Gunboards Forums banner

1 - 1 of 1 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,327 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
question on a type 100 bayonet




Topic author: jarjarbinks11
Subject: question on a type 100 bayonet
Posted on: 03/03/2006 12:09:17 AM
Message:
OK, so i was thinking the other day about how most all paratrooper rifles are being matched up with type 100 bayonets. and it really got my wheels spinning. i remember someone on here stating that a good belief is that t-2 rifles would have been fitted with a regular length t-30 bayonet. i agree with that statement for this reason alone. i belive that the type 100 sub-machine gun would have been impossible to fire with a regular t-30 bayonet on it. the increased weight would have made the weapon heavier and unable to fully cycle the bolt and not allow it to fire in full auto. the same thing happened to the 1941 johnson rifle which lead to a design change in bayonets for that rifle. so, since the bolt action rifle would be virtually un-affected by a heavier bayonet i would understand if the t-2 rifles were issued with a t-30 bayonet. the t-100 sub-gun would only make sense being issued with the shorter t-100 bayonet. perhaps this is why most every t-100 bayonet we see is in near pristine condition.

Replies:

Reply author: Edokko
Replied on: 03/03/2006 12:22:56 AM
Message:
You know, that seriously makes absolute sense.

Reply author: arisakadogs
Replied on: 03/03/2006 12:28:19 AM
Message:
Ok, I believe the short bayonet is for the SMG, but how would a regular T-30 bayonet keep the T-100 SMG from firing full auto?

Reply author: Jareth
Replied on: 03/03/2006 01:17:52 AM
Message:
Jarrod, good observation but I have same question as Rob.

Reply author: Edokko
Replied on: 03/03/2006 01:46:37 AM
Message:
Been doing a bit of reference research on the Type 100 short bayonet and so far what I dug up was a "Shisei 1-shiki tanken" (Experimental Type 1 short bayonet) from a 1941 dated military document that lists a manifest of weapons being sent to the "southern islands" which includes among others, 250 sets of the T-1 shorty bayonets and 250 sets of the T-99 short rifles, and there are no T-100 SMGs in this manifest. Sugawa's books mentions about the "Type 2 short bayonet", and studying Johnson's bayonet book, he writes that the Type 100 bayonet as, quote "The official designation of the bayonet is reported to be Type 2, indicating that it was adopted in 1942. It is usually refered to as the Type 100, after the Type 100 submachine gun".
So, from here is all unwarranted theory but if the enigmatic short bayonet was actually the Type 2 short bayonet commissioned in 1942, which is 2 years after the T-100 SMG, perhaps these short bayonets were built not specifically for the T-100 SMG, but originally was developed as a more versatile knife for jungle warfare in the "southern islands". At least the initial intent being that in the jungle a concerted "bayonet charge" of a unit of soldiers perhaps would not make much sense due to the lack of clearance in the battlejungle. But, in addition to the existing units carrying T-30 bayonets plus more and more soldiers being shipped into the southern islands from China and elsewhere bringing in there initially issued T-30s, any extra efforts to supply the T-2 bayonets were dropped due to more pressing issues in weapons manufacture and supply. So in the end, perhaps these shorty bayonets were a sort of "lost cause" in the annals of Japanese arsenal development and were hardly ever used in actual battle. Or then again, maybe they were made for the T-2 paratrooper, or eventually adapted to the T-100 SMG because the SMG boys were screaming for a lighter bayonet to swing around on the end of their guns. Gaaads, I need more evidence documents !!! Will keep on looking.

Reply author: jarjarbinks11
Replied on: 03/03/2006 07:33:38 AM
Message:
Dogs, Jareth,

the 8mm nambu cartridge is not a very powerful one. when you couple that with the recoil needed to work the bolt assembly (this is a blow-back design SMG) the gas operating system needs all of the gas it can get to work the bolt. a blow-back design has no gas adjustment valves and is only designed to work with the initial gas released when firing that 8mm cartridge. the recoil needed to work the bolt for full auto is designed off of a "bare" rfiel with no bayonet attached. now lets add another 2+ pounds to the rifle by adding a t-30 bayonet on it. this in turn will reduce the recoil felt and not allow the bolt to fully travel to the rear and will cause feeding/ejecting problems. this same principle happened with the 1941 johnson rifle. its original bayonet was too heavy for the rifle and when it was fired with a bayonet on the rifle, the johnson could not feed correctly and jammed almost every time! the US ordnance dept. put an order out to have the bayonet changed to a much lighter design so it could be fired while attached to the rifle and not affect the feed/function of the johnson rifle. i hope that makes sense. its a little hard to explain. the only other way i can think of explaining it is, try adding a bayonet to your 1911 and see how well it works then.

Reply author: 03man
Replied on: 03/03/2006 08:12:17 AM
Message:
Jarrod,
I'm afraid you have confused the short recoil action of the Johnston rifle as being the same as the straight blowback operation of the T100 sub gun.

