Japanese Type 1 (Type 98/MG-15 clone) reactivated

[IMBLITZVT]

Sorry guys, I just don't see it IMHO. I think you will find that very very few ships made is past the English blockade, German shipping was pretty much the baltic only. The ships in the Indian and Pacific were there at the start of the war until they were destroyed. They were not making shipping runs. U-Boat trips were rare and not much material was taken. Aircraft could carry some but again, I don't think likely. Electronic switches were not dumb stuff back in the 40s, it was state of the art. Somehow I don't think the Russians were letting war making material transfer through the country to the enemy on the other side.

Both pictures are poor at best with the first being almost useless. The second clearily has some other stuff going on. Neither shows the guns in use and so both are subject to the author of the book knowing what they are talking about. Who is to say they would not take a picture of the gun with a replacement cover?... Sorry its just not any kind of proof to me yet... a start maybe.

I also don't see why you think Drum and winders were traded? Just because we have a lack of them in the US, it means nothing. Winders are probably rare because they were kept at the base and so were not captured with the gun.

Here is the other thing with the bakelite... late in the war the japs were doing more with wood, not less.

Anyway, I can see we have some fundimental disagreements here and thats fine. Its a great gun with whatever receiver cover it has and I look forward to seeing it shooting!

[sbl11]

i wonder if these guys know anything about the japanese production of bakelite in 1944. http://www.fujibake.com/english/kaisyagaiyou/index.html


-seth

read the first statement under the history section

[sbl11]

army air corps target # 1365 Japan Bakelite Company http://books.google.com/books?id=5SdDW6 ... 20&f=false

[sbl11]

"The Pacific Theater of World War II broke out in 1941, and Gosei Jushi Kogyosho came to the attention of Japan’s military. Phenolic resins began to be used primarily for military requirements such as wireless communications and aircraft parts, and were even used as machine and chemical components in place of metal" here is the link: http://www.sumitomo.gr.jp/english/histo ... ite02.html turns out bakelite was used more commonly than once thought, and very much so in aviation.

-seth

[bmg17a1]

In regard to the removal of the endcap on your gun, you noted that the bolt had been cocked and welded in the cocked position. I assume that this is confirmed by weld visible at the bolt face, etc. The ractchet disc, held by a crosspin in the opening in the rear end of the receiver has very little back and forth movement available at any time. Assuming that here is a recoil spring assembled, since the bolt is cocked, the recoil spring not only is compressed, but I would suggest coil bound in the tube and the cap is screwed hard down on to the ratchet disc. If the spring is coil bound there is no possible movement of the disc foward when pressed by a punch through the hole in the cap. Any rotation the cap is probably due to wear at the disc crosspin or wear of the ratchet teeth.
The only way to release the cap would be to remove the weld at the bolt face or wherever the bolt was welded so the bolt can go into battery.

Bob Naess

[sbl11]

No, the bolt face was not welded. the weld was to the portion of the bolt behind the cocking handle attaching it to the metal piece just forwar of the large recoil spring. It has been re-watted. The bolt as well as the all the internals can be relased forward from from the rear. The rear is just a shell at that point, pressure is removed prome the locking washer, yet it still wont disengage the end cap. nothing on the gun is welded now, it took 3 minutes with a dremil tool to take care of the small tack weld.
-seth

[TactAdv]

No, the bolt face was not welded. the weld was to the portion of the bolt behind the cocking handle attaching it to the metal piece just forwar of the large recoil spring. It has been re-watted. The bolt as well as the all the internals can be relased forward from from the rear. The rear is just a shell at that point, pressure is removed prome the locking washer, yet it still wont disengage the end cap. nothing on the gun is welded now, it took 3 minutes with a dremil tool to take care of the small tack weld.
-seth

If you have access.......a dip into an ultrasonic cleaner might clear out/break up any offending particulates (rust particles?) that are hanging up in the threaded joint there.

[sbl11]

how does that work exactly? im not too sure what that is or where to find one. Im sure thats what has it hung up. The fact that the bolt held open compressed the spring so long against that endcap probably also has something to do with it.

-seth

[TactAdv]

how does that work exactly? im not too sure what that is or where to find one.
-seth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrasonic_cleaning

Google for the "where to find" part......ALL Over. probably best is to locate someone who has one near you commercially and rent time with it, otherwise, pretty expensive to just go buy $$$$$$. A Craigs List ad might be good for a "need to find one to use" type thing....

