Type 94 Nambu Field Strip

The Japanese Type 94 is a pistol that we have talked a lot about over the course of TFBTV, mainly because of how dangerous they are. The guns served Imperial Japan and were never imported into the US in large numbers, but many were brought back by returning GIs. In this episode of TFBTV, we finally take one apart.

Please subscribe!!! Click here.

Please subscribe!!! Click here.


Thanks to our sponsor Ventura Munitions. Without them TFBTV Would not be possible.

 

Type 94 Shooting:

Type 14 Field Strip:

Transcript …

– [Voiceover] Hey guys, it’s Alex C with TFB TV and for today’s field strip, we’re actually going to do Type 94 Nambu, one of the few pistols that’s actually probably more dangerous to the user than the person that it’s being pointed at.

Of course, I’m just kidding but, these are pretty bad guns.

You can look at it and see that some dude probably made it with a grinder and a file towards the end of World War II, this one being a relatively late production type 94.

They actually work a little bit better than the Type 14’s, but the deal is that you can push the sear bar on the side and actually discharge the gun.

But that being said, let’s field strip it.

What you’re gonna wanna do is pull the slide back a little bit, press the firing pin.

As you can see, it’s very strange.

You’ve gotta kinda press this and then push out a little retaining piece that runs across the bolt there.

You can see it kinda coming out.

Once you do that, you can ease everything forward.

Let me refocus the camera real quick here.

So, at this point, what you’re gonna wanna do is go ahead and grab the rear there, the rear section, I guess what you call the bolt, which is the breach block I guess, on this gun.

Just go ahead and give it a sharp pull and it’ll pop right out of there.

Okay, once you have that done, go ahead and push the rest of the slide forward.

You can see the barrel is actually retained.

These are short, recoil-operated guns.

They do not fit a tilting barrel but, lift the barrel outta there and then, lift the locking piece/locking wedge outta there.

You can remove the firing pin as well.

Just bring it to the rear and let it fall down.

It is a spring loaded firing pin as well.

Also, remove the recoil spring and recoil spring cup.

There you go, you actually have a fully field stripped Type 94.

Now these, I would consider these overbuilt actually.

They’re unnecessarily complex.

Being as how eight millimeter Nambu’s not a powerful pistol cartridge, they could’ve designed a simple blow back gun.

I’m not sure why they didn’t.

Both the Type 94 and the Type 14 are pretty complex guns.

We’ve done a Type 14 field strip.

If you wanna take a look at that, I’ll put a link to that in the description.

Also, we have fired this gun, as I mentioned.

The crippling flaw of this gun is that you can fire it by pressing the transfer bar, which is exposed.

So, in theory, if you went to holster it and forgot to put the safety on and had a round in the chamber, it could go off and shoot you right in the leg so, not something you generally want in a military firearm.

In a military situation where everything that can go wrong will go wrong.

Anyways, big thanks to Ventura Munitions for helping us out with the ammo.

They actually do carry eight millimeter Nambu, if you have one.

Also, big thanks to you for watching.

We hope to see ya next week.



Alex C.

Alex is a Senior Writer for The Firearm Blog and Director of TFBTV.


Advertisement

  • TheNotoriousIUD

    Good God, that is an ugly gun.

    No wonder we won.

    • Sermon 7.62

      Right. No wonder.

      • TheNotoriousIUD

        And the commie chimes in.
        Have you guys scraped up enough cash to buy your very own carrier yet? The S S Chernobyl?

        • Kivaari

          Russia has carriers and sold some to China. They had/have a Harrier copy and used a deck like the British.

          • Ever read about that plane? Its *hilarious*.
            Like a third fell into the ocean because the exhaust was placed too close to the intake.

          • Kivaari

            I hadn’t.

          • Could only carry 2,200 pounds of ordnance, engine replacements at

          • Kivaari

            Not good. I suspect the Chinese have done a better job.

          • Tritro29

            Which wasn’t that bad given that the Kestrel and the Harrier never exceeded 2 ton of ordinance (vs 1 ton for the 38A). Then it became 2 tons with the 38MP. Pretty equal to what the “West” was doing at the time.

          • Tritro29

            Haha, is this what they teach in the US? Ok…yeah, I forgot, you’re the guy who puts a 5.56 galil as its top 5 reliable gun…don’t change man, you’re winning.

          • Do they teach us that the Yak 38 sucked?
            Yes. Yes they do.

          • Tritro29

            Then why are your sucking that dong again with the F35? Which is straight out of the layout of the Yak 38. Watching Sparky’s videos would make you fight with sticks and Renault Ft’s. But as I said before, don’t change nothing on your modus operandi, it’s quite entertaining.

          • Uh, I’m not.
            I dont think I have ever mentioned the F35.

          • Tritro29

            Not you in personna… Yak 38 “sucked”. Yet your Gubmmint went straight out and picked a design that looks like a more lardy, retarded copy of a design that doesn’t fly (or so says Sparky). Tells me exactly what I need to know about the knowledge involved. Also 20 years in the making…since 1996.