The Johnston does indeed depend on the barrel recoiling about 5/16 inch to operate the rifle.

The T100 barrel does not recoil. You could hold it by the barrel and it would work. Only the bolt cycles from the blowback of the cartridge.

Nice theory, but wrong. Think about the silenced Stens and Mac guns with hand grips on the supressor which is screwed to the barrel, etc.

What 1911? If you mean the .45 pistol, it works with a 16" barrel installed, so likely would with a bayonet. The slide recoils, the barrel just unlocks as it moves down.

I think Edokko has some interesting new information that sheds some light on the issue.

We really should call it the T2 bayonet according to the "bible"; though this does not necessarily mean it was only for a T2 rifle, just design accepted in the same year.

I personally think the Japanese were headed in the same direction as other armies, ie. reducing the length of their bayonets.

Shortening the bayonet would also play into the "metal conservation" idea to which we attribute the lack of wings and monopods; a shorter bayonet would save more metal than recycling dozens of wings.

Reply author: jarjarbinks11
Replied on: 03/03/2006 08:21:09 AM
Message:
the .45 cartridge would have enough power to function just fine, but i still highly doubt that the added weight of a t-30 bayonet on a t-100 sub gun could allow it to function properly. probably a longshot but does anyone have one to try this out?

Reply author: jarjarbinks11
Replied on: 03/03/2006 08:31:24 AM
Message:
can anyone explain the blow-back design of this rifle? is it something along the lines of a sten gun? if so then i could seriously see whese Don is coming from and i can concede to that thought. im not real familiar with the weapon. i just cant imagine shooting a full auto gun in 8mm nambu! what a blast!

Reply author: arisakadogs
Replied on: 03/03/2006 09:04:40 AM
Message:
Good explanation '03. I've fired a T-100 there's no reason a longer bayonet would affect function. I'll have to take a T-30 bayonet to the next shoot & get photos!
I can't buy the metal conservation idea though. All the T-100s have early features & they obviously kept the longer blades on the T-30 bayonet until the end of the war.

Reply author: fredh
Replied on: 03/03/2006 09:12:39 AM
Message:
Jar, in the blow-back design the bolt is not locked and recoils from the pressure developed in the chamber. Some of the gasses developed from combustion propel the bullet; some of the pressure pushes the bolt back. Increasing the bolt recoil spring rate (heavier spring, harder to push) increases the cyclic rate on firing, up to a point. Reducing the spring size reduces cyclic rate. I can stop a MP-40 from cycling by letting the weapon move rearward with the trigger pull. I've even stopped a .45 auto from cycling by letting the pistol push my hand back freely without resistance after firing.

I think the Johnson has a locked breech like the .45 auto. 03Man can help us out here. If the barrel has the bayonet attached to the barrel as 03Man described, the recoil has to move the barrel + bayonet back to unlock the bolt. That's extra work and probably not accounted for in the design of the recoil spring. So, the barrel/bayonet combo cannot move far enough to unlock the breech.

In the design of a gas operated system, gas is extracted usually near the end of the barrel and into a tube where a piston is pushed toward the locked bolt to unlock it.

I've tried to describe the blowback, recoil operated locked breech, and gas operated system. The blowback is simplest by far and works adequately with the lower power cartridges.

Edokko brought up a really interesting point. I have always found the simplest of explanations, and also least romantic, is usually the answer. If I had no more info than is available right now, I'd place my bet on the short bayonet as being intended for jungle warfare. The idea that "short" T99's and "short" bayonets were shipped out to the islands probably fulfilled a demand from the field, certainly not a design committee in Tokyo. I'm really interested in how this unfolds.

Reply author: jarjarbinks11
Replied on: 03/03/2006 09:26:32 AM
Message:
thanks for the explination Fred, i stand corrected!

Reply author: jarjarbinks11
Replied on: 03/03/2006 09:30:43 AM
Message:
thanks for the explination Fred, i stand corrected!

Reply author: 03man
Replied on: 03/03/2006 2:49:41 PM
Message:
Jarrod is correct in his explantion of why the Johnston has a light weight bayonet, it is a short recoil operated rifle. The entire barrel with or without bayonet mounted does recoil to operate the action and is pushed back in place by the return spring.

Rob,
My comment on the short bayonet as a metal saving idea was kinda a left handed swipe at the collection of wings for metal recycling, which I find a real stretch.

Reply author: Jareth
Replied on: 03/03/2006 3:37:56 PM
Message:
I've followed these seperate type 100 bayonet threads for many years now. I have no facts or solid evidence but I feel that these bayonets might of been "over produced". Makes me wonder if the bale hook, quick disconnect sling was made for the paratroop rifles in quantity & then later on issued/used on other rifles. At wars end the Japanese pulled togeather whatever was lying around and used them (school rifles, 02/45 etc.) I now lean towards Fred's theory that the type 100 bayonets might of been utilized as a multi purpose weapon. Wish we had more documentation as to where well worn examples were captured or where all those minty ones were liberated from.

