I have read that the Japanese used a cartridge from a British machine gun. But, the Japanese took ideas from whomever was best. For their navy, it was the British. For the Army, it was first the French and then the Germans after France lost in the Franco-Prussian war. As strong as the T99's action is ( not last ditch ), the receiver should be able to take the pressure. I don't know the metallurgy of guns so I don't understand why one rifle can be called high pressure and another is not when the receivers can take the pressure.
Arisaka 99, 7.7 ammo
- Thread starter Ukrainitz
- Start date
I don’t tell people to shoot 3006 in 7.7 Jap. I said that I personally saw it done. Guy did smack bolt with heel of his hand to get closed. When fired it had hollow sound and was not accurate. Bullets went through target sideways. Books are fine there is a lot of smarts in them, not always the case in the real world. The quality of the Type 99 7.7mm differed greatly as war progressed and Japs were in trouble with their war industries. Guys gobble about how strong they were. Heat treated was hit and miss once their factories were bombed and they were making up rifles as cottage industry. I wouldn’t be afraid to say their tolerances were generous to say the least. Now I do think it a barracks rumor that japs did oversized chambers to fire our ammo. I also know guys who formed 7.7 out of 3006 and did trim to length. Don’t know about accuracy but they used same bullet as me .311” Sierra.
My dad was the town electrician after WW2. He made many floor lamps out of Jap rifles. If guy had a 98 dad would try to talk him out of it. I recently bought a 7.7 Jap that still had Provo tags on it. Had dust cover and aircraft sights, seal intact. Gave $100 for it. Bro was laughing about it but wasn’t when I sold it.
My dad was the town electrician after WW2. He made many floor lamps out of Jap rifles. If guy had a 98 dad would try to talk him out of it. I recently bought a 7.7 Jap that still had Provo tags on it. Had dust cover and aircraft sights, seal intact. Gave $100 for it. Bro was laughing about it but wasn’t when I sold it.
Every nation has interservice rivalry, but none so famous as Japan did through WWII. Sometimes I think that their Army chose one thing just because it wasn't what their Navy chose...
Here's a tidbit, Japanese Navy aircraft used the same throttle system the British did. (also the same system Germany and the United States used) to increase throttle, you pushed the lever forward.
Japanese Army aircraft used the French system. To increase throttle, you pulled the lever back....
Because its not about what the receivers can take...it's about what the intended design (operating) pressure of the cartridges.
Action strength, beyond that needed to safely contain the intended operating pressure (with the appropriate safety margin -proof testing) does not matter.
Blow up limits of the action DOES NOT MATTER. Safe working levels are what matter. And while, in the beginning it is often the action that determines what that level will be, after that is set for the cartridge, changing to a stronger action doesn't change the acceptable pressure limits for the round. USUALLY....
Look at the smokeless powder military rounds designed before 1900. They are in the 40-45000psi range. Most of them stayed there, and are still there today, no matter what action they are put in. Rounds designed (or revamped) after 1900 are generally in the 50,000+psi range.
Remember, particularly with military rounds, its not about what the action can take, or what the top possible performance is, its about what WORKS WELL ENOUGH to do the job the military wants done.
Don't confuse what an action will take with what the military chooses to use in it. The classic US example is the .30-06. GI .30-06 settled on a 150gr @ approx 2750fps. This load was kept as long as the military used the 06. Civilian ammo makers went beyond the GI levels and today you find 150gr .30-06 commercial ammo in the 2900+fps range.
When the US Army decided to replace the 06, they KEPT the same downrange performance specs, same bullet, same speed, because it worked. They didn't go with a more powerful round, they went with proven performance in a smaller package (7.62NATO) which meant higher pressure, but the military advantages to the shorter, lighter round were what mattered most. Also note that commercial .308 Winchester ammo is loaded faster than the GI stuff, as well.
SO, with the 7.7mm Arisaka, (adopted in 1939) the Japanese sought to recreate the performance of the .303 British and did so in a case better suited to bolt actions and automatics than the rimmed .303.
They could have chosen a hotter load, the rifles would take it, but they CHOSE not to. Because they didn't see a need to.
I've formed 7.7 from .30-06 and it works well enough. I used the .312" Hornady and it shoots what I would expect from the gun. Never had any Japanese ammo to compare it with, so I can't say it is or isn't more accurate than the issue stuff, but its on a par with Mausers I've had. Some individual rifles shoot better than others...
I used 06 brass because I had a bunch of it. I could have used 8mm Mauser, but didn't want to convert any of my more limited supply of that, so I used the plentiful 06 even though it meant more work trimming.
