Arisaka Type 99???

[Dart77]

Hi all,

I have inherited what I am 98% sure is an Arisaka Type 99.

Built in either the Koishikawa Arsenal (Tokyo 1870-1935) or the Kokura Arsenal (1935-1945).

What I am strugling to find out is why there is no chrysanthemum stamped on the receiver of rifle. Would anybody have any answers to my dilema? It does not look like there was ever one stamped on the rifle.

Also, does anybody have any idea what the rifle would be worth if sold?

Thanks heaps for any help!

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.

[NRA]

does it have a smooth bore?

[Claven2]

It's possible it had one and a previous owner had the receiver ground and re-finished.

[Aragorn243]

From your photos, it looks to me like it is a last ditch rifle (wooden buttplate). It also looks to be in excellent shape for a last ditch, the stock looks pristine, thus probably sanded and refinished and if they went to that effort, not a stretch to imagine grinding and refinishing the metal. I've seen it done on others and if done well, it does look like the mum was never there. It has a full serial number and no double zeros or any other giveaway that it's a training rifle.

[Dart77]

Thanks for the replys,

The bore is rifled, in good condition. I didnt know that they could be smooth bore?

---------- Post added at 12:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:10 PM ----------

What do you mean by 'last ditch rifle'? Would have those mods been done at the factory or after?

Thanks again for the replys guys!

[Aragorn243]

A last ditch rifle is one produced near the end of the war. The easiest way to spot one is the wood butt plate. They were running short of war materials and wood was less expensive than metal. Fit and finish can be anywhere from near military standard to where you shouldn't fire the rifle due to questionable materials. From the photos, the rifle you have is probably closer to the near military standard. I can't see the series mark clearly but it is probably a very late series 24 or very early series 25. It has characteristics of a 24, the rear ladder sight and full length upper hand guard. And characteristics of the series 25, the wood butt plate and missing guards on the front sight. All type 99's were made between 1940-1945. There is no accurate way to determine what year a particular rifle was made, nor even the series numbers that I'm aware of. Kokura rilfes range from series 20 to series 25. Series 20 would have been produced closer to 1940 and series 25 closer to 1945.

The mum designated it was accepted by the military. In that it is now missing does not mean it wasn't there originally. Rifles without mums were not accepted by the military and were generally used as training rifles. Japan seems to be the only nation that followed this practice to this great a degree. Other nations including the US also had training rifles but they were used on a small scale for specific purposes. Japan issued training rifles to schools and cadet corps. These rifles ran from worn out military rifles that will have the mum but the mum will be struck with several, usually 3 round circles. These rifles will also have two zeros stamped in front of the serial number. Other training rifles will have no markings at all or school markings in place of the mum. Some had rifling, some had none, most are unsafe to shoot.

If it were refinished, stock sanded, mum area polished, this happened post war and was done by the individual who brought it home or got it from someone who brought it home. What that process does is make the rifle very pleasant in appearance but it also destroys the collectability and its value. It's really hard to tell from your photos if that is the case but it does appear like it is. If it shoots well, that is where its value lies and possibly with a re-enactor who doesn't want to risk his "original" rifle. If it hasn't been refinished, it looks to be in very good shape which adds to its value but it is probably a given that the receiver at a minimum was refinished due to the missing mum.

Does it have it's bolt? Are the numbers on the bolt matching to the serial number?

[Claven2]

FWIW, I have NEVER seen a "last ditch" in well maintained condition that was unsafe to fire. This is a bit of a myth that came about because in the late 40's the internet didn't exist and people fired special naval rifles and mukden training rifles with service ammunition which is genuinely unsafe as the receivers were cast of pot metal and were just garbage.

Even roughly finished last-ditch rifles, if proper Type 99's, are safe - it's only the fit and finish that was skimped on. PO Ackley devoted pages in his book to trying to blow up the late-war Arisaka 99 action - he didn't succeed.

Also, the Type 99 production start was in 1939, not 1940.

[apachedawg]

What does the bolt look like? Does the handle look like a plumb and is there a big welding blob on the safety knob?

[Aragorn243]

There are two basic forms of Type 99 rifles. They type pictured here which is the Type 99 of which was produced between 1940 and 1945 and which is the most common form. The second is the Type 99 long rifle which was indeed produced in 1939 in very small numbers. Production of the Type 99 long rifle ceased in 1940 or 1941 when the Type 99 was adopted.

Japanese Rifles of WWII by Duncan O McCollum