          • I pointed out some flaws and shortcomings in a particular aircraft, and your retort is to talk about tanks, a guy I dont know, and a crappy aircraft nato uses?
            Welp, okay then.

          • Tritro29

            Nope you used false and biaised information posted by a guy named Sparky which has an axe to grind against anything that doesn’t fit his world view (Tracks vs Wheels, M16 vs M14, STOL/VTOL vs C*TOL). If you don’t know what you’re looking at or what you’re reading, then MAYBE you should check first. As for people reading you and immediately nodding, check my next message about this subject. Also it’s not pointing the finger to an “aircraft”, you were mocking “Soviet Incompetence” based on abysmally bad performance and accident rate. Well lets make it short. There have been 43 accidents out of 234 Yak 38/41 frames. In comparison the brilliant Harrier in USMC service from 1971 to 1977 had tallied 22 accidents per 110 aircraft. B**** Please. The rate ironically is roughly the same. But somehow, I bet it wasn’t US or British incompetence, probably the idea behind VTOL/STOL that was unsafe…

          • Tritro29

            And just so people can read how competent Über Free Western Democracies were, a couple of excerpts from the article that probably won’t be published until “well later in the moth”…

            “Until a couple of years ago, the Marine Corps reserved the Harrier
            ofr only the most experienced of pilots. And LeBlanc conceded that,
            considering the difficulty of flying the airplane, “we might have been
            just a little too quick on relaxing the standards. We’re looking at our
            selection procedures and tightening them up.”

            Another problem the
            marines encountered with Harrier, according to a General Accounting
            Office report released in January, was the difficulty in maintenance.
            because of the distance between factory and customer, the GAO said, the
            Marines could repair only about 30 per cent – instead of a usual 90 per
            cent – of the aircraft’s comp/nents.

            The result, the GAO
            reported, was the average monthly rate of Harriers not operational was
            67 per cent – “well above the acceptable 40 per cent level.”

            “Despite its promise, the Air Force and Navy rejected the VSTOL
            because of its short range – 360 miles – and its inability to carry its
            normal payload of 8,000 pounds of armaments when taking off or landing
            vertically.”

            “And, of the 22 major Harrier accidents reported by the Marines, 11 have
            occurred when the airplane was performing those vertical takeoffs and
            veritcal landings or was in transition from normal flight to the hover.”

            I guess it’s time to blame the Pommies. Only this article dates from 1977.

          • mazkact

            Obviously you have never seen the documentary archival footage “True Lies” in which Ahnald kept a harrier in a hover for most of the movie,never ran out of fuel and killed all the bad guys.

          • Sermon 7.62

            Don’t argue man. Just look at this freak circus here.

          • Zachary marrs

            Like i said, reading a book, but only reading every fifth page.

            You want to talk to Tritro29? Be ready for him to mention all sorts of stuff that has nothing to do with the topic in question.

          • Tritro29

            I pointed out his source of information, like seconds he posted his BS. The topic in question was started by Alex himself, ignorance included.

          • Zachary marrs

            Lol, not a single F35 has flown into the ocean.

            “Great entertainment to us former ComBloc guys”

            Such an exclusive club, count yourself lucky you weren’t one of the millions who got sent to a camp, i guess.

          • Tritro29

            Lol, same for the Yak 141, not a single one has gone down either. Enough Harriers have been biting the dust and in slightly bigger percentage than the Yak 38. Also there were all sorts of camps back then, including for vacations-…so pretty much every one was sent to a camp at some point.

          • Tritro29

            Yeah it has just spread out in asymmetrical fashion around some US airbase…“The engine failed when the third-stage forward integral arm of a rotor
            fractured and liberated during the takeoff roll,” AETC said in a
            statement. “Pieces of the failed rotor arm cut through the engine’s fan
            case, the engine bay, an internal fuel tank, and hydraulic and fuel
            lines before exiting through the aircraft’s upper fuselage.” Hello 2014 100 million testbed mess. What should I call you over this? Rear Admiral Outburst?

          • Zachary marrs

            Call me whatever you want, I’m not the one who has to resort to semantics to save face.

          • Tritro29

            Saving face on what? On the fact Alex C. listed a number of facts that aren’t even close to reality because he watched some idiotic video? And as usually with Alex, his own views trump whatever experience is out there?

            Like check his claims.

            °1/3 of the Yak 38 were written off. Well a. No, 43 airframes were written off including two Yak36M and une Yak 41 (which crashed in glorious fashion on a Heavy Cruiser deck). Those 43 airframes were out of 234 ariframes produced for the program. b. All Yak 38’s were written off in 2007.

            °The plane has only 2.2K Lbs of capacity, ordnance wise. a. Nope technically it was rated for twice that. b. It had only 4 hardpoints without couplers, which anyway wouldn’t have mattered, most of the ammo it could carry for its mission (ASW) were roughly 500 kg to one ton. Which made it evident that it wouldn’t carry 2 of those (AshM’s were kinda big then). c. The Harrier has the same issue, it was rated for 3.6 tons, it couldn’t carry them around and usually the max load was 2 tons.

