Gunboards Forums banner

1 - 1 of 1 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,321 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
Cavalry T-99
Topic:
Topic author: quark
Subject: Cavalry T-99
Posted on: 07/27/2007 7:01:21 PM
Message:
Are all No series Nagoyas Type 99's considered Cav. Rifles?

Replies:

Reply author: BIG ED
Replied on: 07/27/2007 7:12:13 PM
Message:
Man your going to pxxxx off Arisaka dog with that question

Reply author: fzane_boxer
Replied on: 07/27/2007 10:05:58 PM
Message:
Your so right,Big ed.


fzane.

Reply author: 03man
Replied on: 07/27/2007 10:08:25 PM
Message:
Quark,
short answer is no.

Reply author: richigan
Replied on: 07/27/2007 10:10:58 PM
Message:
On page 92 of "Military Rifles of Japan" says that initial production with oval shaped swivels were truly cavalry rifles because they were suited for the quick disconnect slings. I own a Kokura series 20 with the cavalry swivel.

Reply author: arisakadogs
Replied on: 07/27/2007 11:22:37 PM
Message:
The only true Cavalry rifle is the T-44 & what kind of a sling swivel does it have? Dang we need some new books!

Reply author: Nagoya10
Replied on: 07/28/2007 12:04:02 AM
Message:
According to MRoJ, the short T-99 was originally developed to be a cavalry rifle with the long T-99 intended for Infantry. Hovever, due to modern military requirements, the long T-99 was dropped shortly after production began and the short T-99 became the only production T-99 and was now meant for all around issue. I am guessing that is why the oval rear sling ring is thought to be cavalry, for the quick disconnect sling, since only the first part of the initial original series productions had oval rear sling rings. This would seem to correspond with the timeline of long T-99 production at the same time. I believe this is maybe why it is thought the oval ring was cavalry, since the ovals seemed to stop at about the same time the longs production stopped.

However, Mr. Dogs found a manual stating the quick disconnect sling was for gas mask use, Apparently the Japanese did not feel that quick disconnect slings, for gas mask use, was very important after a few thousand T-99's were made with them.

Reply author: 03man
Replied on: 07/28/2007 12:20:24 AM
Message:
I suspect by the time the T99 was available in quantity the cavalry was pretty much confined to China and the 6.5mm carbines, 38 and 44 were sufficient to satisfy the need there. Which could explain the demise of the oval swivel on the T99; however, both carbines seemed to be used sufficiently well with a non-QD swivel???? OOps, I'm arguing again.

Nagoya 10,
what is your reference for the oval sling swivel stopping at the same time as long 99 production? and for the 'few thousand' T99's made with oval swivels?

The use of the oval swivel and reasons for its elimination are ripe for further study and/or discovery.

Reply author: arisakadogs
Replied on: 07/28/2007 12:33:50 AM
Message:
There's a Cavalry guy (check the spurs) on page 231 of Mike Hewitt's book with a T-99 & it has the regular sling & swivel. Boy, ya gotta be careful what you say in a book, it becomes gospel. OK, before y'all jump on me - MROJ is great! I've said it before & I use it constantly, but some things do need to be corrected & updated. As Harry Derby said in his first edition of Hand Cannons "Unlike the gospels of holy scripture, no claim is made of divine guidance or the absence of error". There's an evolution to this hobby and as more is learned, this learning will often dispell early misconceptions.. Crimeny, It's in the T-99 manual for crying out loud, Edokko interpreted it & then 03 argues with it. Sigh

Reply author: 03man
Replied on: 07/28/2007 08:57:18 AM
Message:
The translated T99 manual shows or says the QD swivel was for ease of use with the gas mask; not much to argue about there.

Any information or ideas on why there seem to be so few qd slings or why the large swivel was eliminated ?

Reply author: Jareth
Replied on: 07/28/2007 09:17:29 AM
Message:
I'd like to hear from Fred regarding QD swivel. Even with info from manual I'm still skeptical(multiple function..cavalry & gasmask) about the gasmask issue. Be interesting to get Fred's research opinion.

Reply author: Ronin48
Replied on: 07/28/2007 09:20:19 AM
Message:
When I was keeping track of these "things" it appeared that in the "0" series the enlarged oval rear swivels appeared in blocks of serial numbers and not scattered though the complete series. Perhaps, if and when the completely new Type 99 book is on the market the question will be answered, assuming all data reported are used.

Reply author: arisakadogs
Replied on: 07/28/2007 10:56:28 AM
Message:
I think the T-99 short rifle may very well have been designed with cavalry in mind as stated in MROJ but I don't think the swivel or QD sling had anything to do with it. I don't see how one can be skeptical of what an original manual says but then again that's Jareth. Still a very interesting subject & it is odd that two styles of swivels were used on the original series and into the 1st series as well as on some of the early Kokuras. I can see where the QD setup would be nice if you were wearing a gas mask. Then again who used gas masks? Everyone in WW2 had one but no one had to use it. Perhaps the anti-gas sentiment caused the early deletion of this feature - the 1st simplification of the T-99 design!

Reply author: BIG ED
Replied on: 07/28/2007 11:25:55 AM
Message:
I told you so. He's got his back hair raised now like a mean dog.

Reply author: Nagoya10
Replied on: 07/28/2007 11:30:06 AM
Message:
03guy,

No references, just my thoughts since I estimate that the long production probably stopped during the original series short production, I am guessing. As to "few thousand", just words I used. Doesn't mean 2 thousand, but not 100's of thousands either.

Reply author: Jareth
Replied on: 07/28/2007 11:40:11 AM
Message:
Ed, he's just full of gas. Always question the "facts". Worst that can happen is something new is learned.

