6.5 Jap/Italian

[Char-Gar]

I have a chance to pick up one of the 6.5 Japs built on the Carcano action. These things worth having?

[Multigunner]

I have a chance to pick up one of the 6.5 Japs built on the Carcano action. These things worth having?

I think they are a nice and fairly rare bit of history. If in good shape it should be a good shooter. The Italians took a little extra effort with these, hoping for future orders I suppose.

[madsenshooter]

I was wondering, do they had the Japanese type rifling or more conventional rifling? They can be found fairly cheap, might be more fun to play with than my Arisakas.

[3006guns]

It's called a type "I" rifle and no one can find any record as to WHY the Japanese ordered them from the Italians. It's still a bit of a mystery to this day. One theory is that they were trying to solidify a "friendship" for future purposes. Who knows? I CAN tell you that their collector value has jumped in the last few years.

The action is basically a Carcano, chambered for the 6.5 x 50 Japanese and equipped with Arisaka type stock and fittings. I don't own one, but others I've talked to say the quality is very good and that they are accurate.

[Uncle Grinch]

I would go for it just because of the "oddity" of it. Plus you may enjoy shooting it!

[Mk42gunner]

While I tend to like oddball stuff, do these require a Carcano clip to function?



Robert

[madsenshooter]

No, they have the Arisaka 5 round magazine and can be loaded with a stripper clip.

[eb in oregon]

I was wondering, do they had the Japanese type rifling or more conventional rifling? They can be found fairly cheap, might be more fun to play with than my Arisakas.

They have the "standard" 1 in 8 Carcano (or so) rifling/twist of the later period, none gain twist Carcano's. The action and barrel are Carcano, the stock and hardware are Arisaka. I have one but have not been able to shoot it yet. On my list of "things to do."

Their quality and finish is considered to be above average for a wartime Carcano and the accuracy is reported to be very good. The majority of these rifles are reported to have been "unissued" for the most part, so their condition is above average for a WWII Japanese battle rifle, and as mentioned, the collector prices of these rifles has jumped a great deal in the last few years.

eb

[Multigunner]

IIRC the vast majority of the Type I were not issued due to the Navy not wanting to use a non Japanese product, one reason given was lack of spare parts should a rifle need repairs, though I think they may have used some Mausers early in the war they could get spares for those from captured Chinese resources.
The rifles were thought to have been destroyed in a US bombing of warehouses, but then began to show up on the surplus market years later.

Not really sure of any details though.

Japan bought a fair amount of war materials from other AXIS countries but much of it never got there. Some stuff was shipped by cargo carrying submarines.

[jonk]

I have a type I. Bit of a beater but the bore is solid and it shoots well. Never much luck with cast in it. Best luck with the Hornady .268 jacketed slug (mine is a bit oversized but given that most carcanos are over our normal .264 that is not surprising). A .270 cast bullet or a fat cruise missle might produce results, dunno.

[Char-Gar]

I bit! The rifle has had the stock and barrel shortened into a kinda sporter, but for $75.00 shipped to my dealer I don't think I can lose much. It will be another rifle to play with. I have a couple of first run Old Feller 170 grain molds and a 6.5 Kurtz and both cast large. If I keep the velocity low, one of them out to give decent results.

[georgewxxx]

Sounds like Charger need a C&R.

[madsenshooter]

eb in OR, thanks for answering my question about the rifling. The type I is reported to be the most accurate of the Japanese service rifles, had to be a reason. Charger, without the metford rifling to plague you, it ought to give you some good performance with cast. By the way, if it still has the issue sight, there's a company that makes a no gunsmithing scope mount for them. http://www.accumounts.com/ Of course the long rail would be out with the bolt handle as it is, but a scout scope could be mounted. UAG makes one that has the proper eye relief and only $29.95 on ebay.

[eb in oregon]

I have two M91/41 Carcano's that I only got to "play with" for a short time before I deployed. I had "issues" with them both regarding bore size and bullet diameter. They both slugged out to just under .268, which is the reported factory diameter for a Carcano.

