Type 2 paratrooper problem

[Aragorn243]

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.

[r.pettit]

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.

[r.pettit]

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.

[jmoore]

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!

[browningautorifle]

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.

[fjruple]

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

[Aragorn243]

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.

[CINDERS]

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!

[fjruple]

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

[jmoore]

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!