Did Japs really make the best firearms of their era?
>>753131
what if they did anon? what would it mean to you? or how would you define 'best firearm'?
uh what is 'their era'
because the production techniques and weapons were necessarily based on european firearms, so almost definitely not
>>753131
Rocking those 2k17 Yeezys
>>753131
Yes, that's why they bought them off europeans and used euro designs
>>753178
Why the are you even posting here?
Just post on facebook if what you're going to say is that devoid of value.
>>753146
You don't realize that if X produces something that's based off of Y models that this doesn't mean that X product isn't better than the Y model it's based off of?
>>753131
When was their era?
The height of japanese firearm production was probably around the invention of firearms in the east.
Because everything post 1900s has been shit. I'm sure a more qualified firearm historian will correct me, ask in the evening in /k/
>>753232
You do realize that if Europeans were the best metalworkers of the early modern period, the Asian knockoffs based on inferior (inexperienced, lacking the context which brought about European metalworking in the first place) craftsmanship, and materials, means that in this context, X producing something that's based off of Y almost certainly means that X's product is worse, right?
>hurrhurr apply general logic to something sensitive to historical context
No.
>>753242
Which as far as i know that's basically the history of firearms made in south east Asia; bad knockoffs.
>>753242
You don't realize that your argument wasn't based on any of these variables but the simple statement that X can't produce something better than Y because X's product is based on Y's product. I don't know anything about firearm production in any place or time, so while what you /now/ say may be true, what you originally said is plainly false in a very obvious way.
>hurrhurr you should be able to read my thoughts across the internet instead of me actually thinking about what I want to say and saying it
No.
>>753259
>You don't realize that your argument wasn't based on any of these variables
Incorrect.
Japan always made shit weapons
>>753259
>you don't realize what your own argument was based on
>>753276
No, it said they were based on EUROPEAN FIREARMS, not 'Y', and European firearms were of the highest standard at the time, hence a concluding argument with a self-contained premise, 'X' and 'Y' being false equivalents lacking the important historical context of EUROPEAN FIREARMS, kill yourself you retarded autist.
>>753259
Shut the fuck up retard
>>753291
Someone is mad as fuck just for getting called on saying stupid shit on the internet
>>753276
jesus christ I swear people like you that sperge out over what you think are arguments are the new fedoras. people can assert things without it being structured as an argument
>>753301
>Someone is mad as fuck just for getting called on saying stupid shit on the internet
That would be you.
>>753301
>gets absolutely rekt
>lol u mad xD
>>753291
If we go back to the OP, maybe you'd realize that it's not self-evident that EUROPEAN FIREARMS aren't inherently superior? The entire premise is that maybe NOT EUROPEAN FIREARMS were actually better than EUROPEAN FIREARMS?
>YOU SHOULD KNOW EVERYTHING THAT I KNOW ABOUT WHAT I WANT TO SAY ABOUT THIS SUBJECT YOU SHOULD KNOW WHAT I WANT TO SAY EVEN WHEN I PLAINLY DON'T SAY IT
Talk about autism. Don't punch your computer screen
Why did Asians never invent boots? I don't get how "hurr muh great East Asian civilization" meme exists when these backwards retards couldn't even protect their feet properly. The guys in OP's pic are wearing things that the Greeks wore more than a thousand years before them.
>>753315
>The entire premise is that maybe NOT EUROPEAN FIREARMS were actually better than EUROPEAN FIREARMS?
Actually this is just a retarded notion with no historical or logical basis, not a premise.
>>753320
I'm pretty sure Chinese, Mongols, and other asian peoples have boots in their ancient closets. Japan as well, but unless it's snowing I supposed the sandals are more comfortable?
>>753320
>Discussion of Japan, a single Asian country isolated for much of history
>"Why did Asians..."
Chinese, Central Asians, Koreans, and Viets had boots. Armored ones even.
>>753131
>Can into muskets
>Can't into fucking cannons.
>>753321
>replying to posts in reply to you is samefagging
You seem pretty buttflustered.
>>753131
Yep, despite what the retards here in this thread say the Japanese produced extremely high quality firearms and there was nothing in Europe that was their equivalent.
