Become our sponsor and display your banner here
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 24 of 24

Matching Nagoya type 99 rifle

Article about: Thought I would show you the new safe queen. A type99 Nagoya first series all matching rifle with near perfect bluing. Most of the screws are still staked. The down side is there was not a d

  1. #21
    MAP
    MAP is online now
    ?

    Default

    Quote by GIZMO8Z View Post
    There is lots of debate on whether or not the Japanese soldiers actually threw away unnecessary rifle parts. The thought is that they removed dust covers because they made too much noise while trying to be stealthy. With all of my Japanese rifles, the dust cover only rattles while the bolt is out of battery (aka bolt pulled all the way back). While trying to be stealthy, wouldn't the Japanese soldier want his rifle ready to fire? Once the firing begins, the rattling of a dust cover caused by the bolt being used would be a whisper compared to the sound of the rifle firing.

    I personally subscribe to the notion that Japanese soldiers recognized their rifles were property of the Emperor and as such did their best to take good care of them/ keep them as issued. I think that the fact and these accessories were omitted from later production T99s and American servicemen saw the accessories as foolish and unnecessary (and maybe didn't know how to/ want to put them back on properly after stripping a rifle) perpetuated the idea that the Japanese soldiers threw the dust covers, monopods, AA sights away. Just my opinion!
    Joe: while not sounding like I'm contridicting my own response, I do subscribe to your theory being potentially more accurate. I however succumbed to the lure of legend. I actually was going to edit my post to say this was in fact just old beliefs that have been passed down...but work got in the way and.....never got back to it.
    "Please", Thank You" and proper manners appreciated

    My greatest fear is that one day I will die and my wife will sell my guns for what I told her I paid for them

    "Don't tell me these are investments if you never intend to sell anything" (Quote: Wife)

  2. #22

    Default

    Soldiers in the field do all sorts of 'unconventional' things-the bolt cover serves no practical purpose, makes the rifle more difficult to strip and assemble and adds to the weight that has to be carried (slightly)-ditto for the monopod-any very good to excellent example of the rifle obviously hasn't seen active service by definition.

  3. #23

    Default

    I agree with Lithgow. Expediency is the most likely explanation for the absence of bolt covers and monopods. I'm certain that a monopod would also have been a fine branch and vine catcher as you tried to make your way through underbrush. One week of that and off goes the monopod! NH

  4. #24
    MAP
    MAP is online now
    ?

    Default

    But still a theory. Not debunking one way or another. I'm torn between the two. Both have merit. I just say it's an unknown
    "Please", Thank You" and proper manners appreciated

    My greatest fear is that one day I will die and my wife will sell my guns for what I told her I paid for them

    "Don't tell me these are investments if you never intend to sell anything" (Quote: Wife)

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Similar Threads

  1. 07-09-2014, 12:11 PM
  2. My all matching Type 99.

    In World Firearms
    06-26-2014, 04:04 AM
  3. 06-07-2013, 02:56 PM
  4. 06-05-2013, 08:04 AM
  5. 11-24-2011, 06:57 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •