Talk:Nambu pistol

"Crude?"

I believe that after ww2 the USA military conducted a testing program on all sidearms designs used in the conflict, and the nambu was to be found the best. Sorry, but I cannot remember the source, does anyone know of this testing appraisal program? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llantwit (talk • contribs) 07:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

It's disappointing to see the Nambu pistols as a whole characterized as "flawed" or "crude." While that was certainly the view of the masses as little as a decade ago, a great deal of research has been done on the pistols in recent years in books such as Japanese Military Cartridge Handguns 1893-1945 which have gone to great lengths to provide factual information to the contrary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crashfortytwo (talk • contribs) 19:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

i HEARD THESE GUNS HAVE A HIGH RATE OG BACKFIRING, ANYONE KNOW IF THATS TRUE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.67.1.48 (talk) 00:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: You might be referring to the destruction tests performed by Mr. Parker O. Ackley during the 1950's, in which he tested WWII Mausers, amongst others, against the Arisaka rifle; the Mausers failed (as did the other rifles), the Arisaka survived the tests. Shortly thereafter, the NRA tested a Arisaka rifle with a .308 bullet going down the Arisaka's .264 bore; it too survived the test (with lots of recoil). According to Mr. Ackley and the NRA, the Arisakas were some of the toughest built rifles of WWII. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.114.15.192 (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Put as simply as possible, flaws and problems inherent in the design were only evident in late war or "last ditch" pistols. Even there, the pistols rarely failed (catastrophically or otherwise), and these models are most different from their predecessors in their physical appearance. The last pistols manufactured during WWII didn't have checkered grips or the quality of machining evident in earlier weapons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crashfortytwo (talk • contribs) 16:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I came across this article, which appears to be a lower-quality clone of this page: an article on the same weapon with considerably less detail and no references. I've put merge templates on both - any objections to this? GetMKWearMKFly (talk) 10:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It probably should be merged. The Type 14 article claims that they aren't the same pistols, but I couldn't find anything confirming that. (I assume someone was confused regarding the Type 94.) --UnneededAplomb (talk) 00:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge!

I Really think we should merge the two Pages...but mark it as a variant, makes things alot easier... ...And Btw, there might be alot of "COD5:WaW" players going to look for the gun and might end up on the wrong page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 9K58 Smerch (talk • contribs) 09:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge, ASAP. Koalorka (talk) 19:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge, it'd be easier for the world.

I'm a current player of Call of Duty: World at War and it honestly would help some of the more unintelligent people if we made the merge with a variations section. Somehow fit in that it was shown on COD: WAW and it'll be fine, but MERGE Dtlwarrior (talk) 08:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Nambu or Ruger?

If you place a .22 Ruger pistol and a Nambu pistol side by side, both with their charging handles cocked to the rear you will notice they are the SAME systems. And yet Ruger is credited with inventing this action system? WWII appeared before the Ruger Firearms company did, correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.60.156.2 (talk) 20:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction (number of Nanbu produced)

Total production numbers are estimated at just under 200,000 for all variants. Most detailed production records were destroyed in the war.

VS

About 279,000 Type 14s were produced.

Neither number is sourced, what to do? 80.121.23.156 (talk) 14:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction (adoption)

states first Type A was never adopted by Japanese armed forces, later describes Type A adopted by Imperial Japanese Navy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mapsjanhere (talk • contribs) 23:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Plagiarism

A large part of this article has been plagiarised from Tools of War: History of Weapons in Early Modern Times, the Google Books preview only limited me to about a page and a half, and more or less all of it has been taken word for word from the book. Loafiewa (talk) 21:26, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Mauser Picture

It's comical that this article has a picture of a totally different gun, to illustrate something that wasn't even a property of the Nambu, i.e., having a stock. Are we going to picture everything the Nambu wasn't?

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• American infantryman with Nambu pistol.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

“Replaced” by P220

I was under the impression the Nambu was replaced in service by lend lease 1911’s FAR before the mid 70’s when the P220 first entered production. 2601:347:101:1E80:A1BA:5B00:3BD9:A217 (talk) 03:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I've heard of both Nambus sitting around until the 1970s and 1911's replacing them in the 1950s during American occupation of the Japanese islands. If you have a good source I'd loveto see it as a bunch of info on what happened to the small arms of Japan post WWII is either sketchy or just plain missing. --Molestash (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)