Gunboards Forums banner

1 - 1 of 1 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,327 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
T-99 Tokyo Juki Kogyo 2nd Series




Topic author: seinen
Subject: T-99 Tokyo Juki Kogyo 2nd Series
Posted on: 08/08/2007 5:37:35 PM
Message:
As promised, here are a couple of photos of my T-99 2nd Series produced by Tokyo Juki Kogyo. The mum was cleanly removed and concentric double-circles stamped in place.
View attachment 13060
Download Attachment:
172.66 KB
View attachment 13061
Download Attachment:
174.28 KB

The rifle itself is like Brad indicated in a prior thread: all early features with monopod. I had to lighten these two photos a bit, so the blue appears lighter than it is in real life.

C/

Replies:

Reply author: Josh man
Replied on: 08/08/2007 5:42:28 PM
Message:
You have probably the nicest collection I have ever seen. Thanks for sharing this.

Reply author: Bill B
Replied on: 08/08/2007 5:44:50 PM
Message:
Looks like a real beauty, they did an excellent job of removing the mum,thanks for sharing. Are there any high , low figures for the serial number's or are they that rare there's not enough reported to count.


Reply author: seinen
Replied on: 08/08/2007 5:48:24 PM
Message:



quote: Originally posted by Bill B

Looks like a real beauty, they did an excellent job of removing the mum,thanks for sharing. Are there any high , low figures for the serial number's or are they that rare there's not enough reported to count.

I think I recall someone posting here about a sale two years or so back. It was a 2nd TJK rifle with a serial # in the 30s, as best I recall. At any rate, the serial # was lower than this one.

C/

Reply author: Lowrdrbird
Replied on: 08/08/2007 7:52:15 PM
Message:
HOLY SMOKES CHIP!!!!!

THAT IS SURE A LOW SERIAL NUMBER
LOOKS GREAT
Ken

Reply author: 03man
Replied on: 08/08/2007 8:22:15 PM
Message:
Thanks for the picts.


Reply author: BradB
Replied on: 08/08/2007 9:08:49 PM
Message:

View attachment 13062
Download Attachment:
166.42 KB

View attachment 13063
Download Attachment:
105.93 KB
View attachment 13064
Download Attachment:
113.88 KB
View attachment 13065
Download Attachment:
74 KB

Reply author: Jareth
Replied on: 08/08/2007 10:32:27 PM
Message:
Another concentric circle mystery! Anyone want to post a personal theory? I've got one too. Mines missing (never had?) the monopod.


Reply author: seinen
Replied on: 08/08/2007 10:40:09 PM
Message:



quote: Originally posted by Jareth

Another concentric circle mystery! Anyone want to post a personal theory? I've got one too. Mines missing (never had?) the monopod.

How does yours compare with these two, serial number-wise? Higher? Lower? In between?

C/

Reply author: Jareth
Replied on: 08/08/2007 10:49:19 PM
Message:
Chip, I'll have to get back to you with my number. I'll post it Sunday eve. I think Jon (monkeyboy) has one of these too

Reply author: seinen
Replied on: 08/08/2007 10:57:11 PM
Message:



quote: Originally posted by Jareth

Chip, I'll have to get back to you with my number. I'll post it Sunday eve. I think Jon (monkeyboy) has one of these too

Looks like this thread might succeed in generating more rifle serial numbers than we thought existed.

C/

Reply author: Jareth
Replied on: 08/08/2007 11:05:10 PM
Message:
Chip I do think this thread is more about CC rifles than 2nd series TJKs. Still would like to hear your idea as to the conception of this variant. Certainly confuses the CC theorists!

Reply author: jarjarbinks11
Replied on: 08/09/2007 12:24:31 AM
Message:
i'll check my CC TJK series 2 in the morning and report it on here. mine has the pod and is complete minus the dustcover. it too had the mum removed and CC stamps added over top.


Reply author: seinen
Replied on: 08/09/2007 07:27:02 AM
Message:



quote: Originally posted by Jareth

Chip I do think this thread is more about CC rifles than 2nd series TJKs. Still would like to hear your idea as to the conception of this variant. Certainly confuses the CC theorists!

While we're on the subject, go ahead and post your ideas. Hopefully, Fred will add to this as well. I have no idea as to the origins of these so-called "double circle" variants.

C/

Reply author: arisakadogs
Replied on: 08/09/2007 09:38:29 AM
Message:
Thanks for the photos guys! Interesting rifles. All the times I've gone through MROJ & read about CC rifles and the missing numbers from Nagoya's early 2nd series I never fully made the connection. Yeah, I know it's right there if you read it.
MROJ does show a high/low range on these 2nd series rifles. Chip - yours is 10 numbers lower than that listed.

