Never heard that story about it being a 'surrender' gun but it is still a bad gun. Whether or not it fixed issues with a previous model of gun it still can fire if pressure is applied to the right spot so it is a bad gun.
@@PalmettoNDN I suppose that's fair honestly, they had good minds for innovation just not good follow through. Take for instance the Japanese planes, they were pretty good handling planes. Or the Arisaka, wasn't a bad rifle truthfully. Or at least the cartridge was innovative at the time. A borderline intermediate cartridge, totally could have made a semi auto out of that.
The cartridge was actually used in full autos, as I recall. You can put the stripper clips in a hopper of certain type of light machine gun and the machine gun fires them.
As a Japanese militaria collector, I feel Ian is doing God's work. Too many people I meet get their ideas about Japanese equipment from decades-old American myths rather than original documentation, well-researched secondary sources, and practical experience.
Exactly I used to believe the myths until I started reading about things like US troops bringing home training versions of Japanese weapons that were meant to fire blanks and having them explode because you can chamber a live round every bit of the myths come from operator error
3 year old comment but so true, I have just now been learning allot and realized how many dumb myths I used to believe. I still like TBF Tv but allot of BS unfortunately came from them. Not only the safety issues, but also how unreliable these Japanese pistols appeared to be, failing almost every shot, wow what terrible pistols I thought. Until I actually did research and talked to collectors and it just turns out old guns tend to have worn springs, replace the springs and suddenly those "unreliable" pistols function perfectly imagine that... Made me really re-evaluate allot of the gun RU-vidrs I used to listen to.
And also the gun was not made for frontline duty, More for an emegensy tool for airmen so it was not the same need to be the best gun, just to keep the airmen happy.
To be fair, the USMC did shoot a lot of them while they were surrendering, or after they surrendered. USMC are easy, they'll go either way, they'll even do before, they don't care, any time.
@@Furzkampfbomber The "folded 1000 times" comment is a meme related to the creation process of the katana. The carbon content of the Japanese iron source is high, so they have to fold the steel to give the sword some strength (otherwise the blade would be brittle and break easily with use). Tbh, I want an origami sword now. x) Pretty good article on the subject: medievalswordsworld.com/how-many-times-are-katanas-folded/
I had seen something about a “japenese surrender pistol” that had a trigger on the side many, many years ago, and it just now hit me that the japenese didn’t actually surrender during the war.
Yeah, but the whole point of using the pistol that would be that you weren't surrendering, but rather pretending to surrender when in fact you're making a final suicidal attack.
Well it should be noted the concept of surrender was very much antithetical to the military culture of Japan at the time. To the point where captured japanese PoWs that the allies had captured were reported as dead to their freinds and family back home.
@@EwanMarshall True, but your post also proves that surrendering still did in fact happen, both in terms of actually surrendering Japanese, and of course plenty of fanatics who did so only to kill one last American before inevitably being shot themselves. Which is where stories of the "surrender pistol" could have come from.
@@galactor123 Oh, I never said it didn't happen, but would procurement create such a "surrender" pistol when the expectation was that there would never be a surrender? It certainly would not have been "designed" for it. Of course not.
Plus, I don’t think the Japanese were planning to lose the war and do lots of surrendering in 1934 before the war even began as the narrator pointed out. This whole myth makes about as much sense as the one about the Germans calling US marines “Teufelhunden”.
I'm curious: has anyone got a documented account of Japanese soldiers actually trying this stunt? Because I can't see a situation in which a GI or a Marine would let a surrendering IJA soldier retain control of a weapon at all, much less either (1) point it at him or (2) hold it out to one side and then rapidly "aim" and press the sidebar.
I don't think many Japanese soldiers surrendered to begin with. Part of the propaganda of war is you have to convince your side that the other side is full of bad immoral people.
@@johnstacy7902 I agree about the Japanese soldiers. Because it is well known here in the Philippines that the last Japanese soldiers, despite getting cornered and outnumbered, or even when Japan surrendered, would rather commit suicide by jumping into cliffs or die charging than surrender.
No. No documented account exists because just like the stories of Japanese troops throwing away their Arisaka dust covers and waiting until they hear a ping of a Garand to attack, it was perpetuated by scared 18 year old U.S serviceman who heard it from “some guy in Dog Company” who if he existed made it up himself.
