The Japanese Garand

tumblr_nhipig4S8y1s57vgxo7_r1_1280

Following on the heels of another clone of John Garand’s M1 rifle, was the Type 4 (ambiguously synonymous with the designation “Type 5”) another product-improved copy. Compatible with existing 7.7mm ammunition and stripper clips, the Type 4 fed from a 10-round fixed box magazine. Interestingly, the Japanese had before the war experimented with Pedersen-derived toggle-locked rifles (with the assistance of Pedersen himself), and at least two different models were made. Given that Pedersen himself would later copy the Garand, and the Japanese would follow suit, this makes the whole cycle of development of selfloading rifles in both the United States and Empire of Japan dizzyingly interrelated and circular. The toggle-locked Japanese Pedersens were in the standard 6.5mm Arisaka caliber, but the project was cancelled when the war in China broke out in 1936. Eight years later, Japanese engineers would undertake the design of the Type 4, which is the subject of a recent article posted to the Historical Firearms blog:

Japan’s Garand

In 1944 the Japanese Navy produced a limited number of semi-automatic rifles, these were heavily based on the US M1 Garand which they had faced in the Pacific for the previous three years.  There is some confusion over what this Japanese clone was designated as.  Some describe it as the Type 4 while others have called it as the Type 5.

These Japanese Garands used the American rifle’s gas system and rotating bolt but were chambered in Japan’s Type 99 rimless 7.7x58mm cartridge rather than the US’ .30-06 it also had a number of external differences with a different front sight and fitting for a Type 99 sword bayonet, as well as a rear tangent sight instead of the M1′s aperture sight (see image #5), a stripper clip fed 10-round box magazine which protruded from the base of the receiver, and used standard Japanese sling swivels and a slightly different stock profile.

image

The Japanese Garand’s receiver note the charger guide for quickly loading the rifle (source)The Japanese Garand’s action operates in just the same way as the American rifle with the bolt locking back on an empty magazine ready to be reloaded before it snaps back forward – making it possible to get ‘Japanese Garand Thumb’.

The Japanese Navy had experimented with semi-automatic rifles in the early 1930s looking at a rifle based on the Czech ZH-29 as well as a Pedersentoggle-lock design.  Several of which were apparently issued and captured by US forces on Okinawa.  However, these never progressed beyond evaluation and the Japanese military continued to use its bolt-action rifles.  However, when they encountered the firepower of the American semi-automatic Garands a need for a new more modern rifle was seen.

image

US Ordnance Dept. photo comparing the M1 and the Japanese Garand (source)The call for the new rifles was made as early as 1943 when the Japanese Navy’s elite naval infantry requested a weapon to increase their firepower. Trials and examination of captured M1s was carried out and it was found that the design could be adapted to chamber Japanese service ammunition and a reverse engineered clone was constructed.  Eventually up to ~250 Japanese Garands were built.  The rifles were manufactured and stored at the Yokosuka Naval Arsenal in late 1944 and early 1945.

The full article is available at the Historical Firearms blog, as are many other good introductory articles on obscure and not-so-obscure firearms, battles, and tactics.

M1 Pencil has some more information and photos on the Type 4 and (what I believe is the second model of) the Japanese Pedersen, while even more information on the Japanese Pedersens can be found at Milpas.cc.

Once the M1 rifle saw widespread service in World War II, the floodgates had opened. Clearly, here was a solution to the self-loading rifle problem. Some nations that had existing selfloading rifle programs perfected them, but others took the obvious road and simply copied the M1, or adopted surplus examples after the war. In the minds of every small arms engineer, though, there was no turning back. With the M1, the selfloading age had begun.

The Pedersen Collection at the National Firearms Museum in Fairfax, Virginia has one of the original Japanese Garands. Below is a short video distributed by the museum, and available on their website are high resolution images of the rifle:



Nathaniel F

Nathaniel is a history enthusiast and firearms hobbyist whose primary interest lies in military small arms technological developments beginning with the smokeless powder era. In addition to contributing to The Firearm Blog, he runs 196,800 Revolutions Per Minute, a blog devoted to modern small arms design and theory. He can be reached via email at nathaniel.f@staff.thefirearmblog.com.


Advertisement

  • iksnilol

    For some reason I have always wanted a ten shot Garand in 6.5×55.

    I was surprised that Pedersen worked with the Japanese.

