Talk:Type 99 rifle

message: Removed "citation needed" tag on "not effective enough as anti-material", because it is a common military knowledge that small-sized ammunition is not effective against armour. 6.5x50mm is clearly smaller than its contemporary ammunitions during wwII and no specific citation is needed. --Mizst (talk) 00:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to put it back.  We still need a source for the statement.  Nor is "smaller" necessarily relevant.Mzmadmike (talk) 20:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Uncited text is now replaced by cited source. --Mizst (talk) 22:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  

message: The statement was that the difference between the calibers caused inaccuracy.  I'm accepting the inaccuracy, though it should be sourced.  .310 and .308 are close enough they should be within production tolerance.  Inaccuracy is more likely due to rifling rate differences, projectile length/mass, and lengthening the action to take a cartridge it was not designed for.  I've made the change.  If I'm in error, do please correct with cites.Mzmadmike (talk) 20:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Added a cross link to the Arisaka page that discusses this.Mzmadmike (talk) 20:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Added information with legit sources. If you are still interested in looking back. :-) Kadrun (talk) 03:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Korean .30-06 conversions

message: Anyone know what they were thinking with the anti-aircraft sights? A set of .30-caliber machine guns could do it, but bolt-action rifles seem to be a stretch. --UnneededAplomb (talk) 07:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I heard a story once that a US Marine at Pearl Harbor brought down a Japanese Zero with his M1 Garand. True or not, I'd say it would be tremendous boost to morale and confidence to be told that YOU have the power to bring down an attacking enemy aircraft. Boneyard90 (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: US Marines did not have M1 rifles at Pearl Harbor.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.166.3 (talk) 18:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Aircraft Sights 

message: Wondering if they should be separate or what. Thanks. Ominae (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding the Type 99 sniper rifle to the Type 99 rifle page

message: Why was it called Type 99? It can't be the emperor year so what is it? 99.199.237.60 (talk) 03:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an interesting question. According to this site: During the reign of Hirohito, rifles were designated by the last one or two digits of the adoption year according to the standard Japanese calendar. Thus, the Type 99 rifle was adopted in Japanese calendar year 2599 (1939), and the Type 2 paratroop rifle was adopted in calendar year 2602 (1942). Not a "reliable source" by WP's standards but it's probably true.--Sus scrofa (talk) 12:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That's certainly interesting. At any rate I thank you for your speedy response. Thank you.99.199.237.60 (talk) 04:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: Do we have a confirmed source for this? I do not believe that the forces of the USSR would pick up and use Arisaka rifles when they could be using a PPSh-41, or domestic Mosin-Nagant M/91-30. Please Clarify.
74.51.57.78 (talk) 06:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Tagged as uncited since June 2012 - I'll go ahead and remove this now. --Sus scrofa (talk) 08:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet Use