Gunboards Forums banner
1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,960 Posts
I dont know anywhere near, what the more informed members of this website know. Get that out right up front. I have accumulated a few Carcano from the recent Italian import. Many or most have had some degree of sanding and refinish of sorts. I could do one today and no one would know. It does not seem to matter as much. I have read here, that a refinish Araska was a big deal, because one of the main points of these guns was the bad looks and bad finish. A pretty Arisaka does not look right. My own idea also considers that these were such cheaper-than-dirt guns for so many years, the buyers could be real picky. The current MUM loving, refinish ignoring buyers seem to anger some?

Now we have a Carcano, no doubt, if you say so, it is over price. History unknown. Cancelled? But; these were not ugly guns from the start and it may have been sold to a Carcano collector rather than a card carry member (scratch that), rather than a Japanese arms collector.

I took a look. There are no Japanese markings at all, cancelled or otherwise?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
678 Posts
I took a look. There are no Japanese markings at all, cancelled or otherwise?
Type I rifles should not have Japanese markings...for the most part. I imagine someone with way more knowledge will know of a few exceptions.

I recently picked up one for about 1/2 this price...missing a cleaning rod though.

Best thing I’ve found on a Type I is reloading is easier on brass. Other 6.5 Japanese rifles have a generous chamber to keep things going in dirty environments.
 

·
Gold Bullet member
Joined
·
12,052 Posts
Many or most have had some degree of sanding and refinish of sorts. I could do one today and no one would know. It does not seem to matter as much.
Fourbore:

I think you’re a good guy whose heart is in the right place. That’s sincerity by the way, not sarcasm. But my response to some of your posts is that you just don’t get it.

“It,” being some of the traditional baseline assumptions and beliefs that many other collectors take for granted. And that’s OK because it’s clear that you’re serious about these old guns even if you are a bit of a heretic. 😎
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,870 Posts
Type I never were good looking even when issued. Basic crude Carcano type rifles that got the job done with no beauty attached. IMHO
Refinished doesn’t help. Polish a turd. It’s still poop. All in jest. Neat old rifles with a cool history of Axis powers collaborating. But ugly as sin compared to a Type 38.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,294 Posts
Note that the buyer of the Type I is the same person as the one who bought that Type 38 "experimental rifle" that was (and is) the subject of past and present threads.

C/
 

·
Gold Bullet member
Joined
·
12,052 Posts
I need to tone it down a bit. I appreciate the slack cut.
FB:

No, please don’t feel compelled to tone it down. That makes me feel guilty for even creating the impression that I’m try to shut you up. I don’t want that at all.

I have always considered this forum to be a place where different opinions can be debated and promoted. The answer, in almost all cases, is more speech, not less.

If I differ with an opinion expressed my intention is not so much to convince its proponent that he was wrong, but rather to provide an alternative (that I believe to be true, correct, and accurate) to the undecided. If an idea is uncontested it’s not surprising when those lacking knowledge or experience latch upon that information.

There are some real jerks in the world (and I do take pleasure knocking them down a few pegs) but most individuals here on Gun Boards are good guys and kindred spirits drawn to the site by our common fascination with these old military guns. As much as I feel compelled to contest what I consider to be bad information (or simply not the best answer to a given problem) I take absolutely no pleasure in shining a critical spotlight on a fellow collector.

Since I have no objection to anyone challenging any statement I make, and since I stand ready willing, and able to defend my statements, I can only hope that others share my equanimity. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: fourbore

·
Registered
Joined
·
982 Posts
Note that the buyer of the Type I is the same person as the one who bought that Type 38 "experimental rifle" that was (and is) the subject of past and present threads.

