Gunboards Forums banner
1 - 20 of 35 Posts

·
Kryptonite member
Joined
·
5,765 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Stock and metal, other than the receiver is T 38, bolt will not fit a Carcano, It's obviously not a 38 nor a Carc. So what is it? The whole world wonders?
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
15,651 Posts
It's a Carcano in a different set of clothes, JMHO.
 

·
Platinum Bullet Member and Certified Curmudgeon
Joined
·
15,479 Posts
It's a Carcano in a different set of clothes, JMHO.
Or, said another way, It's a T38 clone with a Carcano type receiver and bolt.

Regards,
Bill
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
737 Posts
..I agree with 'geladen'. The Type I (pronounced as the lettet 'I' for ITALY) is based on the Type 38 rifle and utilizes a Model 91 Carcano action; retaining the Arisaka/Mauser
type 5-round box magazine, 6.5x50mm caliber bullet, but with higher quality fit and finished Italian 'furniture', and much tighter and higher specification barrel chambers
provided in the Regia Fabbrica D'Armi Terni factory built barrels.

I'm having a ball with mine...! For photos of my 1939 Fabbrica Nationale D'Armi of Brescia TYPE I regarding the 'in the white' barrel mystery on the example I recently 'adopted',
go to:
http://s1302.photobucket.com/user/b...3&page=1&_suid=139923738598303437387012380697

Ron
 

·
Kryptonite member
Joined
·
5,765 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
I've always considered the "I" a 38 built by Italy for Japan using a modified Carc. bolt and receiver. Why the modified bolt????
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
9,576 Posts
Type I Bolt is suited for the .475" diameter T38 Semi-Rim, Not the .448" Carcano M91/95 Case rim; also to avoid mismatching Bolts, the ( a true Carcano with a Type I) the Tolerances were just not "Interchangeable".

Also, the M91 Feeds from a single Column (Clip) magazine, the Type I feeds from a quinconce Mauser 2 column Mag.

Doc AV
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,142 Posts
the stock has differences as well that will not interchange with a type 38 such as the shape, buttplate, etc. far more differences than just being able to be lumped into a "38 that uses a carcano action"
 

·
Kryptonite member
Joined
·
5,765 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Thank you t94nambu.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,142 Posts
perhaps to answer this question, we may need to take a 3 pronged comparison.

1. what attributes of this rifle are type 38 derived (meaning what can be interchanged with a standard type 38)
2. what attributes of this rifle are carcano derived (meaning what can be interchanged with a standard carcano rifle)
3. by process of elimination what attributes are totally unique to this rifle.

i think by mapping out these questions we can then make an educated guess on exactly what this rifle is is more likely to be.
 

·
Platinum Bullet Member and Certified Curmudgeon
Joined
·
15,479 Posts
perhaps to answer this question, we may need to take a 3 pronged comparison.

1. what attributes of this rifle are type 38 derived (meaning what can be interchanged with a standard type 38)
2. what attributes of this rifle are carcano derived (meaning what can be interchanged with a standard carcano rifle)
3. by process of elimination what attributes are totally unique to this rifle.

i think by mapping out these questions we can then make an educated guess on exactly what this rifle is is more likely to be.
"What this rifle is more likely to be"? We already know what it is: an Italian made close copy of a T38 using a Carcano type receiver and bolt, parts interchangeability with the T38 not being a requirement. It seems to me pointless to measure the rear swivel base to .001 inch for the purpose of determining whether the measurement is closer to a Carcano sling swivel base or a T38 sling swivel base.

Regards,
Bill
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,779 Posts
"What this rifle is more likely to be"? We already know what it is: an Italian made close copy of a T38 using a Carcano type receiver and bolt, parts interchangeability with the T38 not being a requirement. It seems to me pointless to measure the rear swivel base to .001 inch for the purpose of determining whether the measurement is closer to a Carcano sling swivel base or a T38 sling swivel base.

Regards,
Bill
I just got a Carcano Type I that didn't have a rear swivel. I purchased one made for a T38 and, although it fits/works, it's not perfect. The back end is not flush with the stock. On my thread in this forum about the Carcano Type I, a guy posted a comparison of the rear swivel for the Type I and the T38 to show the subtle differences. For one thing, the screws for the Type I are longer, but it's really hard to tell the difference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
737 Posts
...with the exception of 'paratrooper' rifles, the JAPANESE TYPE 'I' is an interesting WWII collectable based on it's small production numbers,
whether it was 60,000 to 120,000 units built in Italy.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,142 Posts
actually Geladen, this rifle isn't even close to a type 38 rifle which is why this discussion is important. pointing out the differences such as a unique stock, unique bolt body, type 38 bands, carcano butt plate, carcano bolt internals, etc. will help folks understand that this rifle is not really a copy of either a 38 or a carcano, but rather a hybrid of both rifles with unique features found ONLY on this rifle. therefore, it is best accepted that the type I is a rifle unto itself, not a copy of a 38.
 

·
Platinum Bullet Member and Certified Curmudgeon
Joined
·
15,479 Posts
actually Geladen, this rifle isn't even close to a type 38 rifle
I suppose that depends on how you define "close". I submit to you that the Type I (except receiver and bolt) is a lot closer in design to the Type 38 than is the Type 99 to the Type 38.

No one ever claimed that Type I and Type 38 parts were interchangeable, only that they appeared very similar.

If the Japanese told the Italians to Make the Type I so that is was similar to the Type 38 and therefore familiar to Japanese troops, I would say it is fair to say it was a copy of the Type 38. There are close copies in which an atempt is made to match dimensions and there are not-so-close copies in which a similar appearance is all that is required. "Copy" does not equal "replica".

Go ahead and measure the parts if you feel it gains you anything.

Regards,
Bill
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,142 Posts
Bill,

you are seriously missing the point of this post. A copy means just that a copy of the original. a copy is NOT close enough, or well it kinda looks like that. if a copy did mean that, we would all be a world of hurt when we use a "get somewhat close to the original" machine when making copies of your tax forms. measurements of minute parts are not the goal, but rather a general overall consensus of the parts that comprise this rifle. interchangeability is the determining factor in this case which means the stock cannot be interchanged with a 38 as well as other various major components. your analogy of the 99 to 38 comparison makes little to no sense as we can all clearly see the common attributes that the 99 and 38 share. from muzzle to butt, they are much alike. interchangeable parts? some are, yes but most are not which is why a type 99 is NOT a copy of a 38. the same rule applies in this comparison of a 38 to a type I. I'm sure you are going to be stuck on a replica/copy/doppleganger whatever you want to call it but by no means would anyone mistake a type I for a 38 after seeing both in the flesh.
 

·
Platinum Bullet Member and Certified Curmudgeon
Joined
·
15,479 Posts
It is amazing to me that two intelligent people can communicate in writing and totally misunderstand each other.

Your personal definition of "copy" apparently means "exact replica". Measuring parts can prove the Type I is not an exact replica of the Type 38.

But nobody ever claimed it was. It has always been understood (at least by me) that the Type I was intentionally designed as a copy to "look like" a Type 38. That the two are not identical is known and does not need to be proven. Interchangeability of parts was never claimed.

You present me with an accurate drawing of a Type 38 rifle. I take a piece of paper and a pencil and draw a copy of the original drawing. My copy may not be completely accurate. You may say that my copy is a poor copy, or an inaccurate copy, but you can not say that my drawing is not a copy. It is a copy because it looks like the original in general appearance.

That's the last I care to say on this subject.

Regards,
Bill
 
1 - 20 of 35 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top