I know of no documented instances (having never looked it up) but; "Because I can't see a situation in which a GI or a Marine would let a surrendering IJA soldier retain control of a weapon at all, much less either (1) point it at him or (2) hold it out to one side and then rapidly "aim" and press the sidebar." Holding it just to your side with your hand over the slide is not "being in control of the gun" as most people would understand it. That's obviously you being willing to surrender. Idea behind this "surrender pistol" being that the guy who's coming to take your gun off of you (which is how it worked back then) would get close enough that you could just gesture fire into him and it wouldn't be obvious. Idea is sound, whether or not it actually happened though... I have to say, your reasons for why it mustn't be true aren't that great. Neither is Ian's "it was designed in the 30's" sillyness.
@@neues3691 I've read those stories too. Apparently the German soldiers thought that they were allowed to keep their weapons because the US was going to turn on the Russians and needed the German Army's help.
As usual, Ian takes the logical approach to all things gun design and points out the actual reasons insted of the " because we beat them" reasons for why things are. Thank you sir.
Well, he is a historian. While i cannot specifically comment on his mothodology, i would think he sticks within the boundiaries of the scientific method, and thus he will present a much more true to reality presentation.
The Beretta 92 has an external sear bar too. Nobody says that’s a “surrender pistol” designed to get one last shot off, even though you totally can hold the gun “open” and push the bar with your thumb (if it’s cocked).
I have one of these that my grandfather bright back from when he fought in Iwo Jima. Complete with spare mag and holster. He carried it every day for decades. Never any accidental discharges.
You did have to kneel to fire it because it's pretty small, and there probably no standing mortar, but you should NOT fire it on your knee, except collecting broken bones is your other hobby
i never understood why people thought stuff like this about the nambu surely if it was a genuinely unsafe gun then it probably would have been replaced because even a mediocre revolver is better than a unsafe semi auto
Exactly, this was a pilot's emergency pistol. It was designed to never be used. Having something safe but with slower reloading like a revolver would have been far smarter had it been unsafe. Ensuring that all pilots are safe are more important than an extra six rounds should a pilot be shot down.
@@lalli8152 they grew up thinking that was OK. After the War the US did a lot of stuff to change people's way of thinking. I guess things worked out for them in the end
I had a friend come to me with one of these made pre-war and the fit and finish was fantastic. Despite the weird looks it fit my hand well. The 'exposed sear feature' is something I'd only read about and it was cool to finally get to see it and demonstrate it in person. It's a much better pistol than the type 14 though that round is pretty wimpy.
"You can fire these by pressing on the side of the sear, and that is totally true. We'll cover that in another video" ive been waiting five years for this video
Yeah, after my dad got a mid-late war production one some years back, one of the first things I did was to see for myself just how 'easy' this was to do (with no ammo of course). You've really got to put significant effort in and be very deliberately trying to make it happen for it to actually happen. One thing people forget is that there are other guns out there that also have exposed sear/trigger transfer bars that can also be made to fire when they are not supposed to. The most prominent example that comes to mind is the Luger, which can actually be fired with the pistol partly disassembled, which is arguably more dangerous than the Nambu, given some careless cleaning practices and the fact that the Luger sear bar is actually much easier to press (I did test them side-by-side). Another possible example, though I didn't think to test it at the time is the Beretta 92 family of pistols. In theory, you can simply push the external trigger bar forward from the outside and fire the thing. Also, the Walther P.38 shares this trigger bar design, but on the Walther, it's much flatter to the frame and lacks the 'dog leg' that the Beretta has, which would make it much easier to do on the Beretta. Overall, I'd say that while the Type 94 is more than a bit rough around the edges, it is a rather functional and comfortable pistol, despite it's odd shape and minor design oddities.
I’ll have to check my 92 if pulling on the bar will disengage the firing pin block. I suspect it will not. Also, there’s no where to grab onto the trigger bar. Checked. It doesn’t.
The Japanese Navy sure did a lot of surrendering, not that it helped usually. And even then they usually did so only after screwing up while trying to scuttle the ship.
@@catspajamas6837 See IJN Yuudachi (AKA Solomon's Nightmare, or "Poi boat" if you're a weeb), and the countless war photos of surrendered Japanese Marines littering American Naval war memorials.
@@pelvicrock1794 That is how we normally translate it into English, but it is a little silly to suggest that that is the only correct way to say the name of an organization that is named in a completely different language. 大日本帝国陸軍 literally means "Great Sun Origin Emperor Country Land Army", or "Japanese Imperial Army". Also, technically not inaccurate to say the "Imperial Army" and prefix that with "Japanese" to be specific, as one might say "Japan's Imperial Army". So you're not wrong, but I see little point your point. Bit like saying insisting it is Japan even though 日本 are Nip Pon (in this case, the latter can also be Hon, thus Nihon as another correct name).