I always thought the 2nd class arms (=) were most likely 1st class rejects, but it looks like these may have been intentionally made as "2nd class" weapons.
More questions than answers. Gotta love this stuff!

Reply author: jarjarbinks11
Replied on: 08/09/2007 10:18:17 AM
Message:
the SN on my series 2 TJK CC rifle is #145


Reply author: seinen
Replied on: 08/09/2007 11:38:52 AM
Message:



quote: Originally posted by arisakadogs

I always thought the 2nd class arms (=) were most likely 1st class rejects, but it looks like these may have been intentionally made as "2nd class" weapons.
More questions than answers. Gotta love this stuff!

Hmm....makes you wonder if the Japanese government arsenals didn't regard most privately-contracted T-99 rifles as being potentially potentially "second class" weapons.

C/

Reply author: Jareth
Replied on: 08/12/2007 9:58:12 PM
Message:
Chip & all my rifle is serial number 82. Also I had confused this rifle with another. This example has matching dustcover, sling & monopod.

Reply author: Quigley
Replied on: 08/12/2007 11:03:49 PM
Message:
Friends,
My Tokyo Juki Kogyo CC has serial number 328 with the 2nd Class arms mark anterior to the receiver circles.
It came with matching bolt, ramrod, monopod, and sling.
Q


Reply author: fredh
Replied on: 08/13/2007 09:09:35 AM
Message:
Chip, MROJ lists the range 53-497 so far for Tokyo Juki Kogyo. I had started putting low/high numbers on each arsenal so I wouldn't get broadsided with the new numbers showing up. There may be an interrelationship among the producers. It's probably up to Edokko to find something interesting about these rifles. The reason I say this is that the low quantity of these produced is only a blip on the radar screen when total T99 production is considered. There's probably a single data sheet or ordnance letter somewhere in the archives relating to these so interesting variations The one pictured in MROJ is mine, and I probably have 1-2 others but can't remember what they are right now. The 2nd class weapon inspection symbol on these rifles puzzles me, but the 2-circle insignia really doesn't. To me that signifies government ownership. These rifles were more than likely set aside for a government agency, but how does the 2nd class stamp fit in? Maybe the army reluctantly gave them up and assembled a bunch of rejected barreled actions to fulfill requirements. Who knows? An example from another country is one of my Mauser 98b's which has markings indicating issue to, if I remember correctly John Wall's id, Hamburg Airport in the mid-30s. So, that 98 was pulled away from Wehrmacht issue to possible civil use.


Reply author: Ronin48
Replied on: 08/13/2007 09:26:58 AM
Message:
Don Harper and Rudy Herring, both gone to the big sky gun show, had a mutual interest in CCs. At the first BANZAI get together in
Tulsa in 1902 Don had around eight CCs that he proceeded to disassemble on the motel bed. There was nothing "second class" about these rifles. Don and Rudy had a belief that the CCs were weapons for the Kempeitai and the "2nd class" symbol actually had to do with the placement of the Kempeitai in an organization chart.


If you consider the final 3,000 +/-rifles made at Kokura, some with dustcover grooves, some with out, all are CCs. You don't set out to make 3K "second class" arm. As Fred says these were made for some non-military use. I once purchased a rubberized ammo pouch with the concentric circle stamp, passed it along to Don.

If all TJK second series have the CC over a ground mum it would be interesting to find if identical numbers have been reported for TGK 2nd and Nagoya 2nd rifles.

Reply author: fredh
Replied on: 08/13/2007 11:21:32 AM
Message:
Doss, please remember that engineers never see the world as normal people do. The deviation that made the T99s second class is most likely not visible to the naked eye. It will be something like a critical dimension that is a few thousandth off. An example is say cartridge headspace which may be limited to .013 and actually measures .015. Not bad enough to discard but set aside to buy off later. Another example is one of the other postings which had an "X" under the receiver if I remember correctly, most likely caused by a forging that did not clean up after final machining. Quality Control would have that one depicted in their book to reject, since it is not as strong.