By the published specs its not a perfect fit, but it works well enough and I haven't shot them enough to worry about case life.
Here's a tidbit, Japanese Navy aircraft used the same throttle system the British did. (also the same system Germany and the United States used) to increase throttle, you pushed the lever forward.
Japanese Army aircraft used the French system. To increase throttle, you pulled the lever back....
Because its not about what the receivers can take...it's about what the intended design (operating) pressure of the cartridges.
Action strength, beyond that needed to safely contain the intended operating pressure (with the appropriate safety margin -proof testing) does not matter.
Blow up limits of the action DOES NOT MATTER. Safe working levels are what matter. And while, in the beginning it is often the action that determines what that level will be, after that is set for the cartridge, changing to a stronger action doesn't change the acceptable pressure limits for the round. USUALLY....
Look at the smokeless powder military rounds designed before 1900. They are in the 40-45000psi range. Most of them stayed there, and are still there today, no matter what action they are put in. Rounds designed (or revamped) after 1900 are generally in the 50,000+psi range.
Remember, particularly with military rounds, its not about what the action can take, or what the top possible performance is, its about what WORKS WELL ENOUGH to do the job the military wants done.
Don't confuse what an action will take with what the military chooses to use in it. The classic US example is the .30-06. GI .30-06 settled on a 150gr @ approx 2750fps. This load was kept as long as the military used the 06. Civilian ammo makers went beyond the GI levels and today you find 150gr .30-06 commercial ammo in the 2900+fps range.
When the US Army decided to replace the 06, they KEPT the same downrange performance specs, same bullet, same speed, because it worked. They didn't go with a more powerful round, they went with proven performance in a smaller package (7.62NATO) which meant higher pressure, but the military advantages to the shorter, lighter round were what mattered most. Also note that commercial .308 Winchester ammo is loaded faster than the GI stuff, as well.
SO, with the 7.7mm Arisaka, (adopted in 1939) the Japanese sought to recreate the performance of the .303 British and did so in a case better suited to bolt actions and automatics than the rimmed .303.
They could have chosen a hotter load, the rifles would take it, but they CHOSE not to. Because they didn't see a need to.
I've formed 7.7 from .30-06 and it works well enough. I used the .312" Hornady and it shoots what I would expect from the gun. Never had any Japanese ammo to compare it with, so I can't say it is or isn't more accurate than the issue stuff, but its on a par with Mausers I've had. Some individual rifles shoot better than others...
I used 06 brass because I had a bunch of it. I could have used 8mm Mauser, but didn't want to convert any of my more limited supply of that, so I used the plentiful 06 even though it meant more work trimming.
By the published specs its not a perfect fit, but it works well enough and I haven't shot them enough to worry about case life.
FrankenMauser
New member
If that is the case, then it was not 7.7x58mm and .312" bore.
Sounds like .30-06 in a larger chamber and/or bore, like 8mm-06, .338-06, .35 Whelen, etc.
Or the other way around - 7.7x58mm in a larger chamber.
.30-06 working in a 7.7x58mm chamber is absolute Fuddlore.
...Like Garand ping getting soldiers killed.
the "Garand ping" did get some soldiers killed. Enemy ones, from what some vets said.
Pretty rare but there were times when the enemy was close enough AND battle noise low enough that they could hear the distinctive "ping" when the Garand clip ejected, and then they "knew" they had a couple seconds while the GI reloaded, to pop up and fire, or charge, or whatever...
Several guys who were there, and did it, have told me that the GIs quickly learned to take advantage of that. There were two common ways, one was they GIs worked in pairs, one firing and the other waiting until the enemy "heard the ping" and came out, then the guy with the full rifle shot them.
The other way was to toss an empty clip against a rock or something else so it would "ping", and then shoot the enemy when they came out thinking you were empty.
Was also told that it didn't always work, but once in a while, it would...
FrankenMauser
New member
I know two authors and a researcher that have exhaustively researched "garand ping".
All indications point to the concept being a joke played on new recruits; or apocryphal stories created for entertainment value or to disparage the Garand.
Plenty of vets tell the stories. Yet, nothing about it can be found in field reports, after action reports, journals, diaries, etc.; unless coming from a source already known to be questionable or apocryphal.
All indications point to the concept being a joke played on new recruits; or apocryphal stories created for entertainment value or to disparage the Garand.
Plenty of vets tell the stories. Yet, nothing about it can be found in field reports, after action reports, journals, diaries, etc.; unless coming from a source already known to be questionable or apocryphal.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"It was said Japs could fire our 30/06 ammo in the Arisaka 7.7mm. This is possible but not practical."