And for the record, keep in mind that any one you see in the wild that malfunctions is *80 years old and built on the other side of the planet during a world war.* ...and likely operated by people who have no idea how it functions. * cough *
One of my favorite and underappreciated handguns from the era. Represented a huge improvement over the Type 14, is extremely comfortable to hold and fire, very compact, and the exposed sear is a complete non-issue. The only time it should be off safe is if you're prepared to shoot, and the sear requires a very deliberate application of pressure to be fired when off safe anyhow. Accidental discharge with this handgun, like virtually every other, is only possible if you're acting grossly negligent to begin with.
@@naricky8408 Well it's small capacity was a deliberate compromise made as the pistol was intended to be a compact vehicle crewman's sidearm. In the age of single-stack pistol magazines, "big magazine" and "compact pistol" were mutually exclusive.
@@_ArsNova I agree with you.If i remember correctly,Prototype Type 94 pistol has a 8~10 round magazine capacity instead of 6 round capacity.Maybe they reduced to 6 is because officer,pilot and vehicle crewman don't need a high capacity magazine.
Have heard nothing good about this pistol, but thanks to Ian, I now have a new perspective. Really good to see a considered and thoughtful review. It's still nothing special, but not the complete horror story that many think. Thanks for posting
There are three types of people when it comes to assessing military history. Mr. "We were great, they were shit" who idolizes his own nation and gets his rocks off mocking foreign tech, coming up with unrealistic, unhistoric and at times dehumanizing reasons for why other armies did things differently. Mr. "We were shit, they were great" who has an unhealthy fetishism for foreign tech and constantly belittles their own historic methods. And finally those rare guys who can look at things for what they are. Most of the time, US and THEM are not so different in motivation, methodology, in good and bad. Win or lose, every country has some garbage designs, stupid tactics, and some bad eggs. Every country has some ingenious innovation, brilliant designs, and some heroic soldiers.
You could also apply this to the claim to moral high ground. Some people say "we" had the moral high ground and were thus justified in committing war atrocities, others say "they" had the moral high ground and our acts were horrific and we should be ashamed, and then the rare few who see war objectively enough to admit bad stuff happens and it's really sad and is not the best side of humanity.
The Japanese Wikipedia mentions the "lack of specialized machine tools" as a possible reason for the simplified internal design of Type 94. And that might include the sear being placed on the outside.
This is my absolute favorite channel on RU-vid. Ian, your plethora of knowledge about the history of so many firearms just blows my mind. I’ve literally been watching some of your videos and wondered to myself, “How the HELL does he fit all that information in his head?” Each video is so interesting, and your classy way of presenting always manages to keep me interested, even if the firearm at hand doesn’t! Keep up the great work!
It gives a chilling insight into just how unprepared Italy was for The Second World War. They beggared themselves in Abyssinia and The Spanish Civil War in materiel and trained combat troops and the Italian population had a far larger hostile segment of the population in relation to Italian militarism who were less likely to be willing soldiers for a regime they loathed. Their armour was found to be outclassed in The Spanish Civil War and Mussolini didn't have even Hilter's basic understanding of what the requirements for heavy industry needed for a European war would be (although Hitler did actually have a good grasp of logistics for some reason). It's been said 'The Axis wasn't an alliance but rather a group of predators that ran in a pack' and the disregard for each other's level of preparedness is blatantly obvious here. Hitler was well aware that Italy needed a total re-equipment of its armed forces apart from its navy yet when he saw the window of opportunity in France's rearmament program he took it and consigned his 'allies' to fighting a war with last generation equipment that was insufficient in both numbers, quality and also training. The Breda monstrosity was domestically well known to be totally unsuitable yet there was almost zero weapons technology transfers between the Axis until late war. This had a lot to do with fascism which entrusts corporate entities into running the wartime economies (with some constraints) but you can point directly to the ill-equipped Romanians and Italians, valiantly trying to fight KV-1s and T-34s with 37mm AT guns, for the encirclement of Stalingrad which has to be the sweetest example of blow-back I'm aware of. If the Axis allies had been permitted licences to build German equipment then the situation might have been different. Note that the Germans were quite happy to have occupied countries build war materiel, just not their allies. Compare this with the USA which lavished equipment on its allies, even the USSR which it loathed (albeit at a price. The UK didn't finish off paying Lend Lease until 2016) A chilling example of this is when the Romanians were desperately trying to create a modern medium tank to match the T-34 they needed torsion bars for the heavier suspicion such a tank needed. Unable to make them themselves they bought some from Germany, only to find that the shipment were all factory rejects and unsuitable for use. This is by far not an isolated case of German munitions companies screwing over their allies with disastrous results.