C/
That’s not a good sign. When rifles like this go off to an unknown ending, it gives me no small concern. I hoped that it would end up in your hands, or ADogs, or someone else’s that knew it’s value. That it may end up in some quack’s mitts is disheartening.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,870 Posts
I have two in my collection that have a great degree of finish/blue. Nothing crude about them
Good to know. Every example I’ve seen regardless of original finish was just in the end a Carcano. Even a fine antique quality Italian Carcano falls short in the smoothness and beauty department. At least in my eyes. I sold both my Type I. Never did anything for me. I like the history but man what dogs they were. I’d love to examine a mint example just to see.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
420 Posts
I dont know anywhere near, what the more informed members of this website know. Get that out right up front. I have accumulated a few Carcano from the recent Italian import. Many or most have had some degree of sanding and refinish of sorts. I could do one today and no one would know. It does not seem to matter as much. I have read here, that a refinish Araska was a big deal, because one of the main points of these guns was the bad looks and bad finish. A pretty Arisaka does not look right. My own idea also considers that these were such cheaper-than-dirt guns for so many years, the buyers could be real picky. The current MUM loving, refinish ignoring buyers seem to anger some?

Now we have a Carcano, no doubt, if you say so, it is over price. History unknown. Cancelled? But; these were not ugly guns from the start and it may have been sold to a Carcano collector rather than a card carry member (scratch that), rather than a Japanese arms collector.

I took a look. There are no Japanese markings at all, cancelled or otherwise?
Guyssssss! We've got a turd in the punch bowl!!! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The real issue with refinishing, sanding, etc... People should be and often think themselves caretakers of these items, yet they do irreversible processes to them that often only suit their personal tastes and in only that moment. Even if they regret it in the future, a lot of what they did is impractical or impossible to reverse. Also they usually lack the skills, knowledge, and patience that antique/collection conservator-type work requires and the results are bad.

Just ask my poor Type 44 and past-me. Kroil thinned out the bluing and the stock now looks (and is) BLO'd. It looked oiled (no urushi?) and aged before, and I didn't sand it, but still.

Some of mine are refinished, but definitely not preferred. Prices usually reflected it. One instance that is kind of nice actually... a matching Type 38 Carbine that received a clear coat at some point over a beautiful urushi finish. So it still has full color, no wear, and handling doesn't affect it. But it could have been a lot nicer without that, and simply cared for.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,048 Posts
Type I rifles should not have Japanese markings...for the most part. I imagine someone with way more knowledge will know of a few exceptions.
The most you will find is rack markings on the buttstock or unit markings on slings.
Mine has a rack marking on the stock of 15/61 and it's written over 1/61.
Plant Wood Groundcover Grass Gas


I suspect that rifle has just had several coats of linseed oil or some other concoction added. It might clean up and look a lot nicer, albeit not original.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,870 Posts
I have a type I. It’s a nice gun. Subjectively it feels nicer and more high quality than any Italian Carcano or, dare I say it, any Arisaka I have held.
Blasphemy! These are not PURE Japanese blood linage rifles. Axis contract junk. I must report you to the Emperor immediately!
The proof is in the pudding, these garbage rods didn't get a Mum....yeah not good enough for the Emperor. Not good enough for me! Hey the good news is that I'm not out there competing to buy a Type I from anyone else who wants one..
I hope my sarcasm is obvious.

Just curious have you ever handled a nice condition Type 44 or Type 38? Because of the quality and manufacturing of these its unimaginable you'd think a Carcano action is smoother or better built. Enhanced/simplified Mauser action and quality built vs Carcano.....everyone can have an opinion but that's out there for sure.
I'm talking 1942 and earlier 6.5s not late war T99s. We all know the quality constraints on later war rifles.
Ok rant done. This is fun though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
389 Posts
Indeed, all in good fun!

Sadly every type 38 I’ve held has been a fairly rough specimen, as has every type 99 (and I’m not even including last ditch rifles or school rifles.) I only own one, a type 99 sniper, and it’s nice, but I have to say I feel like the Italians finished the type Is to a higher standard. Arisakas are great guns from a design standpoint, just, IMO, don’t seem to exude quality and craftsmanship the way a good Mauser or even a Mosin does.

