What is this???

[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.

[Rifleman]

Thanks to all for the help and information, I really appreciate it!!!

[madsenshooter]

Thanks for making some of the collector types here drool!

[psteinmayer]

I'm definitely drooling!!!

[Rifleman]

My Dad brought these to me today, the cert allowing my grandfather to return home with the Jap rifle and these two metal tags. The small one has "Jap Zero" scratched on the back, I have no idea what the larger one is...any one able to translate?

[Guamsst]

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.

........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............

By the time these rifles were being produced the AA sight had already been written off as all but pointless. I agree though that Navy would have better chances with them......but they took real AA guns with them wherever the ship went.

The stocks were not spliced due to the available "size" of the wood. That is basically an urban legend like Garand clip ping causing the deaths of so many soldiers. The reality was a two fold benefit. 1. The most direct reason, was that by changing the direction of the wood grain (the splice always has the same angle on the wood grain) they reduced the chances of chipping the stock. 2. a minor benefit but not a necessity was that yes, they could use smaller pieces of wood. This opened up the amount of lumber suitable for rifle stocks but they had more wood than steel and after invading China they had more wood than they would ever need.