P1907 Bayonet Finishes

[4thGordons]

A recent thread encouraged me to review my small selection of Pattern 1907 bayonets. Whilst examining them I thought I would take a pic. to illustrate the different finishes.

Here is the best I could manage:

These are

1) Bright (polished blade with blued crosspiece and pommel)

2) Blued blade (smooth blue - black)

3) Sandblasted finish (dull/rough)

4) "Parkerized" finish (dull)

5) Chromed parade bayonet

By far the most common in my small sample is the bright blade, followed by blue. Many of my bayonets have 1920s reissue marks which may explain this, if I am reading the literature correctly dulled/sandblasted blades were the norm for post 1915 wartime production but almost all would have been polished postwar (starting early 1919). Happy to be corrected on this but this is my reading of Skennerton and Richardson.

While I was sorting through I wondered if anyone had any good ideas for displaying bayonets? Some of mine are paired with rifles but I would like to come up with some sort of rack or wall display for the others as they are taking up room and not well displayed currently - any ideas appreciated.

Chris

[shippingsteel]

FWIW I believe the #3 finish is produced by the manganese phosphating process known as "parkerisation" and commonly used by the Americans during the GW. This process also produced that dull sandblasted look and feel. I then believe the #4 finish is produced by the zinc phosphating process also commonly known as a form of "parkerisation" and which was used by the British during the GW. It gives a much lighter matt style finish. The other finishes are all fairly self explanatory.

The parkerisation process has undergone many changes since it was first invented and the early type of finishes should not be confused with the more modern finishes found in latter years. I'm not quoting any particular expertise in this area but this is what I believe to be correct from personal study and observation. A good background read on the history of "parkerisation" can be found HERE. (remember to scroll down)

Cheers, S>S

[Raster Scanning]

You missed a finish that I have on one of mine.

The Iron Oxide finish!

[Wardog]

S>S, are you saying that none of blades pictured have been sandblasted? Is 'sandblasted' only a term for the 'look'? I must admit that the blades I have had that I had thought to be sandblasted looked like blade 4. Regards, Paul.

[ralphjd]

Chris. I have my bayonets on tool clips, the clips each about 3" apart screwed to a length of timber. The clips come in various sizes and give a good grip to the displayed item. Ralph.

[4thGordons]

Chris. I have my bayonets on tool clips, the clips each about 3" apart screwed to a length of timber. The clips come in various sizes and give a good grip to the displayed item. Ralph.

Hi Raster! (yes you are correct I did forget that finish - although I have one! )

Thanks Raph - that's not a bad idea at all.

Regarding finishes. Here is the most authoritative (secondary source) statement I have been able to find:

"Finish of the blades will be found to vary considerably;the original models had bright, polished blades with blued pommel and crosspiece, but blades were later sandblasted and some blued or parkerised. Such variation in finish could have occurred at almost any time in service, as most bayonets, at some time or other, underwent repair or re-furbishing. An announcement in the List of Changes, with the approval date of 4th Feb., 1915, records that “for future manufacture during the duration of the war, the blades shall be sandblasted instead of being polished", which would indicate that new production after February 1915 had sandblasted blades.

After the war, the polished blades were reverted to, as a War Office memo dated 25th June, 1919, states "Please arrange for the sandblasting of repaired and new bayonets, if any, to cease as early as possible, and for the blades, in future, to be polished." " (Skennerton and Richardson 1984. British and Commonwealth Bayonets p192)

Later in their discussion of Australian (Lithgow) produced bayonets they note " On 7th December 1938, it was noted in specifications that shot blasting would be accepted in lieu of sandblasting, and bonderising was added as an alternative on 9th May 1942" (Ibid p276)

I believe "bonderising" is another name for a form of parkerizing and is probably the greenish/grey colour to be found on the metal of late and post WWII SMLEs

Chris

[shippingsteel]

S>S, are you saying that none of blades pictured have been sandblasted? Is 'sandblasted' only a term for the 'look'? I must admit that the blades I have had that I had thought to be sandblasted looked like blade 4. Regards, Paul.

For discussion purposes it is probably easier to show an example that was manufactured around the time that Chris is quoting ie. 1915 dated.

This is the finish that I find most of my P1907 bayonets tend to come in (apart from that finish #6 , iron oxide - thats very common.!!)

I don't know what the process was that produced this finish, but it is what they did when they stopped doing the old "bright" polished finish.