No. No it's not. Unless you have a very large hammer that you use to smash the bolt shut so as to collapse the .30-06's longer case.
Yes, it MIGHT be possible with the odd rifle that's badly worn or badly constructed, but it was NOT an intentional program by the Empire of Japan's ordnance people that they would be able to shoot US ammo in their guns.
This has been said so many times over the last 100 years about various cartridges it's almost cliche...
Those Huns could shoot our bullets at us, but we couldn't use theirs in our guns!
Those crafty Japs designed their guns so they could shoot our ammo!
Those godless Commies can use our ammo against us in their guns, but not the other way around!
Absolute silliness that's easily disproven with about 10 seconds of critical examination.
There is only really one situation in which this could have occurred, and it was with 60 and 81mm mortars based on the design originated by the Edgar Brandt company in France.
France, Italy, Russia, China, and the United States adopted the basic design and its ammunition which, in large part, could be used in any of the mortars based on that design by any nation.
Germany and Japan also put captured Brandt-designed mortars into service.
No. No it's not. Unless you have a very large hammer that you use to smash the bolt shut so as to collapse the .30-06's longer case.
Yes, it MIGHT be possible with the odd rifle that's badly worn or badly constructed, but it was NOT an intentional program by the Empire of Japan's ordnance people that they would be able to shoot US ammo in their guns.
This has been said so many times over the last 100 years about various cartridges it's almost cliche...
Those Huns could shoot our bullets at us, but we couldn't use theirs in our guns!
Those crafty Japs designed their guns so they could shoot our ammo!
Those godless Commies can use our ammo against us in their guns, but not the other way around!
Absolute silliness that's easily disproven with about 10 seconds of critical examination.
There is only really one situation in which this could have occurred, and it was with 60 and 81mm mortars based on the design originated by the Edgar Brandt company in France.
France, Italy, Russia, China, and the United States adopted the basic design and its ammunition which, in large part, could be used in any of the mortars based on that design by any nation.
Germany and Japan also put captured Brandt-designed mortars into service.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"What I will say, however is that an individual rifle with enough "slop" to allow that is not a good representative of the entire production run."
Actually, it's a perfect example of a gun that should not, under any circumstances, be fired.
My guess, however, is that this was not a badly worn gun... it was a post-war home gunsmith job in which someone ran a .30-06 reamer down an Arisaka barrel so that it could be used as a single shot.
It might even still fire 7.7 Arisaka ammo if the extractor is strong enough to hold the case in place.
Actually, it's a perfect example of a gun that should not, under any circumstances, be fired.
My guess, however, is that this was not a badly worn gun... it was a post-war home gunsmith job in which someone ran a .30-06 reamer down an Arisaka barrel so that it could be used as a single shot.
It might even still fire 7.7 Arisaka ammo if the extractor is strong enough to hold the case in place.
Jim Watson
New member
There was a previous moderator of this board who was adamant that the 7.7 Arisaka was DESIGNED to have a .30-06 cartridge rammed in by a desperate IJA troop out of proper ammo but intent on shooting just one more American.
Which means that they were planning on a losing war with the USA in 1939.
Poppycock.
Which means that they were planning on a losing war with the USA in 1939.
Poppycock.
I have nothing to support this idea but I think that the Japanese being resource limited adopted a cartridge that could use international ammo components. Resizing 8mm Mauser casings was possible. Soviet, British, and American bullets could be used. Given the strength of the receiver, you could pour the powder straight into your case and re-assemble it to shoot. I suppose a 30-06 can be shot in aT99. The bolt would have to be wired or tied closed. This would enable the soldier to take one shot and then do a bayonet charge I suppose.
My T99 which was built in 1942 would never take a 30-06. Late war models? Can't say.
I have pressed my 8x57 empties into service for reloading and they have worked splendidly. I have sold all of my 8mm rifles, so I feel very safe doing this now. I've also done shaped some 30-06 brass for reloading. The common Mauser-sized base is nice. But the resemblance ends there.
I've heard of Type 38 rifles being reamed out to 257x57 and 6.5x57 wildcats. I've seen some for sale online. I know that the US did re-jig some to shoot 30-06 for Korea by grinding down some of the receiver. I seen online some bring backs that had this done to them as well, so a stock Type 99 just seems too tight to fit 30-06.
Also, I think that the Japanese Imperial attitude would never consider a rifle designed around a scenario where the superior IJA/IJN would have to scrounge from their opponents.