    • Why? America was responsible for the opening of Japan when commodore Perry sailed over there (this was the beginning of Japan’s modernization and industrialization). They quickly became a world power and sided with us in The Great War. Like the nations of the west, they were imperialistic in Asia and as they did not interfere with our own imperialism we did not mind.

      • iksnilol

        Asians and a guy decended from Danes? Yeah, stupid reason to be surprised but I was surprised nonetheless.

        Joking aside you didn’t hear much about it since the Type 4 wasn’t adopted. It was experimental. So you also didn’t hear much about Pedersens involvement with it.

        • No good reason to be surprised really. The US opened the country to Western involvement, and Italy, the Netherlands, the UK, Germany, and predominantly France all went on military modernization missions to transform Japan into a modern military power. They wisely listened to these strange foreign advisers and became the most powerful Asian nation within just a few decades. The gall and determined nature of the Japanese never ceases to amaze.

      • Zebra Dun

        I understand the Portuguese were the first to sail to Japan and open trade called the Nanban trade period where the Japanese were very interested in Fire guns.

        • Yes, the Portuguese had a bit of limited trade and introduced the Tanegashima (primitive Japanese firearm) but this only lasted a brief period of time. It was the Americans and a literal boatload of firepower turned towards Tokyo Bay that truly opened the country.
          Basically they saw the incredible power harnessed by these strange foreign people and said “man, I need to get me some of that”!

          • Zebra Dun

            Understandable to say the least!

          • Bal256

            The interesting thing is that they still refer to that event for major overseas products coming there. I remember being there at the time, and a paper referenced Perry’s “Black Ships” when the iPad arrived in Japan. They love their Apple products. They are one of a small handful of countries in which Apple devices have a larger market share than Androids last time I checked.

      • Don Ward

        Sided with the British (who we also sided with) and who had a special relation with Japan vis a vis their mutual enemy at the time Imperial Russia. The Great Game saw many strange bedfellows.

        • Indeed, but by “us” I was referring to the entente and friends.

          • Don Ward

            The Entente and Friends would be an awesome Saturday morning cartoon. Just putting that out there.

    • Vitsaus

      Quite often designers have to go outside their own nation to find governments who are receptive to their inventions. Many examples of this in the history of firearms: James Paris Lee and Hiram Maxim, are just some of the more famous.

      • Hell, even Stoner had to take his AR10 to the Dutch!

        • Vitsaus

          Very true. I just remembered Berdan, an american who took his primer to europe because they didn’t like it here.

          • marathag

            Europe didn’t like Boxer.

            I think we got the better end of that deal

      • Paladin

        And then there’s the irony of the “not invented here” factor that always rears its head during trials.

      • C.

        Didn’t JMB do that with the Hi-Power as well?

  • Zebra Dun

    I’m surprised more Axis nations did not copy the M-1 Garand.
    I am really surprised the Japanese did not copy and put a large number of their Garands in service during the last year of world war two, had it continued into the invasion stage I’m sure there would have been a great deal of manufactured weapons as long as Japan was able.
    The Japanese did copy aircraft and other military equipment as it was.
    National pride for made there must have overwhelmed reason.

    • They were able to do so much with what they had, which resulted in “victory syndrome”. The Japanese war machine was unstoppable with their then current armaments: They effortlessly conquered Korea, stomped the Chinese, pushed the British out of Malaya and Singapore (an EXTRMELY impressive feat), launched an incredibly successful attack on the US, and threatened Australia. They were sitting so pretty before allied retaliation that they saw little need to upgrade. Nationalism and an aura of invincibility hindered small arms development.
      IMO, their biggest failure in terms of the fielding of small arms was the relative abscence of a submachinegun. Yes, I am aware of the type 100, but so few were fielded relative the the allies with their Thompsons, Owens, M3s, etc. in a place during the war when rapid fire was devastating.

      • Don Ward

        In the end, it came down to mundane logistics. The United States was able to back up each one of its soldiers with tons of supplies, food, gasoline, ammo, medical services to the point that you could still find places in the world subsisting on old WW2 surplus a couple decades ago (if not now). Whereas the Japanese fighting man was often expected to complete military operations with nothing more than a bag of rice and whatever ammo that he could carry.

        • Well, in the end it came down to us dropping the bomb. Twice. No amount of small arms can defend against death, the destroyer of worlds.

