Is This Arisaka 1943 or earlier?

[Patrick Chadwick]

He also "carved" "screwdrivered" his initials in the buttplate, but why twice?

I am not convinced that those letters are hand-carved. The strokes of the W and M are accurately parallel, and the M looks well-nigh identical to the W if you reverse the photo. I think it is some kind of unit/ownership mark, which was applied a second time (the horizontal version in the photo) because the first one was poorly struck or not in the correct orientation.

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]

Patrick,

The finish of the rifle is consistent with substitute standard. A series 22 would have been finished better as they were not substitute standards. The series mark looks like it could easily be a series 25 which you noted. It is not consistent, they never seem to be. Shouldn't be a "Type 99" mark on a series 25. Large recoil bolt would not be on a series 22.

What I'm curious about is where are you guys getting the year approximations? I've never seen a source for these and McCollum doesn't make any sort of mention of dates/series/etc.

When would a series 8 Nagoya have been made? And a production variation 9 bayonet?

[SRiverrat11]

Wow! I had no idea this would be so complicated. It is my only Arisaka. Patrick, you said you think its a unit/person ID mark? I also thought it looked very uniform. He was a Seabee. Maybe something from the Machine shop did the initials. I know his name was Albert W. Miller, so that would match the AWM, but I'm still confused and just learning. Patrick, I also really appreciate the time you have obviously spent with this. I am working on becoming a contributing member. I know I will use this site many more times. Heck, 8 WWII rifles, 2 pistols is nowhere near enough. Thank You again, Guys!

[fernleaf]

The Series mark looks most like Series 22 to me, maybe Series 25, but I'm leaning towards 22. If its Series 22 I would date it to 1942, especially seeing as its got quite a low serial number.

I don't think the stock is original to the rifle. If its a Series 22, it would have (at the very least) a monopod rear barrel band, and as mentioned above that recoil bolt wouldn't be on a Series 22.

There are a few peculiarities with this rifle.

We can get rough dates from production numbers found in the book Military Rifles of Japan. McCollum is good, but Honeycutt is better.

Series 8 Nagoya would be made in 1944. No idea about bayonets sorry...

[fernleaf]

The more I look at the OPs photos, and at my books the more I think its a Series 25...

..especially seeing as it has no front sight ears....

[Aragorn243]

A series 22 would be a regular rifle with everything. Even with a later stock this doesn't fit a series 22. That leaves a series 25 but it would have to be a very early series 25 due to the metal butt plate and the Type marking.

Nice catch on the missing sight ears. I didn't notice that.

[SRiverrat11]

One more question. With so many types of Arisakas, and the bolt not matching, should I be concerned with head spacing if I do decide to shoot it?

[Aragorn243]

Odd as it seems, we are discussing only one type of Arisaka, the Type 99. Theoretically, the parts are interchangeable throughout the entire series so long as it has that mum stamped on it. It met the standards of the military. Nearly all the changes were made to simplify production without sacrificing function or safety. Later models got rid of the luxuries, were polished less, and used less metal on parts that were not essential to the operation.

I would be a bit concerned in that the bolt was made by a different manufacturer but that in itself may not be all that unusual either. Most people wouldn't know that anyway.

Those that didn't get the mum stamped on them should not be fired, they were probably never intended to be fired. These are training "rifles" or school rifles that were put together to look like a rifle but not function as one.

[SRiverrat11]

Thanks Aragorn. I was wondering because Seaman Miller probably picked this rifle out of a souvenir pile.. Then went over to the bolt pile and grabbed a bolt. OK showing my ignorance on Arisakas. I guess a type 38 bolt wouldn't even fit in a Type 99? So the bolt pile, while having type 38 bolts would not fit a type 99, would it?it.

Odd as it seems, we are discussing only one type of Arisaka, the Type 99. Theoretically, the parts are interchangeable throughout the entire series so long as it has that mum stamped on it. It met the standards of the military. Nearly all the changes were made to simplify production without sacrificing function or safety. Later models got rid of the luxuries, were polished less, and used less metal on parts that were not essential to the operation.

I would be a bit concerned in that the bolt was made by a different manufacturer but that in itself may not be all that unusual either. Most people wouldn't know that anyway.

Those that didn't get the mum stamped on them should not be fired, they were probably never intended to be fired. These are training "rifles" or school rifles that were put together to look like a rifle but not function as one.

[Salt Flat]

Just by chance I found what I believe to be a Series 22 Kokura receiver in my spare parts box. The series mark doesn’t look exactly like any of the diagrams either but looks closest to the series 22. One thing I noticed -- my receiver has a little better finish than river rats, another thing that makes me think his is a series 25. Salt Flat