Jump to content

Rethinking The "late-War Or Home Defense" Officer Gunto


Recommended Posts

All,

 

Something intriguing popped up in my pursuit of Mantetsu blades and numbers. It is a 1938 blade with Dalian Railway stamp, no Mantetsu mei, zodiacal date (Winter '38) and alpha/numeric serial number "N 156." Assuming that the Mantetsu operation used the alphabet and numbers chronologically, this is the earliest Mantetsu blade I've seen in collector's hands outside of Ohmura's "C 30".

 

What's significant is that it is made for, and mounted in what has been, up until now, called the "late war" or "home defense" officer fittings. Similar to the Rinji (Type 3; contingency) model, it differs in that the ishizuke is very plain, no frills as is the kabutogane - more so than the standard Rinji style.

 

I say that the blade was made for these fittings, as opposed to re-fitted later, because of the flat nakago mune. If you will take a look at the mune of all Rinji-mounted blades, whether Mantetsu or not, they have a flat mune and the seppa and tsuba holes for the nakago are flat at the top. ALL Mantetsu I have seen, mounted in Rinji fittings, have been made with flat nakago mune. The serial number is stamped on top of it.

 

What's challenging about this is that the Rinji style was ordered Sept of '38 and according to Nick Komiya, Warrelics, the model hit the streets in 1940. With a date of "Winter" '38, this gunto COULD be a prototype of the Rinji style. If so, the styling was adopted and jazzed up a tad bit in production models.

 

If this is the case, though, why would we still see this most rudimentary version years later (seen in '44 models), so much so, that they were labeled by both Fuller and Dawson as "late war"?

 

Possibilities come to mind, but none of them are supported by facts or documentation - Was this a model specifically made for the brutal cold of the China campaign (a few Mantetsu have been found in these fittings)?; Was this a prototype for the Rinji, and after adoption, the contractor continued making this style throughout the war?; Was this single set made for Rinji trials, and later adopted by late-war manufacturing orders (Dawson says Fuller cited documents ordering this style at the end of the war)? We don't know.

 

What we DO know is someone owns a 1938 blade made by Mantetsu specifically for Rinji-styled, or home defense styled, fittings! It doesn't make sense that this style was "home defense" in 1938.

 

I will send this to Richard Fuller and see what he thinks. Any updates I get will be posted.post-3487-0-32603500-1544712422_thumb.jpgpost-3487-0-25996000-1544712453_thumb.jpgpost-3487-0-00538500-1544712482_thumb.jpgpost-3487-0-25142600-1544712540_thumb.jpgpost-3487-0-77735000-1544712563_thumb.jpg

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great observations Bruce. As I have seen this type of "so called" late war mounts with 1944 and now your 1938, with almost exclusively Mantetsu blades, it begs the question...... Could the whole outfit (blade and koshirae) have been made as a package in the Dalian Railway Factory from 1938, AND stayed in production for 7 years? And could the Rinji/type 3 be actually based on this? Three points spring to mind...

1. the Mantetsu steel and process was developed to withstand the temperature extremes during the Manchurian campaign. It was made at the Dalian factory, who if you read about their production capability and expertise could have easily made koshirae.

2. the handle "same" in all case is heavy duty canvas (fire hose grade) Under the ito. This could withstand the cold better than the ray skin and celluloid that would get brittle and break in the cold.

3. this Dalian koshirae has one mekugi-ana (peg hole), the same as preceding models, where as the Rinji/type 3 has TWO, which to me is a design improvement that follows this outfit.

So taking Bruce's research a step further, can you conclude that it definitely NOT a late war roughly made home defense sword, but a sword specifically made in Manchuria to withstand the climate?  And is it possible the type3 was modeled on this pattern.      

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great read, Bruce. Is there any evidence that whichever company or manufacturer made these fittings wasn't making them as private purchase?

 

Sorry I'll clarify that since they were all private purchases. By that I mean whether this style was proscribed under regulation or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great read, Bruce. Is there any evidence that whichever company or manufacturer made these fittings wasn't making them as private purchase?

 

Sorry I'll clarify that since they were all private purchases. By that I mean whether this style was proscribed under regulation or not.

Steve, I’m hoping to get clarification on that from Richard Fuller. As of now, only Dawson’s reference to Fuller’s work is the only claim the style was officially ordered.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a militaria collector for more than 35 years I know that it's not uncommon to find items made with old parts. These parts came from old stocks or where simply reused. The demand was high so everything was used to complete the item. BTW, at the end of the war most soldiers couldn't care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one, unless your post is really relevant and adds to the topic..

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...