The early guns were well made and finished to the equivalent of, say, Germancivilian Lugers. I will stack a Baby Nambu up against the best of European guns any day for fit and finish.
The designs are not bad, but the reality was that the Japanesenational pride led them (especially Nambu) to put a lot of effort into designing arms that were uniquely Japanese, rather than simply copying foreign ideas as they had done earlier (and afterwards). Whether that approach is good or bad, it precludes use of some good ideas.
Perhaps the best word for those designs is "clever", but there was innovation. I think some of those ideas could have been used later, but they were not. (Example: The Type 14 design could have been used in a center-fire pistol based on the Ruger Standard Model.)
Even the much despised Type 94 actually shows considerable thought as to manufacturing a pistol using a combination of common tooling and fine handwork. And of course, all Japanese arms deteriorated in quality as the war went on, though essentials, like proper hardening, were maintained to near the end.
Were the Japanese pistols good? Not really. They have too many problems, like continual firing pin breakage on the Type 14. But some of their "problems" were just the strange appearance and the American idea that anything that does not look like a Model 1911A1 just has to be junk.
JimInformation
![]()
Warning: This is a relatively older thread
This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.