Pattern 1888 Bayonets

[shippingsteel]

I had these out of their cabinet for some regular cleaning and maintenance so thought I'd take some pics. These would have to be the most favourite bayonets that I have in my collection. I like the classical style and the simple strength of the design that was able to stand the test of time. In my mind this pattern was the very peak of British bayonet production and the quality of workmanship is still readily apparent even after 110+ years. Technically known as the Pattern 1888 Mk.1 Sword Bayonet (2nd type), these bayonets were originally made for the Magazine Lee Metford and Magazine Lee Enfield rifles, and have the clearance hole in the grips and the hole through the pommel for the cleaning rod that was fitted to these rifles. It continues to surprise me that this pattern still seems to get less recognition as a service bayonet of the Great War, when it was definitely in regular use especially during the early stages of the war. The P1907 now appears to have captured most of the limelight as the British service bayonet of the period.

These particular examples were all War Department accepted and bear the Royal cypher of Queen Victoria (Crown VR). They have also been stamped with various rack numbers and unit markings during their time in service. The bayonet at the top bears an additional 5 date marking stamps where it was re-issued to different units from time to time during its career. From the top the bayonets makers and date of manufacture are:- Sanderson 4 '94 , Wilkinson 10 '96 and Enfield 4 '98. You can notice some slight differences between the various makers in the shape of the spine of the blade, where it runs into the ricasso area near the crossguard. While the Pattern 1888 bayonet was well used during the Great War, from the markings on these individual examples it doesn't appear that they managed to see any service.

Cheers, S>S

[TonyE]

Very nice bayonets, S>S. I agree that the quality of the Victorian workmanship on these is extremely high.

One point of interest is that the rifle rod that you refer to as a "cleaning rod" was intended to actually be a clearing rod, i.e. for removing a stuck case from the chamber.

The nomenclature seems to have changed over time, but the LoC Para. 9700 of May 1899 making these rods obsolete definitely refers to them as "Clearing rods". However,earlier LoC Paras. 6076 of June 1890 and 7241 of September 1893 regarding modifying the screw ends of the rod for the Lee-Metford both refer to "Cleaning rods".

I have had a quick look through the LoCs but did not spot any formal change of nomenclature.

regards

TonyE

[shippingsteel]

One point of interest is that the rifle rod that you refer to as a "cleaning rod" was intended to actually be a clearing rod, i.e. for removing a stuck case from the chamber.

The nomenclature seems to have changed over time, but the LoC Para. 9700 of May 1899 making these rods obsolete definitely refers to them as "Clearing rods". However,earlier LoC Paras. 6076 of June 1890 and 7241 of September 1893 regarding modifying the screw ends of the rod for the Lee-Metford both refer to "Cleaning rods".

Thanks TonyE, you know that I'm relying on you to screen all my ramblings for technical correctness.! Can't have any flippant remarks slip through without challenge, can we.!

Wasn't the major issue with the early Lee-Metfords to do with the 'dirty' powder fouling the barrels and causing premature and excessive wear of the rifling.? Perhaps in the early days the rod was used more so in the 'cleaning' role with the LM's as opposed to just the 'clearing' role once the LE's were introduced, together with the benefits of the improved powders.? Was it black powder versus the new cordite - I'm not quite sure.

Cheers, S>S

[Whitedog]

As you know, the rods on the Lee Metfords had a tip with horizontal grooves that ran around it's circumference to aid in holding a cleaning patch. Later, The rods of course changed to having grooves on the tip running lengthwise that apparently were intended for aiding the soldiers fingers in un-threading the rod from the rifle. At the same time as the change in gooves, the length of the rod was shortened. Does anyone know when these changes occured? I wonder if the length of the rod and the shape of the head were also changed at the same time as the thread change and did that occur in 1890 or 1893? Can anyone find any nomenclature regarding the rods shorthly AFTER Sept. of 1893 that still use the term Cleaning rods? Fred G.