[sbl11]

i bet shooting the gun using that orignal rear would do the same thing...haha

-seth

[TactAdv]

i bet shooting the gun using that orignal rear would do the same thing...haha

-seth

So, try it.

[sbl11]

wont be home until thanks giving. Here is something interesting i have found regarding japanese uses of bakelite. Prior to 1940, in aircraft brass was used, but from 1941-1945 many of the brass fitting(look at aviation instruments) were replaced with bakelite. http://books.google.com/books?id=Bn7nyO ... te&f=false


So, while one might assume that bakelite would have been more commonly used earlier on, in fact study shows otherwise. Bakelite was used, oddly enough the opposite can be said for type 94 pistol grips.

[sbl11]

brass muzzle covers came before the bakelite ones

[bmg17a1]

Seth writes:

>Everyone has there (their) history in their heads, anything that disturbs that is not taken well.<

Well, what is "not taken well" is that you demand that history verify that the German made, Nazi marked cover on your T98 was orignally assembled to your specific gun but haven't provided any proof whatsoever. You have absolutely no historical evidence to demonstrate that your gun was assembled with a Nazi marked synthetic cover and then claim that contributors on his board have "history in their heads". Most of the history noted in this string is verified and no one disputes it. What is in dispute is the probability of the occurrance of the specific history of a specific MG that you want confirmed. You do seem to agree that this will never happen, and in that you are correct.
The second picture of the alleged T98 is much more revealing and clearly has a synthetic cover on it. However, the description is very ambiguous. It says, "This gun was designated MG15 in Germany......" So, are they referring to the gun in the picture which represents the gun that was orignally imported from Germany to copy, meaning it is an MG15, or are they referring to the first sentence as a type reference, which might suggest that the gun in the picture is a T98? The picture shows us the gun but does not give us any precedent, identifying information about the soource, the gun, etc as you also recognize. You do quite obstinately insist that the picture is completely truthful, accurate, and proves your point, but how are we to verify that it is exactly what it purtports to be? We do agree that German MG15s went to Japan, but again, the probability that the gun you have was one of those is remote, but, as with anything, there is a vaporous chance. Too bad, because it will not be possible to document that without a catalog of the MG15 serial numbers that went to Japan to crosscheck to see if your gun is listed. Without that, there is no way to know.
I've been disappointed by exactly the same phenomonen, quite a few times, as with a Johnson LMG that I own. I checked the "book" fully expecting it to be one of the rare, documented Marine issued Johnsons, but, no, poor Bob, it is not on the list. I can certainly claim that is one of them, and who is to know except the totally addicted MG nuts, who also have the "book", and if questioned, I can just say they missed it. But, what does it matter......
What an MG IS, remains the best that it will ever be, unless there is some provenance to elevate it to a more rarified status.
I can put MG15 covers on the several T98s that I own and make the claim that the cover was original to the gun from Japan. No doubt a few people would be impressed and believe it, but even if it were true, what does it really mean? It would be interesting to some of us, being a very marginal footnote to the Japanese use of the MG15 for their own purposes, but beyond that, the gun might have some greater value to a couple of people in the NFA world, and that 's about it.
I have some very rare weapons and accessories, for instance in the Japanese corner, I have an AA extension for the T92 HMG tripod. I am very excited to own one of the three or four in the US, and so are the other three owners, but for 99% of the rest of the NFA community, its a big yawn.
I guess I've made my point.
I can put you in touch with a gentleman, a friend of mine, who worked for the US Army and at Aberdeen in the fifites with their unit that evaluated and tested foreign small arms, and who has excellent resources for historic questions about MGs. I am sure he can push you further along the path to a greater understanding of what you might have and what might or might not have transpired with it. If you want this info, post me at : bmg17a1@gmail.com.
With all due respect, you volunteered your gun for evaluation on this site, and it is somewhart churlish of you to snap at us when we express our opinions, and offer our valuable experience and knowledge, gained over many, many years, and often at significant personal expense, undertaken because we love MGs and their history. We all take this seriously, and value facts for their own sake. It is easy to make up some romantic history for any firearm, or just believe some hokus pokus that someone else floats with grave ernestness and assurance, and unfortunately too many people do that, perpetuating all sorts of BS and foolishness.

