I found a Arisaka type 99 at my local LGS, they want $399. The stock has separated at the join line and the bolt dust cover and monopod are missing. Is this a good price?
This persistent myth has been repeatedly proven false, particularly in recent years.Very few guns have these original parts, as the Japanese soldiers themselves ditched the dust covers whenever they could get away with it.
The Imperial Mum has been ground off. as I understand it that could have been done by the Japanese after surrenderOnly if you've got money to waste. Of course, some people do, and my opinion is formed from having had several when $125 was a lot to pay for one.
OK, dust cover and monopod missing...this is the usual condition. Very few guns have these original parts, as the Japanese soldiers themselves ditched the dust covers whenever they could get away with it. Is the chrysanthemum intact, or defaced? Makes a difference to collectors. AA sights? correct for certain vintage, deleted on late models.
Ballistics are essentially identical to the .303 British, same bullet at the same speed. Case is different though. Ammo is a niche item, its out there, but spendy. New brass is where and if you find it. Functional cases can be made from .30-06.
Stocks often separate at the joints both butt and forearm. This is common because the glue used has simply "died of old age". As long as the wood is in good shape they can be cleaned and reglued.
The Imperial Mum has been ground off. as I understand it that could have been done by the Japanese after surrender
Yes. It comes off with the bolt.Does the bolt cover have to come off to remove the bolt from the receiver?
That is one theory that I believe to be somewhat true, and do support."A lot" of Arisakas have mismatched bolts; nobody bothered to grab a bolt cover from the pile when installing random bolts in surrendered rifles?
I have to disagree with you on that. My father was in WWII and fought in the South Pacific including the battle for Iwo Jima. He said that you could tell where a new platoon of Japanese had been for all the Arisaka accessories on the ground. The most common was the dust covers.This persistent myth has been repeatedly proven false, particularly in recent years.
Americans ditched the dust covers. The Japanese did not.
It is exceptionally common for dust covers to be missing - especially original dust covers.
But it was not the Japanese that tossed them.
If you want an interesting and at least somewhat enjoyable way of disproving or supporting the myth for yourself, via photographic evidence, spend a few hours browsing WWII archive collections.
I have spent around a hundred hours of my own time, as part of a group of people seeking evidence of actual field use (and what type of use) of various variants of firearms in WWI and WWII. Noting the absence of a dust cover on Jap rifles in the possession of Japanese soldiers is one of the smaller, secondary data points (for an upcoming book).
To date, all of the photographs and accompanying reports (when available) support the Japs keeping the dust covers.
But as soon as the rifles show up in the hands of Americans, Brits, or Aussies, the dust covers are magically missing.
We Americans have had it wrong ... forever.