Reply author: arisakadogs
Replied on: 07/28/2007 11:51:49 AM
Message:
Well you can believe what you want and quote chapter & verse from MROJ like scripture but here's what the manual for the T-99 rifle says.

"The rear sling loop base for the T-99 short is designed with a protrusion so that the loop will not flip forward flat with the surface of the stock so that the soldier can easily detach or attach the sling from shouldering to aiming and vise versa the rifle when WEARING A GAS MASK" (emphasis by Edokko)

So which "facts" are you going to question?

BTW, how did you know I was full of gas? Had Mexican food last night & yikes!


Reply author: The Outlaw Josey Whales
Replied on: 07/28/2007 12:22:08 PM
Message:
I've seen a fair amount of pictures of the Japanese troops using gas masks in China. I'm not sure if all of those pictures date to the Shanghai incident or not. Doesn't the fact that gas masks went out of vouge early on coincide with the deletion of the Oval sling loop?

Reply author: 03man
Replied on: 07/28/2007 12:29:49 PM
Message:
Outlaw,
do those pictures show T38 rifles or T99?

Reply author: Jareth
Replied on: 07/28/2007 1:07:28 PM
Message:
Bet they show type 38s!

Reply author: monkeyboy
Replied on: 07/28/2007 1:40:49 PM
Message:





quote: Originally posted by Jareth
Bet they show type 38s!
No need to bet on a sure thing. Jon

Reply author: Jareth
Replied on: 07/28/2007 1:49:52 PM
Message:
OK, here's a theory that will make all happy...the manual is correct..the sling is a cavalry type 99 QD sling designed for ease in putting on/off gasmask while on horseback! Afterall the manual also shows the bandoleer. This makes sense to me. If it was such an issue with gasmasks then why not QD rear swivels easily instituted on the continued production of type 38s?

Reply author: arisakadogs
Replied on: 07/28/2007 3:30:49 PM
Message:





quote: Originally posted by Jareth
If it was such an issue with gasmasks then why not QD rear swivels easily instituted on the continued production of type 38s?
Duh, because with a sling is bottom mounted it isn't in your face like it is with a side mounted sling.

Y'all can believe the world is flat for all I care. Like I said, the T-99 may very well have been initially intended for cavalry with it's shorter length. That said, all T-99s were potentially Cavalry rifles regardless of the swivel.

Reply author: Mike Rockhill
Replied on: 07/28/2007 3:36:48 PM
Message:
probably because the quick detach sling was not successful. Just because it existed and was produced did not mean it worked as designed, wasn't over complicated or wasn't just a pain in the ass. They did STOP making the swivels, and the original QD slings are very far and very few between. I would not say that the type 99 was to be a "cavalry" rifle. Just a short rifle, to replace the type 38 and 44 carbines in the hands of cavalry, artillery and other support troops. It could not be Carbine length, or the recoil would be ungodly, the whole idea was to change everyone over to 7.7 Much more research is need and updated information put into the hand sof collectors or the rumors of old will continue to persist.

Reply author: Jareth
Replied on: 07/28/2007 3:50:31 PM
Message:
Type 22 carbines, type 30 carbines, type 38/44 all have side( their long counterparts have bottom swivels) mounted swivels & are likely cavalry weapons...then comes the type 99...hmm? I think the only thing flat is the top of ADogs head.
I agree with Mike's above post. Question still remains how soon after the introduction of the short/cavalry type 99 did it become a standard, multi purpose weapon. I'm always interested in production overlaps such as long 99s into short 99 & the continuation of type 38 production into type 99.


Reply author: quark
Replied on: 07/28/2007 4:45:07 PM
Message:





quote: Originally posted by arisakadogs
The only true Cavalry rifle is the T-44 & what kind of a sling swivel does it have? Dang we need some new books!
It has the regular type swivel. Not the cav type.

Reply author: arisakadogs
Replied on: 07/28/2007 4:49:21 PM
Message:
I also think Mike is onto something. Sure there were side slung rifles before but the new T-99 had all the new bells & whistles - AA sights, monopod so why not a QD sling? Each of these things wound up being deleted & this was the first. Besides it rattles & bruises the heck out of the stock.
No Ed, I don't get mad about this - the manual simply states it's purpose. It's just frustrating to see a myth perpetuated because it was in a book. Heck, I accepted the cav. designation as well until Edokko had a look at my manual.
If you have Mike Hewitt's book take the time to check out the photo of the cavalry trooper on page 231. He has a T-99 and the bandolier type ammo belt. Great photo.

Reply author: 03man
Replied on: 07/28/2007 10:52:41 PM
Message:
Adogs,
What is the name of the Hewitt book?

Reply author: Jareth
Replied on: 07/28/2007 11:32:20 PM
Message:
"UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT OF THE IMPERIAL JAPANESE ARMY IN WORLD WAR2" By Mike Hewitt. 2002 Schiffer Military History Book. ISBN 0-7643-X

Reply author: arisakadogs
Replied on: 07/29/2007 02:57:12 AM
Message:
Just got back from an elevator callout. Sure glad Jareth typed out that long title for me! I hope any upcoming new books will have shorter titles!