[shippingsteel]

This bayonet is an example of the next stage in the evolution of this particular pattern. After a time the wise heads decided that the dashed rod was entirely unnecessary for either 'cleaning' or 'clearing' and could be done away with altogether.!! Enter the Pattern 1888 Mk.II Sword Bayonet which had no hole through the pommel for the rod, and also had its clearance hole moved back more into the pommel. Now the rear rivet could be moved back also, thereby creating a more balanced and sturdier attachment for the grips. Getting rid of that rod saved a lot of messing about.!!

This example was made and dated by Enfield 10 '01 and surprisingly still carries the Royal cypher of Queen Victoria. Also shown is an Enfield made Mk.I Scabbard that is marked as manufactured in 1896. This bayonet is of particular interest here as it is definitely marked as being in service during WW1. Not only has it got the re-issue date of 1916, it also appears to have been refinished for wartime service with the brightly polished metal being dulled with what I believe to be a lightly "phosphated" finish. This was done to reduce the reflection off the metal surfaces when the bayonets were fixed, and so help conceal the position of such troop concentrations from the enemy.

Cheers, S>S

[TonyE]

S>S - I wasn't screening your technical correctness because they were called cleaning rods at one time. I was saying that the record shows an ambiguity in the nomenclature.

The Lee-Metford rifling was first used in 1889-1892 with black powder with all its concommitent fouling problems, but it was found that when used with cordite, with its far higher burning temperature, the Metford barrels wore out in less than 5,000 rounds. Certainly the use of blackpowder would seem to be good reason for having a cleaning rod, but see below.

Fred - LoC 6076 dated 18 June 1890 refers to "Rifle, Magazine, (Mark I), Rod, Cleaning" and instructs the ends to be rounded to prevent damage to the bore. LoC 7241 dated 26 September 1893 uses the same nomenclature and orders 3/32" to be removed from the threaded end to prevent injury to the front guard screws.

LoC 7355 dated 22 Feb 1894 is the crucial entry, but as it initially refers to "Carbines, Martini-Metford" with only a secondary entry for "Rifles, Magazine Lee-Metford", I missed it in an earlier search of the index.

That states:

Rods, cleaning.

Nomenclature altered to - Rods, clearing.

The rods at present issued with all natures of .303-inch carbines and rifles, not being intended for use in cleaning the arms, will in future be called "rods, clearing", instead of "rods, cleaning", as hitherto.

That seems to settle matters!

Regards

TonyE

[4thGordons]

Here is an interesting variant for you:

A bit battered but nice, especially as a good friend brought it home for me.

Chris

[Pete1052]

I have a so-so condition P07 bayonet marked Wilkinson and '17 that I use for a fireplace poker. It's also marked KOMR, King's Own Malta Regiment. It lies on the hearth behind the fireplace screen. The damper in the chimney leaks when it rains hard so the bayonet is always getting speckled with rust. I bought it for $3 in around 1968. It was in a box of miscellaneous junk in a gun store and had no scabbard.

[Pete1052]

When the M16 rifle was first sent to Vietnam in 1966 G.I.s found that you don't need a cleaning rod until you really really need a cleaning rod to clear a stuck cartridge case, especially if there's a firefight going on. The saga of the early problems of the M16 is off-topic for this forum but some verities never change.

[shippingsteel]

Here is an interesting variant for you:

A bit battered but nice, especially as a good friend brought it home for me.

Chris

Hi Chris, looks to be a locally made Afghan version, possibly using a recycled British blade. Shorter hilt, squarer pommel, no clearance hole and different locking pin - yep, definately Afghan.!

Although the workmanship on that one shows surprisingly good quality, much nicer than some of the other roughly made examples that I have seen - very interesting. Hows the MRD, fit OK.?

Cheers, S>S

[4thGordons]

Hi Chris, looks to be a locally made Afghan version, possibly using a recycled British blade. Shorter hilt, squarer pommel, no clearance hole and different locking pin - yep, definately Afghan.!

Although the workmanship on that one shows surprisingly good quality, much nicer than some of the other roughly made examples that I have seen - very interesting. Hows the MRD, fit OK.?