I'm no shooting enthusiast, but I do really like history and engineering. Always nice to find a channel that lets me be a part of the community without mixing in too much politics. Thanks.
1:26 “Just as a quick aside, I would submit that the CZ 38 is in fact a worse pistol than the 94 Nambu in almost every way.” *CZ 38:* “Wow shots fired, d*ck.”
Those shots were fired long ago, this is just Ian rubbing it in again. In an old Q&A he calls it the worst Czech firearm ever made or something. Him and Karl really hate it.
Another example of why this is my go to firearms content creator. It’s just really refreshing to have facts and not biased information or gossip past off as facts. I wish all the best to you and yours!
Good lesson on the Type 94, Ian. I have one in my collection and always thought it a good example of how not to design a firearm. The truth about any of these old or antique weapons is that many of them do not incorporate some of the simple safety features that we find on more modern weapons. For example, the C96. Have you ever loaded and then engaged the safety on that one? Engaging the safety on that one can be a deadly affair if you slip, and it's easy to slip whilst fiddling with that hammer. Bottom line is, if you are going to fire one of these weapons you'd best know your weapon. Of course, that's true with any firearm. Be knowledgeable. Be safe. Live long and prosper. And, always remember the prime directive, i.e., don't shoot anyone, because that right there will ruin your whole day. Theirs too.
@@gunnertlc7728 Queensland, Australia. I buy the new brass cases & projectiles from local supplier. Do my own reloads. I have approx 500 rounds. I have all the nambu hand guns accept baby nambu. Baby nambu sold at local auction, just over $8000.00. Out of my price range. Cheers .
I blame Ian V. Hogg! and I quote "The type 94 is, in my estimation a contender for the title of worst military pistol ever issued....It exhibits two startling mechanical defects: the disconnector and lock mechanism are so constructed that it is possible to release the striker and fire the pistol before the barel and brrech are locked together; and the sear which releases the striker is an exposed metal strip on the left-hand side of the frame, capable of being depressed and thus firing the weapon by simply grasping the weapon carelessly...Taken all around, it is an astonishing weapon; in the 1930's the Japanese were not averse tocopying any design they thought might be useful in other fields of activity, and it is thus all the more suprising that they went to the trouble of producing this monstrosity instead of copying a more workmanlike pistol" Ian V.Hogg 'The Encylopedia of Infantry Weapons Of World War II' p.30 - Though TBF the book is a fascinating read as long as with any historical source you remember that provenance is king!
I am german, I will never own a gun and I am not even that much interested in firearms, despite technical and historical aspects and that is where Ian comes in. So much interesting info, sometimes the informations he provides about things like the development of a gun or about historical context and background are more gripping than a dectective novel.
They in fact, told the truth. The user of the pistol says that pressure on the sear will fire the gun, though most viewers just see a finger pressing the side of the pistol and firing and that image stays with them. The segment is here, you be the judge...ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-W6peJ0ur4jY.html
@@Athonite looking back on that clip you have to press damn hard to get it to go off. It's not a beauty of a design but probably other than the weird sear serviceable for air crews.
That is a well-polished Nambu 94. I have seen examples that were so rough and scratched up with crude tooling marks. Like the gunsmiths thought it was not hideous enough, they had to turn 'em out with horrible file marks all over them. Complete the look!