Reply author: Vicasoto
Replied on: 07/29/2007 03:50:55 AM
Message:
Hey fellows:
This whole line of discussion is living proof that books are only accurate as of the time of printing. I am not trying to side with authors as some have blithley labeled me in Gunboards, but we must understand that the information reflects the knowledge and views of the author. In most new books disclaimers are now worded in so that future readers will not take the printed word as " the Bible of Japanese collecting ". Just because it says so in M.R.of J. was only a fact back in 1976 when the initial book went on sale. Since that time it is now in its 5th Edition and revision, but not of the entire text, just selective pages or paragraphs, new data and photos on major discoveries, rewording of certain statements in light of new information.
There are many basic items, photos and statements that remain the same as 1976 although better examples do exist, and the cry for an up to date book has long been expressed. As Fred has explained in previous discussions, to completely redo or revise the book would involve a major expense. It could be done but it will drive the book price beyond a reasonable level for new collectors. Sure most of us would gladly pay 100 bucks for a new book if it had all the latest information, but that will not be enough to recoup the cost as many other collectors would not pay that much and so sales would slump.
So far as far as Mr. Honeycutt is concerned he has managed to keep the prices in the 39 to 45 dollar bracket all these years, has enjoyed success and transformed the collecting of Japanese arms to a new level. It is very difficult to put together a book for all peoples, which covers a rifle and all its related accessories, there is enough there to get one started whether one wants to get into a rifle, rifles, bayonets, accessories. No it does not answer all or cover all, but it does get you going into the collecting field. There are enough tetimonials from satisfied collectors who give credit to Fred's many books as the guide that got them going, saved them money way beyond the cost of the book.
If you want to talk about " Cavalry rifles " you have the T-18, 22, 30, 38, 44, 38 short rifle, and 99 s. At one time or another those named arms served in horse mounted troops. I believe that the Nagoya & Kokura 99s with the loopy bottom sling fitting were mistaikingly labeled cavalry, we now know that particular feature has nothing to do with horse mounted troops. To say that it is cavalry just because it says so in M. R. of J. is an indication that one takes it as the literal word of God, it is outdated information at best and in need of revision.
Well I hope to have cleared the air a little bit, calmed a few raw egos, and shed some light on the subject.
Vicasoto

Reply author: Ronin48
Replied on: 07/29/2007 08:58:05 AM
Message:
Mike, The "fact" presented in MR0J that the carbine design was dropped from 7.7 consideration because of recoil is probably not correct. I have one of the Japanese carbine conversions to 7.7 (soon to be the property of the MS grit tree farmer) and have shot it many times.

If I sat you down at a table blindfolded with a 99 short and the carbine, placed the front of each weapon on a rest, the butt against your sholder and you pulled the trigger, you did this with both, w/o knowing which rifle you were shooting I doubt you could tell from the recoil. Maybe Roy will bring it to the Memorial Day shindig for a test.

Since recoil does not appear to be the case it's my belief the carbine design was dropped because the 99 short filled the role as both a short rifle and a carbine. Comments?

Reply author: 03man
Replied on: 07/29/2007 09:10:35 AM
Message:
I agree on the recoil issue, I have shot shortened 99s and do not find them unpleasant or noticably different from the short rifle; however I am the size of about two WWII Japanese soldiers, and may not be an appropriate judge.

A single rifle certainly simplified manufacturing and logistics issues.

Reply author: BIG ED
Replied on: 07/29/2007 10:17:14 AM
Message:
I have a 99 "carbine" barrel shortened by Roy. Other than a big fire ball no noticeable change in felt recoil to me.
It does make it a lot handier thats for sure.

Reply author: arisakadogs
Replied on: 07/29/2007 12:40:30 PM
Message:





quote: Originally posted by Ronin48
Mike, The "fact" presented in MR0J that the carbine design was dropped from 7.7 consideration because of recoil is probably not correct.
But it says so in MROJ!
Just playing devil's advocate.
MROJ is still the best reference going. I was so stoked to find that little 1st edition back in the '70s. What an eye-opener! All I had to go on till then were some general US manual reprints like "Japanese Infantry Weapons". That 1st edition of MROJ is still one of my treasured possessions even though somewhat battered & well worn. Hard to believe it was done before all this internet stuff & data sheets. Great job Fred! Now we need some young whipper-snapper to come along & move the ball forward!

Reply author: Nagoya10
Replied on: 07/29/2007 1:02:02 PM
Message:
For some reason, Mr. Dogman did not post a pic of the T-99 "Cavalry swivel"
So, here is a pic of mine. One thing that I cannot figure out, why is the bruising of the stock usually show up to the rear of the swivel? You would think it would be at the front. Well anyway, here is it, in all its glory, from Nagoya no series #60381:


http://farm1.static.flickr.com/101/285229169_89b9b12671_b.jpg

Reply author: Jareth
Replied on: 07/29/2007 1:13:15 PM
Message:
Victor & Flathead I agree with both of you that the written words (dare I say manual) of any shouldn't be taken as the true gospel.That said I am also from the "question authority" generation. Sure information becomes outdated & I'd love to hear from Fred regarding info/sources pertaining to the cavalry issue. I still think that the short 99 might of been concieved as a multi purpose rifle & one which might be used by the cavalry. This I think is especially true if there was an overlap between type 99 long rifles & type 99 shorts being produced at same time. We need detailed serial number ranges of rifles with oval rear sling swivels.

Reply author: arisakadogs
Replied on: 07/29/2007 1:14:10 PM
Message:
Because, Mr. Smartypants, I no longer have one

But, since you asked - here's the two "cav" swivel rifles I recently sold (still have that "cav" sling!). The bruising below the swivel makes perfect sense. When the rifle is slung - the sling is taut & the QD is not going to contact the wood. When at 'order arms' or whatever it's free to beat the crap out of the wood.