            *No radar. a. Initial 68 Yak38’s A were indeed radarless, but had a radar warning and relay to operate from ATC. b. Yak38AM/39 were all equipped with a mig 23/29 suite. Including radar with multimode. c. The first 136 harriers produced by hawker Siddeley were also Radarless, including the initial 9 USMC Harriers they got for training. The subsequent batch would have a very powerful radar that had a range of …8 miles and relied on the CV on board systems.

            °Engine replacement each 22 hours. Nope. Since it took almost 18 hours to totally take out the tandem engines. The 22 hour stupidity comes from the fact the auxiliary engine, that was supposed to help with life in front, was badly battered during the test phase in both Romb1 and Kvadrat. They would fail because there was nothing helping with FOI. They would gulp dirt and grass and what ever and then would start a hiccup process. This was noticed for the 10 plnaes tha were tested both in Romb-a and Kvadrat. Ironically, the same issue would place the USMC harriers, which weren’t under “test”, they were flying normal missions, including one famous moment when the one of the vectoring nozzle would break sending the plane into a flat spin directly on the path of his wingman…

            °There are videos of them hovering and veering off in the “blue sea”. The video was one of CTOL with the plane attempting a classical take off with all system engaged. The plane flies straight but has not enough power to sustain a bi-axial thrust. You can indeed find that video. As much as you can find some other videos of the harrier having the same exact issue, including a superb piece of news with a RAF Harrier that went out on a CAP and ended up being forced to land on a container ship because of sea level. All these do not indicate incompetence, they indicate risk taking.

            What else is there to answer? We can go like this day and night and we can end up here. VTOL/STOL is serious business and a weapon’s race is not a safe environment for humans…

          • Tritro29

            Videos from Sparky aka BlacktailDefense, Aka M113 Gavin aka the village idiot who has been ridiculed universally in MOST military forums. Winning.

          • Sermon 7.62

            “Skylab was the United States’ first space station, orbiting Earth from 1973 to 1979, when it fell back to Earth amid huge worldwide media attention.”

            Is the second one on the orbit? No.

          • Kivaari

            Didn’t everyone sign on to the ISS?

          • Sermon 7.62

            Russia to ban US from using Space Station over Ukraine sanctions

            Russia is to deny the US future use of the International Space Station beyond 2020 and will also bar its rocket engines from launching US military satellites as it hits back at American sanctions imposed over Ukraine crisis. The Space Station is manned by both American and Russian crew, but the only way to reach it is by using Russia’s Soyuz spacecraft.

            The Telegraph
            13 May 2014

          • Kivaari

            It’s about time. It will deny hard US currency to those Putin lovers.

          • Kivaari

            Amazing. No radar. /Did it still have the IR detector for doing air to air msiion, or sl=elf defense? Or was it used as a vectored anti-shipping and ground attack craft? No radar and a 2200 pound payload makes it pretty useless. I assume it must have had some kind of air to surface missiles, but no air to air? With them crashing I guess there was no rush to expand on the concept.

          • sineva

            It carried the r-60/aa-8 ir guided missiles in the a2a role and 1 kh-23/as-7 in the anti-shipping/ground attack role.

          • Tritro29

            Are we talking about the same Yak 38 here? Because the exhaust wasn’t placed “too close” to the intake, it was a contraption that made use of the engine with a diffuser, just like the initial harrier, but with another engine to help pull up and get down the bird without needing a break in control vector…

            Ironically, it took America the blueprints of Yak’s successor the 141, to build (is it finished yet?) the much maligned F35.

          • sineva

            A lot of harriers ended up getting written off as well probably for a lot of the exact same reasons as the yak,if you have a malfunction or a loss of control in the hover or at low speed you generally dont have much time,or altitude,to do anything else except eject.

          • Sermon 7.62

            No, all of them. All of them fell into the ocean.

          • Zachary marrs

            And it sucks butt.

            Even the British carriers don’t need to haul its own tug boat in case it breakes down

          • Tritro29

            How does it move on case in breaks down? Does the crew remember it’s college years and breaks out some Oxford oars? And the pile of “knowlege” gets “bigger”.

          • Zachary marrs

            You should check your babel fish, captian tug boat.

          • Tritro29

            You should change that tampon, Super Patriot, it’s leaking again.

          • Zachary marrs

            Dont use tampons, i have no need.

            You however, need to learn how to properly maintain a conversation.

            SYL, captian tug boat.

          • Tritro29

            It’s not a conversation. It was a schooling. Also I don’t defend the motherland, I don’t need to any more, done my time, finito. But what i pointed out was that the US public, no matter how educated it is (Alx here can be an excellent sample), can’t still come to grips with the fact that subjective assessments do not make an objective criticism. The point about the YAK, the point about the TT, the point about “Soviet Incompetence”, all these can be reviewed in context.

            And this thread shines pretty much by the idiocy in which one “respected” member of TFB editors draped himself when he spoke about things he HAD TAKEN out of a video from BlacktailDefense (Aka Sparky McGavin). It’s a small world for “defense” people, we can spot out where info comes from pretty fast, because most of us use rather researched material when it comes to discussing firearms and weapons.

