Short Development History of Type 95 Gunto

[Nick Komiya]

Congratulations, you just found proof that they did indeed convert Type 32 Models A&B into Type 95s. These are inventory pull-orders telling the main arsenal how many of which weapons are to be taken out of storage and the budget those weapons are to be charged to. Your order is dated 16th April 1938, but there was another order issued a couple of weeks earlier on 2nd April 1938. I made a side-by-side comparison of those orders below.

The inventory pull-order for 2nd April, instructed 1,400 pcs of Type 95 War Specs (vs the peace time dulled down blades) to be issued and charged to the Manchurian Incident Budget. These were all made-from-scratch pure Type 95s

On the other hand, the 16th April document requires 980 pcs of cavalry Type 95s and 8,295 pcs of regular Type 95s to be issued from a Rinji (Extraordinary) Military Budget. These were the Type 95s that were Type 32 conversions.

Thus we have 3 different versions of Type 95 guntos issued within the same month. But these distinctions do not appear in later pull-orders, so the 16th April order must have used up all the Type 32 conversions.

[DaveR]

It would be very interesting indeed to see what these "conversions" looked like, and how it was done. Did they extend the tangs, welding a new piece into the end, or did they just have a grip liner and tsuka that accommodated the different shape and screw position? I will make the assumption that they would be copper tsuka ..... or would they be ?

[stegel]

Thanks!
A bit of a Eureka moment for me, this news explains a pair of 'strange' type95's i come across maybe a year or two ago.
My interest was aroused, but i was leaning to post-war mod as I had never come across anything like them before, they both appeared to be Type32 conversions into Type95's and both were over painted in green as you can see.

One has a copper fuchi with SEKI Stamp, which is odd, as it's not until 1941 before we see this stamp, (at this time Suya is still producing the Pattern 1 Copper Handled versions - April 1938). The other has an iron fuchi with no visible stamps.

Neither have serial numbers visible, if they existed, they would most likely be covered by the habiki...
The first one shown is the shorter of the two, and now i believe that it's most likely the OTSU (foot soldier) version, the blade appears to be 29" . The second one would have to be the KO (cavalry) version with a longer blade.

Both have double mekugi as the longer handle obviously misses out using the sarute barrel screw as a mounting point. Interestingly, they are each differently spaced apart on the handle, with makes me wonder if there is any difference in Tangs between the two type32 models.

From the low resolution photo's, i couldn't make out any other stamps anywhere.

First sword



Second sword

[stegel]

Handle grips appear to Aluminium, but the 'symmetrical' pattern introduced by Suya...

Now i'm confused a bit, did they perhaps NOT do these every month until stocks ran dry??
Or did they produce the 'pure' 95 model and resorted to mod's at various intervals, possibly extending to 1941?? This would explain the Tsuka's used......... at least in these two examples (unless they are indeed post-war creations, but i cannot see why they would be done post-war)

[DaveR]

That tsuba on the second one looks like a quick and dirty job done using a traditional style iron tsuba with a Kogai or kodzuka-ana.

When did you see these, because prior to the 21st C. type 95's fetched so little money thet it would not be a paying proposition.

[DaveR]

One scenarion is a rolling refurbishment, as 32s came in for work they could be converted to the new pattern.

Swords wear just like everything else and need to go back to the workshop for repair, and reissue. British and German swords often have multiple issue, and unit stamps, and even codes for where they were refurbished and when.

Another thought is that when equipment is upgraded it's done on a rolling basis. The logistics of every NCO getting a new sword on the same day is impossible.

[Kiipu]

Neither have serial numbers visible, if they existed, they would most likely be covered by the habaki...

Interestingly, they are each differently spaced apart on the handle, with makes me wonder if there is any difference in tangs between the two Type 32 models.

I think you are correct in that they appear to be Type 32 blades and any blade serial number would be covered up by the habaki. For an online illustration of the bare nakago, see the Ohmura link below.
三十二年式軍刀「甲」(2)と細部(2) Type 32 Guntō "Kō" (Part 2) & Details 2

The tang length of both versions of the Type 32 are the same. See Nick's post number 155 for the measurements in columns 1 and 2, reading from left to right.

I notice that the habaki on the first sword is farther forward than the second. This seems to be the reason for the difference in mekugi ana spacing.

[DaveR]

A quick "shop" to check out proportions.

[Kiipu]

Here are some more inspection marks that were used by all manufacturers. I have only seen the 特 once and that was on an officer's sword. See link below. Maybe Nick can clue us in on the meaning of the markings and Stegel can tell us which manufacturers used them on Type 95 Military Swords.

"Stamp Survey"
Stamp Survey - Military Swords of Japan - Nihonto Message Board

[stegel]

When did you see these, because prior to the 21st C. type 95's fetched so little money thet it would not be a paying proposition.

About 1-2 years ago, the fellow selling them said he bought them from a shop in Scotland, back in 1976.
They came from a soldier who returned from SE Asia after the war.
I agree with you in that back then, (provided the story is correct) they wouldn't have been worthwhile making, so... they may be legit samples of the other two types of the Type95 after all.