I have pressed my 8x57 empties into service for reloading and they have worked splendidly. I have sold all of my 8mm rifles, so I feel very safe doing this now. I've also done shaped some 30-06 brass for reloading. The common Mauser-sized base is nice. But the resemblance ends there.
I've heard of Type 38 rifles being reamed out to 257x57 and 6.5x57 wildcats. I've seen some for sale online. I know that the US did re-jig some to shoot 30-06 for Korea by grinding down some of the receiver. I seen online some bring backs that had this done to them as well, so a stock Type 99 just seems too tight to fit 30-06.
Also, I think that the Japanese Imperial attitude would never consider a rifle designed around a scenario where the superior IJA/IJN would have to scrounge from their opponents.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"I have nothing to support this idea but I think that the Japanese being resource limited adopted a cartridge that could use international ammo components."
Yeah, that doesn't really hold up to close scrutiny.
By the time the 7.7 round was designed virtually every nation in the world that had something nearing a military of any note had adopted a nominal .30-caliber cartridge of roughly the same power.
The Japanese knew the deficiencies in the 6.5 mm round in the same way that the Italians knew of the deficiencies in their 6.5mm round. The Italians also attempted to step up to a nominally .30-caliber round.
The Japanese military also adopted artillery pieces in 37, 47, 75, 100, 120, and 150mm, which were all common across most nations of the world.
Did they do that with the idea that they could somehow slam a British 6 pound shell and powder (47mm) into the case for one of their 47mm guns and make it go bang?
No. Just no.
Yeah, that doesn't really hold up to close scrutiny.
By the time the 7.7 round was designed virtually every nation in the world that had something nearing a military of any note had adopted a nominal .30-caliber cartridge of roughly the same power.
The Japanese knew the deficiencies in the 6.5 mm round in the same way that the Italians knew of the deficiencies in their 6.5mm round. The Italians also attempted to step up to a nominally .30-caliber round.
The Japanese military also adopted artillery pieces in 37, 47, 75, 100, 120, and 150mm, which were all common across most nations of the world.
Did they do that with the idea that they could somehow slam a British 6 pound shell and powder (47mm) into the case for one of their 47mm guns and make it go bang?
No. Just no.
The 6 pounder is 57mm.
Other than that, Mike is right.
NO nation ever armed its troops with the deliberate intention of their using enemy ammunition. And, even if they had, i strongly doubt you would find anything official stating that.
One of the main points of every nation having its own proprietary arms was so that the other side couldn't use captured ammo, outside of when they captured the guns as well.
I think you are superimposing your sense of priorities over the Japanese mindset, and there is no evidence that they Japanese thought that way. While the Japanese could, and did use anything they captured that was immediately useful and functional, there is no evidence they ever bothered with "reclaiming" raw materials from most captured things, including small arms ammo.
They used one of our gunboats, captured in China. They used the M3 light tanks they captured when the Philippines surrendered. We fought those tanks in 44.
They took territory for its raw materials (or military value of location). Think about it, supply of British or Russian bullets? German brass?? these are things that you MIGHT encounter limited supplies of, but not something you can count on getting. Raw materials are where they are, and you don't have to unmake them then make them into something you can use.
War makes for some unexpected situations, and troops will often use everything they can get that works as long as it works, but war PLANNING (even the Japanese) relies on predictable, reliable things.
When you take someplace for its oil or its iron, you can't count on getting the refinery intact, but the stuff in the ground is STILL going to be there...
Other than that, Mike is right.
NO nation ever armed its troops with the deliberate intention of their using enemy ammunition. And, even if they had, i strongly doubt you would find anything official stating that.
One of the main points of every nation having its own proprietary arms was so that the other side couldn't use captured ammo, outside of when they captured the guns as well.
I think you are superimposing your sense of priorities over the Japanese mindset, and there is no evidence that they Japanese thought that way. While the Japanese could, and did use anything they captured that was immediately useful and functional, there is no evidence they ever bothered with "reclaiming" raw materials from most captured things, including small arms ammo.
They used one of our gunboats, captured in China. They used the M3 light tanks they captured when the Philippines surrendered. We fought those tanks in 44.
They took territory for its raw materials (or military value of location). Think about it, supply of British or Russian bullets? German brass?? these are things that you MIGHT encounter limited supplies of, but not something you can count on getting. Raw materials are where they are, and you don't have to unmake them then make them into something you can use.
War makes for some unexpected situations, and troops will often use everything they can get that works as long as it works, but war PLANNING (even the Japanese) relies on predictable, reliable things.