            Which in return, makes us rather conservative in expletives or sarcasm about systems, especially when it comes to problematic research items like the VTOL/STOL area.

            Talking to you however is like talking to a kid, you don’t know what the kid’s going to invent next, but you know that it would be wrong and misguided.

            You can now keep harping, about stuff you don’t know.

          • Zachary marrs

            “Schooling”

            Whatever “schooling” you attended, they clearly didn’t teach English.

            You might not be on the front lines defending your country, but you are sure white knighting for the motherland, and you do it any time someone even DARES mention Russia.

            Oh, and it isn’t just this argument where you bring up all sorts of non related topics, remember our Admiral Kuznetsov argument, where you started talking about the famas? The same argument where you finally pulled the “aviation heavy cruiser” (aka, semantics) card?

            So salty and full of vitrol, it might sound harsh, but if you and your sermon 7.62 pal never came back on this site, not many would miss you.

            I also see your sermon pal called your “aviation heavy cruiser” an aircraft carrier.
            Plan on arguing with him, tug boat?

          • Sermon 7.62

            Perhaps his English is poor but he can speak English. And so can I. You can’t speak Russian at all. So shut up, and listen, because I’m not looking for friends here, and I don’t care if someone likes me or not. I can see nothing but a bunch of chimps acting as a flock, indulging their natural inclinations, so I’m having fun. That’s amusing.

            ‘Merica!

          • Zachary marrs

            Nobody here is acting like a flock, but when y’all have to resort to semantics, incorrect information, and insults, its no wonder people grow tired.

            Also, in case you didn’t notice, this site is in English, not Russian, your ability to speak that language doesn’t matter.

            And it’s “aviation heavy cruiser”, or does correctness not matter when you both get paid by the state to white knight the motherland?

            And since your (poor) grasp of the language this website is published in, I will let you know that was me interjecting a bit of humor

          • Anon

            “It’s not a conversation. It was a schooling.”

            Okay, seriously, what? Are you really that full of yourself?

          • Tritro29

            Did you read what was posted by Alex? If you didn’t then go and read. I replied in detail to his claims. I can also provide the exact source from WHERE he got the totality of those “facts”.

            You can then compare and reflect on what really happened. It’s all there. Maybe I sound like and ass-hole, but better that, than an pompous ignorant.

          • Anon

            That’s the thing, I couldn’t care less if you’re right, the problem is that you’re acting like a pompous A-hole, and given that you brought irrelevant things up in order to “strawman” Alex (like saying he “sucks the dong of the F35”, when nobody mentioned that before), I have no reason to believe that you said anything of value.

          • Tritro29

            Form over substance, the basics behind any internet back-pedalling. I never brought any irrelevant topic in this discussion. I explained what I meant by that. He has the gall to laugh about “soviet incompetence” while by every standard he put out to measure the dismal performance of the YAK38, the competition had done as bad, if not worse. If you want to hide behind “good manners” to disqualify my reply, then so be it, next I’ll move on with the classic “Source” question which would shift the responsibility of the retort to the actual person who makes the claim.

            Because right now the situation is this. The person who makes claims unsupported by facts, has leeway because the critics were mean to him. Never mind the mildly cold war chicken hawk underpinnings of the claim. But yeah…you’re right I’m very very mean and thus am very very wrong.

            Boo hoo.

          • Kivaari

            If it is out to sea other ships in the formation can assume a towing role. The tugs are for moving it in ports of call without adequate local tugs. The carrier also serves as a support ship for the entire carrier group. Like with us the carriers were also fuelers for the smaller vessels. We often refueld from the various carriers we were providing protection to while in Vietnam. About half the time when we were on Yankee Station. While doing gun line duty we used traditional supply ships AOEs every two days. We got both food, parts and ammunition from such vessels.

          • iksnilol

            If a ship breaks down, by definition it should need another boat or something to tug it.

            Or do Western superships have spare everything in storage?

          • Zachary marrs

            Our western ships don’t break down to the point they carry a tugboat whenever they go out.

            Not to mention we have more than one carrier.

          • iksnilol

            So by having tugboats (just to be prepared) makes it inferior?

            F***, I should throw out my spare wheel then to make my car more superior.

          • Zachary marrs

            No, having to take a tugboat EVERYWHERE because you break down so much makes it inferior.

            It’s like driving around in a sh!tty car, and towing a tow truck everywhere because you always break down

            Im not going to even get into its inability to launch aircraft fully loaded for combat

            You see those big shiny American and British aircraft carriers? Look how many tug boats they have to haul, and get back to me.

          • Kivaari

            What does the US Navy do? It hires tugs from other nations if it isn’t close to a US port. We have seagoing tugs, but not everywhere. I doubt they carry tugs for when they break down. Just notice that the US Navy has break downs and in a carrier group there are 15 ships that could tow the carrier. But, that is not how its done. We don’t hear how many times those ships are disabled, since they have redundant systems. Knock out one boiler and turbine and there are several others that can shift thrust to one of the other three shafts. We also rely upon tugs form other nations when coming into foreign ports. We have ships break down now and then and we hire private industry to provide towing services.