>>753353
>baiting this hard
>>753352
>/pol/tarding intensifies
dude, they still used smoothbore matchlock when everyone else was already dropping the caplock for breech-loaders
>>753241
Their bolt actions were bretty gud. But besides those your post pretty much sums up Japanese firearms production.
>>753328
The Japanese had boots,they fell out of popularity because bugs would live in them and bite your feet
>>753131
For a short while, allegedly, yes.
I read somewhere that they first made widespread use of sights.
>>754354
>I read somewhere that they first made widespread use of sights.
source?
>>754354
Not him. but Ive also read they used ropes for leveling guns, and they had waterproof boxes for the flame
The Arisaka is apparently a very good rifle. Shame the Arisaka and the Zero are about the only weapons japan made in ww2 that were decent.
>>756324
No idea. If I remembered, I would've said so right away.
>>753352
Kek what the fuck?
yes because they folded their muskets 10000 times
by their superior craftmanship
They improved on the European design and for a while had better weapons. But after Sekigahara they fell behind.
People used to overrate them too much, now ignorant idiots try to deny everything positive about them in a knee jerk situation, even here, that is supposed to be the history board.
I dont have any knowledge, but i doubt it OP.
For about 250 years they didnt have any wars except for the occasional riots by the serfs. If there werent any wars, why would they use time and money to upgrade something that was sufficient enough for domestic affairs?
Besides, the small war with the British kinda proves there quality of arms.
>>753241
The Arisaka rifles were pretty okay, the problem was that they've used like 3 different rounds depending on versions and they were all in use until the end of WW2.
But then again, which bolt-action rifle wasn't good? Carcano?
Not everything is Lee Enfield ofc. but Mausers or Springfield weren't bad.
>>757463
>Not everything is Lee Enfield ofc. but Mausers or Springfield weren't bad.
What I meant is that basically majority of bolt action rifles used by any army were good constructions.
>>757463
>Not everything is Lee Enfield ofc.
i think you meant to say mosin-nagant
>>753131
Say what ya want about Japan but they know how to use the rule of cool.
>>753131
Instead of moving on to wheellocks, flintlocks, and eventually percussion cap rifles like European nations, they remained using their matchlocks well up to the age of military reform and the introduction of the Murata rifle. That being around a 250~ year span, it's only natural they'd find ways to improve the design.
>>754247
How can that be a real good reason? They could just bang their boots on the ground or a wall and get rid of them if it was a problem
>>757518
I agree for most aspects of their culture, but the cherry blossoms thing is a bit too gay for me.
>>757667
The more practical answer would be that sandals are cheaper to and easier to mass produce for an army.
>>757667
>>757667
I assume you've never dealt with things like lice and ticks
>>753131
>Blackpowder folded amillion times
>>753347
not enough metal for cannons
>>759603
Most people haven't in our modern error of better living standards for the average person.
>>759603
>Implying no other country in the world had to deal with bugs.
Judging by my exposure to feudal Japan, it's apparent that the Japanese never invented shoes for some reason.
>>759672
Canons are not terribly useful against hill top fortifications the Japanese used.
>>759672
And were they mass produced for the general population to use? Otherwise I'm led to believe they were imported.
>>759677
Maybe, but cannons were highly coveted by daimyo
>>753131
No. They certainly produced some nice examples and had good quality control but the continentals still kicked their ass.
>>759689
> Otherwise I'm led to believe they were imported.
Based on what? At least as far as boots with armor went they were something of a luxury, many foot soldiers in earlier periods were barefoot. but they were popular in the earlier period.
>>759650
That's something I've noticed before as well. Don't know whether they invented them or not, but shoes never caught on.
>>759648
Opps
era* woah wth didn't mean to put that.
>>760038
That implies the Japanese simply adopted European designs, but we know they did more than that.
this thread is lacking scholarly sources so.
""So sophisticated were Japan's smiths that they almost immediately they were able to craft guns that were equal of those being produced in Europe"
"and one group of smiths, the Kunitomo, managed to devise a process where a screw could be slowly twisted...to create rifling."