          • Don Ward

            That was just the coup de grace. The Japanese Empire had quite clearly lost the war by 1945 (hell, by all rights it was over by 1943 except for the dying).
            The Japanese fighting man was a tenacious fighter and he was often tasked with doing the impossible. But fortunately he was ill-used by his generals and not given the proper equipment.
            The American fighting man – who was a more tenacious fighter btw – was lavished with equipment which allowed him to fight better than his opponent who was usually on the defense. Even something as mundane and commonplace as a walkie-talkie was a force multiplier that the average United States soldier and Marine had which might as well have been science fiction for the Imperial Japanese soldier or Marine whom he was facing.

          • I agree. However had it not been for the splendor of the mighty one, the invasion of the home islands would have been horrible and drawn out. Like you said, their tenacity was incredible and they were training school children to resist an invasion with sharp sticks. The horror faced by both sides of a banzai charge with pre-teens armed with makeshift melee weapons and allies with firearms would have been awful (not that the bomb wasn’t).

          • UnrepentantLib

            As I understand it, no one knows for certain the civilian casualties incurred during the battle for Okinawa, but estimates run from 10 to 30 percent of the civilian population. An invasion of the Home Islands would have been as bad if not worse and would have easily exceeded the deaths from the two A-bombs.

          • nadnerbus

            In Okinawa, the US took a larger percentage of fighters prisoner, due mostly to the presence of Okinawan draftees. Their casualties might have been even higher except the Okinawans didn’t have quite the same resolve to fight for the empire that their Japan born counterparts did.

            In that respect, I think Okinawa undersells how bad an invasion might have been.

          • nadnerbus

            “all over except for the dying” is so incredibly true.

            By mid to late 1943, it should have been obvious to even the Japanese that the war was lost. In every way that mattered, US forces were vastly superior to the Japanese, and the trend lines were still rapidly going in opposite directions. That the Japanese leadership continued to throw the lives of its troops away in hopeless battles still infuriates me to this day. They could have ended it and saved a lot of lives much earlier. That’s not the way war works, unfortunately.

            It was all about the logistics. As you said, each fighting man was supplied with tons of materiel support. We put the most powerful naval fleet in history to sea in a matter of a few years, and then forward deployed them half way around the world. And we did it all with most of our focus on Europe.It still blows me away to this day the sheer scale of it all.

          • Don Ward

            Yep. They built the biggest airfield in the world on Tinian in a matter of a couple of months. Heck, they were landing B-29s on Iwo Jima when there was still fighting going. There’s a reason why being a “rear echelon” guy like a SeaBee was a matter of pride for those in that field of service.

          • MPWS

            I submit to you that they lost by 7th December 1941. Admiral Yamamoto said that very clearly:
            “I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.”
            .

        • Sulaco

          I remember reading about a German Tank General after the war when he was interviewed. He stated that Germany did not “lose” the war persay, they had just run out of ammo and the US did not run out of troops or tanks…

        • Tassiebush

          The consumption of human flesh to supplement the rations towards the end showed they really, really overstretched their logistics!

        • J.T.

          I think I remember something that was on the History Channel years ago having a visual representation of the difference.

      • Zebra Dun

        The Type 100 I understand had a low power cartridge yet came with a bi-pod as if they were blurring the line between an Auto rifle and submachine gun.
        Victory disease is what it was no doubt.

      • The Japanese had a lot going for them, but their small arms tech was extremely primitive by Western standards, even falling behind the British (not a good place to be!).

    • Don Ward

      I’d wager it wasn’t because the Japanese or the Germans couldn’t copy the rifle. They did. It’s because they couldn’t copy the industrial processes and machinery that went into building the rifle.

    • Esh325

      The reason the Germans didn’t copy the M1 Garand was because they were working on something better than the M1 Garand, the STG44.

      • Don Ward

        Ehhh. The Germans tried to clone a Garand and experimented with semi-automatic rifle designs and failed. A pessimist would say that vaunted Teutonic engineering was no match for Yankee ingenuity.
        But setting that aside, Nazi Germany had far more pressing concerns than reequipping its troops with a slightly better battle rifle. And while the difference between a Garand and a Mauser is substantial, it pales to lacking proper fighters, bombers, tanks, warships, artillery, trucks and logistics, technologies all of which the Nazis were woefully behind by 1943 and 1944. Even the sexy Stg44, with its simplified construction, the Germans couldn’t build enough ammo and spare magazines to properly field them. Which is particularly damning when one considers how simple manufacturing a magazine is.
        In the end, the simple Mauser was “good enough” for the time being. Particularly when German industry faced larger problems.

