Gunplummer
New member
Just out of general curiosity, anybody know what the "Type I" 6.5 rifle was designated as by the Japanese? I often thought that was something we hung on it.
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.
7.7x58 jap ammo
- Thread starter akinswi
- Start date
Hi, Gunplummer, if you find out, let me know. I have been digging around for a long time and can't find the answer. I am not even sure the Japanese didn't call it that.
Hi, 44AMP, I think the confusion was probably more for modern collectors than for the Japanese. The 7.7 rimless was issued only in clips that fit the Type 99 rifle. The 7.7 semi-rimmed was issued only in feed strips for the Type 92 HMG, and the 7.7 rimmed (.303 British) was issued only to the Navy for their Lewis guns. So there would be few if any chances for confusion.
I think there would have been greater chance for a mixup with the two types of rifle ammo, but they reportedly made sure a given regiment or division had only one caliber rifle.
Jim
Hi, 44AMP, I think the confusion was probably more for modern collectors than for the Japanese. The 7.7 rimless was issued only in clips that fit the Type 99 rifle. The 7.7 semi-rimmed was issued only in feed strips for the Type 92 HMG, and the 7.7 rimmed (.303 British) was issued only to the Navy for their Lewis guns. So there would be few if any chances for confusion.
I think there would have been greater chance for a mixup with the two types of rifle ammo, but they reportedly made sure a given regiment or division had only one caliber rifle.
Jim
Mike Irwin
Staff
Regarding 0 vs 00 designation, the Japanese made a conscious decision to start at 0 and use single digits until they got to 10.
That designation system was supplemented by the Ki designation used for various types of aircraft.
The entire Japanese procurement and designation system was a boondoggle in large part because the Army and Navy were so competitive and often very much in conflict with each other.
That designation system was supplemented by the Ki designation used for various types of aircraft.
The entire Japanese procurement and designation system was a boondoggle in large part because the Army and Navy were so competitive and often very much in conflict with each other.
Reportedly, the services agreed to split Zero production and the Army insisted on its half, even though they were not using the aircraft and didn't need them, while the Navy was desperate for more carrier fighters.
The army usually got their way because an army general was prime minster; the good of the country had nothing to do with it.
Almost sounds like the Pentagon today, doesn't it?
Jim
The army usually got their way because an army general was prime minster; the good of the country had nothing to do with it.
Almost sounds like the Pentagon today, doesn't it?
Jim
Mike Irwin
Staff
Zero production was never split. The Army and Navy had their own design and production channels, and rarely shared anything the intraservice rivalry was that strong.
The Type 1 Ki-43 "Oscar," the IJA's primary fighter during much of the war, bore a very strong resemblance to the Zero fighter and often caused quite a bit of confusion among Allied pilots.
Later in the war, as the IJN's carrier forces were whittled down and the Navy's role became progressively more marginalized by the simple fact that there were fewer and fewer places for them to place aircraft as the Allies island hopped across the pacific, many of the remaining Zeros were assigned to defend the home islands and to serve as Kamikazis.
The Army was primarily in charge of home island defense, so it would have been in charge of whatever Zeros were left, but they were always flown by Naval aviators, not Army aviators.
The Type 1 Ki-43 "Oscar," the IJA's primary fighter during much of the war, bore a very strong resemblance to the Zero fighter and often caused quite a bit of confusion among Allied pilots.
Later in the war, as the IJN's carrier forces were whittled down and the Navy's role became progressively more marginalized by the simple fact that there were fewer and fewer places for them to place aircraft as the Allies island hopped across the pacific, many of the remaining Zeros were assigned to defend the home islands and to serve as Kamikazis.
The Army was primarily in charge of home island defense, so it would have been in charge of whatever Zeros were left, but they were always flown by Naval aviators, not Army aviators.
@ sport
I will never buy a gun from that shop again, i thought i was getting a steal on an iver johnson m1 carbine that was in great shape for 400.00 shot 100 rds thru it and it wouldnt cycle also the firing pin was also broke because there were no strikes, no big deal easy fix, still was having cycling issues the flipping gas piston was broken in half everybody i talk to couldnt believe it. So i had to fix firing pin and gas piston for carbine to work.
Now that i find out that the arisaka shoots 30-06 instead of 7.7 really ****** me off. There not doing my transfers any more either.
I will never buy a gun from that shop again, i thought i was getting a steal on an iver johnson m1 carbine that was in great shape for 400.00 shot 100 rds thru it and it wouldnt cycle also the firing pin was also broke because there were no strikes, no big deal easy fix, still was having cycling issues the flipping gas piston was broken in half everybody i talk to couldnt believe it. So i had to fix firing pin and gas piston for carbine to work.
Now that i find out that the arisaka shoots 30-06 instead of 7.7 really ****** me off. There not doing my transfers any more either.
tahunua001
New member
amen to that, something like failing to verify that a gun has been rechambered is forgiveable IMO since most gun shops just list what is on the barrel anyway but an M1 carbine that is completely trashed and being sold as operational draws the line for me, 2 strikes and you're out in my book.