Anchor and Flower Marking

[ff_emtdehaan]

Few years back I built a shed at my house and found 2 rifles and a shotgun in the dirt. I"m trying to find out any information I can on them. They obvisouly are not in the best of shape but I am still curious about them.

Thank you

[polishshooter]

I'm 99% sure the military rifle is an early model Naval Special Type 99 Arisaka rifle.

It was pretty similar to the standard type 99 BUT the receiver was made out of cast iron, and it had a one piece stock and not a two piece like a standard Arisaka. The main difference was the bolt had the oval shaped knob and the bolt locked into the barrel chamber and not the receiver.

Plus it was marked with an Anchor, and not the mum, BUT I do not have a picture of it to be sure it was THAT anchor stamp.

It's a shame, since only 14,000 were made, and it would be work some serious cash if it was in better condition than that.

The only thing that throws me is it should have guards around the front sight, but maybe it was removed.

[Buffalochip]

The bolt release, floor plate release, and trigger guard are also different from the standard Type 99. It may never have had the aircraft sighting wings. What a shame. That old Winchester would have been worth a pretty penny too.

[Helix_FR]

Your Winchester find is a Winchester 37 break barrel shot gun. Very common and millions made. The only ones that are worth really any good money are the red letter 37's. Unfortunately there is no way to find out now. Defiantly not the right pad for that gun though.

[Jim K]

That Japanese rifle is a training rifle and IIRC the "Navy Special" rifle was found to be a myth, started when some trainers were seen with that anchor marking. The actual meaning of the anchor mark is unknown, though it might have indicated issue to a "Navy ROTC" or something of the sort. In any event, the rifles were intended for firing 6.5 blank cartridges only and not live ammo of any caliber. The one-piece cast receiver and fairly crude internal parts are clear signs of a training rifle, not a serious weapon. If ff_emtdehaan wants to check, I think he will find that the rear part of the barrel is made as part of the receiver and that the barrel itself is just a steel tube without rifling.

Jim

[ff_emtdehaan]

Thanks Jim. I will check that and report back with what I find. I pretty much assume these aren't worth anything anymore with the exception of maybe an interesting story.

[polishshooter]

Huh, Jim. Where did you read that the Naval Special Type 99s were a myth? That is interesting.

That receiver looks pretty close to the picture of the early model Naval Special Type 99 receiver in McCollum's 1996 version of his book, although his does not have the anchor pictured. The later "Last Ditch" Naval Special 99s he has pictured look pretty close to the training rifles he also has pictured, but he notes the differences pretty well.

So far I haven't found much better research on Japanese Rifles than McCollum's, but I have read a few more sources as well that weren't as detailed as his, and he has been spot on with any Arisakas I or my son have owned or researched.

That's why I am curious how you know it is a "myth?"

[ff_emtdehaan]

Jim,
It appears to be separate pieces. However it is hard to tell due to the amount of rust on the barrel and receiver. I tried to look for rifling in the barrel but its pitted pretty bad and clogged up full of dirt.

[polishshooter]

And as far as the crude internal parts, I do not see that at all! There is a definitive trigger and sear, and the definitive mauser type bolt release, as well as a sharply defined magazine well and other internals.

Besides that most training rifles had cast fixed rear sights and that one is clearly adjustable with noitches and screws evident, more in line with a typical type 99.

Now I am NOT sure, because it has many features of a typical Type 99 but without the guards on the front sight it looks more like a "last ditch" which throws me a little, but it is not uncommon for models to show characteristics of earlier and later models...for instance my son's almost pristine Kokura Type 38 has a non-typical CUPPED buttplate which is definitely standard but is non-typical for his series date of manufacture.

I see lots of evidence that it is NOT a crude "training Rifle," while I cannot ABSOLUTELY claim that it is a Naval Special Type 99, the first I have ever heard that the Naval Special Service rifle is a "myth" is from Jim today which is why I wanted to know his sources. I am always ready to learn..

McCollum states that while yes they had cast iron RECEIVERS, they had separate RIFLED steel barrels and the bolts locked up in the barrel chambers and not the cast iron receivers like the training rifles, and yes they were meant to the fire standard 7.7 ammo of the Type 99s, although granted, probably not as well!

The last thing is most training rifles had the "School" kanji symbol on top of the Receiver, which with the still easily seen anchor should be visible below it and it is not. Any 6.5 training rifle would have been an actual type 38 taken from service or built from random parts, but would still have the 'School" markings. Any training rifles should also have extra "0s" stamped in front of or behind the series/serial numbers on the receiver. The rifles meant to fire the blank cartridges SHOULD also have visible markings in Japanese warning "For Blank cartridges only" which I do not see.

Lastly, all Training and school "rifles" had large characters burned or pressed into the stocks, and I see none of that, but granted they could be worn off.

Tell me what you want for the rifle, I am upset I let my CRFFL expire last year or it would be no problem to ship it to me, I will research whether you can send me an inoperable rifle in the mails, because I would like to clean it up and research it myself directly.

[Helix_FR]

I don't know about all the markings on the training rifles. I have a Japanese type 38 hanging on my wall. It was a bring back from my grandfather. It has the same mum with anchor marking but the bore was smooth. Everything else about the gun was identical to the standard type 38. No other marking are on the gun.

[Jim K]

The Japanese rifles, both Type 38 and Type 99, have Metford rifling which sometimes can look almost like a smooth bore. But if your rifle really has a smooth bore, it is probably not a Type 38, but a training rifle. Does it say "38 Type" on the receiver ring? Is the rear tang separate from the receiver or made part of it?


