type 38 Arisaka chambered in 8x57

[dunkel]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Comrade Andrei:
Exactly Zim, that was another point that I should have brought up. If ol' Hirohito was supposed to be a god and all the Japanese weapons were his property, why would the Japs make crappy weapons for a god?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not like they had much choice. They were desperate for weapons, so they were more interested in quantity than quality. I'm sure they did the best they could with what they had, but that's a rather poor argument against the fact that the Japs did, indeed, turn out many, many crappy weapons. I mean, come on...rifles as tall or taller than the average Japanese soldier (very handy in the jungle, huh? A dust cover on the action that rattled and gave away position? Metallurgy that made the late war rifles almost suicide to fire? A machine gun that was fed by 5 round stripper clips (the same ones used by their bolt action rifles, btw)? A pistol with an exposed sear that would fire if bumped? A bolt action gun with anti-aircraft sights?

Did the Japanese have any good weapons during WW2? Sure, maybe, a few. But to say they must have had good weapons because they thought their emperor was god is just weak. I'm sure they tried to give him the best, but they came up short with a lot of their stuff.



------------------
"When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny."
--Thomas Jefferson

"The purpose of government is to rein in the rights of the people." -- William Jefferson Clinton

"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to
shoot back with your own gun."
The Dalai Lama

"Life is tough.
Life is tougher if you're stupid."
John Wayne

OK, the fact that the weapons of the Japanese Army were property of the emperor isn't a reason why they were good but one can say that they didn't just throw some POS together and said "good 'nuff".

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I mean, come on...rifles as tall or taller than the average Japanese soldier (very handy in the jungle, huh? A dust cover on the action that rattled and gave away position?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In 1905 when the Type 38 was adopted, that was standard practice-an infantry rifle that had an approx. 30" barrel, then a carbine with an approx. 20" for cavalry, artillery crews, engineers etc. The Japanese liked the Type 38 because it was accurate, had a light recoil and had a light report. They actually preferred the Type 38 to the Type 99 even though the Type 99 was shorter. Of course, the Type 38 carbine was prized by the Japanese soldiers. Plus, the Japanese soldiers solved the dust cover problem-they ditched them if they made too much noise. I've seen some that don't rattle too much and I've seen some the rattle like tin cans behind a wedding limo.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Metallurgy that made the late war rifles almost suicide to fire?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was late war, the "Last Ditch" Arisaka Type 99. The situation was very desperate, with B-29s bombing everything within range and the U.S. Army breathing down the neck of the Home Islands. At least they had an excuse to make crappy rifles in late 1945! Let's see, can anyone say "Low-Numbered Springfield 1903"? Where is the excuse for that one?

[/QUOTE]A machine gun that was fed by 5 round stripper clips (the same ones used by their bolt action rifles, btw)?[/QUOTE]

Yes, it used Type 38 strippers. The idea was that it could simplify logistics-the same ammo for the infantry rifle in clips could be used in the light machinegun. What looks good on paper doesn't always hold true in combat. In China, they found the Type 11 to be lacking and replaced it with the Type 96-a very good light machinegun which proved to be very successful. They served together in WWII only because the Japanese couldn't make enough Type 96's.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>A pistol with an exposed sear that would fire if bumped?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fine, ONE is just an unquestionable bad design-but they did make the early ones with good material...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>A bolt action gun with anti-aircraft sights?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just as useless as a magazine cutoff. Actually, when the Type 99 was adopted (1939) most of the world's air forces had large numbers of biplanes which might actually be hit with a bolt gun. Still, it is pretty useless but how does a stupid doo-dad make a gun a bad design? The early Type 99s rank ONLY below the Type 38 in action strength and they add a peep sight, though I don't find them supperior to the Type 38 notch.

And what country, praytell, never put out an archaic design or put stuff on a gun that just plain wasn't neccessary?

As far as I can tell, they really didn't issue many crappy guns. Yes, the Type 94 pistol was bad but what else didn't they at least try to replace if it was inferior? I've already said that the Japanese developed the Type 96 (and later Type 99) light machinegun to replace the Type 11 when it was found lacking-those two (Type 96 and Type 99) were just as good as anything anyone else had and better than some. The Arisakas are right on top of the heap of the best military rifles right alongside the m98 Mauser, Enfield, and Mosin. Their submachineguns were just simplified Bergmanns, easy and simple to make. The Type 92 (their main heavy/medium machinegun) only lacked in that it used Hotchkiss style feed strips as opposed to a belt.

Late war guns were crap-no one doubts that-but that was only a desperate attempt to produce enough weapons, which they couldn't.

------------------
The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communist Revolution. The Proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workingmen of all countries, unite!-Karl Marx, "The Communist Manifesto"

I would trust my life to two things-God and the Kalashnikov.