View attachment 13356
Download Attachment:
100.81 KB

Reply author: Jareth
Replied on: 07/29/2007 1:22:51 PM
Message:
You sold your type 99 cavalry rifles!!
They're having a sale at Sears on sheds! You strike me as the uni bomber type shack dweller.


Reply author: Nagoya10
Replied on: 07/29/2007 1:37:28 PM
Message:





quote: Originally posted by arisakadogs
Because, Mr. Smartypants, I no longer have one
But, since you asked - here's the two "cav" swivel rifles I recently sold (still have that "cav" sling!). The bruising below the swivel makes perfect sense. When the rifle is slung - the sling is taut & the QD is not going to contact the wood. When at 'order arms' or whatever it's free to beat the crap out of the wood.
View attachment 13357

Download Attachment:
100.81 KB
Well heck, that does make perfect sense and I never thought of that. Guess I must be turning Democrat since I can't think for myself anymore!


Reply author: Mike Rockhill
Replied on: 07/29/2007 1:41:24 PM
Message:
It remains my opinion on the carbine in 7.7. I have shot some cut downs and find them to have more recoil than the short rifle. I have seen the 7.7 marked chamber carbines and rifles and to my understanding, they were experimental, and through those experiments they may have concluded that the 7.7 was not compatable with the carbine size. Recoil seem to be a factor to them,as at one or two of the test trials rifles had primitive recoil compensators fitted.

Reply author: arisakadogs
Replied on: 07/29/2007 3:44:07 PM
Message:





quote: Originally posted by Jareth
You sold your type 99 cavalry rifles!!
They're having a sale at Sears on sheds! You strike me as the uni bomber type shack dweller.
I don't know why you pick on me like you do - I'm probably the only friend you have ever had (& it's easy to see why).
I bet you can't wait to see Mrs. Clinton crowned queen & will be first in line to turn in your firearms. I've heard they make lovely manhole covers & rebar.
Now, dammit, '03 don't lock this post - this is just what we do now & then


Reply author: 03man
Replied on: 07/29/2007 4:40:46 PM
Message:
Lock a civil exchange like this one, no way; I want to see what happens next.

Mike,
Where did you pick up on recoil compensators on experimental carbines?

Reply author: Mike Rockhill
Replied on: 07/29/2007 4:47:33 PM
Message:
the weren't on experimental carbines, but on the rifles. I think it is in MROJ

Reply author: fredh
Replied on: 07/29/2007 6:09:02 PM
Message:
Man, my day's over. I went to church this morn, worked a project during the afternoon, exercised for an hour, and swam for 30 minutes. Still too early for dinner, so here I sit eating peanuts, drinking Sam Adams Black Lager, and trying to digest this thread in a few minutes. I think I caught the jist of it. 1) the Japanese ordnance officers, including Colonel Tatsumi who was on the board for the T99 design referred to the long rifle as infantry, the short rifle as cavalry. 2) from Ordnance Tech Report 19, "In Oct. 1938, the first trial models (carbines) were tested...and it was found that the recoil impact was too great for a light cavalry rifle of 7.7mm cal and that it might be better to adopt a standard long rifle suitable to both infantry and cavalry if 7.7mm was to be used." Stretch your imagination a little here and note that the short rifle evolved from this and paralled development with the long rifle in continuing tests. In a later paragraph, this is emphasized by the statement "After service tests at the Infantry and Cavalry School, requests for formal adoption were made..." That by itself helps explain the two configs, long and short, long for infantry, short for cavalry.

I'm shooting from the hip now and may prove that I lied to myself later, but I don't think I have any specific info from Japan about that early swivel. I'm going back 30 years, but I think we all put 2 and 2 together - oval sling swivel and quick detach on the short rifle, not on the long rifle - oval swivel must be for quick detach . When you look at the assemblies, the quick detach sling does fit better on the oval. So, if for use with the gas mask, why weren't they on the long rifle? They were produced at the same time. I'm just puzzled by all this.

My experimental T99 carbine shown on page 87 of MROJ has lugs for attachment of the muzzle break. They're visable in the photo. Please don't underestimate the importance of recoil reduction with that new rifle. Nobody wants to shoot all day and get the sxxx beat out of him. Most of those Japanese soldiers were little guys like me with no meat on their bones. I've shot a lot of high powers one time!

And, yes, dawgs is right. I do need to rewrite the book. Actually, I've played around with it over the years but still have a lot to do and most of that new material. One way to look at it is to note how much doesn't have to be rewritten. The book has stood the test of time, and I've been able to keep the price down so that more people will buy it. I'm shocked by this, but I'm getting calls from the dealers constantly asking me to put the pistol book back in print as is. They've got too many requests. That says something about the importance of pricing, doesn't it?

Reply author: 03man
Replied on: 07/29/2007 6:27:14 PM
Message:
Fred,
thanks for the thoughts and info.

Just one clarification please, in my 5th ed. on p-87, there is an "infantry rifle" with screw retained muzzle brake; is there another edition with the carbine with lugs?



Reply author: arisakadogs
Replied on: 07/29/2007 6:38:05 PM
Message:





quote: Originally posted by fredh
So, if for use with the gas mask, why weren't they on the long rifle? They were produced at the same time. I'm just puzzled by all this.
OK, I don't understand why this is so hard. Shoulder each rifle - a long, with it's sling on the bottom and a T-99 short with it's sling in your face. Now - imagine that your wearing a gas mask - wouldn't it be nice to get that damn sling out of your face?? They were trying new things on the T-99 - why not this?
Fred, please don't think I'm attacking you. Not a day goes by without me pulling your book off the shelf. Like I said the cav. sling application stated in the book made sense to me untill Edokko interpreted some of my manual.