Reply author: Ronin48
Replied on: 08/13/2007 1:37:05 PM
Message:
Fred, Interesting comment, but my mind's made up, don't confuse me with the facts. Seriously though, how about those last 3,000 Kokuras, all off spec.? Doss


Reply author: Edokko
Replied on: 08/13/2007 2:18:55 PM
Message:
My thoughts, with no document back-up that is, are that all CCs are actually school / reserve (includes all schools ie youth school to universities, and perhaps civilian traning programs conducted by the vets/reserves) guns for military training including actual shooting practices. With the general mobilization act, Japan was really cranking up the school and civilian training programs, but there must have not been enough used surplus rifles to cover the training / practice programs and the arsenals had to produce rifles specifically for such programs. We have seen examples such as the 28th series Nagoya T-38s with the school "bun" mark placed on the receiver in lieu of the mum. These were marked so specifically at the arsenal at the time of manufacture, so we know the arsenals were in production of live rifles specifically for training use. But how about the T-99 ? There must have been a strong need to train students and civilians on these new 7.7mm rifles, but we see no T-99s with the "bun" mark, do we ? So enter the T-99s (and some late T-38s) with the CCs marked on the receiver, what a coincidence that the "double 0" mark in front of the serial number on the "bun" guns are similar in concept with the a CC mark, both are "two circles". Obviously, rifles made specifically for school and civlian training purposes do not need the rigorous tolerances of soldier use rifles so could be some cut corners or looser tolerances on the spec, hence I would not be surprised these rifles would be marked with the "secondary" notation. How's this for a theory guys ?


Reply author: Jareth
Replied on: 08/13/2007 3:48:25 PM
Message:
I think a few large holes can be shot through your type 99 training theory. I'm pressed for time (thoughts as well!) but off the top of my pin head I think about the CC marked bayonets with sharpened blades. Wasn't there a few long & short type 99 smooth bore trainers being produced as well? I'm sure I'll think of something else later but leave the floor open to other theorists. Hey Chip aka Mr. Trainer what say you?


Reply author: fredh
Replied on: 08/13/2007 5:24:07 PM
Message:
Doss, maybe I can make it more clear by saying that cosmetic deviations do not normally cause rejection of the weapon. "Cosmetic," or how it appears, is what you are referring to. Critical dimensions that affect "form, fit, or function" are what is important to the inspector holding the second class stamp. Most thangs are not normally rejected because they are fugly uckers.


Reply author: Ronin48
Replied on: 08/13/2007 6:08:27 PM
Message:
Fred, I've seen at least two rifles that had to be completely disassembled, bolt released removed to get the bolt out and several with the safety knob "stem" so loosely welded they would wiggle with finger pressure. Guess though these are problems that could have been repaired. CCs off specs or made for training, hum! If off specs for the IJA you remove mum (if not caught before receiver samped with mum) and stamp the CC.


Only problem I have with your CC theory is 3,000 CC Kokura rifles for training in the "11th hour?" To me home defense would make more sense. However, with 27 years in the bureaucracy, the Dept of Interior, anything in government can and will happen. Conract let earlier and never cancelled? Several thoughts on how this, the late CCs, may have come about. In any bureaucracy you survive, get ahead by not questioning why, but following orders!

Reminds me of the section in "I Boat Captain" where they got their hands on an aircraft radar and jury-rigged it in the sub. Worked, but when they asked for a perminant installation they caught hell for having an aircraft radar, installing it themselves and in the end were issued an extra pair of binocks. News time.

Reply author: Franchi
Replied on: 08/13/2007 7:16:56 PM
Message:
View attachment 13066




View attachment 13067 -

-
My brother and I have #369 & 497. Both have all the early features intact, except missing the dust covers. Both receivers never had a mum, mum applied to a blank receiver.


Frank Allan wrote two good articles on concentric circle T-38 & T-99 rifles in the 1992 August and October "Banzai" newsletters. He states the lowest number noted is #1, it originally had a 5 digit number but the first four digits were cancelled. He lists the high number as 525.
Gary

Reply author: Edokko
Replied on: 08/13/2007 7:24:58 PM
Message:
Jareth, thanks for your counters, but I think there is no "issue" in having a sharpened CC marked bayonet as part of the school or civilian training program. I have seen many late war photos of students training with T-99 rifles and also even women being trained with T-99 rifles slung on their shoulders or doing bayonet thrusts against hay pillars (civilians were trained primarily by the Zaikyo Gunjin-kai, the Veterans Association). The smoothbore "trainers" whether T-38 or T-99 versions are a completely different item, the non-shootable trainers were always made at the same time the "bun" 38s were marked and distributed, a difference of actual shooting training or non-shooting training. Shoot me more holes !


Doss, how late were the CC Kokuras made do you figure ?

Reply author: fredh
Replied on: 08/13/2007 8:21:12 PM
Message:
Franchi, #369 is a beauty!


Reply author: seinen
Replied on: 08/13/2007 8:52:29 PM
Message:



quote: Originally posted by Jareth

Wasn't there a few long & short type 99 smooth bore trainers being produced as well? Hey Chip aka Mr. Trainer what say you?