Bob Naess

[sbl11]

Bob Naess,

You have yet to try and provide any evidence, any sources of information, or research in any of your claims. I would rather question the "expertise" (and I am refering only to you) of a machine gun collector's speculations, and instead go out and put efforts into research myself.No doubt you have great knowledge of machine guns, but you can't know everything. I have shown many instances, of Japanese production and even asked loaded questions that you don't have answers to. You may have run across alot of machine guns in your time, but that gives you no validity in all matters involving production. A great majority of type 98s are no longer available for research, due to destruction either in war or by some other means. You have seen a select sample. I have also seen a select sample, but at least my efforts extend passed the weapons i have come in contact with and into primary source documentation. I hate to say it, but I am not the only one that calls the conversation on this forum speculation. Wmp Easterly, would agree. I know this because i heard it from him first hand. He is a a true Japanese machine gun expert, not only did he own alot of them, all different makes and models, but he studied them, and relies on actual primary documentation and reports from attache's in Japan. YOU CAN NOT JUDGE ALL ON A SELECT FEW. and, with the production of bakelite is known to have been extensive in Japan, YOU CAN NOT RULE OUT THE POSSIBILITY! Like i said before, unless it is marked with a serial number, no part can be said to be original to any gun. But, based on common knowledge(for instance the woods known to have been worked with in stock production) one can make a very educated guess. GIVE ME SOURCES OF INFORMATION THAT SPECIFICALLY RULE OUT THE USE OF BAKELITE IN GERMAN MOLDS SENT TO JAPAN AND THEN I WILL BELIEVE YOU! until then we will disagree. Please, i am begging you respond BOB, respond!

VERY RESPECTFULLY
SETH

[sbl11]

Oh and Bob, i wasn't excluding myself from that quote that got you pissy. I too have obviously gotten upset when the "history in my head" was disturbed, just like you.

VERY RESPECTFULLY

SETH

[IMBLITZVT]

This conversation is getting surreal. Lets talk burden of proof. You have a German part, which you have agreed is German, on a Jap gun. This is not normal. Most foreign made parts on a gun would be assumed to be incorrect. So you have the burden of proof to prove otherwise. Unless you have now decided it might be a Jap made cover. I will also note that Bakelite is rarely the same color and look and often has properties much like wood that groups them together. So I don't see that Bob needs to prove anything... the reasonable assumption is that the part is not correct and is a replacement part. Now you can argue that the Japs, during the war were the ones to replace it but that burden is on you again. No one can prove that it did not happen and we have never said its impossible. Its your burden to prove! There is just no way Bob is going to run into some letter written by a Jap General saying we will not use German Bakelite receiver covers that we don't have on our guns. As always its about impossible to prove that something could not have happened. The burden is on the person that claims that something abnormal DID happen.

Let me go back to this. What if you found German WWII ammo in your Jap Drum. Would you assume that its ammo used by the japs in WWII and was shipped there during the war by the Germans??? I would think no... post war someone what shooting it and the only ammo they could get is German 8mm as Jap 8mm is very rare. However one my state by asking the person you bought the gun from as they may know its a replacement cover...

Again, what is more likely... that Germans sent this receiver cover half way around the world in the time of war to help the Japs save a little weight over wood covers and that the Japs put this cover on their production gun? Oh and you have the only surviving example of this in a country that has had German parts avaliable for a good long time. Or that someone replaced it sometime post WWII? Anything is possible but what are the chances!!!


This is starting to sound like an emotional arguement... I think its time to wind down the time I spend on responding.

[bmg17a1]

Seth writes:

>You have yet to try and provide any evidence, any sources of information, or research in any of your claims.<

