Japanese small arms: Were they really as bad as we've heard?

[Bugfatty300]

It seems to be a wide-spread belief that weapons carried into battle by soldiers and marines of the Japanese Empire were low quality unreliable pieces of crap.

While some weapons that they fielded could be described as much, it seems they were an exception and not the rule.

I can't really explain how this myth is so entrenched (perhaps the pre-War Japanese reputation for manufacturing crappy and inferior products had something to do with it) but I can explain how this myth is largely unfounded and untrue.

So here is a look the most common Japanese small arms used during and before WWII. Right now I just have two examples but I hope to add some machine guns later.

ARISAKA RIFLE TYPE 38/TYPE 99

These family of rifles were used by the Emperor’s forces from 1897 until 1945. By time Japan entered WWII, the definitive Type 99 Arisaka rifle could have been called the Swiss army knife of military rifles with it integral monopod, folding anti-aircraft sites, protective “dust covers.” The latter proved to be a detrimental feature and the others were just plain useless.

But aside from being over-designed and the late-war skydive in quality, there is almost nothing negative to say about the Arisaka rifle. Which, of course, isn’t hard to say if a rifle is based on the Mauser G98, which the Arisaka was.

A .26 caliber rifle?

Spoiler :

The 6.5mm Type 38 was the most common rifle used by Japan in WWII and the most widely produced variant of all the Arisakas.

Part of the myth that Japanese small arms were inferior stems from the fact that their rifles fired an “weak” and “underpowered” cartridge. Only manly cartridges that kicked like a mule and could kill someone miles and miles away like the 30-06, 7.92x57mm were any good in battle. But was that really the case?

The 6.5x50mm was (and still is) considered a superb rifle round. Fired through an Arisaka, it was accurate, stable in flight and it’s elongated, well balanced, bullet was well adept at penetrating jungle foliage, as many unfortunate Allied soldiers would experienced in the Pacific War.

The Japanese 6.5x50mm was an anachronistic holdout from the turn of the century when militaries all over the world were striving to develop a rifle cartridge that was a perfect balance between, size, weight, performance, recoil and power. The results were often small caliber cartridges (.25-.27) with a casing length around 50-60mm.

These cartridges were, for a time, widely adopted and used by militaries all over the world. These rounds, including the Japanese 6.5x50mm, demonstrated exceptional performance and accuracy with mild recoil and muzzle flash.

However, there was a widespread belief that an infantry rifle was garbage unless it could be used to shoot at the enemy from half a mile away, never mind that most infantrymen with standard training could never achieve any such level of accuracy with open iron sights. Thus idea of a “balanced round” was scrapped by most military powers and big heavy rounds, that were more suitable for African big game hunting, became the norm.

During the 2nd Sino-Japanese War, there were concerns that Japanese infantry were being outclassed by their Chinese foes who were armed with 8mm Mousers. These irrational fears led to the planned replacement of the otherwise superb 6.5mm Type 38 Arisaka with the Type 99 Arisaka, chambered for the much larger and powerful 7.7x58mm.

This change over came at horrible time, just two years before Japan’s entrance into the Second World War. As a result, Japan entered WWII with two different standard rifle calibers and this wreaked havoc on their already overstretched logistic system.

Japanese Steel

Spoiler :

The quality and strength of Japanese steel swords and weapons make famous all over the world. Lesser known are the Japanese military rifles that proved themselves to be strongest and most rugged of any other rifle used in WWII because of the high-quality Japanese steel used to make them.

Years after the war ended, an American hunter purchased a surplus 6.5mm Type 38 Arisaka. When he discovered that the correct ammunition was impossible to find, he bored out the chamber for the 30-06 cartridge. Apparently ignorant of the fact that the .308 inch bullet was much larger than the .246 bore of the rifle, he loaded the gun and test fired it. He fired the gun the several more times and used it to hunt. He took the gun to a gunsmith. When the gunsmith saw what had been done he was shocked. Indeed if he had done the same to any other rifle, it would have certainly exploded.

The rifle was sent to the NRA who test fired it more 30-06 rounds through it. The rifle appeared to be completely unaffected by the extreme stress and pressure. Subsequent tests revealed that the Japanese steel used in the action was of exceptionally high quality.

Conclusion: The Arisaka was equal to any American and European bolt-actions of the era. Likely the best when it came to ruggedness and strength. It was simple and easy to manufacture.

On the other hand, as a military rifle, the Arisaka was long and unwieldy. It’s absurdly long bayonet didn’t help. It’s action was rough and sloppy compared to it’s contemporaries which hurt a soldier’s rate of fire. Useless features such as the anti-aircraft sights on the Type 99 didn’t detract from it’s use or performance. The dust cover, that was intended to keep dirt and mud out of the action, made operating the action a pain in the ass. However the cover was easily removed and, in fact, hardly any captured Arisakas had the cover on it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NAMBU PISTOL TYPE A/TYPE 14

The Nambu handgun was designed around the turn of the century Imperial Army general Kijiro Nambu, who also designed a number of early machineguns for the Japanese military.