Reply author: fredh
Replied on: 07/29/2007 6:42:11 PM
Message:
03man, please note the bottom photo on page 87 and look carefully just forward of the front sight. Two protrusions (lugs) are visible. I got this carbine from one of the board members probably 20 years ago. I had received photos of this carbine years earlier from a 3rd party and included the photos in the Siamese section of MROJ 1st edition. Anyway, the owner kept telling me it was 7.7mm, and I thought it was Siamese 8mm. When I got it and checked it out, it turned out to be one of the experimentals from the 1938 tests with all the bells and whistles. He was right. I love being wrong some of the time.

Reply author: fredh
Replied on: 07/29/2007 6:51:32 PM
Message:
Dawg, I apologize; you're right. I read the thread too fast and forgot the sling swivels on the long are on the bottom. All I had to do was look up at one of the longs hanging on the wall. I'm still confused though about the use of the swivel with the gas mask. I don't have the picture in my mind yet. It may be the beer. I don't collect T99's and do not have one of the no-series T99's.

Reply author: arisakadogs
Replied on: 07/29/2007 7:04:58 PM
Message:
"Sure would be nice if someone could figure out how to get this damn sling out of my face before the next war"!

View attachment 13358
Download Attachment:
207.66 KB

Reply author: Mike Rockhill
Replied on: 07/29/2007 7:06:19 PM
Message:
The swivel could be for a QD sling in a cavalry application. I can't remember ever seeing a picture of infantrymen with the rifle slung diagonal across the back, but the cavalry is almost always seen this way, and probably spent almsot the entire time in the field like this except when at rest or fighting. It is in the across the back position were the QD sling idea shines. If you are carrying your rifle this way and the gas alarm goes out, you put your mask on first and foremost. With the japanese hosed mask, where the mask hose now crosses over the rifle sling there is no way to get your rifle ready with out risking breaking the seal on your mask. An infantryman apparently never carried the rifle in such a way to have this problem.

Reply author: arisakadogs
Replied on: 07/29/2007 7:17:16 PM
Message:





quote: Originally posted by Mike Rockhill
The swivel could be for a QD sling in a cavalry application. I can't remember ever seeing a picture of infantrymen with the rifle slung diagonal across the back, but the cavalry is almost always seen this way, and probably spent almsot the entire time in the field like this except when at rest or fighting. It is in the across the back position were the QD sling idea shines. If you are carrying your rifle this way and the gas alarm goes out, you put your mask on first and foremost. With the japanese hosed mask, where the mask hose now crosses over the rifle sling there is no way to get your rifle ready with out risking breaking the seal on your mask. An infantryman apparently never carried the rifle in such a way to have this problem.
Damn Mike, that's a very good point! Now I'd be curious to know if some small passage in the manual may mention this (Edokko??). Geeze, do you have a job or do you just do this? I'm starting to think that maybe you should get busy on a book! Kick ass posts!

Hey, I'm not afraid to be wrong - but I was born in Missouri!


Reply author: arisakadogs
Replied on: 07/29/2007 7:26:35 PM
Message:
Y'a know, there was that question about the bruising pattern in the wood from the QD. Think about how that rifle moves on horseback... That moment when the sling goes slack & slaps against the stock - in the downward direction - would be more severe than any parade ground drill. Hmmm...

Reply author: Mike Rockhill
Replied on: 07/29/2007 8:52:25 PM
Message:
I know this is rediculous, I am never this active, but none of my friends want to go see the Simpsons movie today so I am relegating my day to laundry, pizza, whine, beer, and arisaka theory.

Reply author: fredh
Replied on: 07/29/2007 8:52:31 PM
Message:
Thanks, dawg, good photo. And Mike, I think everyone's thinking but me tonight. Your explanation is very interesting, certainly expands the argument, and just may be the ticket. I've seen this so many times before, but the manual explanation may be the short version. If the explanation you gave was required for the manual, they would probably have required photos and diagrams to do it satisfactorily. So, if true, the explanation in the book should probably be expanded to read, "oval swivel for use with the quick detach sling for use with the gas mask." That would create a discussion here that would go for pages.

Reply author: arisakadogs
Replied on: 07/29/2007 9:10:10 PM
Message:





quote: Originally posted by fredh
That would create a discussion here that would go for pages.
Kinda like this one.
Fred, looks like you're having fun with the "Black Bar" of posting death tonite!

Reply author: Jareth
Replied on: 07/29/2007 10:58:21 PM
Message:
Rob, let me know when you plan to post your public, board appology
I do hate to see my only friend on his knees


Reply author: arisakadogs
Replied on: 07/29/2007 11:24:06 PM
Message:
Apologise for what? We're having a great discussion here & you're buzzing around like a fly at a picnic!


Reply author: Franchi
Replied on: 07/30/2007 02:22:43 AM
Message:
I have been recording serial numbers of Type 99 rifles with the enlarged oval rear sling swivel. The enlarged oval shaped rear sling swivel was used on Nagoya Type 99's without a series mark, 1st series. and midrange of the 2nd series according to "Military Rifles of Japan, 5th edition. This swivel also was used on some Kokura 20th series Type 99's. These swivels are randomly used throughout these series. I have seen many "no series" Nagoya T-99 rifles with this swivel and two Kokura 20th series rifles with this type swivel. I have noted two 1st series rifles and a few more Kokuras have been reported. I have yet to see any 2nd series rifles with these swivels. Here is a list of the rifles I have noted with the large oval rear sling swivel (the "D" type swivel on the T99 Data sheet). Trey probably has more noted.
No series: 285, 979 (has wear in stock from quick disconnect sling clip), 13893, 16327, 17559, 26xxx, 28490, 79755, 83391.
1st series: 5231, 9881.
20th series: 8964, 37082, 66833, 77155.
Gary Franchi


Reply author: arisakadogs
Replied on: 07/30/2007 09:01:11 AM
Message:
I had 1st series #2977 with the QD swivel

Reply author: 03man
Replied on: 07/30/2007 4:44:16 PM
Message:
Franchi,
thanks for sharing your observations.