The metal feels fairly smooth but has that light blue/grey look of lightly blued gun-metal. You can just see the line of heavier bluing on the ricasso which extends from the crossguard up to just above the cypher where the fuller begins. As I mentioned I don't know for certain what they did, sandblasting may have been part of the finishing process - I'm not sure, however if sandblasting was all they did to the bare metal I think many, many more would have quickly turned to finish #6, and I really doubt that any would have survived in the same condition for nearly 100 years.

This finish is very different to the "parkerisation" found on the American made bayonets, which does look and feel rough and "sandblasted".

Cheers, S>S

[Wardog]

Thanks for the pictures gents. Regards, Paul.( I probably have just not come accross a parkerised blade yet)

[shippingsteel]

Thanks for the pictures gents. Regards, Paul.( I probably have just not come accross a parkerised blade yet)

If you were to pick up pretty much any P1913/M1917 bayonet it would be fairly safe to say that you were now holding a "parkerised" blade.

Wardog, it appears you may be suffering a case of deja vu (with the double-up posting.!!) Don't worry - I know the feeling .....

Cheers, S>S

[Wardog]

Oh I hadn't thought of that. I will have a good look around next time i'm at a militaria fair. Cheers, Paul.

[4thGordons]

If you were to pick up pretty much any P1913/M1917 bayonet it would be fairly safe to say that you were now holding a "parkerised" blade.

Cheers, S>S

I am not sure that would always be a safe assumption to judge by my small selection.

[Wardog]

Would you consider any of those as parkerised Chris? Regards, Paul.

[4thGordons]

Would you consider any of those as parkerised Chris? Regards, Paul.

Yes. Certainly the Vietnam era "trench-shotgun" M1917 on the left has a modern form of parkerized finish.

I think part of the problem is that bayonets that may have at one time been sandblasted or other finishes applied were later polished. I suspect P'13 bayonets in British service in 1919 would have been subject to the same polishing order as the 1907s (note the generic reference to "bayonets" in the WO memo.) so regardless of their original finish, post 1919 they are likely to have been polished. Whilst many will have slipped through the cracks (as with clearance holes in the pommel etc) I think the majority will have been caught at some point in the next couple of decades.

I suspect that a higher number of M1917 bayonets will be found with a parkerized finish.

Chris

[shippingsteel]

Oh I hadn't thought of that. I will have a good look around next time i'm at a militaria fair. Cheers, Paul.

Sorry Wardog, you might want to make that a GW militaria fair. On this forum I just automatically assume a GW context to the discussion, so my apologies.

Obviously there are latter day manufactures and refinishes that help to confuse matters. There are also 'repros' getting around so watch out for those as well.

The shot below is a P1913 in the GW style "parkerised" finish. You can almost "feel" the rough, gritty texture just by looking at it - you'll know it when you see it.

The ricasso area was originally blued and the difference between that area and the blade itself is quite apparent. Hope this helps.

Cheers, S>S

[Wardog]

So would I be correct in saying parkerised is similar to sandblasted in texture but dark matt grey? Just to check Chris, in you post 1 picture are 3 and 4 titled correctly, ie the parkerised looks to be lighter in colour than the sandblasted? Cheers, Paul.

[4thGordons]

So would I be correct in saying parkerised is similar to sandblasted in texture but dark matt grey? Just to check Chris, in you post 1 picture are 3 and 4 titled correctly, ie the parkerised looks to be lighter in colour than the sandblasted? Cheers, Paul.

Yes I believe it is titled correctly. I would not put too much store by colour however. Pakerising, in addition to starting off with a number of different colours depending upon the precise recipe changes colour again very significantly when it comes into contact with oil and cosmolene - in which a large number of the surviving bayonets have been packed at one time or another - so I would suggest colour is not much help really.

The matt, dark grey is, as I noted, a modern parkerized finish. The very few wartime parkerized bayonets I have seen were indeed matt but a far lighter shade of grey - as illustrated.

I do not know how many P1907s were pakerised during the great war. I think that, as noted above some were, but my inclination is to think many, many more, particularly those produced in the UK were simply sandblasted, as per the memo Skennerton quotes. Regardless of their original finish, almost all that remained in service were later polished giving the finish which is now most prevalent in my experience. So if you are looking for examples at Militaria fairs etc you would need to find one that you could guarantee was in its original finish - that would let you discount the effects of the intervening century - and if you find one like that BUY IT regardless of finish!