Perhaps I misunderstood the orignal issue, which I thought was that you wanted to know if the synthetic stock on yur gun was original to the gun. My 'claim' as you put is simply that without specific, documented provenance concerning where your gun has been since it was made, it is not possible to tell. Frankly, it is of no real interest to me, as I have implied, except that I would prefer that giant leaps of faith aren't made to arrive at the conclusion that you would like, which is that it is original to the gun. I believe the probability is extremely small as to be insignificant that the cover is original to the gun, and I've given my reasons why I believe this to be so. None of my reasons are 'fact' or 'claims',
but only reflections of my subjective skepticism due to many years experience with the extreme lack of detailed information about specific MGs and their path through time.
I am not competing with the information/knowledge that others have, or that you have, and don't believe that I've expressed conclusions about anything, except that far, far more specific information is needed about your gun's history to arrive at the conclusion that you want. You say you understand this, so what's the problem? I have no personal issue with you. I've encouraged you to keep researching and digging and see what you come up with. That is the best any of us can do with regard to our personal holy grails.
You are creating arguement where there is none.
I gave you infomraiton about doing an FOIA search on the NFA history of your gun. I've have offered to put you in touch with a man who has extensive knowledge and historical documents about many, many vintage MGs and firearms. I can put you in touch with another Japanese small arms historian who might also expand your knowledge. These are people I have helped over the years and who have helped me. You already know Easterly, who is an acquaintance of mine and whom I also have helded with info over the years. Contact me as I noted above and I will contiinue to help.
As with all of us, I have my areas of focus and experience and have my personal perspective on what constitutes "history", and at this late point in my collecting and my business with MGs, all I want is documentation and verifiable evidence to feel confident to include something in my "history". That's a great deal to ask with most MGs, but without that, all is just speculation and romance. I am happy to learn new information, and welcome it. Information of this sort is cheap and has no intrinsic value, and an MG's history is really no more tha what can be factually proved about it.
You've made this personal by sniping at us because we don't agree with the depth of your proof. So what's new? That's the way it is. Either you have documentation of your theory or you don't.
As others have noted, it is not up to the repsonders to this thread to prove that something did not happen. It is up to you to compile evidence that it did. An amusing standard of proof for something like this would be whether you could prevail in court with what you have......

Bob

[sbl11]

The overarching assumption is that the Japanese used only wood. The Japanese had designs on production of A DIRECT COPY(as mentioned numerous places) of the German MG-15. With a bakelite producing industry already in place in Japan(it had been so since the early 1900's and Nippon Bakelite Co as well as many others were forced into production of war material by the the Imperial Japanese army ordnance ministy in 1944), all that was need were the tools need to exactly replicate this process. The licensing agreement was finally purchased in 1940, and the organization for mass production of the weapon began. I have found two pictures specifically calling what appears to be a german gun a JAPANESE TYPE 98 with bakelite cover. We do know that the Japanese used bakelite on war material including aviation parts instead of heavier metals, and even on weapons. With the crudeness of my bakelite, and what appears to be an early proof, what comes to question is the German reason for not having sanded and "polished" out a perfect final product. It goes against German tendancies. However, crudeness does not seem to play as much a part in Japanese tendancies. It is the one who places the charges that needs to back them up. My honest opinion is that there is a possiblity that this could go either way, but, the proponderance of evidence, having handled and seen the gun in person keeps me from totally disproving the point that the gun has an original piece. I have yet to be convenced otherwise, while i will remain that there does exist some reserve in me that the possibility of it being a replacement is also not ruled out. The evidence which i have found pushes me over the 50/50 mark in the direction of Japan. Bakelite needs a mold, Japs had bakelite, Japs did not have mold, Germans had mold, Japs desire to produce exact copy of german gun(gun that uses bakelite) , germans visit japan, japs visit rhienmetal, 1938 desire to continue transaction and produce type 98, 1940 final approval by geman via license, production begins, Japanese bakelite industry conscripted into arms manufacture in 1944. The fact that the bakelite exists on a japanese gun should first be viewed as japanese. In American court system, speaking of burden of proof, one is innocent untilotherwise proven guilty. Since it is on a Japanese gun, it must be proved replacement. Research of guns is great, on can study forever and still not have all the answers they need to support there opinions, and more likely than not, suffiecent evidence with never come up, and if something does, one will tend to ignore it. I don't believe the pictures can be ignored. And i also don't believe my gun is the only one in existence(even in this company) from what i understand, a muesem in new port news va, also has one. I dont know for sure because i havent seen it, but once again we come to speculation...haha...Speculation isnot proof(mine as well as others) but, reasonable specualtion based on historical fact is sometime all we have. The fact is that Japan did produce bakelite, and japanese bakelite companys were geared for war, in manufacture of ordnance as well as small aviation parts(dials and guages).

[sbl11]

I appreciate everyone's opinions, and while many of them appear to lack any research other than experience, i find them quite helpful. I understand that, especially in gun collecting, experience is sometime all we have to work with. Unfortunately there in lies the truth that not every gun can be sampled, not every part can be reviewed. Things slip through the gap. It would be of great importance if the bakelite indeed is original, it would be yet another example of german/japanese trade in technology and weapons during the war. Unfortunately the exact inventory of supplies shipped to japna for production of the type 98 has yet to turn up. Maybe one day, the search continues, but until then i feel that the question(gun) can not be accussed. It must remain neutral until significant evidence involving the mg 15 --type 98 trade line are resolved.

thanks,
s.b. labak
MIDN USN