          • Zachary marrs

            “I doubt they carry tugs for when they break down.”

            That is exactly what this is about, we don’t, the Russians do

            Simple as 1+1=2

          • Zachary marrs

            And comparing a flat tire to an aircraft carrier? No. Not even close.

          • Kivaari

            I think it is quite clever. I don’t see the tugs as being used for breakdowns, but for mooring in ports not having adequate local resources.

          • Zachary marrs

            Except the tugs are used for breakdowns.

          • Kivaari

            I haven’t found anything that officially says they carry tug boats for emergency towing. It would be insane to carry tug boats large enough to tow a carrier anywhere. That would be like packing a ship(s) the size of our ocean going tugs. I can see little things for moving about in harbors.
            When we lost power on large ships at sea, in emergencies we towed them with destroyers.
            I think it is silly to think this is for spare tire use on the cruiser/carriers. Do you know if this is true, or is it just Russia bashing?

          • iksnilol

            I presume Russia bashing, but I don’t know.

            I am not a ship person.

          • Zachary marrs

            “But i don’t know”

            Bingo.

            The admiral kuznetsov is a floating turd, and even if it were operating under an American flag, it would still be a POS

          • Kivaari

            We have to call for tugs. We even used Norwegians to bring our crippled destroyer home from Yemen.

          • Zachary marrs

            *facepalm*

            We do not have to haul tugs everywhere due to breakdowns.

            Moving into a port doesn’t equal breaking down to the point you take a tug boat EVERYWHERE

            Comprende?

            Or do you think having to call a tow truck every now and again is equal to taking the d@mn thing with you like mary’s little lamb?

          • Kivaari

            I view the tugs as being a primitive way of doing what bow and stern thrusters do on our ships. They allow for tight movements in confined harbors that don’t require local assets.

          • Zachary marrs

            Except we do not break down to the degree we always need to take one woth us.

            Do you understand?

          • Kivaari

            We just call the nearest friendly nation or use one of the other three screws.

          • Zachary marrs

            Stop.

          • Kivaari

            I would like to see the real rationale that the Russians have for doing so. I do not believe it is due to break downs. That is what the other ships are for. I don’t know of a carrier since WW2 that could not use one of the other engines and shafts to make way. If all the reactors and all the turbines are down, than we have much bigger issues than needing a few small tug boats to shove the ship around. They are not going to be packing heavy seagoing tugs designed for ship rescue. They are packing boats for harbor use.

          • Zachary marrs

            There are lots of links online. I recommend doing your own research, since disqus love to leave links in moderation purgatory.

            We have tugs for ports, they have tugs for breakdowns.

            And all those other boats that go with our carriers? They ain’t just for towing.

            “If all the reactors and all the turbines are down, than we have much bigger issues than needing a few small tug boats to shove the ship around”

            And pray tell, how often has that happened?

          • Kivaari

            I find nithing that shows them packing tug boats as spare tires. One story of an engine break down int eh Bay of Biscayne where a large seagoing tug was called to tow the carrier.

          • Kivaari

            I find the concept to be OK. I can see them going to ports of call where there are no local tug boats that could shove a carrier around. It strikes me as a very clever solution to visiting places that just are not up to moving large ships around. Otherwise they could only visit ports with “services”. Like our carriers they travel in large groups, or did when they used carriers. We often had 15 ships or more in a carrier battle group. Lots of times the carriers did not tie up, except in major ports. I remember my ship simply anchoring in a river near Bangkok as there were no port facilities. A carrier couldn’t even think of visiting the place like we did.

          • Kivaari

            Unless there is a major disaster the carriers have four shafts and can power themselves. It would be quite rare for a carrier to need a tow. It happened in WW2 after serious attacks. But, that was WW2.
            Today it is quite rare. Should a carrier suffer total , all engines failing, you’d see a destoyer or frigate take a line forward to keep the carrier on track. We would hire commercial tugs from the nearest friendly nation having big enough tugs to do the job. It just is a very rare thing to need such aid.
            I still contend the Russian did not carry tugs for emergency towing.

          • TheNotoriousIUD

            Yeah, the Pontiac Aztek of naval aviation.

          • Sermon 7.62

            No, Russia doesn’t have carriers except one. In the 60’s and 70’s, 8 carriers were built, one was sold to India, others decommissioned in the 90’s. The last one is still in service, but soon it is going to be scrapped or sold as well.

            You people don’t understand one simple thing: carriers are vulnerable, and having them makes no sense for a state like Russia. NATO countries might need them, to export Demoncratic values to peasants, but Russia is not up to this.

            So, at the present time Russia doesn’t build carriers. Russia builds submarines and missiles.

        • Zachary marrs

          OMG HOW DARE YOU CALL IT AN AIRCRAFT CARRIER IT IS AN AVIATION HEAVY CRUISER!!!1!

      • Kivaari

        Japan and Germany both lost because they started wars they were unable to win. They had few local resources and both went to war to implement racist policies. Biting off more than they could chew and resulting in tens of millions of live lost for no good reason.