The key difference between pakerising and sandblasting is that pakerizing is an electrochemical coating on the surface of the blade (which can rub/wear/scratch) whereas sandblasting actually slightly roughens the blade itself.

Chris

[4thGordons]

In part to convince myself my memory was not failing and in part to demonstrate the variability, I dug out all my UK produced P1907s that are not attached to rifles. I excluded those I photographed before, as well as Lithgow, Siamese, WSC WWII vintage and Ishapore bayonets. All of those shown, with the exception of the far left and the far right, are '14-18 British produced bayonets. The far left is chromed and was supplied to Iraq, the far right is in the infamous Fe02 finish much beloved of Raster Scanning - and is a 1912 Wikinson with a 1916 reissue date. Of the 14 Great War produced bayonets 6 have 1920s reissue dates, 8 do not.

Whilst the colour and condition can be seen to vary considerably none, with the exception of the 8th from the left, has even a hint of roughness or "grainyness" on the blade.

I do not claim this is a representative sample in any scientific sense, they have been collected over the past 20 or so years in the UK, Canada and the USA. I have collected primarily for year (and secondarily maker) to match up with rifles and have usually looked for "bargains" (ie I am a on a very limited budget!) but this sample, to the extent that it is relatively random, does suggest to me that parkerising was one of the less common finishes on 1907 bayonets, at least in my experience.

One additional titbit, perhaps relevant: (British Small Arms of WWII) In 1941 Wilkinson were contracted to produce 34, 707 1907 bayonets for the Admiralty (at the sum of 1/9/- each!) and this contract specified sandblasted blades, even for the naval contract in the later conflict when parkerizing was more common and in weapons destined for a maritime environment (I believe they were for the Lanchester SMG).

The US certainly parkerized lots of weapons during their refurbishment programs in WWII - this is one of the reasons it is quite hard to find a good M1903 or M1917 rifle in its original blued condition, rather than the later greenish-grey parkerizing. It would seem resonable to presume bayonets were so treated also - this would complicate things in reference to the prevalence of parkerizing in US bayonets.

Anyway - FWIW to here are 14 Great War P1907s and one on each end for fun.

Chris

far left Iraqi Chrome, far right 1912 iron oxide!

Close-up on centre section blades

[shippingsteel]

As I mentioned in my earlier post #2 there is a very noticeable difference to be found between the colour and texture of the two parkerisation techniques used around the time of the GW. The dark matt grey is coarse textured while the lighter grey has a much finer smooth texture. I guess i'll just keep bringing out more examples to demonstrate. The one below is the parkerised P1907 from the other thread, note the grainy look.

Also, what technique produces the "in the white" finish found on rifles. It is quite interesting that the old-smithy webpage dedicated to the P1907 bayonet does not even mention a sandblasted finish, and he would have seen them all and handled more than most. He does however mention the "in the white" in the following quote.

"During it's life there were several authorised finishes to both scabbards and blades. Blades can be found in the white, polished, parkerised, blued (fully and partially), chromed or blackened (admiralty). And these finishes could be original or applied during re-furbishment."

Apart from the previous 1915 Chapman, I do have another two dated that year that are no-clearance-hole examples. When I get a chance I'll dig them out for some photos. In theory they should show evidence of their original finish and what "sandblasted" is supposed to look like.?? Do you concur professor.??

Cheers, S>S

[4thGordons]

I am really not sure how every time we are both involved in a thread it turns out like this but look....it seems to me

We agree that there are multiple finishes on P1907 bayonets

We agree that parkerising was one of them and that there were probably different recipes in use at different times and different locations.

The principle bone of contention appears to be the extent of the use of this finish, and consquently the number of surviving example. I have suggested that in my experience it appears far less frequently - you appear to contend otherwise on the basis of your experience.

In addition, and please correct me if I am misunderstanding, you appear to be questioning the existence of sandblasting as a final finish on 1907 blades during '15-'18 (and again in WWII).

I have cited three different places where sandblasting is mentioned in official memoranda (albeit admittedly cited by the same author/authors but in different texts) to support my view, one from WWI, one immediately post war and one from WWII but in reference to the same blades (this also mentions the blackened naval blades which I have not seen). I am not sure that the absence of a mention on one (otherwise very useful but probably not perfect) page is particularly significant.

