Arisaka Type 38 rifle?

[broskins4323]

Hello,

I have what I believe to be a WWII era Arisaka Type 38 'training' rifle. I have made the assumption that this is a training rifle primarily due to the smooth-bored barrel that it has. It also has a "mum" stamp on the top of the receiver as well as some japanese markings on the stock (both sides). Hoping the knowledgeable folks here have some information on these. Is there any other ways to know for sure this is a training rifle? What are the differences from the training rifle compared to a fully functional rifle? Can a training rifle be converted to a fully functional rifle?

 

[BogWalker]

Smooth bore would signal training/school rifle. Not safe for live loads and no way to make it safe.

 

[natdscott]

Sure way? Shoot it. (I'm completely kidding, just to be clear. In no way should you fire that weapon until you are 100% certain it is NOT a traiing rifle.)


We need photos of the rifle's receiver, specifically the left side with Serial Numbers and markings, to check into it further.

-Nate

 

[DemolitionMan]

Definitely need picks. This site is a nice guide to what markings you might expect on that type of rifle: Markings on Japanese Arisaka Rifles and Bayonets of World War II

 

[broskins4323]

Thanks for your all's quick replies. I'll get some pics up this evening for everyone to review.

 

[BogWalker]

If I remember correctly doesn't a 00 mark on the firearm signal that it was deemed unsuitable for use? Similar to British DP markings?

 

[broskins4323]

I may very well be mistaken, but I don't remember there being any serialization on the receiver. I will verify this evening when I post pics, but would this also be an indicator that this is a training rifle?

 

[BE Mike]

Hello,

I have what I believe to be a WWII era Arisaka Type 38 'training' rifle. I have made the assumption that this is a training rifle primarily due to the smooth-bored barrel that it has. It also has a "mum" stamp on the top of the receiver as well as some japanese markings on the stock (both sides). Hoping the knowledgeable folks here have some information on these. Is there any other ways to know for sure this is a training rifle? What are the differences from the training rifle compared to a fully functional rifle? Can a training rifle be converted to a fully functional rifle?

Thanks in advance for any info you all can provide.

I don't know anything about these, but I sure hope that when you find out the history you post it, along with some photos. I think a lot of us on here like to learn about different firearms and their connection to history.

 

[AmmoManAaron]

Smooth bore would signal training/school rifle. Not safe for live loads and no way to make it safe.

QFT.

 

[broskins4323]

 

[broskins4323]

Looks like the receiver and bolt both have '28' stamped on them...there are no other numbers. There is also the mum symbol on top of receiver.

 

[broskins4323]

Here are the symbols on the stock.

 

[Libertarian01]

I am going to need to do more research.

That is definitely a Japanese rifle from the bolt handle.

However, that is not a mum. It looks to be put on industrially, so I am guessing not defaced. Most confusing for me, but that doesn't take much as I don't have any Japanese rifles and haven't studied them much. As some rifles were removed from military service the Japanese removed the mum as the rifle no longer belonged to the Emperor. So this could have been post WWII, or anytime where the rifle was removed from the active Japanese military and given/sold to someone else. That is just a guess.

This will take someone with more knowledge than me.

Regards,

Doug

 

[indy1919a4]

That crest looks like a North China variant. But it looks to long to be a type 19... But there is not a lot of great records on those .

 

[red_zr24x4]

I'm no expert, but that doesn't look like any mum I've ever seen

 

[indy1919a4]

That mum is worn but it started life like this

 

[Libertarian01]

That mum is worn but it started life like this

[STRIKE]

I don't think so chief, but again no expert so I'm not 100% confident you are wrong.[/STRIKE] On second thought and inspection, I do believe you are correct.

I am thinking you are right on the North China variant. I found this link here: North China Type 19 « Forgotten Weapons

It looks like it was issued to the Chinese during the occupation. If so, a really neat piece of history.

Regards,

Doug

EDIT: If it was issued to North China, an easy test would be testing if an 8mm Mauser round fits. Don't test shoot, but that is a big round and should give a good idea.

 

[indy1919a4]

That is another Clue for the Rifle being a North China Variant... That writing in the stock is so Chinese Mauser in style..

View attachment 44931 View attachment 44932 View attachment 44933 View attachment 44934 View attachment 44935

Here are the symbols on the stock.

 

[Nacelle]

It was defiantly made where they had access to larger pieces of wood. The one I have, the stock is made of 2 pieces. My grandfather picked it up in the Philippines.

 

[indy1919a4]

[STRIKE]

EDIT: If it was issued to North China, an easy test would be testing if an 8mm Mauser round fits. Don't test shoot, but that is a big round and should give a good idea.

That would be a test, but there are 6.5mm caliber models out there. They made both up there.. Again the lack of solid documentation really gets in the way here