Yes, apart from the smoothbore T-99 short Naval training rifles, there are some T-99 short rifle configuration trainers. I've noted several maker marks, as well as some unmarked variants. The makers marks include Hitachi Heiki and a star trademark with a circle inside containing the kanji "mei" (bright).

Really, I have no ideas on the concentric circle rifles being used as trainers, however, a number of the concentric circle T-38 long rifles have school markings in the buttstocks.

Just to muddy the waters even more, tomorrow night I'll add some photos of a Kokura T-99 rifle that's un-serial numbered. The bolt is unnumbered as well. The interesting aspects of this rifle are the presence of a badly cracked receiver and a barrel stamped with a circled "ni" (2) about half-way up the barrel. Most of the concentric circle rifles have this additional stamping in various places. The stamping is concealed underneath the handguard. I haven't examined this rifle in several years, so there may be more interesting features that I've forgotten. Stay tuned!

C/

Reply author: Jareth
Replied on: 08/13/2007 8:58:27 PM
Message:
Chip & all, I do not own one but are Tokyo?kokura CC type 38 rifles school marked or serial number prefixed with zeros? Edokko might there be a thin line between an actual training rifle & a standard rifle issued to youths for homeland defense?

Reply author: Edokko
Replied on: 08/13/2007 9:08:36 PM
Message:
Jareth, I don't think any trainers, practice surplus guns nor standard rifles were "issued" to civilians or youths for homeland defense yet, at the time of the end of war. They were certainly trained using various trainers and the surplused guns but were not "issued" to any of them to keep. All firearms were strictly kept under the local units, VAs or school control, they were taken out during training or practice programs but were always collected by the aforementioned entities after training or practice. None were taken home.


Reply author: seinen
Replied on: 08/13/2007 9:21:31 PM
Message:



quote: Originally posted by Jareth

Chip & all, I do not own one but are Tokyo?kokura CC type 38 rifles school marked or serial number prefixed with zeros?

I don't own a Tokyo/Kokura T-38 CC rifle, but my Nagoya does not have a 00 serial # prefix.

C/

Reply author: seinen
Replied on: 08/13/2007 9:36:25 PM
Message:


quote: Originally posted by Edokko

Jareth, I don't think any trainers, practice surplus guns nor standard rifles were "issued" to civilians or youths for homeland defense yet, at the time of the end of war. They were certainly trained using various trainers and the surplused guns but were not "issued" to any of them to keep.
Takehito,

I posted the following some time ago, but didn't get a lot of responses. In view of these new discussion, it now seems like a good time to re-post for your comments.

http://www.gunboards.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=190623

Any thoughts as to why this one would be "personalized?"

C/

Reply author: Edokko
Replied on: 08/14/2007 02:42:21 AM
Message:
Chip, that's a very interesting piece you got there. Can you post a photo of the whole front stock area ?
There "could" be a myriad of reasons that the paper tag was attached onto the rifle, given that it was done previous to the end of war, and not by the GI who brought it back. One assumption would be that the rifle was "designated" to be used by the specific individual, but the fact that the address and name and some kind of group ID code is marked would make me think that it was kept at the local VA office or somewhere simlar and to be handed to that individual for practice purposes or for "issuance" when the final homeland defence day (Hondo-kessen) happened. But I don't get the part of the tag being "glued-on", nobody would glue on a name tag on a rifle, especially on the front grip area. Strange, and intriguing.....
But it's definitely not a surrender tag, since the address is incomplete, missing the main town or city name and the prefecture, and only a local township or city control post (such as a VA post) would understand the actual location. Terashima-cho is a name of some small area of a part of a larger town or city. As of today, there is probably about a dozen locations all over Japan which has an area named Terashima-cho.
Sort of like a "Springfield, USA" but, doooh, which Springfield ?

Reply author: fredh
Replied on: 08/14/2007 08:53:33 AM
Message:
Edokko, please bear with me on this one, but I think you'll see where I'm going. Let's go back to the beginning and establish some basics. First, in your words, why was the chrysanthemum applied to rifles? Second, what was its significance to the soldier carrying the rifle? And third, why was the 'mum removed either before sell to another country, removal from service, or surrender as in WW2?


