Why... Arisaka 38

I have 2 99 actions. One good shape the other some one tried to drill the rear bridge but found it to hard. I was thinking of making one in 45acp.

I have seen one converted to .30 Carbine and using M1/M2 carbine mags. That looked like a lot of fun, although I have no idea of the technicalities involved other than the maker was a machinist by trade so no doubt some labor intensive machining was involved (possibly on company time). I've also seen more practical sporting conversions to .300 Sav and .35 rem. 6.5CM should be doable, 6.5x54MS would absolutely be doable if you like eclectic.

WestKentucky said:

I have been tossing around the idea
For a few years on building my own bolt action. I looked long and hard at a bunch of options and the things that were sensible were expensive thus the process never got out of conception, until yesterday. I was looking at sporterized mausers and barreled actions trying to find a steal on gunbroker and I ran across stripped arisaka actions in both 38 and 99 flavors. They were cheap enough so now I have a nice looking de-mummed action headed my way for $40 after transfer. The more I look at stuff about the type 38 the more excited I am getting. It is apparently among the most robustly built actions ever produced and of well regarded metallurgy so after I collect the remaining bits I will begin to assemble.

Initial thought is to build it as a 6.5cm because I’m wanting a long range fast shooter, but then there’s the ideas of a destroyer carbine in 10mm that refuses to escape my brain. This will be a slow slow build.

Anybody else built an arisaka for the sake of doing it? Anybody else like me have a penchant for weird and think that the destroyer idea with glock mags would be fun?

Other initial thought is that I should buy an ugly sporter to rob parts from to more affordably amass the parts to build my rifle from.

Click to expand...

I've had 3 Arisaka sporters, one I did almost a full build on. All of mine were T99s.
Honestly I'd probably try do something like a 450 bushmaster, or .458 socom on the T38.
In fact if I can get my hands on another one cheap, I probably will lol.

WestKentucky said:

@LoonWulf
Bare actions on gunbroker for 7.49 with $10 shipping. Transfer for me is $20.

I’m considering buying a corroded barrel just to get a threaded barrel stub out of it and then counterbore and thread the stub to do the barrel swap... and I would really like to do a setup similar to an AR barrel or savage barrel with external locking nut... I’m thinking too hard and too far in advance.

Bushmaster and socom both are cool but I don’t want to do it here. Since it’s an old school receiver the weird in me says it’s gotta be a modern cartridge so I’m not ruling either out. I’m looking around.. .308 case based would be nice so that the bolt works without much fuss.

Click to expand...

Flat fast far, 6 creed or 6.5 (I like me my 6mms lol) would get you there, a fast twist .22-250 ai to run 70-90 gr pills would be a hoot too! I like the barrel nut idea.
Eta congratulations on the new addition! !!!

Interesting... I didn't know you could build off one... I might be looking for cheap actions.

I'd like a bolt 45 acp

WestKentucky said:

I have been tossing around the idea
For a few years on building my own bolt action. I looked long and hard at a bunch of options and the things that were sensible were expensive thus the process never got out of conception, until yesterday. I was looking at sporterized mausers and barreled actions trying to find a steal on gunbroker and I ran across stripped arisaka actions in both 38 and 99 flavors. They were cheap enough so now I have a nice looking de-mummed action headed my way for $40 after transfer. The more I look at stuff about the type 38 the more excited I am getting. It is apparently among the most robustly built actions ever produced and of well regarded metallurgy so after I collect the remaining bits I will begin to assemble.

Initial thought is to build it as a 6.5cm because I’m wanting a long range fast shooter, but then there’s the ideas of a destroyer carbine in 10mm that refuses to escape my brain. This will be a slow slow build.

Anybody else built an arisaka for the sake of doing it? Anybody else like me have a penchant for weird and think that the destroyer idea with glock mags would be fun?

Other initial thought is that I should buy an ugly sporter to rob parts from to more affordably amass the parts to build my rifle from.

Click to expand...

The receivers are cheap because a lot of the ugly duckling sporters were parted out. Expect to pay more for things like the bolt release than you did for the receiver for example. I am fond of the Arisakas both in 6.5x50 and 7.7 Japanese and have restored several of them and have a pristine T99 complete with the Aircraft sights, mums, all matching, and a battered bipod that was a pawn shop find.

The parts warehouses will have a few T38 parts and you can find enough to restore it to sporter status without much difficulty but it will cost a bit. Try Numrich first and check their prices even on out of stock items. That will give you some idea of what to pay on auction sites either Ebay or Gunbroker.

Fully assembled bolts are expensive and beware of the cheaper training rifle bolts that are not suitable for builds. Bent sporter bolts are out there in decent shape. The most common problem with an assembled bolt is that the safety/bolt cap surfaces are worn and the safety will not stay. In bad cases, the firing pin can be released which is not good. Originally, the Japanese were like the Germans and numbered each part with some of the digits of the serial to ensure matching rifles. This was because of handfitting and some parts from some rifles do not play well with others without fitting. Due to the surrender and the way the rifles were brought back to the states, non-matching rifles parts are pretty common, especially on bolts.

