Short Development History of Type 95 Gunto

[Shamsy]

Regarding sword from post 330.

From Fuller and Gregory Japanese Military and Civil Swords and Dirks:
"A field-made version of the 1935 pattern NCOs aluminium-hilted shin-gunto is known which has a crudely cast aluminium hilt and an officers-style filed scabbard with a brown leather covering. The one-piece steel blade of traditional shinogi-zukuri form appears to be locally made. The likelihood is that it is an 'emergency' item for a soldier promoted to NCO grade."

The hilt on that sword, Sporter, is absolutely no-where near even the crudest Nagoya Type 95 I have seen; it is far inferior in every way, from the detail to the paint and shape. There is no way you could mistake that for anything but a crude field casting. If you have a copy of Military Swords of Japan 1868-1945, plate 51 shows a near identical sword next to a standard 95 and the difference is night and day (and that example is in my opinion a far better example of a field cast tsuka).

I don't claim this sword to be Japanese made, nor a Type 95. There are at least two known. I myself think that it would make a great example in a 95 collection of a possibly filed made Type 95, though it is pure speculation who made it and for what purpose. To me it is close enough to merit a place in my collection, should I ever be lucky enough to be able to obtain one.

[Sporter90]

The authors' likelihood is based on these swords were intended for the imperial Japanese army use. If not, all the "likelihood" goes collapse.

[Kiipu]

Some may find this article by Nick useful in regards to this discussion about the locally made sword in post #330. While related to clothing and not ordnance, it does show the steps that were being taken and why. I would like to extend my thanks to Nick for tackling such a contentious topic.
How Dubious are “Theatre-made” or “Field-made” IJA Items?

[Sporter90]

I'll put it bluntly to call Fuller and Gregory's hypothesis wrong by now. The sword in post #330 is in no way a variation of the Type 95. I hope people will wake up from the "field made" fantasy.

[Shamsy]

I'll put it bluntly to call Fuller and Gregory's hypothesis wrong by now. The sword in post #330 is in no way a variation of the Type 95. I hope people will wake up from the "field made" fantasy.

I'd better start off by saying this is not intended to be some sort of attack, fight, argument or whatever. I agree with you, so please read carefully. My writing is blunt and I tend to be long winded, so bear with me.

I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make because I thought that I had been very clear and I see no contrary opinion from Kiipu. Kiipu, please let me know if I am incorrect in my interpretation of what you've said. I will reiterate what I have already said, the facts and what my interpretation is, just so it is clear.

There is no way to tell who made the swords or why. There are two near identical examples. One has papers showing it as a war bring-back souvenir. I neither agree, nor can I discount what F&G suggested. They are not part of this conversion, but I of course added their own (minimal) written comments as there is virtually nothing else to say about these swords.

What do I think personally? That might be where the wires are getting crossed.
What I know: That there are at least a couple of examples of swords that superficially resemble the Type 95 that have been crudely constructed, likely period pieces (an assumption based on the bring-back papers and patina). By who, I don't know. I could list a dozen potential scenarios, but I think that's pointless and too much speculation.
What I guess: Like you, I also doubt the Japanese made these swords, as the workmanship is so low. I agree with you there, so do not think otherwise. More likely I would speculate they were made by someone attempting to imitate a Japanese sword for some reason. Maybe (and I must emphasise MAYBE) the intent was more specific and they did intend to imitate a Type 95. But I don't know and neither can you, as there is almost nothing we know about them.

All I know is there are two examples, there is a rough resemblance to a Type 95 and one had bring-back papers suggesting it was a period war item.

As I have already stated, I'd love to add an example to my collection. If you ever see one for sale, please let me know, irrespective of your own interest in the sword and how valuable or not you consider it to be (unless you want to buy it yourself of course, then finders keepers!).

[Sporter90]

My point is just that to state the sword is not a variation, or a field manufactured Type 95. No, you didn't say so. The capture paper only confirms the swords are from the WW2 time period. They are not the post-war fakes. For which I have no doubt.

All I'm saying is that these swords are not Type 95 or its variation, because there's not supporting evidence. The book used word "likelihood" which is based on hypothesis. Of course, these sword must be something for someone. But, can't be Type 95 for IJA NCO's.

[bangbangsan]

One more with an NCO leather tassel.

[Kiipu]

A nice studio photograph of a kenpei 憲兵 [military policeman] with a Type 95.
Something different..., Post #2325

[Kiipu]

Army Ordinance 55 issued on 26th August 1944 allowed “Rinji” exceptions to army uniform regulations. Article 4 thereof decreed that swords for apprentice officers may use Type 95s, but the tassel was to be for a company grade officer.

Help With Gunto Sword. Fake or Not?, Post #20

[Kiipu]

The sword stand used by the army in barracks. It can hold a dozen swords. Ideal for those that collect Type 95s.
Storage of an NCO sword, Post #7