Regarding the longevity of blades which were sandblasted which you mentioned above - a couple of observations. I think weapons grade steel is likely to be very resilient - also there would have been fairly strictly enforced maintenance of the blades by the soldiers. From reading diaries etc inspection, maintenance of weapons and kit took up a very considerable amount of a regular soldiers time both in and out of the line and I see no reason why even an untreated blade should not survive very well with a regular wiping down with machine oil. I think I am correct in suggesting P1888 bayonets and perhaps most patterns previous to that had neither blued nor parkerised blades and large numbers survive. Admittedly these were "bright" / "polished" (BTW I do not know what the distinction between "polished" and "in the white" is) rather than sandblasted, but I am not sure what the relative rust preventative merits of the two finishes are. Like you I would suspect that, ceterus parabus, the rough surface might be more likely to corrode but again, as a manufacturing contingency (speed) and with simple regular maintenance (oily rag in hand of PBI) I am not sure this would have been a significant mark against it in a context where production to make up for battlefield losses was the main motivating factor.

Sandblasting, which on the strength of the cited memos I think did exist as a finish, was clearly a wartime expedient during a time when turnover of bayonets was huge. I suspect it allowed for more rapid production and also gave a matt finish to the blade which was likely advantageous (shiny is all very well for parade grounds - perhaps not so useful on a battlefield). In addition to being quick, it was also cheap. Parkerizing, which I understand from the link you provided, was a relatively new industrial process at the time, was more complex and also would appear to rely on chemicals/metals that may have had to be imported into the UK. These are both factors I would think that might count against it as a common finish. Sandblasting was apparently recognised as an inferior finish given the immediate return to polished finish on all new and refinished blades indicated in the memo Skennerton cites, unless this was indicative of the return of peacetime parade-ground mentality - which in this case I doubt.

The blades you have shown (the P13 transferred into US service and the P1907 Remington above) certainly appear to have a rough/grainy surface. This would make them unusual in my experience but not, apparently in yours.

It is entirely possible also that I am misidentifying parkerising as sandblasting - but this wouldn't change the fact that of my entire selection I can only see three that could be either (the two in the initial photo and the 8th one in the lower thread) if they are identified by the texture of the blade.

The Chapman blade you posted does not look rough at all to me and if I had to guess from the picture (and as the variances in my photos of the same subject show lighting matters, so pictures can mislead obvously) I would have identified it as a sandblasted or blued blade that was later in its career, polished. In this context I would attribute any slight roughness to the failure to polish out all of the previous finish.

I would agree that, as you say, in theory a 1915 P'07 without a clearance hole might well be in its original finish although it is always hard to be definitive - it seems to me that post-war polishing could have been accomplished at the lowest level of amourer and as we both know all manner of oddities can be observed... I would nonetheless like to see them. Is it conceivable that what you are identifying as a form of parkerising is in fact a sandblasted blade? Not being a metallurgist I have no real idea how to definitively distinguish the two processes and I suppose pictures can only take us so far. It seems odd to me that our experiences in this area are so different. Believe it or not my interest in bayonets is well down on the list of things I devote attention to, and is really an offshoot of my interest in Enfields. I know there are other forum members with far greater experience and vastly more comprehensive collections in this area. Perhaps their insight would be helpful regarding this question. Perhaps a quick poll of '07s in the hands of pals would be interesting, I would suspect we would have a pretty good sample.

Chris

[Wardog]

Very interesting gents. Thank you both for your thoughts. I think I have 3 maybe 4, 1907 bayonets and I will try and post pictures in the near future> Regards, Paul.

[findabetterole]

Chris,

I've been following this thread with some interest. To add my two-penneth from my own experiance and linked to my personal collection of '07' blades... the appearance of the parkerised / sandblasted blade finish for the Great War period is approx 1-in-100.

Seph

[shippingsteel]

I am really not sure how every time we are both involved in a thread it turns out like this but look....it seems to me

We agree that there are multiple finishes on P1907 bayonets

We agree that parkerising was one of them and that there were probably different recipes in use at different times and different locations.

The principle bone of contention appears to be the extent of the use of this finish, and consquently the number of surviving example. I have suggested that in my experience it appears far less frequently - you appear to contend otherwise on the basis of your experience.

In addition, and please correct me if I am misunderstanding, you appear to be questioning the existence of sandblasting as a final finish on 1907 blades during '15-'18 (and again in WWII).