There are a few sporter stocks floating around ebay from time to time if you don't mind fixing up an ugly one. Boyds for all I know may still make a sporter stock or Loonwulf might know. Timney did make decent triggers for them. Try Bob's Gun Parts in Arkansas as he used to have some of the parts but they are old school and rather primitive in order handling. There are not replacement barrels for these and you will have to have a new barrel threaded and maybe chambered to the action which is not a big deal for a decent gunsmith with a lathe.

Now, one thing to look out for is if the serial number begins with 00 and that has been stamped in a different font than the rest of the rifle's serial number. These are rifles that were decommissioned for wear and were often issued as either blanks or non-firing training rifles to schools. You see quite a few of the t38's that were done this way as those were issued prior to WWI through WWII and by WWII the older ones were worn out--lug setback etc. Due to their long production and hard use in places like China, the T38's vary more in wear than the later T99's that I have seen so make sure to not spend a fortune on it until you check out the receiver. These were often made, ironically, by scrap U.S. steel that the Japanese bought prior to WWII and the Japanese metallurgy was pretty good carbon steel along with the original semi-rimmed, rather weak cartridge. That being said, it is still heat treated surface hardened carbon steel and you will need to watch it if you load for a hot cartridge.

From Hatcher's Notebook, page 231, " Tests on samples of Arisaka rifles conducted after the war showed that their bolts and receivers were constructed of carbon steel similar to SAE steel grade No. 1085 with a carbon content of 0.80% to 0.90%, and a manganese content of 0.60% to 0.90%". The quote is by way of https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Arisaka#cite_note-0 but I rechecked it in my copy of Hatcher's Notebook and that appears correct.

boom boom said:

T That being said, it is still heat treated surface hardened carbon steel and you will need to watch it if you load for a hot cartridge.

From Hatcher's Notebook, page 231, " Tests on samples of Arisaka rifles conducted after the war showed that their bolts and receivers were constructed of carbon steel similar to SAE steel grade No. 1085 with a carbon content of 0.80% to 0.90%, and a manganese content of 0.60% to 0.90%". The quote is by way of https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Arisaka#cite_note-0 but I rechecked it in my copy of Hatcher's Notebook and that appears correct.

Click to expand...

The Japanese built a very strong and outstanding Mauser variant. It was perhaps the best Mauser variant and it gained its strength due to cartridge head support. It supported the case head better than the Mauser, vastly better than an M1903 or M70 which have a lot of unsupported case head sticking out of the chamber.



But, it is still an action made out of plain carbon steels from the foundries of the period. It cannot have helped the steel quality to have B29's leveling Japanese cities and US submarines sinking all the supply ships. No doubt, certain corners were cut. These were the people who sent their men to fly planes into US ships, so they were desperate, and we don't really know how that translated in terms of steel quality.

If you are really trying to push the cartridge envelope and pressures, use a modern action. Such as the Rem M700.



Mike Walker made an outstandingly strong and safe action where the case head is fully surrounded by the bolt face rim, and that is surrounded by the barrel. Also,later actions are made of modern alloy steels which are vastly better in every respect (except cost!) to the cheap plain carbon steels used in military Mausers and the Arisaka's. Modern actions are much stronger than vintage actions just due to the alloy steels used, and then if the design is improved, such as the Rem M700, vastly stronger.

I have several original M38s and M99 Arisakas that I occasionally shoot. I also built a couple of "sporters" on bare actions back in the 70s when they were available for almost nothing. I have a .458 WinMag built on a M99 action and a 6.5-08 (260 Rem) built on an M38 action. While a bit "clunky" compared to a Mauser 98 action, they are quite serviceable and as Slamfire stated, the cartridge heads are well supported. The Arisakas also have a very fast lock time with their short firing pin travel.

Slamfire said:

The Japanese built a very strong and outstanding Mauser variant. It was perhaps the best Mauser variant and it gained its strength due to cartridge head support. It supported the case head better than the Mauser, vastly better than an M1903 or M70 which have a lot of unsupported case head sticking out of the chamber.

View attachment 861244

But, it is still an action made out of plain carbon steels from the foundries of the period. It cannot have helped the steel quality to have B29's leveling Japanese cities and US submarines sinking all the supply ships. No doubt, certain corners were cut. These were the people who sent their men to fly planes into US ships, so they were desperate, and we don't really know how that translated in terms of steel quality.

If you are really trying to push the cartridge envelope and pressures, use a modern action. Such as the Rem M700.

View attachment 861245

Mike Walker made an outstandingly strong and safe action where the case head is fully surrounded by the bolt face rim, and that is surrounded by the barrel. Also,later actions are made of modern alloy steels which are vastly better in every respect (except cost!) to the cheap plain carbon steels used in military Mausers and the Arisaka's. Modern actions are much stronger than vintage actions just due to the alloy steels used, and then if the design is improved, such as the Rem M700, vastly stronger.

Click to expand...

that's true of wartime production, especially late war.
not true of earlier production.