However neither of them really like the Hornady .268 FMJ bullet. They both exhibited over pressure with a published starting load. Exactly what that was escapes me at the moment, that was about a year ago now. However they both "blew" the primer and I had to whack the bolt open with a dead blow hammer. So that project is on hold until I get home and am able to spend some "skull sweat" to figure out what is going on with these two rifles.

As for the Type "I" I'll just try the published loads for a 6.5x50 Arisaka and go from there.

eb

[Char-Gar]

Thanks for all of the good feedback. The rifle is in transit. The rear sight is original, but those Accumounts at $89.00 is more than I paid for the rifle. I am thinking about mounting a The 38 rear sight on the Type I rear sight base. The 38 has a peep and the I have a notch. The peep should be of some help for these old eyes. This of course, if I can get a Type 38 sight on the cheap. This rifle is just a toy and I don't want to sink much money into it.

[StarMetal]

IIRC the vast majority of the Type I were not issued due to the Navy not wanting to use a non Japanese product, one reason given was lack of spare parts should a rifle need repairs, though I think they may have used some Mausers early in the war they could get spares for those from captured Chinese resources.
The rifles were thought to have been destroyed in a US bombing of warehouses, but then began to show up on the surplus market years later.

Not really sure of any details though.

Japan bought a fair amount of war materials from other AXIS countries but much of it never got there. Some stuff was shipped by cargo carrying submarines.


As far as I can tell the Type I is 100 percent Japanese except for the Carcano action. I don't see parts being an issue. I'd like to find proof on how they were built, that is did the Japs supply the Italians with all the parts except for the action or did the Jap give the Italian builder a detailed build specification sheet?

[Japlmg]

The Type I rifles were bought for the Japanese Navy.
The Japanese Army was expanding very rapidly in the mid 1930's, and there was a shortage of Type 38 rifles as the Japanese arsenals could not meet production demands. The Japanese Navy was also expanding, but the Army had priority on new rifle production, and could not get the rifles they needed. So, the Japanese government bought the Type I rifles from Italy (about 40,000 to 45,000 total) in 1938 as a stop gap substitute for Naval use.
The Type I rifles were 100% Italian manufacture, the Japanese only supplied sample parts. The Type I rifles were delivered in small batches starting in 1939 and ending in the Summer of 1941. As soon as the Japanese aresenals caught up on production, in 1940, the Type I rifles were recalled and placed into storage. That is why the average Type I is in very good condition, as they were only used for a couple years before being recalled, and around half of them went directly into storage upon delivery.
Late in the war (1945), the Type I rifles were issued to Japan based defence units, but saw little use as the invasion of Japan never happened. Almost all of the Type I rifles were captured in warehouses after the surrender and during the post war occupation. Except for a very few that were imported from China in the mid 1980's, all the Type I rifles were brought back by returning Occupation Troops.
Because of their good condition, and good manufacturing craftmanship, the Type I rifles are normally very good shooters. Their nominal bore groove diameter is the same as the Carcano, that being .266. Thus most 6.5 mm bullets (normally .264 diameter) are too small to completly fill the bore, but most Type I rifles shoot well using .264 diameter bullets. The Hornady .268's work well, as long as you keep your loads on the mild side, and do not try to load for maximum velocity and pressure.
Gregg

[Char-Gar]

Japlmg... Thanks...That confirmed my research that the Type I rifles were 100% Italian, made to look and feel as much like a Type 38 as possible given the action was an inch shorter.

[StarMetal]

....so that leads me to believe that Japs gave the Italians a build sheet. The I's also do not have gain twist and the bore is probably the same as the Jap made 6.5's. I can't say I've seen any original Japs that had .264 grooves.

That's also the same story I read on the internet.

Here's some more info on them:

