Everything from the post above is correct. A problem with McNamara's cost-saving of recycled WWII powder was burn timing: As you may know, each time a cartridge is fired, the gas expansion first causes the brass case to expand to seal against the chamber wall to contain the gasses at the back end. As the pressure subsides, the case contracts and the seal is broken. Because it expanded slower than the spec'd IMR powder, the cartridge case was still expanded and pressing against the chamber when the extractor tried to pull it out. This stop extraction of the case and ruined the cycle.
Once they shot it with the right powder it worked fine except for that rusting chamber. The next solution created a new problem. As mentioned above, they chrome plated the chamber. Problem was that they plated existing chambers without relieving them by the diameter they were going to occupy with the added chrome plating, so they ended up with a tight chamber that exhibited an extraction problem but for a new reason.
Much like an aircraft crash, where one factor rarely takes down the plane but instead it is a confluence of multiple, small screw-ups, the introduction of the M-16 was a massive, rolling organization cluster screw-up, likely heavily abetted by the dismantling of the arsenal system that had overseen prevention of this kind of cluster screw-up.
Bob
When IHC had its infamous jamming problem that halted production for three months, one test was run when they began to suspect the function firing machine. They took a rifle that jammed and fired 10,000 rounds from the shoulders of shooters over a weekend. They filmed it all. The rifle functioned perfectly.
Mr. Colt, while I understand and agree to a lot of what you wrote, I still have my observations and opinions. I bow, sir, to your vast experience and tremendous knowledge of this subject and I will sink back into the primordial ooze from whence I came.
This string of messages needs to return to the subject at hand, namely, the Japanese Garand and the fact that if they had developed it earlier then we would be speaking Japanese. Or something along those lines.
BEAR
But I warn everybody … don't get me started about the "grassy knoll" and the AR15.
BEAR, The Japanese recovered examples of our M1 Rifle as early as Jan 1942, how many examples did they manufacture by 1945 ? not many, and how
well did they work ? I do not think the Japanese could have mass produced their copy of the M1 rifle at any time during WW2.
This wandering and explanations from and amongst experts and the qualified and the experienced and the I-know-I-was-there about stuff, etc, that has absolutely nothing to do with the original topic is what makes these threads so absolutely worth while following.
Bob, thank you for that additional information on the jamming problem for IHC. I know there is a LOT that I do not know - and 10,000 rounds on film should have made their point to US Army Ordnance. We are all here, just learning from each other. The older I get (past six decades now) the more amazing bits of knowledge crop up - illogical, "they wouldn't have dared", etc. People are amazing. And, in the final analysis, actual witnesses to an event trump every other person's speculations. A lot of us can be a bit cynical - and that is because of all the disappointing behavior we've seen in our fellow man. But we have all also seen a lot of Nobility come from that same, flawed but magnificent Creature!
Bear, all of us her bring the spirit of interest and inquiry to any discussion - and it is ALL useful - if only to evoke more information from others that WE (and especially I) learn from. I think Churchill once remarked that even when he was wrong if he inspired better information to enter the knowledge stream, he had served the ends very well. I've eaten a lot of humble pie, and Bob just provided me another thoughtful slice - that is actually quite good!
Thanks to all who contribute here - books are great, but there are amazing resources right here. I only wish we could capture and collate it all - some of our most sage contributors are getting old - and when one of them dies, unless he imparted it here, it goes with him. Take notes - I do! CC
Wow, great post, very informative indeed, the eternal, great M14, Fal bun fight!Quote:
Originally Posted by Col. Colt
Another discussion I am sure the people shooting our rifles 50 years from now will still be debating...
Both Cold War classics!
FWIW: Thumbing through some old magazines, I ran across an article on the Jap Garand in the Q&A section of the September, 1995 issue of the American Rifleman.
I wonder if anyone ever fired one since they were brought here. I do know of at least one deficiency of the Japanese Garand; there was no 'ping'.Quote:
Originally Posted by RCS
Many thanks for all contributions to my thread.
It's certainly a fascinating subject gents.
---------- Post added at 10:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:51 PM ----------
Perhaps tied to a tree and from a safe distance!Quote:
Originally Posted by ROCK