PDA

View Full Version : Type 38 Arisaka value?


zbones6
February 27, 2012, 05:11 PM
Over the summer, my uncle gave me his Type 38 Arisaka. I have no intention of selling it, but I would like to know its value. The Mum was hastily defaced, but still recognizable. Besides the Mum, 99% of original bluing is intact, all serial numbers match, and, as a bring back, has no import markings. The bore is somewhat dark, but has no pitting and almost perfect rifling. The stock has scratches and dings here and there, with one large gauge on the left side by the receiver. The front sight base is present, but the sight post was drifted off the base and lost. Because its been sitting in my uncles attic for 50+ years (he got it from a vet) it is in very good shape.

79202

79203

79204

ps, sorr for the poor quality photos

tater134
February 27, 2012, 07:38 PM
That's a nice looking rifle. It was made at the Koishikawa arsenal in Tokyo sometime between 1906-1935. You should be able to find a front sight blade for the rifle or you could purchase a barrel cheap to take the front sight off of. As for value I would put it between $190-250 but prices can vary depending on where you are located.

Chris_B
February 27, 2012, 08:04 PM
Cool rifle. Supposedly it's one of the strongest actions used in WWII

zbones6
February 28, 2012, 10:34 AM
I was wondering about the strength of the action. I know Arisakas have the strongest of WW II, but which series has the strongest, the 38's, or the 99's?

tater134
February 28, 2012, 10:55 AM
I know Arisakas have the strongest of WW II, but which series has the strongest, the 38's, or the 99's?

They should be about the same. The 99 is basically just a scaled up type 38 because it was made to fire the larger 7.7 round.

chiefr
February 28, 2012, 11:43 AM
I agree with Tater as far as what your rifle is worth. Arisakas with the mum intact are worth more.
Your action is in fact very strong. If I owned the rifle, I would have it checked out and shoot it. Type 38s with good bores are known for accuracy.

warbirdlover
February 28, 2012, 12:33 PM
I'm not sure how many of these were made late in the war but those might be weak as the US bombing destroyed their ability to heat treat steel. Example was their late production fighter planes landing gear were failing due to not being heat treated.

tater134
February 28, 2012, 06:01 PM
I'm not sure how many of these were made late in the war but those might be weak as the US bombing destroyed their ability to heat treat steel. Example was their late production fighter planes landing gear were failing due to not being heat treated.

Type 38 production ceased in 1940 before Japan and the US were at war so production was unaffected by material shortages or bombing.

doofus47
March 1, 2012, 10:20 AM
Nice rifle. It's probably worth a couple hundred. Not as much as the familial historical value imho. A little bit defaced mum is equal to no mum for collectors.
My type 38 carbine was a great shooter. You should have fun with that.

zbones6
March 1, 2012, 10:32 AM
A little bit defaced mum is like slightly corrosive ammo, or bieng slightly pregnant, eh?

gyvel
March 1, 2012, 10:57 AM
A defaced mum is the difference between a "batlefield pickup" and a "surrendered" gun.

Usually, the guns with defaced mums came out of collection depots, where GIs were allowed to pick one out and take it home with them.

On the other hand, a mum that has not been defaced often denotes that the rifle was picked up after a battle or taken from a Japanese soldier after a battle and kept as a souvenir, hence the relative scarcity.

Sadly, us kids who grew up in the 40s and 50s would often use these as playtoys, as Japanese guns in particular were not held in very high esteem. This accounts for some of the more abused looking guns, as they were often repeatedly dropped when the kid who was playing the "Jap" would be "shot and killed" in ""battle.":D

TX Hunter
March 3, 2012, 08:25 PM
The Photo is blurry, but that looks like a very nice Arasaka I would like to have one of those myself.

Gunplummer
March 5, 2012, 09:27 AM
In the last year I sold off my Arisaka collection at auction. Some of the 6.5's went a lot higher than I thought they would. The defaced MUM on the 6.5's really mean nothing as far as field pickups. Hundreds of thousands of 6.5's came in to the U.S. through other countries that inherited them after the war. The only 6.5's I had that were defaced were 1 or 2 carbines and a couple of remarked trainers or "Low quality" rifles for reserve use only. The field pick ups really did not bring more. I had some with schrapnel damage that went about average price. One that was burned on one side went pretty high, I guess flame thrower damage but I never was sure.

Gunplummer
March 5, 2012, 09:37 AM
I would go with the 6.5 as being stronger. The extractor cut on the 7.7 goes all the way through the receiver ring and the 6.5 only about half way. The base of the bolt handle is used as a third lug on the 6.5 and the bolt lugs are bigger on the 6.5 Other than that not much difference. I have about 8-9 Arisakas left, but only one in 6.5 All the rest I rebarreled to other calibers for hunting.

publius
March 13, 2012, 08:10 PM
I have a 6.5 with the mum intact, wish the overall rifle was in the shape of yours. I can't tell from the pic but it looks like they did a poor job of defacing the mum, Usually they have a shallow hacksaw mark or similar. Looks like yours was just hit with a little sandpaper. I'd try to clean that area up more with a bronxe brush and some Kroil. Fun rifles, and good cartridge, I've killed several pigs with mine. KEEP YOUR BRASS!