Reply author: seinen
Replied on: 08/14/2007 09:46:15 AM
Message:



quote: Originally posted by Edokko

I don't get the part of the tag being "glued-on", nobody would glue on a name tag on a rifle, especially on the front grip area. But it's definitely not a surrender tag, since the address is incomplete, missing the main town or city name and the prefecture, and only a local township or city control post (such as a VA post) would understand the actual location.
Yes, I absolutely agree....it isn't a surrender tag. Most surrender tags I've seen are attached to swords, ostensibly to permit reunion of the sword and owner at some future point. No such possibility for rifles and former owners/users.

I'll try and pull the rifle tonight or tomorrow and post some photos of the forend for you.

C/

Reply author: Jareth
Replied on: 08/14/2007 10:13:44 AM
Message:
I'd like to throw in my wild theory regarding second series TJK CCs. Could there have been a short initial run of TJK 2nds before Nagoya was awarded that series? Perhaps the completed actions (mumed)lay unfinished & were then reworked as CC rifles? Always wondered why these were the only series marked CC rifles.

Reply author: Edokko
Replied on: 08/14/2007 12:23:03 PM
Message:
Fred, yes I think I can see where you are going, and let's indeed do start from the start. Regarding the chrysanthemum marking on rifles, these started at the very initial onset of small arms issuance during the early Meiji period, when a mishmash of various imported arms were collected from the fragmented Daimyo controlled "Han" territories by the new Meiji government, sorted out and reissued into the newly established imperial army. Many an Enfield, Chassepot and other rifles and it's bayonets were marked with the "mums". My understanding of the reason of the mum markings at the beginning and onwards, is primarily to denote that these were the belongings of the emperor, the soldier being the emperor's subject have proof of his standing through the most cherished symbol of that age on his most important piece of equipment. Now, as we all know, this was a sort of disciplinary attempt, to make the "common soldier" of the days, mostly from farms or factories, of which many were highly "un"-educated, who had no idea of military discipline, no experience in how to conduct matters in a regulated way and no strong will to maintain and keep his issued equipment in top notch condition.... and put them into submission partly through the "awe" power of an imperial symbol on his rifle, his life and soul during his military occupation (of course the time-to-time beatings and thrashings by his superiors with the words "who do you think this rifle was given to you by !!!" did some of the magical tricks). No mums were placed on pistols, knee mortars or machine guns and any larger weapons (except the navy ships, which is another different matter) because, primarily they were either used by "professional" soldiers (NCOs and officers), or controlled on a unit basis, and no need for the "awe" factor.
Now, putting aside the psycological aspect of the mum for a moment, we established that the primary reason of the "mum" on rifles is to show the rifle belonged to the emperor and the emperor's army. All rifles that were eventually taken out of direct military services were then taken through a process of cancelling the mum, this was to show that the rifle was no longer the property of the imperial army, and hence the "mum" was given another meaning, to be the indicator of whether the rifle was still part of the imperial military service or not. We see the cancellation or lack of mums on various rifles including as you say, export, school and VA surplusing, surrender, and also rifles made specifically for non-IJA use were made without mums from the beginning, these are rifles such as the Hoten T-38s issued to the Manchurian army, and of course includes the 28th series T-38s that is marked with either a "bun" mark or an "M" mark in place of the mum. In this regard I think the theory of the CCs being issued to the Kempei-tai would not hold water, because the Kempei was part of the official IJA and no need to cancel or eliminate the mum for those units.


Chip, would be great to see more photos of the unusual tagged rifle. Thanks.

Reply author: seinen
Replied on: 08/14/2007 1:00:54 PM
Message:



quote: Originally posted by Edokko

Chip, would be great to see more photos of the unusual tagged rifle. Thanks.

First, nice discussion of the "psychological aspects" of mum placement on Japanese rifles. Interesting.

I'll pull the 10th Series this afternoon and take some photos for posting. Same for the unserialized Kokura rifle I mentioned earlier in this thread.

C/

Reply author: 03man
Replied on: 08/14/2007 1:19:26 PM
Message:
Edokko,
thanks for the Mum insight.

Reply author: Jareth
Replied on: 08/14/2007 2:44:19 PM
Message:
What was Japan's homeland police issued? Were they a seperate force from the Kempei-tai?


Reply author: fredh
Replied on: 08/14/2007 4:42:15 PM
Message:
Edokko, thanks heaps. I had a feeling there was more to the 'mum subject than normally accepted. Ok, then the "concentric circle" rifles are not for issue to a soldier of the IJA. They should not have been found in the field, and the condition of most of those I've examined reflects this - pretty doggone nice condition as if unissued.