        • Esh325

          It’s funny I’ve heard the exact opposite that the Germans were far ahead of the allies in technology.

          • Don Ward

            There’s a bit of debunking that is going on (including by the author himself if you can ever convince him to do a full on “Wehraboo” debunking firearm article). And much of that is folk lore propagated by comic books, alternate history novels and History Channel shows that pretend that Germany had the means of making a Manhattan Bomber or an Atom Bomb. History Channel which also makes shows about Ancient Aliens and guys running pawn shops.

            The Germans had some good kit. And a lot of their weapons look damn sexy and look like they’re futuristic. But when compared to the technological know-how of the Americans and the British, who were building super computers, the Manhattan project, Iowa class battleships and Essex aircraft carriers, four-engine bombers and jet fighters with better performance than that ONE jet everyone knows the Nazis fielded, the myth of Nazi technology fades.

          • DetroitMan

            There is also the fact that Germany only ever produced 1,355 Tiger tanks, while the US built over 49,000 Shermans. German industrial technology was capable of building extremely advanced weapons like the Tiger or ME 262, but it couldn’t produce them quickly. Their advanced weapons were very impressive, but they didn’t have enough of them to make a difference.

          • Esh325

            I find that hard to swallow considering the Allies after WW2 spent considerable time gathering and study Nazi technology. The Allies actually competed against each other to gather up Nazi scientists and technology. So why waste all that time if German technology wasn’t that great? What I will say is that the Germans had a lot of advanced technology, but actually mass producing it and fielding it is what they had trouble doing.

          • DetroitMan

            The Germans had some great technological achievements, but that doesn’t make their overall technology superior, and I think that is what Don is getting at with the “History Channel myth” comment. The Germans and the Allies put their best technical resources into different areas with equally impressive outcomes. For example, a Tiger would tear a Sherman to shreds. By the same token, the USS Iowa would have torn the Bismarck apart if they ever met in battle. The V2 was an achievement that no other nation managed in WWII, but so was the atomic bomb. We rightly saw the value in German technology and gathered it up after the war. It filled in the areas we had neglected during the war.

          • MAJMike

            Well said.

          • mosinman

            although i’d say the Tiger could tear a sherman to shreds, but it really came down to who saw who first and who hit first. and it wasn’t always the tiger 😉

          • Don Ward

            Yep. They certainly did spend a lot of time rounding up Nazi scientists. It’s amazing how good of a propaganda minister Josef Goebbels was in convincing the world and his own people that Germany had an arsenal of Wunderwaffe ready to be deployed “any day now”. When in reality the Western Allies had already surpassed the Germans in most of the technological fields. Except maybe for rockets. We all know about that one clever Nazi rocket scientist who helped out with the Apollo moon landings.

            Even the “backwards” Soviets didn’t have much use for Nazi tech. They tried for several years reverse engineering and building off of the Me262 before finally throwing up their hands and scrapping the whole project. They stole a British Rolls Royce engine design for their MiG jet fighter instead.

            The vaunted Sturmgewehr is another example. It was still manufactured and used by Warsaw Pact forces post-World War 2. But the Soviets opted instead to use a domestic (and yes unique) design in the Kalashnikov when fielding their next generation of small arms.

            If you look at the whole panopoly of German World War 2 weapons, most became technological dead ends with very few exceptions. Because the Allies were already experimenting on, building and fielding better planes, tanks, rifles, medicines, radios, warships, night vision, bombs and computers than the Nazis could dream of.

          • jay

            You would make a better propaganda minister than Goebels.

          • Yellow Devil

            But…he wouldn’t, since he just downplayed the talk of Nazi superior warfighting and technological industrial complex with fact…

          • Bal256

            I feel like it has at least as much to do with denying the Soviet Union those scientists than it does with acquiring teutonic space magic technology. No doubt that the Germans made cool stuff, but antibiotics, computers, strong plastics, radar and nuclear power have more impact than a new bullet thrower.

          • Don Ward

            Oh, gosh. I forgot about plastics.

          • Cymond

            The Germans had a lot of really innovative ideas that were ahead of their time. They looked great on paper but failed to deliver real-world performance.

            The V2 is perhaps the perfect example of all the best and worst of WW2 German technology. They managed to do something that most nations hadn’t even attempted. It was the great granddaddy of the rocket age.