Type 38s are so strong because of three factors: They were made from high quality steel, properly heat treated. And most type 38s were built before WW II. They have enormous locking lugs, almost half again larger than a Mauser's. Place a type 38 bolt next to a 98 Mauser's and you will see what I mean. Lastly, the left lug is not slotted for the ejector. This was the result of clever design and I can only guess as to why this wasn't carried over to the type 99..

My only complaint with the Japanese rifles is the awkward (at least to me) safety operation.

Many years ago when P.O. Ackley did his destructive testing on many military bolt actions, he rated the 6.5 Arisaka as number one in terms of strength; with the 7.7 coming in at number two. There was a thread on that subject here somewhere in the dim past and I posted a picture of page 13 from volume II of his classic " Handbook For Shooters & Reloaders", copyright 1966, of his take on the subject. Still have it here on the computer and as previously mentioned, he wasn't testing what were called the "last ditch" production models when the metallurgy was questionable.

Merle1 said:

My only complaint with the Japanese rifles is the awkward (at least to me) safety operation.

Click to expand...

Use the palm of your hand pressing inward to operate. It is actually easier than the Mosin. You might also need to polish the innards of the bolt/fp/safety knob as some are sticky in operation.

boom boom said:

Use the palm of your hand pressing inward to operate. It is actually easier than the Mosin. You might also need to polish the innards of the bolt/fp/safety knob as some are sticky in operation.

Click to expand...

true enough, but I never liked taking my hand off the firing position to operate the safety....

22250Rem said:

Many years ago when P.O. Ackley did his destructive testing on many military bolt actions, he rated the 6.5 Arisaka as number one in terms of strength; with the 7.7 coming in at number two. There was a thread on that subject here somewhere in the dim past and I posted a picture of page 13 fromView attachment 861411 View attachment 861413 volume II of his classic " Handbook For Shooters & Reloaders", copyright 1966, of his take on the subject. Still have it here on the computer and as previously mentioned, he wasn't testing what were called the "last ditch" production models when the metallurgy was questionable.

Click to expand...

I have Ackley's Handbooks and the blow up tests were lots of fun. Sort of like kids blowing up stuffed animals for entertainment. The tests were not instrumented and they were all old military actions. Based on readers reactions, the ultimate, intrinsic value of a military action is the amount of powder it takes to turn it into shrapnel, not whether it feeds and extracts reliably, or breaks parts. Nope, it is the amount of powder it takes to blow it up. "It blowed up good!"

A far better review of old military actions is Stuart Ottenson's books "The Bolt Action Vol 1" and Vol 2.

While many have a reverence and veneration of old things, until someone submits a metallurgical analysis of vintage actions, I am going to continue to claim the metallurgy in the things is inferior and highly variable compared to the steels of today. And no one makes actions out of the plain carbon steels used in WW1 and most WW2 military actions. They do make railroad spikes from the same materials because railroad spikes are cheap. Nor, is anyone still making automotive wheels with wooden spokes. The same actions built out of modern materials will last longer and survive over pressure incidents that would ruin the original actions. The action designs were good for their purpose and safe with their original cartridges.

This was state of the art in 1942, maximum range to target about 25 miles



With missiles this could blow the old battleship out of the water from hundreds of miles away.



Though, you still have to know where the other guy is located

Merle1 said:

true enough, but I never liked taking my hand off the firing position to operate the safety....

Click to expand...

I can push/flip it off with my thumb, getting it on takes my whole hand....I swapped my last T99s trigger for a Timneys.
Actually just shot that gun today, bolts a little balky to run forward, but it feeds and shucks 6.5-284 shells just fine. Breaking 3k with 147s and rl25 from a 24" barrel likely puts pressures in the low 60k range and with the enlarged case body the bolt thrust is higher than any .473 headed case can generate.

I have a type 38 in 6.5x50 that is very accurate with 139gr and 140gr bullets, my safety is hard to work also. It is one of the funnest milsurp guns to shoot allowing shooters afraid of recoil to shoot it, my daughter and grandson shoot it every time I bring it but skip the bigger caliber milsurp guns.
What about keeping it in the 6.5 family, if you reload it is a fun round. I would love to see all the steps to take a bare receiver to a firearm, kinda like Legos for big and knowledgeable boys. I've built a few ARs but that is just putting pieces together, no major problems and everything is built the same.

and to top it all off, the bolt has only six parts. bolt body - extractor - extractor collar - safety - fireing pin - fireing pin spring.

I'm still trying to find a Type 38 that hasn't been Bubba'd to death... .

I've got a type 99 that my father brought back. Apparently one of his younger brothers tried to shoot it at one point with not quite the right ammo and blew up the bolt. All I've got of that is the bolt and firing pin. No cap or spring.

Would it be worth hunting down the parts and putting a bolt together and shooting it or do you think it might be compromised?

Outlaw75 said:

I've got a type 99 that my father brought back. Apparently one of his younger brothers tried to shoot it at one point with not quite the right ammo and blew up the bolt. All I've got of that is the bolt and firing pin. No cap or spring.

Would it be worth hunting down the parts and putting a bolt together and shooting it or do you think it might be compromised?

Click to expand...

Personally I wouldn't shoot it - no telling if the receiver is damaged.....