        • Sermon 7.62

          Japan surrendered in order to spare the lives of innocent people from genocide.

          • Kivaari

            Japan started the genocide. They had nothing to fear if they just stopped their aggression. Japs killed million of “inferior” Asian people.
            Japan and Germany started the wars only to empower themselves to take over the Asian world. They viewed other Asians as inferior and absolutely hated white people. The only reason Japan needed resources was to build weapons with which to engage in expanded war.

          • Sermon 7.62

            But it doesn’t mean that some nation from another continent is entitled to drop atomic bombs on their cities, or does it? In particular, a nation that exterminated almost all of the indigenous peoples of the territories that it occupied.

          • Kivaari

            Yes, it does permit it. WE could have simply burned Japan into ashes using cheap incendiary bombs. We killed more people in Tokyo using low cost devices. Same with Dresden. Japan and Germany were pounded into submission. It was a choice the leadership made to fight. Just why wound we have much sympathy for Japan or Germany after all the destruction and death they delivered to innocent people? WE nuked them, and had we had the bombs earlier we could have nuked them earlier and saved millions more lives. We should not have had to sacrifice any western lives to save the victims created by Japan. Look at what Germany did in Europe. Should they have been stopped? To what end did Germany start the war? To kill millions of Slavs.

          • Sermon 7.62

            You are an asinine old freak. You need help.

          • Kivaari

            What? It was OK for the Soviets to murder and rape their way across central Europe and enslave millions for decades, and I am an old freak. Seriously. We wanted the wars to not have happened.
            Why would we not go all out to end the wars started by insane people. Why did we support the USSR, and ignored the killings and offenses so common on the eastern front, except to end the war faster.

          • Sermon 7.62

            One of the enduring narratives of World War II is that during the invasion of the Third Reich, British and American troops largely behaved well, and it was the soldiers of the Soviet Union’s Red Army who raped hundreds of thousands of German females, aged from eight to 80.

            However, a new book published in Germany makes the shocking and disturbing claim that the Americans raped a staggering 190,000 women in the decade from the invasion until West Germany became a sovereign country in 1955.

            In When The Soldiers Came, historian Professor Miriam Gebhardt also suggests the British raped 45,000 German women, and the French a further 50,000.

            DailyMail
            25 March 2015

  • Kelly Jackson

    I’m pretty sure only the US and German militaries took handguns seriously during the 2nd world war

    • andrey kireev

      What about Russians ?
      They had TT-33, which was good for it’s purpose.

      • Sermon 7.62

        The best or at least the most interesting handgun of its time. But don’t mention the Russians here, meaning something else than them being subhumans.

        • Anon

          …What? First of all, mechanically, the Tokarev wasn’t all that special, since it is based on the Browning tilting-barrel mechanism, secondly, the best how? I’m not saying it’s a bad pistol or anything, but why’s it the best or “most interesting”? Finally, what are you talking about in your second sentence?

          • Tritro29

            I don’t know about the best, but is was THE most cost effective handgun of the war. This came with an oversimplified design that was obsolete as a combat handgun as soon as it got out of the factory. At least this is when you read the reviews by US Army armorers (they say almost the same thing about the T-34, the tank, those US experts). In reality it’s a simple handgun with a very potent round and good reliability. TT30’s were somewhat troublesome during tests though with poor metallurgy involved and crude finish. I think his second sentence points out the general mood towards anything Russian from SOME posters in this blog.

          • Kivaari

            We know the US Army was wrong about the T34. There is something about the crude wartime finish on the pistols. They were not pretty. The way the firing group pulled out of the frame was genius.

          • Tritro29

            And yet, those experts were pretty correct in their objective assessment. The T34 wasn’t a tank that the US could accept as it stood (especially the lack of communication tools, rather rudimentary gearbox, cramped interior and very poor initial stabilization). However the US ended inducting a half pig of a tank, which was better on almost every individual aspect (engine, stab, aiming instruments, radios, up to three radios for the M4A3’s) but not that different when it came to the capabilities in the field. Sometimes, a product is only gauged by its whole performance, not the sum of its details. So in that aspect, the gun might sound inferior (I’m speaking about the Nambu and the TT) but you have to put into context.

          • Kivaari

            Well put.

          • Sermon 7.62

            The round made it the most interesting pistol of the time. And it still is a great pistol. Just needs some upgrade of the rear sight.

          • Anon

            The round certainly is good, and yes, the pistol itself is great, especially compared to the monstrosity that is the Type 94 Nambu (no, I’m not damning it by faint praise). I think I should get a Tokarev one of these days.

        • Major Tom

          Last I remember though, the Tokarev TT-33 is heavily influenced by Browning’s masterpiece pistol the M1911.

          • Tritro29

            The strong point of the TT wasn’t the “design”, it was the round. 7.62×25 was the real deal breaker. Also the TT-30 was influenced by the 1903, not the 1911 (and we recieved 1911A1’s as LL). There are differences, which makes it an oddball and a more simple pistol to produce.