Cheers, S>S

Yes Afghan made but I think in the official arsenal. The workmanship is a bit rough on the button but everywhere else it's fine. I don't think the blade is recycled and the hilt is identical length to all my others, MRD fine too, fits fine.

Came with a version of the Indian pattern scabbard with the integral leather belt loop.

Chris

Edit:

Length of hilt: Also you can see at least one other British made example also has a more squared pommel. My best two 1VB GH and 1/4th GH marked are not included here as I have shown them before.

[shippingsteel]

Yes Afghan made but I think in the official arsenal. The workmanship is a bit rough on the button but everywhere else it's fine. I don't think the blade is recycled and the hilt is identical length to all my others, MRD fine too, fits fine. Came with a version of the Indian pattern scabbard with the integral leather belt loop.

Chris

I have seen some marked with the Royal Afghan cypher which is like a star shaped seal. I think you'll find that the timber grips of the hilt can be marginally shorter, even lopsided which gives the impression of shorter hilt overall when viewed individually. The Afghan one in the centre of the photo shows that unevenness, also note the rivets not quite centred with slightly different spacing and no clearance hole. Does your scabbard look like the bottom one in the photo below.?

The top one is the Pattern 1888 Mk.I sword bayonet fitted with the regular Pattern 1888 Mk.I Land version scabbard in the earlier black leather.

The bottom one shows the Pattern 1888 Mk.II sword bayonet fitted with an irregular style of leather scabbard which is based on the Pattern 1903 Mk.I Land version.

There is a bit of uncertainty surrounding the origins of this type of scabbard with some speculation that it was an Indian pattern. The standard P1903 scabbard is fitted with an internal chape not the external metal one as shown here. I've recently found a reference from Skennerton's B&CB that from 1909 some of the scabbards were fitted with the external chape from the P1907 scabbard (also found in LOC 14866) so that sounds like the most plausible explanation.

Interestingly, all these brown leather scabbards that I have come across have been marked with the letters BAH together with a 3 digit rack number. Sounds like a cache of weapons and gear may have been unearthed in the more recent past, that was all originally marked to the same unit, and that stuff is now finding its way onto the collectors market. They do remain a bit of a mystery though.

Cheers, S>S

[4thGordons]

Regarding the timber - I did not get a micrometer out but comparing the Afghan wood to my others it is fractionally shorter than 1 and fractionally longer than two, and identical to the others - so make of that what you will! The pommel of the afghan one is constructed slightly differently than all the others however (in the manner it is attached to the rest of the hilt)

I have a couple of the brown scabbards - some recent some I have had for years.

I do have two that I know came out of Afghanistan that have BAH on them. Interestingly the Afghan made bayonet came in a yet a different design of scabbard with an internal chape very similar to the early 1903/7 scabbards or actually the Ross scabbard (as a small amount shows at the tip) - see below for some comparative images.

Internal chape on the Afghan scabbard.

Early P1903 using a P1888 blade (in similar scabbard)

for comparison

rear of scabbards (first two are BAH marked) last in line is the Afghan one

[shippingsteel]

I do have two that I know came out of Afghanistan that have BAH on them. Interestingly the Afghan made bayonet came in a yet a different design of scabbard with an internal chape very similar to the early 1903/7 scabbards or actually the Ross scabbard (as a small amount shows at the tip) - see below for some comparative images.

It looks like all our BAH marked scabbards came out of the same batch - they are virtually identical. The other two with the external chapes appear to have slightly longer frog/hanger belt loops.

The one that came with the Afghan bayonet looks like it is just the standard P1903 scabbard with the internal chape. They could all possibly still be of Indian manufacture and origin, but now that I have found a reference to a LOC number that describes the modifications, I am more satisfied that the scabbards are perhaps more "regular" than I first thought.

The talk around the shows has been that they are more modern replacements, possibly WW2 Indian and somehow not quite "correct" - I don't think anyone really knows for sure. The fact is that they were made that way though, and we both have some samples to prove it. The fact that we have the LOC reference to fall back on has really put my mind at ease and confirms that they are "correct" and legit after all.! If only we could find out what the BAH stands for.!! Also the P1903 scabbards were readily interchangeable for use with the P1888 bayonets so they are also perfectly correct in those scabbards as well.

