You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Arisaka type 99
- Thread starter GaryED50
- Start date
Not sure on the price, but these folks seem to have a healthy assortment of parts and knowledge on the Jap rifles. http://oldguns.net/
Blindstitch
New member
Pictures would help but I'm thinking your answer is no. The last time I saw some 99's they were about $199. Even picked up a Type 38 for $189 and it shoots great.
FrankenMauser
New member
Not a good price.
Many idiots will pay such for a common rifle, but it's not a good price unless it's a (very) rare specimen.
They're pricing for boomers. But that market is dying (literally and metaphorically).
All 'traditional' collectibles are going to crash in value over the next 20 years, as the market is flooded by estate sales and "gotta make the mortgage payment on a fixed income"-offloads.
Modern collectibles are another topic.
But the Jap 99 is a 'traditional' collectible. ...And that market is tanking.
Many idiots will pay such for a common rifle, but it's not a good price unless it's a (very) rare specimen.
They're pricing for boomers. But that market is dying (literally and metaphorically).
All 'traditional' collectibles are going to crash in value over the next 20 years, as the market is flooded by estate sales and "gotta make the mortgage payment on a fixed income"-offloads.
Modern collectibles are another topic.
But the Jap 99 is a 'traditional' collectible. ...And that market is tanking.
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?
Only 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.
FrankenMauser
New member
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.
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.
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.
Gary
I very much doubt every Japanese battle rifle came with a mono pod.
Go here. Teri is a Canadian academic who plays with Japanese firearms.
http://www.nambuworld.com/arisakas.htm
Gunbroker shows 'em from $125 to over $700.
"...separated at the join line..." Suggests less than optimum condition. Condition being everything when it comes to milsurps.
"...done by the Japanese after surrender..." Douglas would not have allowed the Japanese to have a rifle after they surrendered.
Go here. Teri is a Canadian academic who plays with Japanese firearms.
http://www.nambuworld.com/arisakas.htm
Gunbroker shows 'em from $125 to over $700.
"...separated at the join line..." Suggests less than optimum condition. Condition being everything when it comes to milsurps.
"...done by the Japanese after surrender..." Douglas would not have allowed the Japanese to have a rifle after they surrendered.
The Imperial Mum has been ground off. as I understand it that could have been done by the Japanese after surrender
It could have been, there are many variations to the stories. Like the throwing away the dust cover, the popular version may not be the reality, or the most common reality.
The generally accepted version today is that the after the surrender was ordered, the Mums were ground (or otherwise defaced) to preserve Japanese honor. One set of stories has the Japanese doing it, and another has US troops doing it. Another has US troops doing it when the rifles came into the US.
The only thing we know for sure is that collectors pay more for an intact Mum rifle than for one that has been ground.
Intact Mums are assumed to be "captured" or "battlefield pick up" and therefor have a different spot in history, which some collectors pay extra to have.
FrankenMauser
New member
Yes. It comes off with the bolt.Does the bolt cover have to come off to remove the bolt from the receiver?
...And is a pain to get everything lined back up at the same time, when reinstalling. With practice, it can be done quickly. But it's still a pain, and still slower than a comparable Mauser-derived rifle.
I absolutely understand why Americans - military or civilian - ditched the dust covers. They're an annoyance that our country felt was completely unnecessary.
(Minor sidebar: Contrary to popular belief, the dust covers don't rattle, either. They fit quite nicely - even the reproductions. The bolt makes FAR more noise than the cover. On some rifles, I think the dust cover actually muffles the bolt noise.)
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?
Very difficult to prove at this point, though.
Geezerbiker
New member
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.
I can only suppose that when Type 99's were collected for souvenirs, the dust covers seemed unimportant...
Tony
FrankenMauser
New member
I mean no disrespect to the memory of your father, but that is ridiculous.
Japanese soldiers, especially new recruits, would not be casting aside standard equipment en masse. Nor do historical records support the claim.
To me, that story is on par with my grandfather saving the Yorktown (CV-10) by using his shoulder to deflect a Zero's 20mm projectile away from a torpedo on an SBD that was awaiting take off.
Sure, he was there. Sure, he was injured. Yes, he has one hell of a scar to prove it. Yes, most of the crew thought he was dead and didn't see him again until decades later. (Even though my grandfather spent another 16 years in the Navy.)
But the truth behind the story is that he was pinched in the unfolding wing of an F6F.
They're good stories, but the only reason they've survived this long is because they both play upon the stereotype of the Japanese fielding inferior equipment - and, in the case of the dust covers being tossed aside, also the stereotype of the soldiers being undisciplined and untrained.
Japanese soldiers, especially new recruits, would not be casting aside standard equipment en masse. Nor do historical records support the claim.
To me, that story is on par with my grandfather saving the Yorktown (CV-10) by using his shoulder to deflect a Zero's 20mm projectile away from a torpedo on an SBD that was awaiting take off.
Sure, he was there. Sure, he was injured. Yes, he has one hell of a scar to prove it. Yes, most of the crew thought he was dead and didn't see him again until decades later. (Even though my grandfather spent another 16 years in the Navy.)
But the truth behind the story is that he was pinched in the unfolding wing of an F6F.
They're good stories, but the only reason they've survived this long is because they both play upon the stereotype of the Japanese fielding inferior equipment - and, in the case of the dust covers being tossed aside, also the stereotype of the soldiers being undisciplined and untrained.