Nambu’s design was among the first generation of semi-automatic handguns which were still a novelty at the time. Compared to other guns coming out of Europe around this time, the Nambu was practical, simple, elegant and reliable:

Nambu compared to some of it’s contemporaries. Note: the Nambu model shown is a later Type 14 variant

Spoiler :

The Nambu was found to be prone to malfunctions when dirty and not properly maintained. These reliability issues were exacerbated in combat conditions. The same problems plagued other early self-loading handguns, even the venerated German Luger.

Underpowered?

Spoiler :

The biggest flaw that is leveled at Nambu‘s handgun (and most other Japanese handguns) was that it‘s cartridge was underpowered and it‘s design was unsuitable for firing anything with more “umph.”

However, prior to WWII it was common for officer’s handguns to be chambered for a small caliber, low pressure cartridge. Indeed, the prevailing doctrine of the time was that military handguns were strictly for officers, to be used first as an accessory to the uniform and, lastly, as a self-defense weapon. They were certainly not intended to be used as combat weapons.

The Japanese attitude towards handguns was rather dismissive which was an understandable position since their role in deciding battles is insignificant. In fact, no handguns were ever issued by the military, except to paratroopers and other highly specialized troops. Officers were expected to buy their own sidearms in special military gun stores where a number of domestic and foreign handguns could be purchased. The Nambu was certainly the most popular model. Not as much for patriotic reasons but mostly because imported handguns and ammunition were prohibitively expensive.

The Japanese never lost their apathetic attitude towards handguns, which persists to this day. In fact US occupation authorities had to step in when local police officers weren‘t even bothering to carry the revolvers that had been given to them. Today, Japanese police officers only fire their duty weapon once a year.

Today the design and legacy of the Nambu can be seen in the Ruger Standard series, the most popular 22 LR handgun design in the world. The Ruger Standard is often mistakenly attributed to the more famous P08 Luger due to the similar silhouette which is shared by all three handguns.

Conclusion: The Nambu handgun was equal if not superior to most of it’s early contemporaries. The only real inherent problem with the Nambu was that Japan had practically no interest in handguns or developing them, neither for civilian or military use. Thus as Japan’s wars grew in intensity, the Nambu was thrust into a role for which it was never intended: a combat weapon.

 

[Cutlass]

I had heard that the rifles were actually very well engineered and built. But that bolt action was borderline obsolete by WWII terms.

 

[Phrossack]

The Nambu Type 94 was bad, and the machine guns and automatic cannon were often strip-fed rather than belt- or magazine-fed, which reduced their typical rate of fire somewhat. That said, the Arisaka seemed a perfectly normal bolt-action.

 

[Gen.Mannerheim]

The general crappyness of Japanese small arms didn't just end with the guns themselves. The entire Japanese arms procurement philosophy was insane. They obviously went to the Italian school of procurement, with such wise decisions like having multiple service rifles in multiple calibers and having machine guns that required lubricated rounds and stripper clips. Where the Japanese excelled was in artillery, but they never manufactured enough to really matter. Why make quality artillery when you can make more super-dreadnoughts!

 

[r16]

not an expert , not even a really interested amateur and the only thing ı can say is that . ı don't think ı ever read anything good about Japanese guns and rifles .

 

[citedon]

I used a Japanese 6.5 MM rifle several years ago. It was a very good rifle and relatively inexpensive. It was accurate, had a good range, and was dependable. I don't know anyting about other Japanese small arms, but would not be surprised if the reputation for poor quality is based upon small arms produced near the end of the war with inferior material and shoddy workmanship.

 

[Azale]

Cool read, I'll visit this thread periodically to see if you add more.

The only thing I have to add is the kinda obvious observation that the Japanese move away from the smaller caliber Arisaka Type 38 to the 99 employed the same logic as that used by the Americans in their disdain for the Kaleshnikov. Is this focus on caliber size purely a macho thing, or was there some logic (even if flawed) that it would make soldiers more effective?

 

[Bugfatty300]

Is this focus on caliber size purely a macho thing, or was there some logic (even if flawed) that it would make soldiers more effective?

Mostly the latter

Around the turn of the century, the theories that most military circles adhered to was that future battles would be fought at extreme ranges with machine guns, rifles and artillery and that the enemy would never even get close to each other.

Thus, it was thought, that rifles that fired big, heavy, powerful rounds that could kill at extreme ranges would be the best investment for the future.

Then of course there was a question of "stopping power." European and American colonial adventures were filled with horror stories about poor Pvt/Sgt/Lt Smith getting a face full of spear because the weapon he was carrying wasn't powerful enough to stop a charging native. Follow up shots were not possible with a bolt action (unlike a self-loader) so there was greater emphasis on the need to stop a threat with one shot.

