What is this???

[Rifleman]

What is this rifle? My grandfather brought it back from Manila but what is it, last ditch, trainer...other?

[psteinmayer]

It looks to be last ditch, but not the last variant... as that would have a wooden butt plate. Could you post some pictures showing the Series and Assembly number markings on the left side receiver... and of the safety and rear sight... That would help.

[jangle]

You have a T-99 Navy rifle.
The receivers were made of cast iron along with the bands, trigger guard, butt plate, screws, and most small parts. The cast parts were mostly painted with a black enamel glossy paint. The barrel and bolt body are generally the only steel parts to this rifle. Your example appears to had the front sight ears removed and the stock looks to have been refinished at some point. The parts are matched by an assembly number that is stamped on the barrel collar. Still, a desirable rifle. It should be a rifle for you to keep in your family!

Regards

[Rifleman]

Thanks for the info, if these pics tell you any more please elaborate. The ash tray was made by my grandfather while in Manila, he was at a place called the walled city (Intramuros) in Manila.

[psteinmayer]

Good call Jangle... I should have seen that and totally missed the mark!

[jangle]

I should have asked the serial number before commenting on the front sight ears. Your rifle is correct for the serial number range of having the front sight without guards and the short handguard. T-99 Navy rifles are very interesting in that there are no reported numbers between serial #5000-10000. I'm aware of 10038 that has the same basic features as your rifle. Can you confirm if the wood has been cleaned or refinished (hard to tell from the photos provided).

[Rifleman]

Here are a couple hand guard pics, best I can do inside as my camera is very light sensitive. Anyway, in person it is not as dark, the shim glued to the inside is natural color for reference. If the sun is out tomorrow I'll get some pics in natural light. Oh, and a question, did these not have a mum? Something I was reading online said it just had the little anchor that you can see in the pic above....true?

[Guamsst]

Crack in the stock should actually be where two pieces are dovetailed together. The grain of the wood should change direction at the line of the "crack". This is not a flaw, but, how almost all of the Arisaka stocks were produced.

I have been looking for one of those for a few years. Just got a NICE Navy trainer this weekend.

[jangle]

These did not have a Mum. Your variation is probably blank on the receiver top with the small anchor on the barrel. The shim is a common way for the workers at that time to take up the play in the handguard. You have to remember, when these were built a lot of hand fitting was happening. Look forward to seeing a little closer images of the stock. Thanks!

[Rifleman]

Ok, here are some outside pics. You can see how poorly the butt plate is installed. Also the cracks in the stock, it is very dry, I put BLO on it from time to time and it just sucks it up, maybe I shouldn't???? but I am afraid that if I don't the stock will split. Surprisingly the bore is beautiful, not that I plan to shoot it. It still has that Jap rifle stink, must have used whale grease or something. So to answer your question, I maintain it like I would be shooting it tomorrow, I pull it out a couple times a year and oil the metal and bore and put on a coat of BLO.

[Rifleman]

Here are a couple close ups the finish and cracking.

[Rifleman]

And last, 6 100 on trigger, D 1442 bottom of barrel and last one showing that only the visible part of the barrel has paint.

[psteinmayer]

Jap butt plates often don't fit worth a darn. My beautiful Toyo Kogyo Series 31 (first series) has a butt plate which doesn't match the profile of the stock... meaning the wood is slightly larger than the butt plate. What's interesting to me is that this Navy T-99 doesn't have the anti-aircraft rear sights like the early infantry models. Sailors would be more likely to fire on aircraft than soldiers.

I see the crack in the side of the stock. What Guamsst is referring to is the rear stock, which should have a joint running parallel to the grain. This was because the Japanese didn't have wood in a sufficient size to make a whole stock... so they spliced the rear of the stock, and the gap where the splice occurs is usually significant and obvious. Your stock, however, doesn't appear to have a splice.

[jangle]

Your stock is of single piece construction. It was made that way.

Nothing beats holding it in your hands to determine original stock finish, but from the photos, it still appears your stock has been refinished at some point. The recoil bolt in the middle of the stock looks a little bright (like it was hit with sand paper etc..)
As far as the paint only on the exposed surfaces, I have several that have been finished in the same way. These are sometimes painted over bare bright casting, over a poor blued surface, or even over a red oxide primer surface.

These are fascinating rifles and I thank you for showing us yours.

[Deano41]

Congratulations on a unique rifle brought back by your grandfather. A definate family heirloom!
In looking in my books, the one piece stock is standard for the Type 99 Naval Special Rifle. (The cracks in the buttstock are probably due to age [I can testify to that condition.] )

In "The Japanese Type 99 Arisaka Rifle", "The rifle design is unique in that the receiver is cast iron. The locking recesses for the bolt lugs are machined into the breech of the barrel so that the receiver supports only the bolt and magazine".
The metal was painted with black enamel, not blued.