I have no series rifles with the oval swivel, #'s 2033 and 3066.

To test if these were actually produced in 'batches', it would be good to keep the numbers of the rifles with the regular sling swivel also.


Reply author: fredh
Replied on: 07/30/2007 5:54:26 PM
Message:
Ok, here we go again. One of the things I've got on my list is to check out inspection symbols on the no-series Nagoya T99 with standard rear sling swivels. I do believe T99s were monkeyed with during the war, everything from mods to removal of non-essential parts such as the dustcovers and monopods. Another is that rear sling swivel on the no-series T99, etc. Franchi, while you're at it, may I suggest that you request inspection symbols on the rear sling swivel. There's always a chance the standard swivel replaced the "quick disconnect" swivel on that series after the quick disconnect sling was discontinued. The standard sling, if I remember correctly just does not fit properly on the quick disconnect swivel. If we're lucky, we'll find some replaced standard swivels on the early T99s, not all from the same manufacturer.

The reason I bring this up is that it would be hard for production to turn out batches of rifles, some with standard swivels, others with oval swivels. So, I start thinking replacement, and, hopefully, we'll find some rifles with all correct inspection symbols except for the rear standard swivel and in a range for the oval swivel. Good luck!

Reply author: 03man
Replied on: 07/30/2007 6:58:16 PM
Message:
Fred,
Where is the proof on the rear swivel?

If on the back it would have to be removed and I caution folks to be very careful, I have chipped more than one stock with a tight fitting or slightly rusty swivel when removing it.

Which proof would we expect to find; or do you mean we might find a Kokura swivel on a Nagoya rifle?

Reply author: fredh
Replied on: 07/30/2007 7:52:36 PM
Message:
03man, the inspection symbol(s) will be on the back on the swivel base. For Nagoya, I expect to find one or two symbols, "W" and "ri" (Kana symbol #9 in MROJ. This gets messy. As the war goes on, Nagoya and some of the other facilities dropped the inspection symbol on these parts, but the early issue Nagoyas, Kokuras, and Toyo Kogyos seem to all have their own symbols on these parts. I'm hoping to find original matching Nagoya specimens with a standard swivel from another arsenal, for example, a Kokura on a Nagoya, when the serial number of the rifle is in the "oval swivel" range. This make sense to you?

Reply author: 03man
Replied on: 07/30/2007 9:45:10 PM
Message:
Yep, got it.

Reply author: arisakadogs
Replied on: 07/30/2007 10:15:20 PM
Message:
Check my photo earlier in this thread. 1st series 2977 has the oval swivel & has it's original rubberized sling. This sling is the narrower T-38 style, but fits the loop perfectly. No sign of ever having a QD (no bruising at all).

Reply author: Edokko
Replied on: 08/01/2007 11:44:28 PM
Message:
I got to reading this thread at last, and boy this was a fun read. I believe everybody is actually correct here. The initial intention of the T-99 short was indeed for replacing the T-38C and T-44, very clearly stated on the original "course of development" description documents, and also evidenced by the fact that both the long and short were developed and launched simultaneously (the same manual mentioned above shows both on it's drawings page) and the fact that the swivel rings were placed on the side on the short vs on the bottom on the long, surely was designed to accomodate being slung "across" the back as mounted cavalry do. However, it is also interesting to note that the name of the short changed from "cavalry" to "short" during final development phase so there was some thoughts at the final development and launch stage that the shorts were not necessary "all" cavalry. The QD type ring on the rear of the short was as A-dogs mentions definitely developed to accomodate a quick detachment of the sling when using a gas-mask, but probably because the rifle was slung "across" the back with the sling strapped acoss the chest under the gas mask hose and simply cannot shoulder the rifle from that stance without either taking the sling off or the gas mask off, of which the former is probably a better option for a guy fighting in a cloud of poison gas. So this was the devlopment satge intention.
We now have to consider the fact that a "mounted cavalry" force itself became very much outdated by the time the T-99 seriously got employed. Although the last ever use of a mounted cavalry in battle was by the Japanese 4th cavalry brigade operating in China in March 1945 (!!), most all of the cavalry units were shifted to tank units by the peak of WW2 and the use of rifles "slung across the back" itself became outdated. Probably timing with the elimination of the T-99 Infantry Rifle (Long), and incorporation of the short as the standard rifle for all, the QD disconnect swivel also became obsolete and eliminated.

Finally, my opinon of MROJ is without doubt the "bible". The efforts put into the research is mind boggling, and even if there may be a few "pre-clarification" info in the contents, about 99% is all correct data and info. Fred is a master and no question about that.
I also agree we need more books, and I am very VERY much looking forward to Francis' T-38 book, and so should every body else out there. All you guys, buy yourself the T-38 book when it comes out, and while you're at it buy more copies for your spouses, kids, co-workers, bosses, whoever.

Reply author: 03man
Replied on: 08/02/2007 08:52:34 AM
Message:
Thanks Edokko,
very logical explanation for what may have been behind the QD or oval swivel in the first place.

Reply author: Jareth
Replied on: 08/02/2007 10:25:11 AM
Message:
Yes thanks again Takehito! Very nice summation. Rob we are all still waiting.