            It was also an abysmal failure at producing actual results. They fired something like 3,000 rockets, which killed about 6,000 people. Doing that came at an extreme cost. It required over a decade of research by a team of scientists, with multiple huge construction projects to build the factories. Some estimates indicate that the V2 project cost something around 500 billion dollars in today’s money. How many tanks, planes, and artillery pieces could that have bought?

            So was the V2 a superior weapon? In theory, yes. In practice, clearly NO.

          • Ahem. We do not bring up my authorship of a certain derogatory term while I’m at work. 😉

          • marathag

            Allied aircraft engines were smaller in displacement, yet made more power. Compare the Packard Merlin from the P-51 to the DB-605

            The Panther’s Final drive often shelled out after only 150 km, and the ME-262?

            Engines lasted 10 hours before they needed work.

            They just got lucky they didn’t last till August, 1945, or they would have found how far behind tech they really were

          • mosinman

            yeah they also built tanks like the tiger by hand workshop style instead of using an modern assmebly line like the US or USSR
            also, did you know the Detroit tank arsenal built more tanks that the Nazis built the whole war? one plant outproduced an entire country in tanks

        • jay

          “The Germans were lacking propper tanks, fighter aircraft”….
          Bwahahaha. The bs some people pedle around here. There was not one point in the war when the Americans had more advanced fighter aircraft than the Germans. The Germans just couldn’t make enough, train enough pilots to fly them or fuel them. The only time the main US fighters outperformed their German counterparts was the first half of 1944. That’s it. And let’s not even talk about the tanks.

          • UnrepentantLib

            It still comes down to “Lots and lots of good weapons can defeat small numbers of outstanding weapons.” Something we should remember as we rely ever more on high technology.

          • Don Ward

            And “Lots and lots of good weapons can defeat small numbers of inferior weapons”. Which is what happened in World War 2.

          • MAJMike

            Stalin supposedly said, “Quantity is it’s own quality.” Plus the Germans, while brilliant tactically, never managed to get it together strategically.

          • jcitizen

            Hitler kept getting in the way.

          • MAJMike

            Even P-51’s shot down Me-262’s. Logistics ultimately destroyed the Germans.

          • mosinman

            i think you’re high on the koolaid
            for example the 262 was advanced and powerful but jet engine technology was far behind meaning most of the 262s were built without engines and the ones that had them needed a lot of maintenance. they also didn’t develop proper alloys for jet engine use meaning the turbines failed quickly and rendered the engine useless. another example is the Tiger 2, while it had a powerful gun and impressive armor it was mechanically unreliable, hard to produce, hard to maintain and had a 80 mile range on a fuel tank of gas on the road…. it’s problems that plagued the big cats and only the panther was close to being a truly effective design, yet still suffered from similar problems as the tiger 2. the pershing and IS-2 were better tanks for the same weight of the panther.

          • jcitizen

            My Dad said a Focke-Wulf Fw 190 could out fly a US P-51 anyday, with the right pilot. He feared them more than the rocket and jet planes the Germans dreamed up.

      • Martin M

        The reason the Germans didn’t copy the Garand is that their doctrine didn’t revolve around the rifleman, it was centered on the machine gun. As such, K98s and machine pistols were more than adequate. The MP44’s significance was realized when combat turned urban.

      • C.

        But didn’t the Germans also have rifles that were in the same category as the M1 Garand, in the form of the Gewehr 41 and Gewehr 43?

      • By the time they encountered the Garand, they already were making G.41(W)s.

    • DetroitMan

      Japanese industry was not up to the challenge of WWII. They developed some very good weapons, but could not produce them in sufficient quantity for them to ever matter on the battlefield. Even the weapons they did have in quantity were painfully slow to produce. For example, every plane they flew was essentially a hand-built aircraft. It took days to produce one, where as US aircraft rolled off of assembly lines at the rate of several every hour.

      The M1 receiver was and still is very complicated to manufacture. A big part of Garand’s genius was the creation of machines that could produce it and the other parts efficiently. This was likely beyond the capabilities of Japan’s industrial technology. As our submarines strangled their supply lines and bombers began to take their toll on cities, production was allocated to only the most essential war materiel. The Arisaka was “good enough” at that stage of war. They needed planes and ammunition more than a new rifle.

      • MPWS

        Very well said;
        without going political it was simply obvious to Japanese themselves – they knew from start they could not win this war. Maybe just to delay the end or maybe negotiate some favourable terms. The reason was not so much ideology, motivation or command quality, but overwhelmingly superior industrial capacity of the U.S.A.
        Should that return in form of hostility with say China, guess what the outcome would be (barring use of nuclear weapons of course).

