Question regarding Arisaka Bayonet

[racerzeke]

I recently purchased a Type 99 and I always have been a fan of 'completing' the rifle so to say with accessories and authentic bayonets and such. I found someone selling a Type 30 Kokura Hikari Seiki bayonet and the grips looks almost too good to be authentic. Could this be real or too good to be true? Any advice would be much appreciated!

[highpower3006]

While I am not saying that it couldn't be original, I have never seen a Japanese bayonet with grip scales that light colored. Also it looks as though they were varnished.

[Mike Irwin]

I've seen light scales, and stocks, on Arisakas and their bayonets.

I think it normally happens from people cleaning them to get all the grime and oil and dirt off. It exposes the natural, light colored wood.

If you google, you'll find some that do have scales that are quite light.

I agree that the scales have been varnished, though. Probably not long after they were cleaned.

[James K]

I think it is a repro. The arsenal mark is not quite right, is not deep enough and is in the wrong place. Also, bayonets with the hook guard were pre-WWII and are generally much better made and finished. Am I sure? No, but I would be very skeptical if I were offered that bayonet.

FWIW, there was no "Type 99" bayonet; the Type 30 bayonet was issued with the Type 30, Type 38 and Type 99 rifles, although many manufacturing steps were skipped on late (WWII) bayonets for faster production.

Jim

[Brit]

Looks like the British Bayonet, prior to the spike bayonet.

[James K]

That type of bayonet with the cross bolt attachment and the hooked quillion was very common in Europe at the time, plus Britain and Japan had very close military relations, with some cross-fertilization on weaponry. (The Japanese use of Metford rifling is one example.) The early British M1907 bayonet is almost identical to the Type 30 bayonet, and also to Mauser rifle bayonets of the 1890's.

Jim

[Buzzcook]

I think someone was over zealous at cleaning that bayonet.

Unhappily that reduces the value.

[Mike Irwin]

I don't think it's a reproduction bayonet, Jim. I think it's a later third style, as shown on this page (he calls them Variation C)

http://members.shaw.ca/nambuworld/bayonets.htm

The hooked quillion (I think that's the right word) was apparently manufactured by some factories almost to the end of the war.

I think that particular style would be a very unusual one to reproduce.

[Pahoo]

I agree that the scales have been varnished, though. Probably not long after they were cleaned.

Agree and I to feel that this is original. These really do not bring enough money to be worth reproducing. I have two of these and one of them looks very much like yours. I know where mine came from. .....

I always have been a fan of 'completing' the rifle so to say with accessories

Now the fun begins and I have seen quite a few mud guards, mono-pod is fairly rare and the leather/rubber belt sling is even rarer, not to mention orignal "clips" and ammo. ...

Good luck and;
Be Safe !!!

[James K]

Hi, Mike and Pahoo,

I am not sure, but note that the "C" type has a different method of attaching the scales. The bayonet in question appears to be an "A" type but with a much cruder appearance. The ones I have seen were very nicely made, just like the German-made Mauser bayonets and our Krag and Springfield bayonets. One problem I have is that the arsenal mark is very shallow; the original marks were deep, put on before the blade was hardened.

The repros have been of the hooked "A" type for obvious reasons - they look "cool".

Jim

[Pahoo]

The repros have been of the hooked "A" type for obvious reasons - they look "cool".

I agree and some hooks were cut and don't know if it's true, but it was a requirement on bring-backs. Also, of the two bing-backs that I had, the stamping was deep but one in particular was not even. I have seen some later issue that were very crude. Have you ever seen one that had rubber impregnated fabic sling?

Be Safe !!!

[Mike Irwin]

I don't know, but it just doesn't look like a repop to me. I've seen many Japanese weapons and other equipment over the years with a high degree of variation in the quality of the markings.

As the war went on, it became more and more difficult for the Japanese to replace bunters and other non-essential tool steel items simply because the tool steel was in such short supply.

As the tools wore down the markings became less and less refined and often shallower.

I've seen late war Japanese small arms ammunition that is so poorly marked that it's almost impossible to read, with ragged stampings and even what appear to have been chips in the bunter.