Reply author: LAWS
Replied on: 08/02/2007 6:30:10 PM
Message:





quote: Originally posted by LAWS
quote: Originally posted by LAWS

ROB
NICE WWI HELMET...I HAVE A BERLIN MG08/15 WITH THE EXACT SAME CAMO SCHEME ON IT...DO YOU WANT TO SELL IT?
THANK YOU
ANDY


Reply author: BIG ED
Replied on: 08/02/2007 7:47:19 PM
Message:
T99 no series #36322 mummed and matching right down to dust cover.
Has the oval rear swivel with evidence of quick detach sling useage.

View attachment 13359
Download Attachment:
193.19 KB

Any questions? I just wish I had the sling.

Note the stock splice is right through the rear swivel.

Reply author: arisakadogs
Replied on: 08/02/2007 10:34:03 PM
Message:





quote: Originally posted by Jareth
Yes thanks again Takehito! Very nice summation. Rob we are all still waiting.
Bzzzz Damn pesky fly - where's my swatter?

Reply author: arisakadogs
Replied on: 08/02/2007 10:37:41 PM
Message:




quote: Originally posted by LAWS
quote: Originally posted by LAWS
quote: Originally posted by LAWS

ROB
NICE WWI HELMET...I HAVE A BERLIN MG08/15 WITH THE EXACT SAME CAMO SCHEME ON IT...DO YOU WANT TO SELL IT?
THANK YOU
ANDY




Nope, the liner is marked Berlin 1916, I think & I don't recall the shell markings. I have just a small little sideline of WW1 German stuff. Thanks for your comments!​

Reply author: Jareth
Replied on: 08/02/2007 10:43:13 PM
Message:
Bzzzz bzzzz too many sidelines!

Reply author: Mike Rockhill
Replied on: 08/02/2007 11:25:12 PM
Message:
I happen to like the german WWI sideline. I did however trade my original gewehr 20 rd trenchmag for a naval special. It was a tough decision, but with a japanese focus the right decision, as I have not seen a unsanded naval special for sale....ever.

Reply author: fredh
Replied on: 08/03/2007 09:14:26 AM
Message:
Thanks, Edokko! I only wish the T99 sniper receiver marking translation on "substitution" vs "change" could have progressed as smoothly as this one did. I'm still intrigued by that one. Maybe the gentleman providing me the translation "change" picked the wrong English word, or maybe he had a broader idea that wasn't expressed, pretty much like dawgs' T99 manual which was somewhat cryptic.

Reply author: Edokko
Replied on: 08/03/2007 7:30:44 PM
Message:
Fred, yes that "dai" is still very elusive. Still working on that one.

Reply author: arisakadogs
Replied on: 08/04/2007 12:48:18 AM
Message:





quote: Originally posted by Jareth
Bzzzz bzzzz too many sidelines!
Buzz off, geeze. Here's a "sideline" for Mike & LAWS.

View attachment 13360
Download Attachment:
122.6 KB
You can't be a milsurp collector without being a history buff ( except for Jareth - he collects to provide NYC with the finest rebar money can buy!) So, I don't think most would mind seeing a dab of "other" stuff. I even have some nice Civil War stuff.

Reply author: fredh
Replied on: 08/04/2007 09:20:33 AM
Message:
Dawgs, after a very long debate, Congress settled back in the '20's on "War Between the States" instead of "Civil War" as a description of the action taking place 1861-65. It wasn't really a civil war, and it certainly wasn't a war of northern agression, or even the war for southern independence, and certainly wasn't a civil rights war. At the time everyone was arguing for a correct name, so somehow our congressmen got involved. People don't seem to know about this little tidbit of history. I used to have a write-up on the subject but can't remember where it is. The only place I've seen it officially called the War Between the States was in Leadville, Co, last year, while touring the town museum. Norm and I were killing a little time before heading down to Durango, and I found the words in one of the displays. I was pretty pleased.

Reply author: Jareth
Replied on: 08/04/2007 11:16:43 AM
Message:
Hey I have a few sidelines too! I have a very large collection of United States Merchant Marine related (uniforms, caps, medals, documents & ship logss etc.) militaria. My Grandfather was a captain. Torpedoed by the Germans, in a life boat for two days & later cluster bombed (I have the dud that fell behinid him on the bridge! It started it all!) by the Japanese. As a ceramic restorer I happen to have one of THE largest collections of Dutch art nouveau ceramics on the east coast BUT I'm not the one trying to buy a larger tent to fit in all my non Nagoya "sidelines" Good luck with the house! Bzzz bzzz Oh & Fred I couldn't agree more with the "War Between the States" I doubt Doss will agree!

Reply author: arisakadogs
Replied on: 08/04/2007 11:18:01 AM
Message:
Fred, that's a very interesting bit of history I didn't know & I've studied this part of history quite a bit. I've never heard that Congress officially decided on a name for it. Sure didn't stick very well.
I'm sure we'll get the Rodent's opinion on this terminology.
You're right - it wasn't really a "civil war" at all. I've never been comfortable with that term. "War Between the States" is a good term, although I've leaned towards it really being a war for & against two Americas. What would be the best term for that?
This guy was there --
View attachment 13361

Download Attachment:
252.81 KB
Just put that in to piss Jareth off!


Reply author: Jareth
Replied on: 08/04/2007 11:24:37 AM
Message:
Hey flat head growing up my Father had a huge collection of Springfield rifles! Nice rifle!