[ISC]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ISC:

Stamped on the bottom of the barrel near the muzzle is an indecipherable word ending in x, Va, japan 6.5mm<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think it was converted in china and mismarked when it was imported. With that marking, it is definately a post 68 import, not a bring back.


As for the jap bashing, they deserve it.

Jap machine guns were junk, most of them required oilers and had archaieic feed systems.

The Nambu pistols were worthless as a combat arm, and were mostly a status symbol.

The Arisaka was probably a decent rifle, but I have seen so many broken and wore out Arisakas that I can't imagine that they are better than a good european Mauser, most are on par with the Turk Mausers, still fine rifles.

Jap SMGs were hardly used, and they were limited by the weak nambu pistol round.

The japs were great at copying other countries innovations, but showed little in the way of original thought in weapon design. If you want a japanese weapon that is better than its comtemporaries, there are still alot of great jap swords out there.

[ISC]

I've been thinking about this rifle and hoped someone else might have something to add to the discussion in this old thread...
It's hard to believe it's been 8 years....

[jefferson101]

I've got a Arisaka in 6.5, which is a nice rifle. Apparently a bring-back, complete with Mum and all matching, but missing the dust cover.



I got it cheap because someone re-stocked it. It's got the most grossly awful stock on it I've ever seen, pretty much. But one of these days I'll find an original stock for it, and put it back. Another one of my projects for retirement.

Be it noted. The Arisakas shoot quite accurately. At least, the USMC had that opinion during WWII. I've heard a lot about them from folks who were there, and none of them would want to let even a marginally competent Japanese rifleman get a whack at them with one. Too many of them didn't come back because they actually worked right.

I'd rate them above the 7.62x54R's for accuracy, mostly, if they haven't been stored in a shed for the last 50 years, or not cleaned a few times after shooting the normal corrosive ammo from the period. The 7.7's aren't any slouch, either, from my observation and shooting experience.

I'm not sure why anyone would want to convert one to 8mm. I don't doubt that it's still an accurate and reliable bolt action rifle, but why polish a gold bar?



Yes, I know. If you don't reload anything and everything, ammo is a problem. But it doesn't sound right in 8mm.

[ISC]

My guess is that it had a horribly corroded barrel and it was rebarrelled with a 98K barrel that was modified to fit.

I'd love to know how to tell if the conversion was done by the Chinese or the Estonians or what.

[RT]

Well, then you have the order "FIX BAYONETS.....UNLOAD RIFLES.....CHARGE!!!"

The kinds of things when people really really don't like each other and want the killing to be really really personal, because, well, they really really don't like each other. There is something to be said about primal urges when the machinegunners on both sides decide to abandon their belt feds, pick up swords and rush in to get it on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuBDZkyrMhI

[gandog56]

With the insane amounts of milsurp 8mm Mausers out there, why would you even want an Arisaka in that caliber?

[ISC]

One of the goals of my collection is to have a representative example of a battle rifle from every country of every way of the 20th century.

I needed a jap rifle and I prefer to have firearms that are fully functional and capable of being used. In order to use an Arisaka you pretty much either need to reload or have it rechambered for another caliber.

I wish I could get as lucky with a similar solution to having a WWI French rifle (lebel). I have seen 7.62x39 conversions of Carcanos and I would pay a considerable amount of money for one of them.

I have 5 or 6 Mausers in 7.92x57. A big part of the attraction of collecting guns for me is the history behind them and the possibilities of how that rifle came to be chambered in 8 mauser, and who had it along the way, intrigues me.

[Steve Marshall]

Plus, I get to blather on, about the History and all.

[Steve Marshall]

And since Hornady doesn't sell two different loadings in 6.5x50, and since they don't sell 6.5x52 or 7.7x58 or 6.5x54 blah, blah, blah. And besides anybody stupid enough to alter a fine firearm like a Lebel is also likely stupid enough to sell it dirt cheap. It's the Hist... blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah.

[jefferson101]

Originally Posted by Steve Marshall

And since Hornady doesn't sell two different loadings in 6.5x50, and since they don't sell 6.5x52 or 7.7x58 or 6.5x54 blah, blah, blah. And besides anybody stupid enough to alter a fine firearm like a Lebel is also likely stupid enough to sell it dirt cheap. It's the Hist... blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah.

And your particular point would be what?

You strike me as a purist. Which is fine, if they are your firearms. I got seriously abused at the Turk Rifle Forum, way back in the day, because I saw nothing wrong with refinishing battered copies of the rifle. And that was a heresy that could not be tolerated.