I would certainly not compare these two guns for one specific reason. The conditions in which and because of which the CZ vz. 38 pistol came into existence differed completely... for one it was because The existing Cz. vz. 24 pistol was too complicated, expensive (vz. 38 cost was probably a half of the cost of vz.24) but especially because the Czechoslovak army was having serious problems with "combat readiness". The vz. 24 had a goofy safety at best which was not a thing to rely on and at that time 1937, 1938, early 1939 our soldiers were constantly being attacked from behind or suddenly and insidiously especially by Freikorps and other Nazis living in the Czechoslovakia... hence the soldiers needed a gun, that can be safely carried with a round in a chamber, no safeties necessary and that could be used right after being drawn... you can imagine that it was easier to create a gun like this with no safety and simply tell the soldiers "put a round in the pipe, holster it and if necessary just draw it and pull the trigger" then bother with creating a gun with better SA trigger but necessary manual safety. That would require additional training etc. And in 1938 there was no time for that, Hitler was waiting behind the border and no one knew if he attacks today or tomorrow :( Sad times.... Vz. 38 however did not "die" and even after the war there were improved versions made - in 9mm luger, single stack, double stack, SA/DA versions... Once I get my hand on one I can make a summary video on it. :)
Čekal jsem, že se tu objeví někdo, kdo bude vz. 38 omlouvat, protože jak každý ví, československý zbraně jsou nejlepší na světě, tedy až na pár výjimek, jako Pi vz. 52, Pu vz. 52, Ukl vz. 59, ČZ vz. 50/70, Pi vz. 82/ČZ 83, CZ 805 BREN, SP-01 Phantom, což byly a jsou sráče... Tak teď 20x "Zdrávas" a 10x "Otčenáš" a Gun Jesus ti odpustí tohle rouhání.
My dad had a uncle who brought one of these back from WW2. That exposed sear bar was pretty freaky. We took it out shooting. it was just strange shooting weapon.
I'm pretty sure you can do that surrender gun thing with an M9 I've never tried it but it has an exposed trigger bar and if you push it forward it should do the same thing
I have a Type 94 my Marine grandfather brought back from Okinawa. The original owner did not surrender it (willingly or sneakily). I’d love to fire this thing some time. I’ve never considered trying to find ammunition.
After The Chieftain discussed tank crew personal weapons this makes all the sense in the world. Point in direction of enemy, shoot and run away. Something not so small you enemy doesn't duck and not so big you are stuck in the non-functional vehicle.
While I've never thought the safety of the thing was a real issue, I feel the 6-round magazine and rather weak cartridge limit its appeal somewhat. Doesn't seem to bring much benefit over a Colt Detective Special for instance.
Thank you for this Ian, I was already tired of all the crap in the comments of the last video about the Type 94 Unpopular opinion: It looks _lovely_ , not beautiful, _lovely_
I dunno if fooled is the word. Could have just been a late war production or a super war weary gun. I wonder if they ever took it to a gunsmith before shooting it.
@@Cal94 I was reffering to an older video where they I think actually say that a japanese officer could shoot himself in the leg and they shoot it with the sear and so on...That's what I meant by "fooled".
I heard the same thing about the Radom pistols. You could put the safety on, pull the trigger and when ever you flicked the safety off, the pistol would discharge. Could be a load of old boots though.
one interesting thing about having a 'surrender pistol' is that it is actually very difficult and complicated to suicide using a katana in traditional Japanese way, while a pistol shot to the head is much easier.
Not that easy, as usually falling onto the katana will not instantly kill a person. Also, suicide by a katana is sort of a traditional Japanese ritual stuff, so you know, that's always complicated
If you're going to commit some form of suicide, you're only going to need to be quick if you plan on taking others with you, as happened with 'grenade feints'. If you're a commander in a fixed position, there is enough time for seppuku, but it's also something that takes a lot of effort and willpower to pull through. Cutting open your own abdomen from end to end only to bleed out on the floor is not as nice a prospect as "click and you're gone".
@@jackvernian7779 You cut your stomach open in a zed shape, then before you scream in pain your buddy takes your head off. Pro tip, if you don't have a wakazashi (a short sword) you can use a katana, but you need good think (Japanese) paper wrap around the blade to get a grip closer to yourself, unless you have like 3ft long arms.
To be fair a headshot while holding the pistol at like chest level and sideways as you push on the sear is probably pretty hard. Fuck, even shooting your own head, the rate of success for people committing suicide with a gunshot to their head is 97%. Drops when not in your mouth, as the recoil jump and your reflexes increase the chance of your missing anything important, and the 97% does not make a distinction between pistols and rifles (shotguns is higher though). Fucking Tojo shot himself with a pistol (maybe one of these actually), lived long enough for us to hang him three years later, but the idiot aimed for his heart. Literally said to journalists as he was bleeding out "I am very sorry it is taking me so long to die...I wished to commit suicide but sometimes that fails".
Hi Ian, I’d love to see a series on how Japanese firearms improved over the years! From when they had cord lit muskets that eventually took out the samurai, then WW1 era, although pretty rare and convoluted and mostly imported, to WW2 wtf is this thing, lol, and what they used in the decades to follow. Shadow was an interesting company which all records “disappeared in a fire”, and currently Howa is making some truly fine firearms, some of which are made on old Sako tooling. Would be nice to have a meet a greet and some book sales next time your at the EOSC.