When you take someplace for its oil or its iron, you can't count on getting the refinery intact, but the stuff in the ground is STILL going to be there...
Jim Watson
New member
Isn't it ironic that these days, a 6.5mm infantry rifle would be the step up.
I think the Japanese would have been ahead of the game to have stuck with the 6.5 rifle and LMG and 7.7 semi-rim HMG.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"The 6 pounder is 57mm."
Oopsie...
Yep, it was. And the Japanese had a number of 57 mm guns, from a low velocity tank gun to a high-velocity anti-tank gun (cancelled after American Shermans and Soviet T-34s began to appear).
Oopsie...
Yep, it was. And the Japanese had a number of 57 mm guns, from a low velocity tank gun to a high-velocity anti-tank gun (cancelled after American Shermans and Soviet T-34s began to appear).
Mike Irwin
Staff
"Isn't it ironic that these days, a 6.5mm infantry rifle would be the step up."
It's a balancing act.
What the Japanese and Italians both found is that the 6.5s were OK rifle rounds, especially after adoption of spitzer-style bullets, they really didn't have the longer-range punch that the .30-caliber class rounds had, especially in machine guns.
That led the Italians to adopt the Breda Model 37 in 8mm as an adjunct to the 6.5mm and 7.35mm rounds. Plans were for the 7.35 to eventually surplant the 6.5, but the 8mm would have stayed in service as the heavy MG round.
The Japanese, on the other hand, decided to move towards a unified cartridge concept -- 7.7mm across the board, but as with the Italians, they were never able to get there due to budget and war issues.
The US keeps toying around with replacing the 5.56 round, but with the adoption of the designated marksman and the M240 fielding the 7.62 round and providing the punch at longer ranges I really don't think that the 5.56 is going to be replaced any time soon.
It's a balancing act.
What the Japanese and Italians both found is that the 6.5s were OK rifle rounds, especially after adoption of spitzer-style bullets, they really didn't have the longer-range punch that the .30-caliber class rounds had, especially in machine guns.
That led the Italians to adopt the Breda Model 37 in 8mm as an adjunct to the 6.5mm and 7.35mm rounds. Plans were for the 7.35 to eventually surplant the 6.5, but the 8mm would have stayed in service as the heavy MG round.
The Japanese, on the other hand, decided to move towards a unified cartridge concept -- 7.7mm across the board, but as with the Italians, they were never able to get there due to budget and war issues.
The US keeps toying around with replacing the 5.56 round, but with the adoption of the designated marksman and the M240 fielding the 7.62 round and providing the punch at longer ranges I really don't think that the 5.56 is going to be replaced any time soon.
Ukrainitz,
I see your post is near two weeks old, and hope you had a bit of luck finding some factory ammo for your "Jap 7-7." That's what we called ours back when I was a kid. I shot my first deer with our "7-7" back in the late 60s when I was still in high school. Norma was the only store bought ammo we could get back then, and it was always 150 grain soft points. We had a great hardware store our family got most of our guns and ammo from back in those times.
Just for the curiosity, I looked up Norma ammo for your rifle, and all that was shown was 174 grainers, and every site I look at said, "out of stock." Midway even said, "no backorder." These times, these times... I hope you can find some Norma's down the trail, and at some point soon.
I see your post is near two weeks old, and hope you had a bit of luck finding some factory ammo for your "Jap 7-7." That's what we called ours back when I was a kid. I shot my first deer with our "7-7" back in the late 60s when I was still in high school. Norma was the only store bought ammo we could get back then, and it was always 150 grain soft points. We had a great hardware store our family got most of our guns and ammo from back in those times.
Just for the curiosity, I looked up Norma ammo for your rifle, and all that was shown was 174 grainers, and every site I look at said, "out of stock." Midway even said, "no backorder." These times, these times... I hope you can find some Norma's down the trail, and at some point soon.
I always understood that the safety was meant to be worked with the heel of the hand. Seems awkward, but does work, and it does have the advantage of being able to be done silently, without the click of many other rifle types.
Am not sure if that was done intentionally, or if was just serendipity of the design, though I'm sure it was used to an advantage by someone, sometime, somewhere...including a deer hunter with a bringback rifle...
Push in, turn very simple. Not what we're used to but very simple and quiet..
Am not sure if that was done intentionally, or if was just serendipity of the design, though I'm sure it was used to an advantage by someone, sometime, somewhere...including a deer hunter with a bringback rifle...
Push in, turn very simple. Not what we're used to but very simple and quiet..