In 1938 and 1939, the Japanese armed forces desperately craved for weaponry (wars being waged against China and Russia). The existing Japanese Arisaka production was consumed for the largest part by the demands of the ever-hungry Army.
So, the Navy decided to shop abroad. They not only bought Czech Vz. 24 and German Kar 98k rifles, but also gave a large order to Italy (benefitting from the political propaganda effect of "Axis solidarity", one may presume). The major Italian small arms factories collaborated in designing and producing (with shared responsibilities, as it appears), a new Japanese rifle. Military inspectors from Japan oversaw and directed the production in these two years.
This gun employs a slighly altered Carcano bolt and receiver, a Japanese stock (hardware, sights) which is quite alike to the Mod. 38 Arisaka rifle (including the buttstock made of two parts mortised together), and a Japanese box magazine for the 6,5 x 50 SR Arisaka. Two different stock lengths exist, but the difference is small. They take ordinary Arisaka Model 30 bayonets.
The number of guns produced is still disputed. Serial number collations suggest a much higher number than the figure of 60,000 found in Italian secondary sources, but we do not know whether all the prefix letters really had the full 10,000 guns assigned to them. That's why we are urgently seeking entries of more Type I rifles into our Carcano database - please help us, dear reader.
The rifles are reputed to be accurate, maybe better than the Arisakas:
As much as we know, these naval contract rifles were used by the Base Defence Force (Naval Guard Troops) and Special Naval Landing Force (the Japanese Marines); some are marked with the Naval anchor. There are a few Italian subcontractor and factory assembly marks on single parts (e.g. rear sight), and these may serve to establish how many guns were made in Terni, Gardone and Brescia, but otherwise the rifles impress with a conspicuous absence of marks and stampings on barrel and stock, except for the bare serial number.
The new weapon wedded a slightly modified split-breech Carcano receiver with the Mauser-style box magazine complete with a hinged floor plate. The two-piece Arisaka stock, straight bolt handle and the unwieldy Type 38 barrel were retained, giving it the outward appearance of a Japanese service rifle.
Students of both Italian and Japanese World War II battle rifles have found much to admire in the Type I, which stands for "Italian," by the way, and is not a numeric designation. The chambers were cut to much closer tolerances, making the gun more accurate than the Arisaka, and the action is a full inch shorter and is lighter than the Japanese adaptation of the Mauser design.
The Italians were impressed by the ballistically superior 6.5x50 round and with the elimination of the protruding Mannlicher box magazine, with its attendant reliance on stripper clips, employed by the Carcano. Produced primarily by Beretta, the new rifle was designated by the Italians as the "Beretta Fucile Tipo I per L'esportazione," which, roughly translated, means "Beretta Rifle Type I for Export." With the entire production run manufactured under strict Japanese supervision, fit and finish conform to the highest standards of pre-war Beretta workmanship.

There are Italian manufactured Carcano rifles in 6.5 Jap, called the Type I (I standing for Italian) these use a mauser type staggered row magazine and Japanese style dovetailed stock.
I believe these are rifled according to Japanese specs rather than using the Italian 6.5 bore (.268) and don't have progressive twist like the early carcano.
Later Carcano rifles used a non gain twist as well.

[Dschuttig]

I have one of these in unissued condition. Mine slugs out at .267, and shoots better than any of the 6.5 miltary rifles that I have, save maybe the 6.5 swedish M/96. What amazes me about these rifles is that they use the "2 piece stock", as common on japanese manufactured rifles. Why, when wood large enough not to need the splice was readily available in Italy, they used it anyway I'll never understand. The other thing to mention is that they shoot really high, like 12" at 100yds, more than any other military rifle I have.

Another thing to mention, for those people that have one of these that is missing the bolt. You can easily identify the bolt for these by looking where the ejector channel is cut. The type I rifles have a channel cut on the bottom of the bolt, like 90 degrees to the handle, while the other carcanos are cut off center, not square with the bottom. Just a little tid bit if you're fishing through a parts box at a gun show looking for one. Dan

[StarMetal]

I have one of these in unissued condition. Mine slugs out at .267, and shoots better than any of the 6.5 miltary rifles that I have, save maybe the 6.5 swedish M/96. What amazes me about these rifles is that they use the "2 piece stock", as common on japanese manufactured rifles. Why, when wood large enough not to need the splice was readily available in Italy, they used it anyway I'll never understand. The other thing to mention is that they shoot really high, like 12" at 100yds, more than any other military rifle I have.

Another thing to mention, for those people that have one of these that is missing the bolt. You can easily identify the bolt for these by looking where the ejector channel is cut. The type I rifles have a channel cut on the bottom of the bolt, like 90 degrees to the handle, while the other carcanos are cut off center, not square with the bottom. Just a little tid bit if you're fishing through a parts box at a gun show looking for one. Dan

Well your rifle bares out that the groove diameter wasn't the fat .268 or larger. I surmise they had the two piece buttstock because the Japanese strictly specified what they wanted. One thing they were stern about was that a Japanese bayonet would fit it.