One thing that I've always found odd here is that the Beretta 92 also has an exposed trigger bar and can be fired just by pressing forward on it if you know what you're doing. However, nobody ever cites the Beretta as having that "feature." I think the Type 94 gets a bad rap because it looks clunky, was sometimes made very crudely, and wasn't used by the U.S. military.
I suspect most of the rumor mongers either don't know or don't care that this was a air crew pistol. Or they don't know that an air crew pistol in WW II was a survival weapon. You aren't supposed to be shooting people at your own air base, and you have little need to shoot them while in the air. Which is where you are supposed to be over enemy territory. So basically, this is a weapon that isn't supposed to get used after Basic Training.
Auto loading pistol Condition 1 with no safety carry is something recent. Militaries use safeties because you aren’t drawing your pistol in anger until the firefight is lost.
I have heard veterans say they had heard the German P38 and the Japanese Type 94 u could take locking block out and the gun would fire . They had seen soldiers seriously hurt. In my 55 years of collecting and looking at the p38 a Doctor brought one for me to check out .No locking block. I have seen 2 Type 94 Japanese pistols no locking block veterans had .
in my opinion .380 acp is good for a pdw edc. not for a service gun but as a pdw edc i like it. to me the smallest id carry is a .22lr then .22mag then skip all the way to the. 380acp. i wouldn't carry a .25acp or .32acp. iv heard of a. 25acp ricochet off of someone's skull and not do much more than cut the scalp pretty bad. so .380 acp for me. lol. and obviously if there is no other option then i would use a .25 acp or .32 acp but given the choice id carry the. 380acp. anyone else have an opinion they would like to share.
Theres a 1949 movie by Akira kurosawa called "stray dog", and the poster depicts the main character is depicted as using this gun. I don't remember if he actually uses in in the film, but at the time the production of films was heavily regulated by the allied occupation, and wouldnt allow things that glorified the Japanese empire, or old ideals. The movie centers around the recovery of the leads real pistol, which is a colt, though he uses at least one other gun at some point. Either way, if the "surrender pistol" trick was really that common, I doubt the Americans would have allowed it to be displayed on the poster.
Thanks Ian for clearing that up; well, for at least attempting too. I know that if I am somewhere and someone starts spouting b.s. I will just keep right on moving, know that I have a better grasp of the facts.
The idea of surrendering was very much against all Japanese thinking. If the gun was so used, it was to allow the soldier to die in battle, and not live by surrendering. There was a vanishingly small number of Japanese POW compared to Western ones. Many Japanese warcrimes came from the Japanese toxic opinion of surrendering. Those who surrendered were no longer men, in Japanese eyes. Survivors were treated accordingly.
I believed that you can discharge this pistol by just squeezing the frame my entire adult life. I don't even remember where I "learned" this poppycock! Thank you Ian, for clearing up this misconception of mine!
I remember seeing this myth on History channel's "Tales of the Gun" tv series. It was an otherwise great show that perpetuated this myth, along with the "Chauchat=junk" concept. edit -here's the episode in question... ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-W6peJ0ur4jY.html
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'm pretty sure the Type 94 isn't even the only pistol out there with an exposed sear bar, the Beretta 92 has one as well. Does the Beretta just have a better safety to prevent that type of negligent discharge from happening?
The pistol grip on the Nambu 94 looks like it was the source of inspiration for the trigger mechanisms of the 3DGear in attack on Titan. Just the first thing I saw
My dad served in the Pacific war in the Corp of Engineers. The only war story he ever told me was basically "Don't play around with gasoline, I was nearly killed destroying shit with it in the war." From what I've heard elsewhere over the years, I would guess that any Japanese that even came close to touching a pistol around armed U.S. soldiers would have been killed on the spot.
It would be interesting to know the type of pistol responsible for the loss of some of Admiral Isoruku Yamamoto’s fingers? I believe he had a pistol blow up some time before WW2 .
People think the type 94 is unsafe and bad pistol based on some very late war production guns. As these were desperation guns (corners cut and poor materials). But these very late guns are not the whole story of the Type 94.
Americans to Japanese soldiers: "Come out with your side arms drawn and pointed at us. Fingers off the trigger" Japanese soldiers who don't think surrender is the ultimate disgrace: "Fools. We've got them now."
Why isn't there the same concerns about a Beretta 92? They have a trigger linkage that is outside the frame of the firearm. I would think I'd that had ever been a problem then no major military entity would have ever adopted anything like it.