Jim

[45Auto]

Jim K. nailed it, as he usually dose The old Japanese rifle is a training rifle, not made to shoot live ammo. Anyone with more than a passing interest might want to get a copy of Honeycutt's book Rifles of Imperial Japan.

It's unfortunate that this nice old trainer is so far gone. Not much good for anything but parts at this point.

[ff_emtdehaan]

It has no legible marking anywhere on it with the exception of the Anchor and Mum

[Jim K]

A "real" Japanese rifle should have both the model markings on the receiver ring and the serial number and arsenal symbol on the left receiver rail. Those markings are usually deep enough that they would not have entirely disappeared. (Yes, the Type "I" is an exception, but this is not one of those.)

Too bad about that gun, as Japanese training rifles have become a collectors' subtype and many collectors of Japanese rifles like to have one in the collection (I have three.)

They were not really "training rifles" in the meaning that they were used by soldiers for training. They were made for what would be the equivalent of our high school ROTC, a popular program in the US at the time as well, though voluntary, unlike the Japanese and German military training programs for youth, which were compulsory.

The training rifles were mostly not badly made but were intended only for firing blanks and some are marked "for blanks only". (Of course the marking is in Japanese, and some people have ignored it.)

There have been many warnings about firing live ammo in those rifles, and I certainly don't suggest it, but the danger is probably not very high, since the barrels are deliberately made way too big for any pressure to develop.

Jim

[polishshooter]

One thing we haven't established, have we, is the caliber?

It might make a big difference if we knew it as a 6.5 vs a 7.7.

I'm still not giving up on the chance it is one of the 14,000 Naval Specials....they also had no markings except the Anchor....call me stubborn...

[ff_emtdehaan]

The Japanese aspect on the rifle is very possible as there is a large Japanese sub culture out here in my part of South Jersey. The area was very popular during the war for refugee camps. Caliber I have no clue on. Would it be advisable to take a wire brush to it in different area's to look for markings or to just leave them as is, and what all areas would be good to check.

Again thank you very much for all your help with these weapons.

[whirley]

Tractor Supply Co. has an excellent rust remover in gallon jugs. Don't recall the name. Requires immersion of part, way better than naval jelly.. Excellent on tools, should work on all iron parts.

[polishshooter]

I was also wondering how you managed to stumble on these while digging around. Does it look like somebody just discarded them? Or was "stashing" or hiding them?

Maybe "Survivalists-when-Survivalism-wasn't-cool?"

I mean I have stumbled on old forgotten rusty "barn" or "attic" rifles before but usually only onesies, I was wondering what would make somebody bury or discard what essentially looks like a "typical" accumulation of "basic" guns just about any non-gun nut or hunter would have acquired over time....I mean what is more basic than a cheap but utilitarian .22, a cheap but utilitarian shotgun, and "Gramp's bring back from the war?"

[polishshooter]

Maybe Hubby dies, no kids, widow doesn't want guns around the house so she throws them out?

Maybe they were stolen from somewhere in the neighborhood way back when and when the heat was on the perp ditched them?

I mean the possibilities are endless, and I am intrigued....

I wouldn't be surprised if you kept digging around if you might not find the bolt from the Arisaka, and maybe even Uncle Joe's old nickle plated Iver Johnson .32 revolver back there!

[Jim K]

How did we go from three rusty guns, one not even real, to some kind of Japanese sub-culture stashing secret arms caches in South Jersey? Maybe a plot to assist the Imperial Japanese Army when they stormed ashore on the Atlantic City boardwalk? Come now, guys, speculation is fun, but ....

Jim

[Helix_FR]

Originally Posted by Jim K

The Japanese rifles, both Type 38 and Type 99, have Metford rifling which sometimes can look almost like a smooth bore. But if your rifle really has a smooth bore, it is probably not a Type 38, but a training rifle. Does it say "38 Type" on the receiver ring? Is the rear tang separate from the receiver or made part of it?


Jim

IIRC the rear tang was part of it but I'm going to take another look. Its been a while since its been out of its place. I am positive however it is a 38. I also have a 99 and it is completely different. Well not completely but obvious differences. Definably not metford rifling. Very obvious lands and grooves but straight, no helical at all. The metal is poor on the receiver, like a last resort, even part of it broke off and went MIA. No AA sights and the front sight is gone thanks to someone that wanted to sporterize it ie my dad when he was 20. Good thing he didn't ever use it.

[Jim K]

As always, pictures will help. Type 38's were all made under what amounted to peacetime conditions and none have the rough work and finish of the late Type 99 rifles. They all have the normal serial numbers and arsenal markings, plus the normal receiver ring marks, the three horizontal lines for "3", the ") (" symbol for "8" and the "type" or "model" symbol, and the chrysanthemum if not ground. The top tang behind the receiver is always a separate part from the receiver itself.

Training rifles vary. I have three training rifles, all different. One is a close copy of the Type 38, with a nice one-piece stock and good finish. But the bolt has no locking lugs at all, using the bolt root for its only lock. The other two have small locking lugs; one is a copy of the Type 38, the other is configured to look like a Type 99.

On all training rifles I have seen, the rear top tang is part of the receiver; on some training rifles the barrel boss (the thick part around the chamber) is also cast as part of the receiver, with a steel tube screwed into it to simulate a barrel.

Jim