I have made comments on your initial post regarding those finishes, with knowledge gained from my own experience, and since then have been providing evidence from my own collection to support/defend those comments, as you obviously remained sceptical. I never said that parkerisation was a common finish on P1907 bayonets but that it was found. I did refer to that finish being more commonly found on the American made bayonets in my own experience. This includes the P1913 and M1917 variants.

The reason for this is that the Parker company in the US had the patents at the time for the process (manganese phosphating). The British manufacturers evidently tried to copy the process but had to use a slightly different process (zinc phosphating) to overcome the patenting issue. This is why they look different and the processes went by different descriptions at the time. (American 'parkerisation' , British 'phosphating')

As far as 'sandblasting' as a finish , I can honestly say I have never heard of that description used before nor seen it referred to anywhere, but then again I am seldom found reading the textbooks or other references. Most of my knowledge has been gained from studying the articles in my hands, and then finding out where they came from ie. the bottom up process.

I do remain interested in finding out more about this 'sandblasting' and what it was supposed to look like. I believe the main problem in much of these "terms" issues is the changing times and meanings that are different to those we know today. I think the only ones that know exactly what went on are the guys that did the doing and the making way back then. Everyone else is just trying to fit together the pieces of the puzzle.

If anyone would care to put forward an extreme closeup view of a 'sandblasted' finish bayonet, I would really like to inspect it closely to see what can be learned from it, until then because I don't understand what the term itself refers to, of course I remain uncertain of the description.

Cheers, S>S

[reese williams]

SS

The best way to find out what a sandblasted finish looks like is to find a machine shop in your town that has a bead blasting machine and ask them to show you something that has come out of the process. Better yet take them a small piece of steel, any type will do and ask them to bead blast or sand blast it for you. (Bead blasting is the same as sandblasting except that it uses microscopic glass beads instead of sand). The finish is similar, though not nearly as rough as sandblasting. You will get different types of finish depending on the type of media used (sand, glass bead, crushed walnut shell, metal shot) and the air pressure used.

A sandblasted finish (using sand) leaves a rough finish that could well be mistaken for parkerising by someone who had never seen a sandblast finish before. This is especially true if the piece has been oiled. The reason for both sandblast and parkerising is not because either is especially corrosion resistant but because it produces a roughened finish that retains oil better that a polished or blued finish. Parkerising no doubt replaced sandblasting because it lends itself to mass production techniques much better than the more labor intensive sandblasting.

"In the white" simply means bare polished metal with no finish applied. A well polished piece of steel is surprisingly rust resistant when oiled and maintained on a regular basis.

Chris has cited some very creditable references to accepted authorities in the area of British small arms. These are people who have spent a great many hours researching the original records concerning production and government directed methods of production.

You meanwhile base your decision on

...with knowledge gained from my own experience, and since then have been providing evidence from my own collection ...

Later you comment

"As far as 'sandblasting' as a finish , I can honestly say I have never heard of that description used before nor seen it referred to anywhere, but then again I am seldom found reading the textbooks or other references.

Cheers, S>S

By your own admission you don't do research, rely only on your own limited collection and steadfastly refuse to believe the findings of someone who has spent a career researching the records, interviewing people who were involved in the production of the items discussed and writing books on the subject (Skennerton, not Chris). On most forums that's called trolling.

[findabetterole]

Well put Reese!

Seph

[shippingsteel]

You will get different types of finish depending on the type of media used (sand, glass bead, crushed walnut shell, metal shot) and the air pressure used.

Thanks for helping me out with your knowledge of sandblasting, I appreciate that. I have encountered the modern day process many times before, but my difficulty in understanding lay in regard to the section quoted above. As you know a sandblasted finish can vary quite considerably from pretty smooth to very rough. What I wanted to know was exactly what finish are we looking for if we are talking 'sandblasted'.

Regardless of how it may appear, I don't have a problem with Chris, or his references. I'm sure sandblasting was used if thats what it said, in fact I think I mentioned something to that extent when I posted the 1915 Chapman (post #7). The whole issue is that I want to know what it looks like so I can learn from it, and so that anyone else that may be interested can benefit as well. The reason that I have been posting examples is to try and find out what we are looking for, and to establish the difference between sandblasting and parkerisation.

In reference to that, can anyone tell me if the example shown below is in the WW1 sandblasted finish.?

PS. I have never intended for anything that I have written to be offensive, but if that is the impression given, I do apologise.

Cheers, S>S