Gunboards Forums banner
1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
979 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
heres a link to something I won. got it cause it comes with original capture papers and it's Japanese. i'm surprised I won it cause 200.00 was the starting price and that was as high as I was going with this one. don't know what series it is, but it's my only example of a Korean war bringback. http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=417028578 I will post some pics when it arrives.
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
15,654 Posts
Nice catch, one does not see many Korean Conflict papers.
Too bad about the work done on the rifle, but it could be put back to original.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
979 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
thanks for the input don. i'm wondering if the rifle was modified in the field, by the Koreans or by the owner??? i'm not sure if it's possibly to ever figure out?? if it was modified in the field or by korea, I would be inclined to leave it as is. if it is bubba modified I will restore it. pretty much all I need is a correct stock with hardware.
 

·
Platinum Bullet member
Joined
·
7,029 Posts
Nice catch indeed. Good thing I didn't see it. I woulda hit the buy-it-now button. I "need" that one, for my capture paper collection. I doubt the Koreans or Chinese did the chop job. They woulda left the sling swivels, anyway. Restore it, and keep that stock. Just in case.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,609 Posts
I cant say I know much about the procedures for brining back from Korea, but I would have several questions.

1. Why would the North Koreans use , as indicated, a single Japanese rifle?
2. Wouldn't the ammunition be hard to come by?
3. The initial letter is dated 1954 but the card is dated 1969.
4. The MUM is ground down indicating not military capture but production line grinding of all weapons of stored weapons.
5. Sporterized wood, not something done by soldiers in the field.

Just questions from someone trying to understand.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,642 Posts
I cant say I know much about the procedures for brining back from Korea, but I would have several questions.

1. Why would the North Koreans use , as indicated, a single Japanese rifle?
2. Wouldn't the ammunition be hard to come by?
3. The initial letter is dated 1954 but the card is dated 1969.
4. The MUM is ground down indicating not military capture but production line grinding of all weapons of stored weapons.
5. Sporterized wood, not something done by soldiers in the field.

Just questions from someone trying to understand.
After ww2 China had alot of arisakas and ammo. It would seem this led them to supply north Korea. I suppose the rifles had to be ground before turned over to China the same as USA perhaps more so.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
3,282 Posts
The capture papers and the other documentation are separate - as the bottom one looks like a typical base or post paperwork for retention on the base like I had to register all my firearms and put them into the arms room until I had a friend keep them for me off base (and then after I got married)

I have only a few Korean War stories in my books, just so many fewer people involved. In fact if made up, IMO wouldn't they make up some WW2 paperwork :)

Ed
 

·
Platinum Bullet member
Joined
·
7,029 Posts
China had many tens of thousands of Arisakas at the end of WWII. And factories to build them. Ammo was most like produced well into the 1960s. Korea was a "colony" of Japan, for 40 years, also with rifle/ammo mfg. facilities. Japanese small arms, were quite prolific during the Korean War.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
9,612 Posts
Japanese Rifles were also manufactured till 1945 at an Arsenal at what is now Inchon (Korea) and the Soviets handed over all the Japanese Equipment captured in the Last weeks of the war to the (North)Korean Revolutionary Forces in 1945.

And of course, the Chinese "Volunteers" brought their own "War Booty" with them to Korea. BTW, it is little Known that the "Volunteers" were Mostly Chinese Nationalist army units which had surrendered or gone over to Mao in 1948-49, during the Civil War. It was an easy way to "get rid of" possible untrustworthy soldiers...by sending them ( under stiff CPC Political control) into the Meatgrinder of the latter part of the Korean War. Little wonder many Chinese POWs, instead of repatriating to China, went to Taiwan at the end of the War.

Doc AV
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
979 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
I asked the seller if both papers are originals and he said yes. they are issued to the same person, but the 1954 one he is a lt. and the one from 69 he's a major. perhaps he was stationed in korea the whole time and needed authorization for when he first got it and authorization for when he left korea with it??? I will post some pics of the papers and rifle when I get them. thanks
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
3,282 Posts
I am sorry, but please read what I wrote above.

The paperwork is totally different - the person would not have been in the Korean war and then stay until that time period. The signer of the paperwork, the LT was also the commander, so he was giving himself permission to take the weapon home. The PMO paperwork is signed by an Airman 1st Class (AIC)

It is simply a requirement of the military when keeping a weapon on base or a fort - and this person was transferred at one time, likely to europe where they were required to register their weapons and they did so, YEARS later....

look up the zip code of the later paperwork - armed forces europe
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
979 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
thanks ed, will do! ps- I have all three of your bringback books and they are great. let me know if you are doing another cause I got some more stuff for it if you can use it.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
3,282 Posts
I am more than half way, looking for good stories and fillers! Guy selling bring back paperwork on eBay. I would looked to have a section on the different parts and fakes out there.

Hi rez, sent to [email protected] "..... Working on bring back four and also trench art book.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,911 Posts
Perhaps it was sold with the first paper to the A1C and then the A1C registered it on his post. I almost did the same thing with a matched/mummed TJK 37th series Iwo bring back I had bought while stationed at Fort Riley, but didn't because I never intended to bring it on post (gotta love storage places with rentable gun safes). This form looks identical to the one I filled out a around two years ago.

I've never seen Korean war bringback papers before though, so can't say if it's good or not good. Nowadays we fill out DD Form 603's for war trophies.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
80 Posts
Type 99's were common in second line ROKA and police units during the Korean War. They don't actually seem to have been as common in the KPA, and less so still in the CPV. However, they were found in all three. I don't base this on any exact count. I don't know any reference which would have one, but rather on general reading of Korean language ROK accounts, plus captured documents and large numbers of POW interviews with Korean Peoples Army and Chinese Peoples Volunteers captives. Only one of the KPA front line divisions at the beginning of the war listed its rifles as Type 99's. Some rear area (railroad guard etc) units also mentioned Type 99's as their rifles. The bulk though, per their doc and POW interviews, had Mosins. Per their POW interviews many or even most CPV units in their first, the winter 1950-51 campaign, had Type 38's but Type 99's seem to have been less common. Many others had 7.92mm Mausers. In the subsequent campaigns the CPV also was mainly re-equipped with Soviet small arms as the KPA had been from the start.

In any case a Type 99 acquired in Korea is completely possible; as other mentioned, some were manufactured there, at the Jinsen (Inchon) Arsenal, to begin with. But it also seems possible it was an ROK weapon purchased by a USAF serviceman, not that that particularly detracts from how interesting it is. I suppose many or most bring backs aren't documented closely enough to know if they were actually taken on an active battlefield, rather than collected from piles of abandoned enemy weapons and/or passing through multiple hands till it isn't clear where they came from exactly (or is that not so? and does it really matter anyway?). I guess the Korean situation is a little different though, in that Japanese small arms could have come from either side.

Joe
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top