I guess I'm the original source for denoting the "concentric circle" stamp as signifying government ownership. I got that idea from TM-E 30-480 (the conventional signs section in the back of the manual), and from reviewing the tech manuals published after WW2 that were stored in the National Archives. I found photos of buildings, for example, where powder was produced, and all the buildings had the "concentric circle" insignia on the side. I just put 2 and 2 together and assumed "government ownership" for these rifles but not within the IJA. Ok, one idea that comes to mind for the "concentric circle" insignia is familiarization rifle. These rifles could have been put together in small quantities for circulation throughout the country - schools, etc. I have examined about a half dozen or so T14s that served that purpose, all with very low serial numbers and intended for use within the factories. Why not do the same with rifles except on a larger scale? Any more ideas out there?

Reply author: seinen
Replied on: 08/14/2007 7:50:45 PM
Message:


Not sure about the familiarization theory. Any thoughts about how a double-circle pressure test rifle fits into things?


We had some discussion about this awhile ago, but seemingly never cam to any conclusions (as if that were possible).

C/

Reply author: fredh
Replied on: 08/14/2007 8:32:15 PM
Message:
Chip, I had not thought of that one before, but I guess they would need training classes for ballistics testing. The concentric circles on the pressure test appear different from the equivalent T38 or T99. I'm not trying to say the concentric circle rifles are familiarization rifles. Just trying to see if one idea will lead to another. Whatever, you've got sommmmmme collection! Nice stuff!


Reply author: Edokko
Replied on: 08/14/2007 9:23:07 PM
Message:
Chip, I agree with Fred that, although the CC on your PT rifle does look kinda different than the CC on usual rifles, it may not be that unusual to see a PT rifle being used as part of some engineering school training, but that's a wild guess, as all my other assumptions are.


Fred, there may well be a CC rifle captured in the field, as in the last desperation of war, seems like many of the school guns were collected and apparently sent out to the field, especially in places like Okinawa where logistics was still possible.

Jareth, the Kempei-tai is the US's MP equivalent and was part of the army. The police was under a separate civilian jurisdiction and did not carry weapons other than batons, swords and perhaps a pistol by a detective level and up.

Reply author: Jareth
Replied on: 08/14/2007 9:45:15 PM
Message:
I still think that's a significant amount of "training" rifles IF you include total production of all CC rifle variations. This includes both type 38s,early 99s by Nagoya, Kokura, TJK & then rare variants like internal numbered Nagoyas & those w/o arsenal & external numbers. Finally ending with late war Kokuras. Have any CC's been recorded with stock painted markings or any signs of issue including well worn examples?


Reply author: Jareth
Replied on: 08/14/2007 9:59:02 PM
Message:
Sight is screwed up again! Wanted to add that it's odd that Nagoya type 38s will be found with three mum replacements..C.C., bun, & "M". Now to make matters worse there's the Jinsen type 38 without mum & "to teach" in it's place! All mentioned are rifled combat variants.


Reply author: Edokko
Replied on: 08/14/2007 10:06:11 PM
Message:
Jareth, there were alot of high school and under students, and women still living in the homeland that needed to be trained for the last defense. On the other hand, how many CC rifles do you see compared to the normal issue rifles ? I would think they were way behind in numbers if they were using the CCs for actual shooting and bayonet practice for students and women.


Reply author: Franchi
Replied on: 08/14/2007 10:14:27 PM
Message:
A couple of years ago there was a program on TV (History Channel or A&E etc.) which was about the Japanese in China (the program was on China, but the photo could have been "stock footage" from anywhere).
In one scene there was a 1/2 or 3/4 ton truck with troops sitting in it and on the tail gate was a large concentric circle marking.
Why would the truck be marked?
What troops would these be?
David Franchi


Reply author: Jareth
Replied on: 08/14/2007 10:15:26 PM
Message:
Yes but that would also include the numerous smooth bore trainers & old type 38s! I would think we'd see at least a few CC's that show more use.


Reply author: Edokko
Replied on: 08/14/2007 10:17:05 PM
Message:
We need to wait for Francis' book to come out for the data, but on the 28th series T-38, the "bun" and the "M" were probably made simultaneously. The "CC" T-38s apparently were built on a separate run of production, away from the normal run. Perhaps "after" the "bun" and "M" run on the 28th series, and that could be when the 28th production returned to normal issue rifle production that continued to the end of the 29th series, and a special run of CC rifles were started with a separate run of serial numbers. Please rememeber, THIS IS ALL CONJECTURE, and nothing but. There is yet to be found the correct original military documents that explain what the heck they did.
Strange thing about the Jinsen "Kyo" rifles, are that the writing on the dust cover says, "live ammunition prohibited". Perhaps these were made under a production run where the arsenal was not yet convinced that the rifle quality was upto par in shootability.