[TCLouis]

Ok, I'll bite, what would one of these in essentially 100% condition sell for?
Just curious how big my mistake was turning one down!

[Char-Gar]

Well, I picked up the rifle today, took it back to the shop and did some preliminary cleaning. The blue on the barrel, receiver and floor plate are in very good condition. The trigger guard and butt plate have some serious rust issue. I just hit them on fine wire wheel on the grinder and now the rust in gone, but there is some pitting.

The good news is the barrel cleaned inside to be very bright with no pitting and sharp rifling.

The stock looks like a beavers chew toy, but I will get that restored in due time.

The barrel has been shortened to 24", with a dovetail cut and a new front sight installed. The crown on the barrel look like a professional job. the stock has been shortened accordingly.

I am expecting this rifle to deliver many hours of fun and good accuracy. Now to fine some 6.5 Jap cases and dies.

[Char-Gar]

I slugged the barrel today and it came out .269.

[Rodfac]

I'm a little late on this thread but finding it I'll add the following.

I have a 6.5 Jap type I in as issued condition. I've owned it and its bayonet since 1961 when one of my uncles gave it to me for wood chuck hunting in Upstate NY. He was a Seabee during WWll, and got it out of a storage bunker on Okinawa in 1945. I shot several boxes of Norma ammunition through it before buying a .243 early the next year. Accuracy was as I recall, on the order of 3-5" at 100 yds with a very high impact point.

I've kept it all these years because it was my first rifle, and for its history within our family. If interested, I'll get some pics of the various parts for the thread. I second the opinion previously stated, that they were very well made, really to peace time standards, with good blueing on the action and barrel. The sights however, are atrocious...a barely corn front with a very rough V notch for the rear with the 'ladder' down. The stock is two-piece with a very light color and was originally oiled with what appeared to be BLO if memory serves.

Best regards, Rodfac

[madsenshooter]

Well, you guys have talked me into buying one of these. I have nigh a thousand 6.5 Jap cases that I laboriously reformed from GI 7.62x51, got to have something to shoot them in besides a slightly sporterized (Thai govt) carbine that I have. My other two Arisakas have been rechambered to 6.5x257 Roberts. Seems a good idea to go with something that has real rifling instead of the metford rifling of the Arisaka when it comes to shooting cast. Now I'll have to get a bigger mold, sizing dies, and do a lot of case neck turning.

[madsenshooter]

Well, I got one. Haven't gotten around to cleaning the bore to see just what I have. The chamber is tighter than a Type 38. I have some GI 308 that I swagged down to 6.5 Jap, however I left a little belt-like projection forward of the extractor groove, it's .4575", and it won't go in the type I's chamber, though it works fine in all Type 38s I tried it in. I have some 6.5 Jap that I made from 30/40 long ago, it works just fine. I also have some .303 British that I was using as short necked 30/40, guess I'll make more Jap brass from it since I found some 30/40 a couple weeks ago. Comparing the Type I to my 92/96 Krag, the Type I is like pointing a 2x4! Comparing it to a Type 38, I can see the Type I leaves much to be desired and I can understand the Japanese Navy setting them aside. I can also imagine the criticisms bandied back and forth by the men who had to put them away. Italian junk, and other such comments! Oh, the type I seems to have a long necked chamber like my Type 38s, I leave the Krag brass I reformed at a length of 2.096" (53.23mm), with a neck about 3/8" long. There's still room to sit a .270" diameter #2 buck on the top of the caseneck and shut the bolt. That should prove to be fun with a small charge behind it.