Reply author: rlabar
Replied on: 03/04/2006 08:04:27 AM
Message:
I have a question for Jarrod, I've read your first posting several times now, and still don't understand why you think, this explains why all the type 100's are in mint condition. Is this something a rifle collector knows, and me as a bayonet collector doesn't? I've had this conversation several times, with some of the people on this site, and I'd like to know where you think the shorter type 100 comes in to this picture, and why? Its obvious that there isn't any serial number group to the madness, so why make them at random out of type 100's? And if that wasn't enough to confuse you, how about trying to figure were they belong in the food chain by the frog you find on them? Well I have seen every kind of frog, except a canvas frog on these, so one can only assume they were issued for several years, with frog changes except when issued, or? OK, just a few more pieces of wood on the fire. Look forward to some answers, or more questions.
Raymond
[email protected]

Reply author: jarjarbinks11
Replied on: 03/04/2006 10:56:51 AM
Message:
from past experience seeing alot of auctions of these things...most are in minty condition for some odd reason. as for the serial number range....not sure. i know i wont be buying these things any time soon because they are too easily faked. and nothing is worse than spending $2000 on a $40 bayonet

Reply author: 03man
Replied on: 03/04/2006 12:38:24 PM
Message:
I don't think these T2/100 bayonets are easy to fake at all. Why do you think so?

I have seen as many used as mint condition also(though I may not have seen as many as some of you). I even posted a well used one last year with a peg keeper, which I thought was pretty conclusive that someone didn't want to lose it when jumping or turning somersaults.

Ray, my T-2/100 has a rubberized canvas frog that has been on it so long it is formed to the scabbard and too hard to move; doesn't mean its original, just been there a long time.

Reply author: Ojiichan
Replied on: 03/04/2006 1:44:47 PM
Message:
Very interesting post,

I must mention though that the information supplied by Edokko "translated manifest" is quite a bit more valuable than we may realize at this time. This underscores the importance of contributions made by our members of Japanese ancestory who are bilingual. I hope Edokko will send a copy of manifest with translation into Banzai for printing.

For some time I have thought that the T2/100 may have been an incorrectly identified model. Toyoda made high quality blades well into the 43 year range, remember Toyoda / Nagoya did not go through the Variation "C" "D" phase, as Kokura / Jinsen. These blades did not have to be manufactured in 1939/40.

Japan had no official trench/fighting knife, but there was a need for one during night infiltration assaults. I think perhaps these were the IJA's version of the K-Bar combat knife, that also were intended to be fixed on a rifle. As to conditon, I have seen many pristine unused examples, quite a few seriously used examples and few casual use. (the troops either liked them or not) It must be rememebered that these "short bayonet/swords" do not fullfill the embedded Bushido code of "long bayonet/sword" so instilled in the Japanese troops and this may have been the resistance to their use / acceptance.

As to fakery, I agree with 03man, it is very easy to spot a forgery, !for a well trained eye! or after you have at least one in your possesion. This does not help the avid or novice collector who has to have one! Pulling the grips is a necessity if bayonet may be in question, but how many collectors will let you do this ? The markings / milling marks under grips could be posted, and this only to add more information to the forgers ? A bit of a quandry. Subscribe to Bansai, the information is there in past issues, ask questions of other knowledable collectors, the prices have become beyond belief, do your research.

Dumb A** Bayonet Collector

Reply author: Edokko
Replied on: 03/04/2006 8:13:01 PM
Message:
Ojiichan, Fred and Don, thank you for acknowledging the significance of that manifest document. The piece of document is proof that at least the experimental stage of the Type 1 short bayonet (or a better translation would be "tanken" = "dagger") was formally issued to ground troops in the southern Asia Pacific theater, and that probably means the daggers were not particularly made for paratrooper use. I still need to do more in depth search for any military document info that mentions this T-1 or the T-2 dagger for further evidence (just one piece of document is not perfect), and would love to find documents that shows illustrations of both types especially the T-1. If I find all this, I will write one up for Banzai.

Reply author: Easterly
Replied on: 03/08/2006 6:54:18 PM
Message:
FOR WHAT ITS WORTH ON JAPANESE MACHINE PISTOLS AND BAYONETS..........All of my text references on the Type 100 machine pistol series refer to issue and usage of the TYPE 30 BAYONET on these mp's.......HOWEVER if one was to look in the JAPANESE PARACHUTE TROOPS, [U.S. Intelligence Report], page 48 is a photo of the carry pack which appears show the short bayonet [Type 2/100].

wmpE



Reply author: 03man
Replied on: 03/08/2006 7:46:52 PM
Message:
Easterly,
any chance you can post that picture for those of us without the Report?
Thanks,

Reply author: arisakadogs
Replied on: 03/08/2006 10:17:59 PM
Message:
I have a reprint of that booklet. Here's the photo.
http://forums.gunboards.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9574&stc=1&d=1191780768

Download Attachment:
76.89 KB

 
1 - 1 of 1 Posts
Top