my grandfather was a sailor in the Pacific during WW II - stated that when they were rounding up the left overs on Japaneses held islands and took their weapons - the rifles were poorly made and dangerous to shoot...most ended up being scraped...
****the rifles were poorly made and dangerous to shoot...most ended up being scraped...***
I saw one of those late war Arisakas. No way I would shoot it. It looked more like a reject to be used as a non shooting training rifle.
But then I’ve seen some early war Arisakas and they were ok.
The Arisaka had the strongest bolt action of any of the rifles of WWII.
SMLE=best battle rifle.
MAUSER-best hunting rifle.
1903-best target rifle.
While shooting at the Red Castle Gun Club in Sand Springs, OK a few years back, some man and son came in, went to a prone position, and with a military Arisaka with the top handguard missing, proceeded to start knocking down the ram targets several hundred yards away. Open sights.
You hear this a lot about Type 99s and even Type 38s. It is sheer baloney and probably got started as wartime propaganda. With the exception of last-ditch Type 99s made in 1944/45 all Arisakas are strong, safe, reliable rifles. I'll admit that they are not beautiful, but they are good shooters (obviously you should not expect match rifle performance) and up until the recent unpleasantness were a great bargain, especially the ones with a defaced mum crest, which is most of the remaining stock.
Be careful refinishing them, though. The factory varnish used on Type 99s was derived from a close relative of Poison Sumac. Exposure to the sanding dust can cause severe symptoms in some people, especially if inhaled.