The US was particularly dead set on the doctrine of range and stopping power and that's pretty much the reason why NATO went with the 7.62x51mm (almost as powerful as the 30-06). Otherwise the British were ready to revolutionize small arms with their .280 bull pup assault rifle but the US stubbornness won out.

 

[r16]

ı sometimes get some books to read about military and ı understand one Somali guy took 40 M-16 rounds to get him stopped , he most probably died . And it seems there were tests of a 6.8 mm for M-16/M-4 series .

 

[SG-17]

I had heard that the rifles were actually very well engineered and built. But that bolt action was borderline obsolete by WWII terms.

They pretty much were for everyone except for marksmen. American (and British) GIs had an advantage because of their use of the semiautomatic M1 Garand as the standard service rifle compared to the standard bolt action Karabiner 98k service rifle used by the Wehrmacht.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Well the British and commonwealth stuck with the No. 5s and SMLEs during WWII which were much better suited for modern combat than the Mauser/Carcano-type rifles that most Axis forces used. The US kept M1s for it's own troops for the most part.

 

[say1988]

American (and British) GIs had an advantage because of their use of the semiautomatic M1 Garand as the standard service rifle compared to the standard bolt action Karabiner 98k service rifle used by the Wehrmacht.

The Soviets and Germans were better equipped with semi-automatic rifles than the British. Though the Lee-Enfield was the fastest service bolt action rifle.
I do wonder why the British never produced a semi-automatic rifle, though. Adopting the M1 would likely have created a logistical mess adding another type of ammunition required, but a license built M1 chambered for .303 probably would have been fairly simple. But as far as I am aware there was never any real effort given to acquiring one.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I do wonder why the British never produced a semi-automatic rifle, though. Adopting the M1 would likely have created a logistical mess adding another type of ammunition required

On the other hand, it would have saved another one, because now western forces only need to pack one kind of bullet.

 

[say1988]

Which would require the replacement of all British machine guns (Vickers, Bren, Browning, and Lewis) and the abandonment of all stocks of eisting ammunition. And even then would create a huge mess while being phased in. It would be far easier to have a factory produce .303 Garands.

 

[GoodGame]

Is this focus on caliber size purely a macho thing, or was there some logic (even if flawed) that it would make soldiers more effective?

In addition to Bugfatty's comments:

I think also the trend went from defensive infantry tactics (forts and trenches) to offensive mobility tactics (close with the enemy and kill/capture) requiring higher rate of fire and better rifle mobility. Smaller rounds are lighter to carry, you can carry more of them, and the soldier can travel quicker with a lighter load as well. Also the theory was that smaller rounds were more frangible---would break and spin around the enemy causing a wounded soldier that would attrit the enemy through increased logistics demand (and be more demoralizing than a dead soldier).

Question:
Did analysis of the Battle of the Somme (WW1) have anything to do with it?

 

[GamezRule]

Are you referring to a trend during the First World War or an interwar trend?

 

[r16]

didn't the British also use the 7.92 mm on their BESA machine guns on tanks ?

 

[say1988]

It was 7.92mm Mauser, the standards German full rifle round, with a slightly larger calibre. Intermediate rounds were not adopted until the introduction of assault rifles as a full rifle round was simply too powerful for such weapons.
Even the 7.62mm (NATO or Soviet) didn't really decrease the calibre, it just decreased the load of powder.

 

[Bugfatty300]

It was 7.92mm Mauser, the standards German full rifle round, with a slightly larger calibre. Intermediate rounds were not adopted until the introduction of assault rifles as a full rifle round was simply too powerful for such weapons.
Even the 7.62mm (NATO or Soviet) didn't really decrease the calibre, it just decreased the load of powder.

Intermediate rifle rounds were around before the advent of assault rifles, the US .30 Carbine being the most prominent example. The Soviet 7.62x39mm, for example was designed and adopted during WWII to be fired in carbine-sized semi-auto rifles.

I should also point out that the 7.62x51 NATO is NOT an intermediate round and any rifle chambered in it is by definition NOT an assault rifle. The whole idea behind its development was to make the 30-06 more compact and still have the same amount of power and range, where as a true intermediate cartridge sacrifices those attributes.

The only true intermediate cartridge in general widespread use after WWII was the Soviet 7.62x39mm and the .30 Carbine. And actually the advent of "assault rifles" didn't really revolutionize small arms as much as everyone thinks they did.

 

[Quackers]

Out of disturbing curiousity what would a NATO round do to the human body shot from a "battleground" distance (i don't know what that would be, but aren't they like 300 yards apart, the very front of each army?). I was told there was a special kind of bullet which wiggles slightly in the air as it flies so when it makes contact with a body it causes a more dangerous injury.