          • Anonymoose

            Yeah, the CZ52 is the superior platform, and you can get 7.62×25 barrels for for 9mm/.38 1911s (but feeding is an issue).

          • Kivaari

            The CZ Vz52 is known for breaking down. Broken firing pins and safeties. It is very complex compared to the TT33. I know I’d pick the TT33 over the 52 having used both. I never saw a real TT33 broken from use. I’ve seen too many Vz52s broken down with firing pins and safeties failing frequently. I’d take a TT33 as they are a tough, no-nonsense pistol. The Vz52 only remained in production for a couple years. I suspect it was costly to produce and just not robust enough.

          • Kivaari

            Simple and robust. I love the whole thing due to those design features. It is a trim and powerful machine.

        • Kivaari

          You are too self conscious and think others hold negative thoughts about all things Russian. Your defensiveness is unjustified.
          I don’t know anyone that thinks the TT33 is a bad gun. It is simple, robust and fires a potent cartridge. It is a better pistol than anything the Germans built in WW2.

          • Tritro29

            Once again, the pistol was effective but I wouldn’t venture as far as saying better handgun that what the Germans had built. Germans had ‘acquired’ the tooling for both Polish Model 35 and French model 35 (two different designs) and they had also Hi-Po models of their own.

          • Kivaari

            I don’t count the guns made in Poland and Belgium. Those were great pistols. I just find the Luger and P38 to be over-hyped. Neither one had the reliability of the GP35, Vz35 or TT33.

          • Tritro29

            They were still German built with, especially the French Model 35 some better finish. Also fun fact, Belgian police was handed P08 at the German speaking areas of Belgium while the Pipers they had in service were taken for Wehrmacht use.

          • Kivaari

            That says a lot.

          • Sermon 7.62

            TT is better in that 7.62×25 round it uses.

          • Anon

            I think the reason he does that is because it’s frustration boiling over from constantly getting jumped on for making stupid comments on other threads like: “ARs are cheap aluminum pieces of junk just because one exploded because some idiot loaded .300 Blackout in an AR-15 chambered in 5.56 and AKs are immune to exploding like ARs because it’s heat-treated steel, kid”.

            I believe he’s projecting his insecurities by thinking everybody hates Russian stuff, when really, we don’t.

          • Tritro29

            Well, I tend to make slightly less stupid comments regarding things I know, doesn’t stop some “Russian/Commie=Shit” comments when I argue about the merits and flaws of Soviet era designs. If you want to have a list of usual suspects, just look up in this thread.

            Also, it’s not that you hate Russian/Soviet/Commie stuff. It’s that you don’t judge them in context…and this doesn’t stop at Russian/Chinese/Commie. Look at the Famas thread.

          • Anon

            Admittedly, I have made some stupid comments myself along the lines of “.300 Blackout sucks” and “The FAMAS sucks”.

          • Kivaari

            That’s him alright. Even when giving praise to Russian stuff he is so used to being defensive he can’t resist. Even when he defends things that are proven inferior, he is just driven to defend. Even though the comments reflect facts and not prejudices.

          • Sermon 7.62

            It’s stupid, kid.

          • Anon

            Do you really think that “retort” is going to deter me or anyone else? All you really did was just make yourself sound like a petulant child with that response.

          • Sermon 7.62

            It is indeed stupid.

          • crackedlenses

            And you do indeed sound like a petulant child. Could we just call it a draw?

          • Anon

            Doesn’t it ever get old, being under that bridge all the time?

          • Sermon 7.62

            No, it’s not thoughts about all things Russian here, it’s feelings. You people are a bunch of haters. Doped by propaganda, ignorant and sick. I have been attacked by trolls on a regular basis on this site.

          • Kivaari

            It is due to your ignorance and silly defense of the indefensible.

          • Sermon 7.62

            Ignorance? I have forgotten more than you have known.

          • Anon

            Are you done shoring up your fragile ego?

          • iksnilol

            DO YOU REALIZE HOW MUCH I PAYED FOR A LUGER!?

            SO NO, DON’T TELL ME MY CRAPPY TOKAREV IS BETTER!

            *just joking

          • Kivaari

            I love it. I think you are correct about how some people feel about Lugers. I have owned a couple of them and just find them to be horrible pistols. Interesting designs, but unreliable, complex and awkward. They fit the had abut as bad as any gun can fit a hand.
            I was at a gun store today and an old guy brought in a Jpanese Type 94. A nice August of 1938 variant in mint condition with one matching magazine and a spare. He wanted $1500 for it, and it was probably worth about half of that. But, I remember when they were over priced at $35. Regardless of collectors interest, they are still one of the worst semi-auto handguns ever made.

          • iksnilol

            I don’t mind the Luger design, it feels classy. I’d probably get a Luger to go with my suit. + I think with how light it is at the muzzle it wouldn’t be hindered much by a suppressor.

        • andrey kireev

          I doubt its the Best handgun of all time… itself being based on browning model 1903 and 1911. They are a good handgun, I’ve used to own one a bit back, from what I’ve observed, they aren’t too well finished in most cases and have quality that varies greatly between the examples.

