Carcano butt-stock cleaning rods

[bob4wd]

I've seen several conflicting statements concerning Carcano butt- stock cleaning rods. Are they 3 piece or are they 2 piece? Or are they rifle-specific? Some of my rifles have room for the 9 1/2 rods, some have only enough room for the 6 inch rods. I have only seen one picture of the 6 inch set, are they that rare? I've seen the 9 1/2 inch sets advertised as 2 pc. sets and as 3 pc. sets- which is correct? Logic would seem to be that the 9 1/2 sets are 2 piece and the 6 inch sets are 3 piece, to achieve the same overall length when assembled, but logic hardly ever works in real life!
Does anybody have any insight?
BTW, Hobbs's book doesn't offer a clue.

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[Aragorn243]

I believe the cavalry carbines have the two piece set. The 38's should have three pieces.

[Patrick Chadwick]

Aragorn is correct, according to "Il Novantuno" by Wolfgang Riepe, P.206.

[bob4wd]

Very interesting. So the various 3 pc. sets with 9inch rods are wrong, essentially? Should be two-piece sets if with the 9 inch sections, right? If 3pc., should be the short sections? This would explain why the 3pc. sets all seem to have one odd-ball section included, an extra top piece.
Ahhh, so much to learn, so little time.

[Bruce McAskill]

Awhile ago I picked up a type 38 that was a vet bring back. In the butt was a set of three 6" rods. They were in it when the vet got it.

[bob4wd]

Very interesting, but also very confusing. My collection of Carcanos has only 1 cavalry carbine, but a halfdozen of 38s. All of the 38s with butt- traps have room for the 9 inch rods, but the cav carbine has a shallower hole drilled in the stock and will absolutely not accommodate a 9 incher. Ample space for a 6 1/2 incher , though. So i don't doubt what the source says, but it's pretty hard to discount the physical evidence that directly contradicts it.
BTW, just to stir the pot a little, against all popular thinking, I think the 38 S.R. In 7.65 is probably one of the best rifles of the war!

[Aragorn243]

Wow, you didn't just stir the pot, you tipped over the stove, set the kitchen on fire and burned the entire house down in the process.

I've shot examples of nearly all of them and by and large the Carcano's are the worst of the bunch. They have terrible sights, jamb consistently and are not very accurate in comparison.

I don't dislike them and I understand I'm using worn out clips instead of fresh ones like they would have used in the war AND the bullets are most likely undersized. I could also get used to the sights with use, but still, no way would I put them anywhere near the top.

[bob4wd]

I didn't claim it to be a good sporting rifle, for that it's crap! But for taking to war, I for one would much rather lug a 7 1/2 pound rifle around than a 9-10 pound dead weight like everybody did. And don't fool yourself, every ounce adds up, painfully so. The days of using the rifle as a pike were long gone by then, but house-to- house fighting and close range action were very much the norm, so a short, handy carbine was just the ticket- consider how many Garands were "lost" and replaced by Carbines.
As for the sights, the average soldier didn't have a clue as to how to adjust the sights for range or probably even used them- just looked down the barrel in the general direction of the enemy. In fact, battle doctrine of the time often dictated the senior NCO would set the sightsfor the troops, who were then not allowed to adjust them.
As for accuracy, with proper ammo they were the equal of any, at least good enough to hit a person at a couple hundred yards. That's been proven.
Plus the action is short throw, easy and smooth, and as strong as any.
Plus it had one more round than most everybody else!
Best argument is that most militaries of today have gone to the same principles: short, light, fixed or semi-fixed sights, small caliber rifles.
Just like the Arisakas, it's a victim of bad press!

[Aragorn243]

I agree the Arisaka is a victim of bad press. Anything Japanese was considered inferior and when troops started getting a hold of training rifles and having them blow up it's an issue.

You can't really say the same thing about the Carcano. No one liked it when they had another rifle to use. The Finns got rid of them as fast as they could get their hands on something else and the Japanese for the most part put the Type I's into storage and it didn't even have the Mannlicher clip.

I own four of them and have shot three of the four. None are accurate, none function smoothly. Being adequate to hit a person at a couple hundred yards does not make it one of the best of the war because EVERY rifle used is adequate to hit a person at a couple hundred yards. That's not bad press, it's personal experience and it's echoed by most who have shot them.

The Enfield held 10, the Garand held 8, those are the two primary opponents the Italians were up against so 6 rounds was no advantage to them.

Today on the market, the Carcano is the least sought after, the lowest priced milsurp out there. You can often get them for less than a Mosin Nagant and considering how they have flooded the market with them, that's saying something.

I like them, I think the 38 is a nice looking rifle, especially with the folding bayonet. But I don't consider it to be anything special as a design and the action is the worst of those that I own and I own most.

[bob4wd]

I agree the Arisaka is a victim of bad press. Anything Japanese was considered inferior and when troops started getting a hold of training rifles and having them blow up it's an issue.

You can't really say the same thing about the Carcano. No one liked it when they had another rifle to use. The Finns got rid of them as fast as they could get their hands on something else and the Japanese for the most part put the Type I's into storage and it didn't even have the Mannlicher clip.

I own four of them and have shot three of the four. None are accurate, none function smoothly. Being adequate to hit a person at a couple hundred yards does not make it one of the best of the war because EVERY rifle used is adequate to hit a person at a couple hundred yards. That's not bad press, it's personal experience and it's echoed by most who have shot them.

The Enfield held 10, the Garand held 8, those are the two primary opponents the Italians were up against so 6 rounds was no advantage to them.

Today on the market, the Carcano is the least sought after, the lowest priced milsurp out there. You can often get them for less than a Mosin Nagant and considering how they have flooded the market with them, that's saying something.

I like them, I think the 38 is a nice looking rifle, especially with the folding bayonet. But I don't consider it to be anything special as a design and the action is the worst of those that I own and I own most.

Great back-and-forth, I love it!
But: actually, they were mainly used against the Ethiopians and Serbs, who used Mausers so the Italians did have a one- shot advantage. Big deal, I know, especially when one considers how poorly trained the Italian army was.
The Finns were the exception to the rule, in that they did believe in marksmanship, so the Mosin would have been way better for them. No argument there.
As for the Type I, I suspect there was a case of NIH going on, the Japanese held ALL other people and weapons in disdain. Don't knorw for sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case. Plus the little problem of ammunition, by then they had changed to the 7.7 cartridge and the Type I was in 6.5, which was really an obsolete cartridge at that time. But all that being true, there is ample evidence that they were in fact used in some numbers in combat, mainly by the navy. So no, not put in storage. And add this- at at least one major All-Japanese rifle shoot, the Type I outshot the Arisakas.
Mine, at least the couple that I shoot, are accurate (which ain't saying much, cause I can't even see the target half the time), just a matter of finding the right load. I have a couple others that won't hit the side of a barn (from the inside), too. The same can be said of all of my mil-surps, there are a couple of good ones and a couple of bad ones of every type.
Never a failure to feed or other malfunction, either. Except for one that blew apart but that was my fault.
Nope, still say it had lightness, compactness, low recoil (in 6.5), ruggedness and simplicity going for it, more than any other rifle in the ETO.

As far as being the cheapest, least desired, etc. rifle out there, I still say it's amatter of perception.