OTOH, the Turks re-arsenaled all of their 7mm stuff to 8mm, and that was fine. A fine copy of an arsenal reworked one was good, but a battered and beaten up one was somehow better.



I can't see it quite that way. It goes back to my experience in European Museums. I've seen swords and Suits of Armor with the "original finish". They look more like rust than swords and Armor. The ones that someone stripped and refinished still look like they could be used to chop on folks, or worn, several hundred years after the fact.



If you bought it, it's yours. If you want to re-chamber it to an 8.5mm Goobersmacker round, that's your choice.

Every one that someone reworks makes the original copies that I own more valuable. My great-great grandchildren may inherit a Mosin, Mauser, or Arisaka that is actually worth more than I paid for it, if enough people rework theirs, and enough others refuse to refinish them, and let them rust out.



I like "original", if it's reasonably pristine, but once it's been reworked at the arsenal a time or two, it's no longer pristine anyway, so why worry? Do what you like with it. It's yours.

[Steve Marshall]

Not even remotely close. Their is nothing inherently wrong with converting a 38 into an 8x57. Myself, I wouldn't do it as the expense of doing so would far outweigh the costs of acquiring brass etc. There might be a magazine length issue but that wouldn't factor in heavily to a reloader.
No, my post was in reaction to resurrecting a post that is much ado about nothing. The premise of the OP (2010 iteration) was that you'd have to be a reloader to shoot such rifles as the 6.5x50 and 6.5x52. Or are we just burning up bandwidth just to hear ourselves talk? Hornady makes and apparently sells both. And many other calibers for military surplus rifles. So that rationale holds little water. Then, what was the purpose of the post?

[ISC]

I don't know what your problem is Steve Marshall, but you have lousy manners.

I recently read this paragraph in a wikipedia article:

Originally Posted by wikipedia

Finn usage
The Russians, having a surplus of Type 30 and Type 38 rifles from both direct purchase from Japan during WWI and also having captured examples during the Russo-Japanese War, warehoused some of these rifles in Finland. During the Russian Revolution, many Finns seized the chance for independence and took Arisakas from Russian arsenals. They were used mainly by Finn cavalry and after Finland's independence, experiments were taken to upgrade the Type 38s to 7.92 Mauser. With parts and ammunition drying up, Finland relegated the Arisaka to the reserves and the merchant marines before trading a large number of them off to Estonia. Finnish issued Arisakas will have district numbers and an 'S' branded on the stock.

It is why I pulled up this old post to see if I had written anything about the markings on it that were described in wikipedia.
Yes, you can buy ammunition for arisakas if you don't mind spending $1+ per round for it. I won't do that. It's why I never shoot my Carcano and have talked about getting a conversion for it if it were economically feasible.

I pay alot of attention to ammo and magazine availability and have made a real effort in recent years to try to reduce the types of both in my collection. I have a large collection and keeping everything seperate is a chore and has caused me to lose track of magazines or ammunition because they were on a shelf or mixed in with other stuff in an ammo can.
I don't know who converted my Arisaka, when it was done, or why. I suspect that it was the chinese, but it wouldn't surprise me if someone else did it either for reissue or if it was done after importation by a wholesaler. Speculating about that is part of the fun. I know that there are alot of people that know more about these old guns than I do. Maybe even you Steve Marshall. I had hoped that someone that knew a little more about my rifle might say something about it because I would have liked to learn more about it.

I know the Germans converted alot of captured guns into other calibers for the same reason I like converted caliber oddballs: ease of ammunition supply and commonality. The results weren't always equally successful. Even in a case like the carcanos converted to 8 mauser, they still interest me because it is a historically accurate weapon. The conversions were done 65+ years ago by the Nazis as a result of the events of WWII, and I find that interesting. While I wouldn't want to shoot them with full power loads, I'd be more likely to download 8 mauser and shoot a converted carcano than I would be to shoot my carcano at $1.50/rd or buy dies to start reloading for it.

If anyone else thinks that's "blathering" about history, then please, blather on. If anyone is concerned that it's a waste of bandwidth, don't. The traffic on AW is slow enough that we can handle it.

As for the Lebel, I don't know whats really out there except that they just aren't that common and the ammo is really rare too. I'd like to be able to have one in my safe, and I would like to be able to shoot it. You never know if someone might come up with a link to more info about it. Maybe the Germans converted some lebels (or even MAS 36s) into 8 mauser. Who knows? but this thread wouuld be a great place to bring it up.

A helpful post (in contrast to SteveMarshall's snarky remarks) might have included additional information about Arisakas and a link to cheap 6.5 ammo or mention of other conversions that were done in the past.