        • DetroitMan

          Thank you. I’m not certain I agree that the Japanese knew they couldn’t win the war at the beginning. Yamamoto knew the only chance was to knock us out at Pearl Harbor and build an unassailable fortress before we could rebuild. However, most of the government and most of the military commanders had drunk too much of their own Koolaid. They were high on their successes in China and Southeast Asia. They still believed in the WWI notion that the military’s “fighting spirit” would carry the day. I don’t think they had a realistic concept of how many men and ships the US could field, or that our fighting spirit would be equal to their own. Of course by 1943 they knew it, which is why they switched their tactics to annihilation instead of a real offensive. At that point, they were looking for an outcome other than total defeat – a negotiated settlement that might leave some of their territory intact.

        • idahoguy101

          Yamamoto probably understood that Japan would lose a protracted war. But even as head of the IJN he had to follow orders from the Army military government or risk being replaced.

          • J.T.

            Not probably, definitely. He knew going to war with the US was foolish and advised against it.

            “Should hostilities once break out between Japan and the United States, it would not be enough that we take Guam and the Philippines, nor even Hawaii and San Francisco. To make victory certain, we would have to march into Washington and dictate the terms of peace in the White House. I wonder if our politicians (who speak so lightly of a Japanese-American war) have confidence as to the final outcome and are prepared to make the necessary sacrifices.” -Isoroku Yamamoto

            He knew Japan’s only chance against the US was to annihilate the Pacific fleet from the outset in a decisive battle in the hopes we would negotiate an armistice. He also knew that the chances of that happening were slim to none.

            Before that, he had also opposed the invasion of Manchuria, going to war with China, and the Tripartite Pact. He was one of the few military leaders in Japan that had foresight.

  • nadnerbus

    Nathaniel, why do you hate the M14!? =)

    I’m no expert, but I’m fairly familiar with general firearms knowledge, and I had never heard of this weapon. Fascinating. I have to say, you have some of the most interesting articles on TFB, at least as pertains to my personal interests.

  • An Interested Person

    Mmm tasty articles. This is why I come to TFB.

  • MountainKelly

    Very neat

  • jay

    Well, no German tank got it’s nickname from a lighter, that’s for sure.
    That crappy me262, with it’s “unreliable is what revolutionized the fighter aircraft. It was not the highly reliable Packard Merlin.
    Both the Sabre and the Mig 15 are heavily based on German fighter developement done during ww2.
    But you seem too but hurt to admit that.

    • Yellow Devil

      That “Ronson Lighter” quote is largely unsubstantiated, but repeated ad nausea. German tanks were also powered by Gasoline, similar to the Sherman M4 tanks, and when allied units switched to “wet rack” ammo storage, flare ups due to ammunition igniting went down. Sherman aren’t perfect, but neither were the Soviet T-34s that everyone loves to wax soliloquy for. Both could be defeated by most German anti-tank weaponry they face and the Shermans held their own against T-34s during the Korean War. Not to downplay the merits of German engineering, but they gambled with higher quality over larger numbers and failed that contest in WWII.

      • n0truscotsman

        “Sherman aren’t perfect, but neither were the Soviet T-34s that everyone loves to wax soliloquy for”

        LOL the T34 has a rabid fanbase as well that takes it to absurd levels.

        Their diesel power plant, lower silohette, sloped armor, ease of construction, and mechanical simplicity made them a respectable tank.

        But

        Their tracks were notorious for throwing, the crew layout was antiquated and inferior (commander as “gunner” too? meh), the lack of space made them deathtraps, internal fuel cells, etc http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/2012/07/wwii-myths-t-34-best-tank-of-war.html

        Funny im talking about tanks again. Again, sorry TFB for venturing off subject 🙂

        • mosinman

          you’re using christos? he’s supremely biased against Russian stuff

  • Riot

    I wonder about the quality of these rifles.
    I think they would either be better than the M1 (very carefully made) or typical late war terrible – I don’t see there being a middle ground.

  • Ken

    According to Phil Schreier from the National Firearms Museum, they could never get them to cycle correctly. It was both due to bugs in the machining/design as well as ammo.

    • Interesting. I wonder if their ammo was different enough from Japanese production ammo to cause that. Alternate explanation: The Japanese were struggling anyway, and properly trouble-shooting the rifle was beyond them at the time.