The .260 Rem. could serve as a modern, more powerful replacement for the 6.5 mm Arisaka in rechambered Type 38 Arisaka rifles. Case dimensions are similar, but the bolt face may need to be opened up, while the chamber throat and magazine box will be longer than necessary for most .260 Rem. loads.
Arisaka Alternative
I inherited a really nice Japanese Type 38 Arisaka rifle that my uncle sporterized. He had been impressed with how the Type 38 Arisaka action performed in P.O. Ackley’s action-strength tests. Ackley was never able to get the action to fail, even with huge overloads, and ended up rating the Type 38 as the strongest of all the actions he tested. This rifle is good looking, functions smoothly, has a perfect bore and shoots very accurately. My problem is it’s still chambered for the 6.5 mm Arisaka cartridge, which is hard to find, expensive and not very powerful for such a strong action. Is there another, more powerful cartridge for which this rifle can be rechambered?
Jeff Carter
Pittsburgh, PA
Fortunately for you there is a readily available, factory-loaded, modern 6.5-mm cartridge that is very similar in size to the 6.5 mm Arisaka. The .260 Rem. is a little bit larger in case diameter and about the same length.
Looking at the chamber specifications for the two cartridges, it should be a very easy job for a gunsmith to rechamber your Type 38 Arisaka to shoot .260 Rem. ammunition. Certainly the action is strong enough. The bolt face might need to be opened up a tad, but probably not. Similarly the magazine should work fine.The .260 Rem. is factory loaded to a shorter overall length than the 6.5 mm Arisaka. There will be extra room in the front of the magazine, and the chamber throat will end up a bit long for the .260 Rem. Whether this will cause accuracy problems can only be determined by trying it. If you handload for the rifle, the space in the magazine will enable you to load cartridges with heavier 6.5-mm bullets and to a longer overall length than .260 Rem. factory ammunition. You may gain both accuracy and ballistic advantages over factory .260 Rem. loads.
Johnson Versus Garand
My buddy has an M1941 Johnson rifle in his collection. He claims it was a far better combat rifle than the M1 Garand. Is that true?
David Barnes
via e-mail
The quick answer to that question is “no.” I have owned several Johnson rifles over the years and have shot several others, so my opinion is based on personal experience.
The Johnson rifle is an interesting piece, though, with features that give it some advantages over the Garand. It has a 10-round rotary magazine that can be loaded from the side with five-round stripper clips or single rounds. The Johnson is probably the only semi-automatic rifle fielded with an integral magazine that could be topped off without removing the round in the chamber. It is recoil operated; the barrel reciprocates to the rear a short distance before the bolt unlocks. Consequently, the rifle has no gas system to clean and maintain. The quick-detachable barrel is easily removed in the field for cleaning.
Every Johnson I have fired was quite inaccurate compared to a Garand. I don’t think I ever got a group smaller than 4 moa, and most were worse. This is probably a function of the reciprocating barrel.
The Johnson’s cycle timing is such that the bolt opens when there is still substantial gas pressure in the chamber. If there is grit or rust in the chamber, the brass of the cartridge case may not release its grip on the chamber walls fast enough and the bolt will pull the extractor completely through the cartridge’s rim. The fired case remains in the chamber, causing a severe malfunction.
In tests conducted by the Marines comparing the two, the Johnson would lose its
semi-automatic functioning capability well before the Garand in dirty and sandy conditions. However, to its credit the Johnson could still be cycled manually in conditions where the Garand could not be cycled at all.
Even though the Johnson’s magazine holds 10 rounds to the Garand’s eight, the latter can keep up a greater rate of fire because it can be reloaded much faster—less than half the time. The Johnson’s bulbous rotary magazine could become dented in rough field conditions, causing the rifle to malfunction or cease functioning completely. Its fore-end was also particularly prone to breakage.
Although it had several noteworthy features such as a 10-round rotary magazine and a quick-detachable barrel, the M1914 Johnson rifle lost out to the M1 Garand in military trials prior to World War II. Its recoil-operated action was not as reliable, and its reciprocating barrel hampered accuracy.
Since the barrel of the Johnson is quick detachable, the bore is easier to clean and can be swabbed from the rear. However, further disassembly is much more difficult than with the Garand.
While I do not think much of bayonets in modern warfare, some do. The Johnson’s reciprocating barrel will only function with a relatively worthless, short spike bayonet attached. Even with that, functioning reliability is somewhat compromised. The Garand will accept a knife bayonet that was also a useful tool without any effect on its functioning.
Because of the recoil system located in the Johnson’s buttstock, the wrist area of the stock does not feel comfortable. The pregnant-looking rotary magazine makes it impossible to carry the rifle at its balance point with one hand.
In summary, the Johnson is not as accurate, durable, reliable, comfortable to carry or shoot, or as rapid firing as the Garand. It is also a much poorer bayonet handle. The M1 Garand proved to be the better combat rifle.