Source: Weapons and fighting techniques of the samurai warrior
Arisaka rifles, at least the early war ones, are famous for being able to take immensely hot loads. I've heard their LMG's are decent too, aside from meme criticism like bayonet mounts being added. really, the only incredibly, non-excusable design was one of the Nambu pistols, which would fire if you pressed too hard on the side of the frame.
>>760118
>Arisaka rifles, at least the early war ones, are famous for being able to take immensely hot loads
So your mother is an Arisaka rifle?
>>760095
>equal
wew lad, also he didn't even mention in what regards, he just made a blanket, empty statement
>.to create rifling
Do we have a date for this? Rifling was already known in Europe by at least 1520
Did the Japanese ever create any more advanced locks/firing mechanisms? Europeans had a plethora
>>760137
Very funny.
>>760254
Because it is a blanket statement, it means they were equivalent.
here is what it says on rifling.
"Rifling is thought to have originated in Leipzig in 1498, but no reliable evidence exists for such a weapon prior to 1544"
"the existence of the Portuguese Tanegashima harquebus is significant...it represents the oldest surviving example of a rifled firearm"
"The idea of screwing the barrel does not seem to have become common in England until 1635, when a patent...was granted...the Kunitomo smiths appear to have rifled their weapons by the turn of the seventeenth century"
>>757672
Is it still gay if they symbolize the impermanence and quickness of life?
>>753131
never heard such thing but it seems pretty improvable since if they manufactured their own weapons it was probably by reverse engineering the carbines and muskets the portuguese brought to them
>>760118
Arisakas were breddy gud but by and large most WWII-era Jap guns were somewhere between "meh" and "Nambu" across the board.
Didn't the Japanese develop front and rear sights for their firearms?
Meanwhile you had 17th century European manuals explain that since "powder is of an elevating nature" bullets go in an upwards trajectory which is why you line up the tip of the barrel below your target
>>759677
There was nothing better than cannons though, so it's a moot point kind of.
>>760368
>never heard such thing but it seems pretty improvable since if they manufactured their own weapons it was probably by reverse engineering the carbines and muskets the portuguese brought to them
The Portuguese arquebuses had a screwed in breech plug. The Japanese couldn't recreate it. They had to wait for a Portuguese or Dutch gunsmith to take a boat ride from India specifically so he could demonstrate the method to the Japanese gunsmiths.
>>760967
Which is something you do when shooting irl. because of recoil you dumbass.
Do you seriously think people were so stupid to not understand how musket ball worked despite understanding how cannon ball worked?
>>761055
Citation?
>>753352
Are you actually fucking retarded?
Or has /pol/ made you like this?
>>753328
I was preparing a whole list of reasons, but then I realized that I'm just replying to a comment in the internet and there is a 50/50 chance that this guy is just trolling or is being a complete retard beyond saving.
Here's your
(you)
>>761084
Are you implying being /pol/ and being retarded are mutually exclusive?
>>761090
There's also the fact the Japanese leather industry was much smaller, because of various ill-enforced bans on meat, a diet of seafood and vegetables, and that fact that tanning leather made you a filthy untouchable.
Japanese loved making socks though, so I'm sure they were perfectly capable of making shoes and boots, I think it was mentioned before, but bear fur shoes were made, kegutsu, but not widespread.
So I would say, lack of a Japanese livestock industry gave Japan a surplus of straw from rice and millet, with few livestock to consume straw because chickens don't really eat straw and oxen eat less straw than the fields they plow, and few animals that produced leather. The limited amounts of meat and leather were generally from hunting.
So you end up with little leather and lots of straw. Naturally, your shoes, soles really, are made from straw instead of leather.
>>761065
You might be right. I'd have thought it would have referred to the charge rather than the powder if he was talking about the recoil.
I'm trying to find a copy of Captain Vernon's The Young Horseman with illustrations, to see if they make what he was saying clearer, but I can't find anye.
>>753320
Tbh there's plenty of places that didn't use boots that I can think of.
Gaelic Ireland & Scotland/Rural Switzerland/Germany to think of a few.
>>761302
>Germany
Fuck you, we had boots alright. Just because other types of footwear were more widespread doesn't make boots unknown.
>>753225
He's_right_you_know.jpg
