Skip to main content
Help Center Community Shop

6.5x50mm?

GreatBeefalo
I've been wondering lately....

Why did the Japanese use the 6.5x50mm caliber instead of the more common 6.5x55mm caliber? They copied the Mauser bolt on the T-38 rifle, so why not just take on 8mm or 30-0-6 or something? Is there some vast historic significance to this, or am I just analyzing this too much?
0

Comments

5 comments

Date Votes
  • rufe-snow
    Back in the late 19 Century when the military of various countries were adopting small bore smokeless cartridges, each wanted their own specific cartridge, ( for national prestige they wanted to develop their own cartridge. Even though they would be ballistically similar, the headspace,rim & body dimensions would insure they would be different ).

    As a result their were no less then ( 6 ) different 6.5mm military rifle cartridges developed between 1891 & 1904.

    luger_4.jpg
    0
  • GreatBeefalo
    thank you for the clarification!

    amazing what we do for notability, eh?
    0
  • p3skyking
    I belive you are analyzing too much. The Arisaka bolt and the Mauser bolt are similar in that they both have a firing pin, extractor, and bolt handle. The Type 38 bolt does not resemble or copy the Mauser bolt in function or parts list. Only 5 parts make up a Type 38 bolt. Compare them yourself.

    As to the cartridges, at the time the Swede's load could hardly be said to have been more common. Japan had a larger army and did export rifles and ammunition to foreign governments.

    Cruelty was a rare thing in the war. Fireside folks who talk about war and read about it, they figure it's cruel more often than not, but it simply isn't so... You kill in war to survive, and not because of any desire to kill.
    Many men avoid battle not from cowardice but from fear of cowardice, fear that when the moment of truth comes they will not have the courage to face up to it. L'Amour
    0
  • nononsense
    GreatBeefalo,

    The selection of a cartridge design that is different from those that you are in conflict with, is considered to be a tactical advantage. Your enemy can't pickup or confiscate your ammunition and use it against you. It is the exact opposite of the reason for Nato forces to all standardize on the 5.56mm, so that they can exchange and use the same ammunition no matter which home country that they represent.


    P3,

    While I agree that there really isn't much of a resemblance to a Mauser bolt, historically, the similarities are attributed to Paul Mauser's design.

    "In 1905 a commission, again headed by Col. Nariake Arisaka, developed a rifle to replace the Type 30 & 35 rifles. This was the Type 38. The Type 38 is based on the Mauser design with the front mounted locking lugs, the one piece extractor and the staggered row integral box magazine, however that's where the similarity stops. The rifle contains a hollow firing pin with a coil spring, a large safety knob on the rear of the bolt that also serves as a gas shield, a sliding breech cover that works with the bolt (the Type 35 cover was manually operated to the front) and a bolt that cocks on closing."
    http://www.carbinesforcollectors.com/jap2.html

    Also note the strong resemblance of the ejector boxes.

    I'm not arguing, just pointing out what the historians have to say. I can't locate any confirmation but I don't think that the Japanese paid Mauser for the Patent Waiver either unlike the U.S. We paid Mauser quite a chunk of money for the ability to use portions of his designs.

    Best.
    0
  • p3skyking
    Nononsense,
    Good site. I don't believe the Nipponese paid Mauser anything. They didn't incorporate any Mauser patents unlike the US Springfield which did.

    The 98 cocks on opening, the 38 on closing. The dual opposed locking lugs were fairly common by 1905.

    Without sounding too pompus, historians are stating opinions in many cases. We all put our pants on the same way and have access to the same equipment. Conclusions can be reached by anyone that will venture one. [;)]

    Best,
    Mike

    Cruelty was a rare thing in the war. Fireside folks who talk about war and read about it, they figure it's cruel more often than not, but it simply isn't so... You kill in war to survive, and not because of any desire to kill.
    Many men avoid battle not from cowardice but from fear of cowardice, fear that when the moment of truth comes they will not have the courage to face up to it. L'Amour
    0

Please sign in to leave a comment.

Recent Activity