I am most definitely keeping my eye out for a nice prewar type 38!
The type I is a bit boring to look at because of the lack of markings…I got mine because a buddy thought it was a postwar refinished Mauser and didn’t want it. But the bluing is nice, the machining seems well done, and the bolt is way smoother than a carcano because they use that mannlicher style magazine, whereas the Mauser style doesn’t seem to drag on the bolt when it’s cycled.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
50 Posts
"The longer version was favored by the Japanese Special Naval Landing Force who were physically larger than the average Japanese soldier."
This part of the description was particularly cringe inducing for me. I have no idea how the myth that this rifle was for Special Naval Landing Forces came to be and that those in SNLF units were above average in size. Total perversion of history. In fact in pretty much all instances of Type I rifles being captured there is a distinct lack of SNLF presence in the area. Well I suppose for dealers history can be bent if it means making some extra $$$.
 

·
Moderator / Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
7,647 Posts
The blueing on the pre-WWI Carcano's were actually very nicely applied and a deep blue color, once they got into WWI the process was simply blued to get as many out as possible to replace those lost during it. The same thing applied to the post-war ones up to WWII, nicely blued and applied but once again as they got into WWII the finish was simply blued to get as many out as possible. Just as both the Germans and Japanese firearms were made later in the war, Italy just churned out firearms that were rougher than pre-war ones, they have milling marks and such and they just do not look nice but were very serviceable. The thing were have to remember is many of these Carcano's we recently have received from the imports from Italy is they were stored for a long time and those who used them did not take care of them over the years, they were only used for riot control purposes by the police forces, they did not care about the condition but were used to show a control of force if needed.
If you take the time of really cleaning them up, the blueing process on them does really show up nicely, I got a 1944 Moschetto Modello 1891 that was really looked like crap, onceI cleaned it up, the blueing really came back to a nice coloring.


Patrick

Here is one of my Moschetto Modello 1891's that was made by Fabbrica d'Armi Regio Esercito di Terni in 1936, you see the blueing is really very applied and deep coloring.
 

Attachments

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
420 Posts
Indeed, all in good fun!

Sadly every type 38 I’ve held has been a fairly rough specimen, as has every type 99 (and I’m not even including last ditch rifles or school rifles.) I only own one, a type 99 sniper, and it’s nice, but I have to say I feel like the Italians finished the type Is to a higher standard. Arisakas are great guns from a design standpoint, just, IMO, don’t seem to exude quality and craftsmanship the way a good Mauser or even a Mosin does.

I am most definitely keeping my eye out for a nice prewar type 38!
The type I is a bit boring to look at because of the lack of markings…I got mine because a buddy thought it was a postwar refinished Mauser and didn’t want it. But the bluing is nice, the machining seems well done, and the bolt is way smoother than a carcano because they use that mannlicher style magazine, whereas the Mauser style doesn’t seem to drag on the bolt when it’s cycled.
I have some good or better condition Type 38s, carbines, and a 44. Also have a Type I and a bunch of Carcanos. Mostly the freshly imported carbines, but did pick up a nice condition non-import (IIRC) 91 long rifle as well.

The Japanese guns have a higher fit and finish. The craftsmanship they would put into things when they could (preWW2) was very high. It was even a requirement back when they made the Type 30, Col Arisaka had factors for the design, with one being higher beauty and fit&finish. They had to look good in general, as well as look well made. This would get the troops to have more pride and take better care of their weapons. I make no promises on later war Type 99's of course, other than they're usually still of higher fit and finish than Soviet rifles made in 1942/43...

Mosins... mostly went through refurbs before import, so always seem rather new/fresh. Even then, you must not have seen guns like my 1943 M38(9?)... because the cutting tool on the lathe definitely needed sharpening, and the feed needed to be slowed down a bit. Very rough, and I'd feel a lot less hopeful if I was issued that... and having seen that, I'd wonder if I'd even want a semi auto Soviet rifle made during those days.
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top