Reply author: seinen
Replied on: 08/14/2007 10:23:24 PM
Message:



quote: Originally posted by Edokko

Strange thing about the Jinsen "Kyo" rifles, are that the writing on the dust cover says, "live ammunition prohibited". Perhaps these were made under a production run where the arsenal was not yet convinced that the rifle quality was up to par in shootability.

Well, if Jinsen was convinced they were of dubious quality, wouldn't they have been marked as "second-class" weapons?
Actually, I'm just kidding with you Takehito. Like you, I wish we could uncover some documentation that would settle this once and for all.

C/

Reply author: Jareth
Replied on: 08/14/2007 10:39:29 PM
Message:
Great discussion guys! I've always been fascinated with the CC rifles. The training theory is very thought provoking but I can't keep from feeling we are missing something.Maybe Chip really knows but he's saving it for his book

Reply author: Edokko
Replied on: 08/14/2007 11:14:26 PM
Message:
Chip, you caught me there square in the face ! hehehe.


Jareth, yep, the "CC as trainer theory" is so "bullet proof", there's got to be something wrong (hehe). As the "Olde" one have noted, nothing in the goverment or military makes "complete sense".

Reply author: fredh
Replied on: 08/15/2007 08:53:59 AM
Message:
Edokko, I should have stated this in my follow on to your 'mum info, but I just am not sure the concentric circle marked T99s with the 2nd class inspection stamp were meant to be fired. If that is true, they were intended for show-and-tell or some other function. That second class stamp does have a meaning. I need to pull my Japanese ordnance records out of storage and review the significance of the second class inspection stamp as compared to the "X," or rejection stamp, before getting too serious here. If you have a copy of those records handy, that would save me a lot of hunting and unpacking. If not, let me know, and I'll go to work.


Reply author: Edokko
Replied on: 08/15/2007 11:00:03 AM
Message:
Fred, yes on the marking directive document, the "ni-in-a-circle" mark is described as "Ni-go-hin to shite saiyo seru moni ni mochiu", and translates to "To be used for acceptance as secondary (or second class) items". It does not say that the item is not usable as the item is itended for, just quality of use is not first class but passed and accepted nontheless. The "X" mark is described as "Fugokaku hin" and means "Rejected item" or "Not passed item" and is meant for items that cannot function as intended. With that, I think we can safely differenciate the "Ni-in-circle mark" from the "X" rejecion mark.


Reply author: seinen
Replied on: 08/15/2007 11:38:21 AM
Message:



quote: Originally posted by Edokko

Fred, yes on the marking directive document, the "ni-in-a-circle" mark is described as "Ni-go-hin to shite saiyo seru moni ni mochiu", and translates to "To be used for acceptance as secondary (or second class) items". It does not say that the item is not usable as the item is itended for, just quality of use is not first class but passed and accepted nontheless.

Takehito,

Thanks for the clarification regarding the use of the circled "ni." Did you happen to see my post on the unserialized T-99 Kokura rifle I posted last night? It has a "ni"-marked barrel with the remainder of the major component parts being essentially of reject quality.

C/

Reply author: fredh
Replied on: 08/15/2007 12:19:22 PM
Message:
Edokko, with weapons it's usually go or no go, good or bad, no in between. I wonder if 2nd class signifies that under normal circumstances the weapon is to be held in reserve or maybe to be used in an emergency. I'm sure there was additional info available on the classifications. Nobody wants to go to battle with a weapon stamped second class.

I say this because in my business we had all types of quality acceptance or non acceptance. A part may be rejected outright, rejected but usuable for unlimited engine test...or limited to specific types of engine testing, and so forth. I was never a part of that area of the business but absorbed my knowledge through everyday exposure, I guess.

Reply author: Quigley
Replied on: 08/15/2007 4:48:00 PM
Message:
Edokko,
I am interested in the interpretation of "secondary" in your phrase "Ni-go-hin to shite saiyo seru moni ni mochiu", and translates to "To be used for acceptance as secondary (or second class) items".
What catagories of "secondary" existed in either civil or military organization, such that a seemingly high quality product would have the receiver carefully recut and restamped rather than removed from "primary" use by overstrikes on the mum?
I have some concern that we interpret "secondary" to mean "Second Class" as "inferior."
Perhaps the original Japanese had other interpretations:?
Q



Reply author: 03man
Replied on: 08/15/2007 5:22:32 PM
Message:
It would make sense in this case, for the Ni or second class mark to mean second class for cosmetic reasons. No need to reject an entire rifle or sub-assembly for a forging that didn't clean up, leaving a minor surface defect; or a stock that had a knot hole or such. Perhaps this second class mark later gave way to the large circle, used for acceptance under a Secondary standard? Pretty much the same but different.


