Talk:Guntō

Interesting Feature of some versions

I once had the opportunity to hand and draw one model of shin guntō as one was owned by the grandfather of a classmate (he had acquired it—purely intending for it to be a souvenir—post surrender as there was apparently a pile of them sitting about due to Japanese troop disarmament). One peculiarity of the he had isn't mentioned here; a two-button locking mechanism that helped retain the guntō in its saya. You had to press the button (which was more like a flat tab at the end of a lever—like a very small typerwriter key) on the saya at the same time as a similar button (same shape and right up against the other button) on the guntō near the tsuba in order to draw the sword. This motion isn't too far removed from the traditional motion of grabbing the saya in one's non-dominant hand while drawing the sword with the dominant hand. However, I've found no mention of this unusual feature in this article or any article online, nor have I found a detailed picture of that area.

I'm not sure if the sword that he had was a widely used model or variant as it may have been made late in the war, but the saya seemed like the one for the Type 98 (I vaguely recall that it was made out of wood).

Anyway, my point is that if anyone could find a picture or more information about this I would think that this article would be more complete. Locking sheaths for knives and swords tend to be quite a rarity—even in our era of mass-produced knives with interchangeable fittings—thus a confirmation of this information would be quite interesting.

Interesting

I have never seen one like that; only the single button type. My reproduction by WeaponEdge (Type 95 NCO) also only has the single button press. --Meversbergii (talk) 05:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

--Maikeru Go (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Needs more overview information

At the moment, this is basically a list of the swords worn by Japanese soldiers during the 1930s. I think we need an expert to put this information into context.

Were these swords decorative? Were officers properly trained in their use? Did they have a significant role in World War II? What is the connection between Japanese culture and the choice to include swords in the uniform? These are the type of things that should be addressed. 24.89.251.166 (talk) 10:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

From my actual handling of one, I can tell you that they came from the factory a sharp and working blade (which is unlike some of the more recent U.S. Marine dress uniform swords). I know that kendo was a common and popular sport prior to and during the war, so some of the soldiers at least had that going for them. I'm not sure if they had specific training in sword arts while as troops. --Maikeru Go (talk) 13:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Toyama-ryū

They were schooled under the Toyama-ryū of swordsmanship. --Meversbergii (talk) 05:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Change of Design

It has been my impression that the change from the older kyu-gunto style sabers to the new handachi-style gunto had more to do with effectiveness than nationalism. Western-style swords were adopted in the first place because Westernization was placed above usefulness in combat. With the Japanese military involved in extended, serious combat in China at the time, that the deficiencies of Western sword mountings became clear is unsurprising. This appears to be a case of practical nationalism triumphing over foppish occidentalism. Kensai Max 20:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Outlawed

Is there a citation regarding the claim that swords were otlwed, confiscated and destroyed by the occupying forces?. And that there are more swords in America than Japan?, it seems that the editor who added this may have been confusing it with the Meiji Restoration. I could be wrong but it needs a citation to prove it.Colin 8 18:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, sword hunt claims 'Today, Japan has a Sword and Firearms Law which, much like gun control laws around the world, governs the possession and use of weapons in public. The purchase and ownership of certain swords within Japan is legal for licensed individuals, though the import and export of such items is tightly controlled, particularly in the case of items that might be labeled as national or cultural artifacts. Swords that have been converted into or manufactured as Shin gunto or Kai gunto are illegal for individuals to own.'. So I guess if you check the law, you could find out. --Gwern [[Special:Contributions/Gwern | (contribs

Durability

How good as an actual sword are the type-95 ones? Is a machined blade like that any good? 152.18.54.107 (talk) 22:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Same as any shin gunto - it depends on how carefully it was made, far more than it depends on the pattern. There's a big variation in quality according to original price, and the state of the war in the later period meant that late ones can be quite crudely finished. If you have a pre-war example though, the blades can be very well made, although not of the same artistic quality as the other steels. There are also plenty of officer's swords of this period with fullers, but with traditional hilt materials and not usually with serial numbers. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Moved article

Thanks for moving this. As your comment said, the content here is on all three of them, not just the shin gunto.

In the fullness of time, I'd suggest we move to four articles: one overall and the obvious three sub-articles. There's certainly material and sources to support this, should anyone have the time to write it. For the moment though, and at the level of detail that's available now, then one article and three redirects is appropriate. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• In the mean time the article is now a good place to collect and store valid referenced text until the time when there is enough material (and images) for separate articles.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 10:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Translation: Kaiguntō

I modified the translation of the Kaiguntō (海軍刀) to "naval sword", for the following reasons:

• While Guntō (軍刀) is accurately translated to "military sword", as gun 軍 = "military", and tō 刀 = "sword", the word Kaigun 海軍 = "navy". Thus, I translated Kaiguntō (海軍刀) to "naval sword".
  • A translation of Kaiguntō (海軍刀) to "naval military sword" brings up an unnecessary redundancy, as there is only one gun 軍. Also, a navy, by definition, is a military branch, therefore using both terms is redundant. If there were such a term as Kaigun-guntō (海軍軍刀), then I would agree that it would be translated to "naval military sword".
• The previous translation of Kaiguntō (海軍刀) to "sea military sword" is simplistically literal, and can easily be consolidated into "naval sword", because "sea military", in English or Japanese, is a "navy".

Hope this clarifies my reasons for the translation. Boneyard90 (talk) 12:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Reason I more or less didn't mess too much with that part of this article is because I can't find any solid confirmation of either names Kaiguntō or Kaigun Guntō in any sources as official nomenclature terms. Every site I read has that the Imperial Navy indeed had their own, ever-so-slightly different blades, but never did I see the aforementioned two terms. What I propose is to utilize similar structure aspects of the Japanese article, and divide the Guntō variations by branch; obviously following chronologic order and so forth. 71.229.23.9 (talk) 14:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I should add, that Kaigun Guntō was seen, but used in a grammatically different context. 71.229.23.9 (talk) 14:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)