          • Sermon 7.62

            Like I said, the round makes it special.

        • Kivaari

          It would be hard to say it out did the M1911 or the GP35. It is a simple and robust design so it has its place. But “best”?

          • Sermon 7.62

            P35 is a piece of crap.

          • Kivaari

            The GP35 is world renowned. What P35 is a piece of crap, certainly not the Browning. Other pistols of the era were quite good the Finn Lahti and the Swede M40 variant. They were large and quite heavy, but tough guns. The Polish pistols, before the Germans changed the design was and remains a good pistol.

          • Sermon 7.62

            Browning P35 is a piece of crap. And 1911, I think TT “out did” it too.

          • Kivaari

            Silly crap.

          • Sermon 7.62

            In your head, oldster.

    • Anon

      What about the Hi-Power?

      • Gary Kirk

        Hey Alex, on Anon’s point.. What about a review of (I think it’s nighthawk)’s new Hi-power? Or have y’all already done that? Fairly new to the site..

      • andrey kireev

        Another great gun that deserves lots of respect….unheard of magazine capacity at the time, it also influenced lots of other hand guns that were made after the war =)

        • Sermon 7.62

          I had it for some time and I hated it.

        • Anon

          It really was ahead of its time.

    • Tritro29

      That would be an awful assumption to make. French, Polish and Czech handguns were pressed into service by the Germans to make up for a rather lacking inventory. Then the Germans would go as far as using the infamous TT-33 mostly because of the round.

    • Kivaari

      The Germans issued mostly 7.65mm pocket pistols. Japanese officers had to buy their own pistols from all I have read over the decades. The Japanese home handgun industry was seriously under-accomplished.

      • Tritro29

        Wat?

        • Kivaari

          It seems like more .32 auto show up than 9mm. The Germans simply bought or stole every handgun they could get their hands on. I think the soldiers, real fighters, had the 9mms, whereas the Germans as a whole (police, officer corp, guards) were all handed a .32 auto of some kind. Overall I don’t know the numbers issued. I just remember having a book that listed what was being built, stolen and issued and those pocket pistols made up a huge pile. I suspect the Eastern Front got most of the 9mms. That’s speculation on old memories.

          • Tritro29

            The 7.65 issue stems from the often overlooked fact that Germany never really fully mobilized for warfare, until it was well down the path of defeat (October 1942). Therefore most of the available military designs were in 7.65, while the actual official, 9mm replacement for the 08, was still being slowly produced. But the actual military round and handguns were supposed to be the Walther. Once full requisition for war production hit home, the lines were already in dire state therefore making it difficult to fulfil orders for speciality items like handguns.

          • Kivaari

            I found a count in Ezell’s “Handguns of the World” that shows 9mm Para accounted for 2,882,450 and the 7.65, 6.35, 9 Browning, .45 etc came to 2,194,804. So 9mms did out place the little guns. Those account for the ones on the books.

    • Kivaari

      Finland, Norway, Sweden and Britain. The USSR did OK with the TT33 but kept making that odd-ball M1895.

  • Bill

    Probably field stripping it, and leaving it disassembled, would be the best move.

  • MarcoPolo

    Are we revisiting the Nambu because of the disastrous Remington R51 review yesterday?

    • Nashvone

      “But wait! It could be worse!”

      • Gary Kirk

        Almost…

      • Kivaari

        Yep, the Remington could be chambered in 8mm Nambu.

    • Agitator

      I mean, this is what I saw when scrolling past…

  • Thanks for this. I enjoy learning more about the mechanics and history of various guns.

  • Strongarm

    Chamber loaded, cocked and holstered without getting the safety “On”…Which gun considered safe in this condition.

  • mazkact

    Thanks to Othias over at C&rsenal I now know that Nambu was really the genius behind the Arisaka Type 38. I wonder now if someone else is really responsible for this monstrosity. Hard to believe that the same mind would come up with the Type 38 and the exposed trigger connecting bar on the Type 94.

  • The_Champ

    My thoughts reading this comment thread

    ***Goes to read “The FIREARMS Blog” comments on a nice little video Alex made on a not too often discussed strange little pistol. Great!
    ***Starts off okay, a few people mention the Nambu
    ***Now we’re talking WWII pistols in general….I can dig it, I love WWII history
    ***The TT33, yeah I’ve heard that was a solid gun, sort of a unique cartridge, Alex should do a video on that one
    ***The TT33 was the BEST pistol in WWII… okay…. that’s possible I guess
    ***The TT33 is superior soviet supergun, much like T34 tank….. okay, tanks do have firearms attached to them so I guess we are still sorta on topic
    ***Bombing Hiroshima and rape in Germany, Soviet VTOL aircraft attrition rates and ships designed to carry aircraft that aren’t actually aircraft carriers…… yep we’ve gone completely off the rails here

    • Tritro29

      The last part being introduced by the very same author of this thread…

  • Cottersay

    The Type 94 is such a piece of sh!t, yet I’ve always wanted one. Strange.

  • Looks like an antique:-) Nice rust!