I'm sure we have all seen or purchased "seconds" of various items; like cloting with a dye spot, or a sleeve from a different lot of cloth, or tires that the whitewall wasn't complete on; functional but not pretty.

Reply author: seinen
Replied on: 08/15/2007 5:43:29 PM
Message:



quote: Originally posted by 03man

It would make sense in this case, for the Ni or second class mark to mean second class for cosmetic reasons. No need to reject an entire rifle or sub-assembly for a forging that didn't clean up, leaving a minor surface defect; or a stock that had a knot hole or such.
Don,

Normally, I'd agree about using the "ni" instead of the "x", but I posted the thread below about an 11th series T-99 with an "x" on the stock due to a knot hole.

http://www.gunboards.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=140893

However, who really knows what was going on that late in the war?

C/

Reply author: 03man
Replied on: 08/15/2007 9:54:37 PM
Message:
Chip,
Great 11th rifle. An X on a part for reject, later used in late assembly doesn't necessarily contradict earlier use of the Ni for rating a complete rifle second class, but useable.

The Barrel band was likely an earlier one, turned around so the offset would line up; the screw was offset to the rear when the three piece stock was used.

I'l like to have that late 11th when you get tired of it.

Reply author: seinen
Replied on: 08/15/2007 10:07:03 PM
Message:



quote: Originally posted by 03man

Chip,
Great 11th rifle. An X on a part for reject, later used in late assembly doesn't necessarily contradict earlier use of the Ni for rating a complete rifle second class, but useable.
Sure, I understand your point. I just reposted the earlier string to show that, where the very late rifles are concerned, almost anything is possible.

C/

Reply author: Edokko
Replied on: 08/16/2007 12:15:28 PM
Message:
Fred, yes, totally agree that with weapons it's usually "go" or "no go", black and white with no in-betweens, especially for weapons to be used in battle. But for this case, I think these rifles were made under spec and marked so for the sole intention of training, and was not expected to go through rigorous battle conditions, so could be that either tolerance of parts connectivity or general fit and finish were passed without the set of tough inspections required for formal issue weapons. Unfortunately the markings directive does not specify under what exact inspection standards or results were the "ni", "X" or "circles" determined upon. There must have been a different set of manuals for that.
Quigley, you make a very good point. And as Don says, "Ni-go-hin" is usually used for items that have some kind of blemish or items that have not been passed through the full gauntlet of inspection, but is "usable". It can actually be differentiated from words like "ni-kyu-hin" or "retsu-aku-hin" which is more closer to the English meaning of "2nd class" or "inferior". The subtle difference in meaning is a bit difficult to translate perfectly.

Reply author: fredh
Replied on: 08/16/2007 4:38:50 PM
Message:
Edokko, it's been so doggoned (better word than what I'm thinking) hot that I can't go out to the garage and take apart one of the concentric circle rifles again. I know I owe you info on the T30, but I'll get to that also. But I do think it's time to start studying again. I haven't taken one apart in 30 some years. My, how the time flys.


Reply author: fredh
Replied on: 08/16/2007 6:42:13 PM
Message:
I was sitting here thinking and figured it's not going to get any better this summer, and I have taken the afternoon off so took a few rifles to the garage to disassemble. I checked concentric circle, Kokura T99, #1396, thoroughly or for the most part cosmetically. It does not have the 2nd class stamp anywhere as far as I can tell. However, the inside is packed in original grease. Headspace using an original cartridge is about .013, typical for the T99. This one has had the 'mum mashed in and overstamped with the concentric circles.


I found Kokura late war #3220, and that is another story. This is a no-dustcover groove specimen and was saved for that reason. There's a small 2nd class stamp on the bolt ways in the receiver behind the bridge. Otherwise, no more 2nd class stamps. Trigger pull is not right - barely grips the firing pin. Safety does not lock the bolt - bolt can be raised up to about 60 degrees when the safety is engaged. I'm afraid if you pounded the cocked and loaded rifle on the ground, the firing pin would drop. Not good. The receiver recoil lug does not properly fit up with the recoil lug. It wouldn't take a lot to split that stock if rifle were fired. But it's got beautiful headspace for a T99 - in the .008 range. I wouldn't call that a reject weapon if in dire straits but would give it to a seasoned knowledgeable soldier so maybe that's what 2nd class is considered to be. That statement does not address the concentric circle issue but may add a little understanding to 2nd class.

 
1 - 1 of 1 Posts
Top