Japanese Type 3 IJA Shin Gunto

**MAP** · 08-28-2016, 12:18 AM

Thanks Russ. I never saw that thread by Nick. Will read it now.

M

**MAP** · 08-28-2016, 03:11 PM

So, in reading Nicks wonderful analysis on the "Type" 3, it raised a question in my mind. Are these more rare than a type 98? And if so, are they more desirable? Or is the type 98, being of higher quality, more desirable?

**Bruce Pennington** · 08-28-2016, 04:19 PM

by MAP

So, in reading Nicks wonderful analysis on the "Type" 3, it raised a question in my mind. Are these more rare than a type 98? And if so, are they more desirable? Or is the type 98, being of higher quality, more desirable?

There were'nt as many of them made, so they are "more rare" than the standard shingunto. They aren't "rare", as you'll see them pop up on the market fairly often, but not as many as the regular type.

Some guys like them because they always have a good looking blade. Mine is in such good shape, I was convinced it was a stainless steel blade, but guys tell me that it's not and just has a good polish.

Getting back to my advice on removing the tsuka, I've taken apart every gunto I've bought, and I must say that once back together, they are never as tight as they were before I stripped them down. So if that is a concern, you'd be better off not removing it. I'm the kind of guy that just HAS to know, though! My Type 3 was made by Sukekuni, April of 1943.

For those of us interested in the debate about Type 3's, we are always curious to see if one will pop up with a date earlier than 1943. Since the type was commissioned in 1938, it's a mystery as to why no modern collector (known on these forums) has ever seen one dated any earlier than '43. But it's your gunto, and your collection. Don't do it unless it's something you feel right about. Everyone respects that.

**Bruce Pennington** · 08-28-2016, 04:27 PM

Dummy me! The original mekugi tend to be fatter on one end (the end showing) like a wedge. They must be tapped out from the other side! It looks like yours were both tried from the fat side.

**MAP** · 08-28-2016, 05:22 PM

Thanks Bruce. I've been trying to tap it out by putting the punch in the side that does not show the peg (assuming it was already part way out). So are you saying I should try the other side (where the peg is showing)?

Btw. It was like this before I got it.

**Bruce Pennington** · 08-28-2016, 09:13 PM

No, you're doing it the right way. The tip of the mekugi can be quite small, so it's tough to get onto the end of it. I've often just grabbed the fat exposed end with pliers to pull it out.

**MAP** · 08-28-2016, 09:58 PM

I tried the pliers trick a few years ago, and the mekugi started to crumble.......just wasn't enough purchase to get it out.

I know....I'll take my drill and ................. Just kidding. LoL.

I'm going to try a larger width punch. One last time and then I'm done.

Thanks!

**Stu W** · 08-29-2016, 12:39 AM

Mekugi are usually tapered so cannot be punched straight through. One of the reasons a sword might not be as tight when reassembled is because of that very point ... replacing a tapered mekugi with a straight one of smaller diameter often leaves things a bit sloppy. Bamboo chopsticks are the starting point for most of my replacement mekugi and I've also made a few from deer antler ... for no reason other than I once read that Buffalo horn was used and I was fresh out of Buffalo horn at the time.

I've had quite a few of that pattern sword and found them all to have 43 and later dates. Once in awhile you can find a nice gendaito in those mounts too.

Regards,
Stu

**MAP** · 08-29-2016, 01:53 AM

Thanks Stu. Well I have PLENTY of bamboo chopsticks in the draw. I'm in no rush to remove the mekugi. But will give it another go or two. I really need to get a display rack for my Japanese swords as they currently sit in a closet. And that is a waste.

**Nick Komiya** · 07-17-2017, 11:57 PM

I still cannot understand why people who should know better made the silly mistake of calling it a Type 3 sword. Ohmura-san seems to cling to the farfetched idea that the Emperor did issue an Edict in 1943 sanctioning this sword, but that the document got lost.

However, that is impossible, as all edicts would naturally be printed in the weekly government gazette, and as the publication went to all Ministries and municipalities, etc all versions survived. Therefore it is long proven that there was no Type designation edict.

I do not know why it is so difficult for people to understand that the Minister of the Army was fully empowered to introduce B-spec versions of official models introduced by the Emperor.

Thus a felt field cap, having a totally different construction than the normal field cap introduced by the Emperor in 1938 would need to have its own designation, if we borrow the logic of the Type 3 proponents. But instead of giving it a new type designation it was launched as a "contingency model", which means they were produced only as long as difficulty persisted in producing the official design in wool.

In case of Type 95 swords, flightsuit furs, leather products, coins, etc they adapted the specs to material shortages by repeatedly downgrading material choices, but with the Type 98 sword there wasn't room to yield, so like the felt cap, they designed a complete alternative just for the duration of the war.

There is mounting evidence that Type 3 believers are totally misguided, yet I do not know not one evidence that supports their view.