Reply author: arisakadogs
Replied on: 08/04/2007 11:35:44 AM
Message:
Thanks! Too bad you are camera impaired (handicapped) - would like to see your "sidelines"

BTW, that rifle musket has an excellent bore & it is a great shooter. I've since retired it from shooting & now shoot my repros. I also have a Model 1817 .69 cal smoothbore musket that was made at Harpers Ferry in 1838. It's the oldest firearm I've ever fired. It started life as a flintlock & was converted to percussion. Black powder guns are a lot of fun to shoot - but are very messy!

Reply author: fredh
Replied on: 08/04/2007 12:15:24 PM
Message:
I reckon all collectors are the same. It's in the DNA. I started collecting "stuff" at a very very early age. As a matter of fact, one of my grandsons, age 6, has a rock collection started. And I've still got all my collections except the snake collection at age 10 or so which created all kinds of emotional problems at home, such as a mom afraid to go out in the backyard where the cages were. There was the insect, butterfly, and moth collections, the stamp collections (35 cents allowance/week will get you a lot!), the coin collection which is worth a pretty penny today, the rocks, arrowheads, etc., ......and, oh, the Confederate rifle collection which has not been looked at in 35 years I guess. There aint no end to this story. The major problem is how to take them all with me.

Reply author: Jareth
Replied on: 08/04/2007 12:21:44 PM
Message:
Confederate rifle collection!!!!$$$$$ Wow almost as good as real estate!

Reply author: arisakadogs
Replied on: 08/04/2007 12:23:54 PM
Message:
Confederate rifle collection? You don't have to work another day Fred! Sell that & get busy on the 6th edition!

(I've always wanted a Richmond
)


Reply author: fredh
Replied on: 08/04/2007 12:54:29 PM
Message:
Jareth, dawgs, I haven't kept up with Confederate prices, but I do have a Richmond rifle, naval musketoon, and carbine. The Richmond rifle is an 1862 and came out of my home county back in NC. I lost a weeks sleep trying to get that one when I was 18 years old. I was told about it by a gun trader out in the county who also did refinishing work which is why he had possession of it. The trader turned the rifle over to me and told me to go work it out. I visited the owner every evening for a week after he got off work (and before I went in on 3rd shift at the local cotton mill). On the 6th or so visit, I took along an 1862 Springfield which was super nice and told him he didn't have to refinish that one if he wanted to trade. He said yes, and his wife who overheard the conversation said he couldn't let his rifle go since it was his grandfather's. The fellow winked and said, "you heard the little lady. You'll have to take the rifle you're holding and go on home." I was holding the Richmond, and he was smiling. I saved that one from Bubba. That must have been about 1959. Man, we're drifting now.

Reply author: arisakadogs
Replied on: 08/04/2007 1:57:51 PM
Message:
Neat story on the Richmond! Would love to see it. At least we're "drifting" with history - nothing wrong with that!

Reply author: Mike Rockhill
Replied on: 08/04/2007 11:55:55 PM
Message:





quote: Originally posted by arisakadogs
quote: Originally posted by Jareth

Bzzzz bzzzz too many sidelines!




Buzz off, geeze. Here's a "sideline" for Mike & LAWS.
View attachment 13362

Download Attachment:
122.6 KB​
You can't be a milsurp collector without being a history buff ( except for Jareth - he collects to provide NYC with the finest rebar money can buy!) So, I don't think most would mind seeing a dab of "other" stuff. I even have some nice Civil War stuff.​
You suck and I hate you

Really Nice grouping! I need to get a sawback 98/05, has to be one of the more barbaric looking bayonets of all times.

Reply author: Bill B
Replied on: 08/05/2007 12:40:37 AM
Message:
I've sidelined most my collecting years, its hard not to get involved in other areas. Most of the items I have were bought in a different price world and bargaining trading was easier. I've got some super Mauser's, Lugers, P38's, P35's most all German primary and secondary pistols ,U.S ww2 shotguns goes on and on you get the idea.Its difficult when you see something mint and steeped in history. Sometimes I'm envious of single item collectors but it passes. Enough rambling about this, oh the other thing is I just can't seem to part with any of it.

Reply author: arisakadogs
Replied on: 08/05/2007 12:03:01 PM
Message:





quote:
I need to get a sawback 98/05, has to be one of the more barbaric looking bayonets of all times.
It does look pretty vicious but I'm sure it was meant to be used as a tool. Pretty handy having a saw for firewood & such. My Buck M-9 bayonet for my AR-15 has a small saw area on the back of the blade. Of course it's nothing like this.

View attachment 13363
Download Attachment:
255.7 KB

To me, these socket bayonets are still the scariest looking ones!
View attachment 13364

Download Attachment:
224.21 KB

Reply author: fredh
Replied on: 08/05/2007 4:38:35 PM
Message:
Dawgs, I'll try to unpack the 3 Richmonds in a few weeks and take a photo for you. One has an original Confederate sling. I should look at them anyway. They're probably green from the Florida creeping crud. I'll make up some story that the long rifle was the one found in the Jinsen Arsenal Museum in '45. Yea, that's the ticket.

Reply author: arisakadogs
Replied on: 08/05/2007 6:56:15 PM
Message:
Having three Richmonds & not seeing them for 35 years is unimaginable to me. Hope they're OK! Looking forward to the Jinsen-Richmond photos!


Reply author: Chuck Lamb
Replied on: 08/10/2007 01:39:40 AM
Message:
Those masks were cumbersome, for man and horse.
Chuck.
View attachment 13365
Download Attachment:
249.28 KB


Gunboards : http://old.gunboards.com/
© 2000-2006 Gunboards



 
1 - 1 of 1 Posts
Top