Type 2 paratrooper problem

[Patrick Chadwick]

Let's get back to the basics of gathering evidence: Do not ASSUME anything!

"... by what appears to be the 1940's version of red loctite. Color me surprised. And I don't know the service life of red loctite, but it seems to be less than 70 years..."

What makes anyone think that the remains are of a kind of Loctite? And what is Lockite? It is a trade name - hence my capitalization - not a chemical designation. Different types of adhesive are and were made under this trade name.

There was a reddish artificial resin available in the 1940s : resorcinol or phenol-resorcinol(?) - the artificial resin apparently used as an adhesive in the well-known reddish-colored K98k laminated wooden stocks. But do not assume that is the red stuff on this rifle either! So maybe I'm just muddying the waters.

As to the "time-bomb" potential - the military mind that invented the kamikaze concept would have been quite capable of producing rifles with a severely limited service life expectancy. More muddying of the waters, I know...

So although I agree with the critical comments already posted, and it looks to me like an evil piece of Bubbary, on technical or military-sociological grounds I cannot totally exclude the possibility that it was indeed so manufactured.

Which leaves the already presented and most valuable suggestion to clear up this matter: an X-ray examination of another paratrooper rifle. If another is found to be assembled in this manner, then one must reckon that either they were generally constructed in this way or that there is an unknown number of fakes floating around.

In either case it would be a matter of responsibility that those possessing them do not fire them AND do not pass them on without a proper warning AND that the hazard should be publicized. That is more important than any technological fantasies.

[CINDERS]

Just further muddying the Germans were in cahoots with the Japanese armed services so maybe they found another use for this adhesive rather than gluing stocks together

[browningautorifle]

Sorry, I don't buy any of that. If it's correct, there's enough guys here that will know and they'll tell us instead of guessing.

[Aragorn243]

I propose that either they were all built that way or none were built that way. The war expediency doesn't cut it because they did not start producing simpler rifles until late in war and they were simply simpler construction, elimination of not needed parts, etc. Only at the very, very end were they putting together rifles that might be unsafe.

All that being said, I think the first thing to be eliminated would be a Type 2 paratrooper rifle. They sure weren't conducting airborne operations late war and they would concentrate on the simpler straight design.

So in my mind, that eliminates the late war expediency argument.

As for them all being built that way, I just don't see it.

And yes, all "kind" of a guess but when we can look at a schematic which shows it as one unit, I think that's pretty strong evidence.

[bob q]

The chamber of a rifle is the rear part of the barrel , the barrel is screwed into the receiver . The chamber is not a separate part . The barrel on the rifle in the post has been cut off where it screws into the receiver , the chamber has been drilled out and sleeved to hold the rear and the front of the barrel together . The rifle is ruined , it is not safe to shoot with out a new complete barrel installed .

[Bill Hollinger]

I believe Bob Q hit this correctly. The stub has been knurled to create a tighter fit then some sort of adhesive was used to hold it together. OP, I am sorry you seem to have been duped with the purchase of this rifle. I am very pleased you were not injured when this rifle came apart. If I were you I would contact the seller and request a full refund with shipping each way.

If that is not an acceptable option then I would start canvassing for a replacement barrel but be aware these are somewhat matched and may require some fitting to obtain proper head spacing and lock up.

[Doco overboard]

Seems to me someone stubbed it. The ingenuity and massive size and strength of the receiver ring and extension would be greatly diminished by a chamber that was press fit at the neck which would allow gas control problems. If it was manufactured this way wouldn't you do it at the base of the cartridge.That portion of the barrel at the sight collar does not look right. I have never seen loc-tite of any sort on a knurled a press fit, makes me think someone was worried. Imagine trying to index the collar and extension and front site. How would you hold everything and push it together and if you did, the knurling would gall to withstand chamber temperature. A type two I detail cleaned and test fired about a year ago gave me no inclination of any sort of manufacturing technique pertinent to this discussion. It was an awesome work of art with all parts serialized except the screws and mainspring. However the Japanese did jump once and threw their rifles out first in a swamp and couldn't get to them resulting in a pistol fight, They were in a hurry to develop the rifle but didn't consider vibration an issue? The heft of the front ring and extension/Barrel joint were overbuilt. I don't know if they would sacrifice those strengths for a pressed chamber arrangement. 22,000 built that would make me want to keep one of those. Who would have
guessed they were pressed? wow I'm gonna get the rifle from my buddy and my new dentist may x-ray it for me. and then we'll know. give me some time.

[Jim34]

I was wondering about the locking wedge. I can see the bail on the head of the wedge, and I saw the lug under the chamber that the wedge fits in front of when the rifle is assembled.
I own a Type 2 Paratrooper like yours and it is a good shooter.

Was the wedge fully pulled out to the right and then the front half of the rifle assembled, and then the wedge was fully screwed in?

[browningautorifle]

Who would have
guessed they were pressed

No one, because they aren't.