[Steve Marshall]

So. Now I see your point. You'd download 8MM to shoot in a converted Carcano but not reload for a 6.5. How do you propose to download if you aren't willing to reload. And the point of the Hornady ammunition was to acquire the brass which is now conveniently fireformed to your chamber. If you download, the brass might even outlast the rifle. Now it just so happens that I acquire brass many different ways. I even have 6.5x52. I bought it in my local gunshop for about 10 cents apiece. You can also make them out of 6.5x54, and somehow, through the grace of the Almighty, I managed to gather a few. Some reference conversion books talk about modifying 220 Swift and 30-06 . The latter two are much more work than talking about it on the internet, however and since you don't want to reload, maybe you can "download" something. And by the way, economically feasible, and paying a considerable amount of money are different concepts.
Of the top of my head, I wonder what you'll do to feed:
1909 Mauser 7.65
1904 Mauser in 6.5x58
Swiss 7.5x55
Any French rifle in 7.5
1903 Mannlicher Schoenauer in 6.5
1938 7.35
How about the many Mauser variants in 7x57, that's not exactly cheap ammunition anymore.

So, are you just going to collect the easy stuff to find ammunition for? And what if you should run across a fabulous deal on a 7.62x39 in a Carcano? Will that be justifiable? If so, maybe i can modify a Ross to shoot 25 ACP, you know, just in case I assemble the bolt incorrectly.

Blah, blah, blah blah.

[ISC]

I don't reload 8 mauser but do reload .308, .30-06, .223, 9mm, .45, and 7.62x39. I have multible guns in all those calibers and brass and bullets are common so it isworthwhile for me. Since I have so many other guns that shoot 8 mauser I would consider it worthwhile to buy the dies and bullets to start reloading it, and 8 mauser brass is very easy to get so that would be something that would be practical for me.

Reloading 6.5 carcano or 6.5 arisaka is a less attractive proposition to me because they are calibers I would only have a single rifle that is chambered for it and wouldn't shoot very often.

It's the same reason I'll never reload for my M95 Steyr or K31 and why I am re-barrelling my shot out VZ52 to 7.62x39 when I get home. 7.92x56r and 7.62x45 are both calibers that can be reloaded for fairly easily, but brass is not common and has to be formed from something else.

The .220 swift is, I believe, the source case for 7.62x45 as well as the Carcano. While a lot of things are possible and even not neccesarily expensive, I know myhself enough to know that I don't have the time or patience to go through all the steps of ordering dies I'll rarely use, ordering bullets I have little use for, scrounging and/or ordering brass, trimming that brass to a length determined through experimentation, resizing and fireforming it, then reloading it.

I know that for a lot of guys that process is a big part of the joy they derive from their collection, and I am glad for them. I derive joy from handling my collection in a way that you can't when they are behind glass in a museum. I like cycling the action and moving the parts and occasionally shooting them. I'm the kind of guy that would love to have a old mustang or camaro and it wouldn't bother me one bit if it had an engine from a toyota in it.

I haven't reloaded anything in about 3 years, my press and dies are in storage in a rubbermaid container. I have a hard time getting to the range more than a few times a year. It would be a huge undertaking for me to work up loads for a carcano or arisaka and knowing the steps involved makes it not worthwhile.

Once my deployment is over I will be getting back into it, but even then I doubt I'll do more than accuracy loads for .308. I definately won't be starting a 5 step program for a gun I rarely shoot.

So, are you just going to collect the easy stuff to find ammunition for?

yeah, pretty much. I sold my M93 spanish mauser because:

1) it had been sporterized (very nicely done actually)
2) ammo is not easily found.
3) I didn't expect to get another rifle in 7 mauser
4) It wasn't really used in any wars of the 20th century (maybe the spanish civil war?)

When I bought my M95 I bought about 400 rounds of 7.92x56r. If I hadn't been able to buy a large quantity of ammo for it I'm not sure I would have got it.

I used to have a MAS 49/56 that was rechambered by Century to .308. It was extremely unreliable so I took it back for another, which was equally unreliable. I took it back again and traded it in for a L1A1. Years later I bought another that was chambered for 7.5 French, but ammo was so hard to come by and the little I found was bad Syrian that I sold it.

I sold my MAS 36 for the same reason and bought another one that was re-chambered to .308. It works fine. I know that 7.5 French can be made from alot of different source cartridges, but I didn't want to deal with the hassle.

I own an Ishapore (.308 Enfield) for the same reason, and .303 is exceedingly common.

I like having at least a few hundred rounds or so for each firearm I own. The 6.5 carcano is the only one that I can't say that about which is why I mention the 7.62 x 39 conversion so often.

If you stick around long enough you'll probably see me strart another thread or pull up an old one if I come across something on the web somewhere talking about a conversion again.