[StarMetal]

Well, I got one. Haven't gotten around to cleaning the bore to see just what I have. The chamber is tighter than a Type 38. I have some GI 308 that I swagged down to 6.5 Jap, however I left a little belt-like projection forward of the extractor groove, it's .4575", and it won't go in the type I's chamber, though it works fine in all Type 38s I tried it in. I have some 6.5 Jap that I made from 30/40 long ago, it works just fine. I also have some .303 British that I was using as short necked 30/40, guess I'll make more Jap brass from it since I found some 30/40 a couple weeks ago. Comparing the Type I to my 92/96 Krag, the Type I is like pointing a 2x4! Comparing it to a Type 38, I can see the Type I leaves much to be desired and I can understand the Japanese Navy setting them aside. I can also imagine the criticisms bandied back and forth by the men who had to put them away. Italian junk, and other such comments! Oh, the type I seems to have a long necked chamber like my Type 38s, I leave the Krag brass I reformed at a length of 2.096" (53.23mm), with a neck about 3/8" long. There's still room to sit a .270" diameter #2 buck on the top of the caseneck and shut the bolt. That should prove to be fun with a small charge behind it.

The most basic differences in the Type I and the standard Type 38 is I's Carcano action. Other then that the stock and hardware is Type 38 so what exactly is it that makes it "junk"? I understand it they didn't like them because they weren't Japanese made, and was some resentment.

[Multigunner]

The most basic differences in the Type I and the standard Type 38 is I's Carcano action. Other then that the stock and hardware is Type 38 so what exactly is it that makes it "junk"? I understand it they didn't like them because they weren't Japanese made, and was some resentment.

I think the main official objection to the rifles were lack of spare parts and necessity of giving armorers extra training in servicing the rifle, since the action had little in common with the Arisaka.
Very likely the "not made here" factor had a lot to do with the decision with the I rifles quietly shuffled aside to give an excuse for increased demand for more acceptable Japanese made rifles.

[madsenshooter]

I didn't use the word junk, but the action is "primitive" compared to the Type 38, IMO. I don't think I could work the thing rapid fire, that's quite a reach for the bolt handle, though a 1/2 inch or so less than my Madsen. A good cleaning and lube might help it, but that cocking stroke is certainly going to need some work. I no longer have my long Type 38, but if I recall correctly, the stock was trimmer and more rounded than the Type I's. Oh, it'll do, all I wanted was something to shoot some of my homemade brass in. This particular specimen isn't one of those pristine rifles, the rifling appears somewhat rounded, she's been rusty and at one time the metal was painted. The bore slugs in at .258/.268. I have the first mold I ever bought, a Rapine 265150 that should work fine, once if find someone to realign the pins. It's throwing a .005 out of round bullet as is. The .268 Hornady should work well, and I'm wondering if maybe the Navy wasn't relegated to using up old supplies of the earlier roundnose ammo, the rifle has a very long throat. For now, I need to sit it in the corner and get busy with my Krags. Oh, forgot to mention, it does have a nice trigger pull.

[StarMetal]

I didn't use the word junk, but the action is "primitive" compared to the Type 38, IMO. I don't think I could work the thing rapid fire, that's quite a reach for the bolt handle, though a 1/2 inch or so less than my Madsen. A good cleaning and lube might help it, but that cocking stroke is certainly going to need some work. I no longer have my long Type 38, but if I recall correctly, the stock was trimmer and more rounded than the Type I's. Oh, it'll do, all I wanted was something to shoot some of my homemade brass in. This particular specimen isn't one of those pristine rifles, the rifling appears somewhat rounded, she's been rusty and at one time the metal was painted. The bore slugs in at .258/.268. I have the first mold I ever bought, a Rapine 265150 that should work fine, once if find someone to realign the pins. It's throwing a .005 out of round bullet as is. The .268 Hornady should work well, and I'm wondering if maybe the Navy wasn't relegated to using up old supplies of the earlier roundnose ammo, the rifle has a very long throat. For now, I need to sit it in the corner and get busy with my Krags. Oh, forgot to mention, it does have a nice trigger pull.

Madsen,

I'm not saying you called it "junk" but the Japanese. As you may know I recently acquires a G98/40 JHV Hungarian Mannlicher 8x57. As long as the ammo fits I have zero problems with the very forward bolt handle and in my case with a butterknife handle.
Now on my sporterized Type 38 I find it as slick as just about most any action and that's due to the extremely hard metal in the action. The 7.7 Type 99 I have is a more rough action and that is solely due to the more crude metal work on the action.

[corvette8n]

Hey Charger post some pictures when you get a chance, I like to compare it to my orig Carcano.