Thanks for posting your nice selection Chris, its always easier to make comparisons when you have some numbers to look through.

Cheers, S>S

[shippingsteel]

This shot of the P1888 ricasso illustrates just how 'busy' some of these bayonets were during their career, especially around the time of the Boer War. The makers name is underlined in the blue - Sanderson Bros & Neubold of Sheffield. The original date of manufacture and issue in the black rectangle is 4/94 meaning April of 1894. Then we have the various dates of reissue circled in the red - showing a '96, '99, '02 and an '05 gleefully marked over the top of old Queen Vic's initials.! (Note the '05 date is after the introduction of the P1903 bayonet. Many of these P1888 blades were converted into the new P1903 form around this time. This example obviously managed to escape the chop.)

Every time the bayonet was reissued to a unit the inspectors at the armoury would check it, date it and then apply their individual viewer mark - in this case the Crown over B over their number. I believe this was an early form of quality control so any problems could be traced back to its origins. Interesting to note all the viewer marks have the B for Birmingham inspection - not an E for Enfield anywhere to be seen. The thing I particularly like about these marks is the history that is recorded in those small stamps, and also the neat and fastidious manner in which these earlier markings were applied. This level of care gradually disappeared over the years as production levels of bayonets increased rapidly during the Great War.

Cheers, S>S

[shippingsteel]

Getting back to examples that did see service during the Great War, the shot below shows the ricasso of the Enfield P1888 Mk.II bayonet. The markings down the centre were all applied when the bayonet was first made in 1901. The markings to the lower left are the new inspection mark on top of the reissue date of '16, the latter only partly visible. Note the dull grey finish to the metal surfaces. This refinish was most probably applied just prior to the reissue for service in 1916.

Cheers, S>S

[shippingsteel]

This shot shows the comparison between the original polished finish above and the dulled wartime refinish below. The treatment they applied certainly gave a more non-reflective finish to the metal surfaces. You can easily see the reflection and glare from the flash on the top bayonet, while the bottom one hardly reflects any of the flash at all. This was what they wanted to achieve - to stop the reflection from sunlight, moonlight and also the light from the flares, which were all factors that helped to give away troop positions in the trenches, and across no-mans land at night.

Cheers, S>S

[TonyE]

S>S - the finish you describe was the result of sand blasting. See LoC Para. 17124.

17124 - Sword-bayonet, Pattern 1907, Mark I. C 4 Feb 1915

Sand blasting the surface of the blade instead of polishing.

For future manufacturing during the duration of the war, the blades of the above-mentioned

sword-bayonets will be sand blasted instead of being polished.

I think it can be reasonably assumed that this instruction also applied to sword-bayonets being re-inspected at depots before re-issue, whether P.'07 or P.'88.

Regards

TonyE

[TonyE]

.....This example was made and dated by Enfield 10 '01 and surprisingly still carries the Royal cypher of Queen Victoria....

Although Victoria died in January 1901 and Edward succeeded her, I suspect the continued use of the Victoria cypher was because Edward was not crowned King Edward VII until August 1902.

It would be interesting to see if there is any equipment dated earlier than 8 '02 that bears Edward's cypher.

Regards

TonyE

[shippingsteel]

On both counts TonyE, my best reply is - yes, possibly but I'm not really sure.

The finish is a strange one and may actually be a combination of treatments. Parts of the blade have got a rough coating like a light form of parkerisation, and other areas of the crossguard and pommel show a slighty pitted surface which could be sandblasted. Then again I think a lot of the finish has been buffed up again over time, so I'm still uncertain how it should be described. As I said before I think it could have been phosphate treated, but I would really like to find out more about that process and see some more examples to compare. Have you ever seen any LoC references to a phosphate treatment for bayonets.? I believe it was similar to the American parkerisation process but left a much lighter, almost dull white finish.?

In regard to the cypher, another possibility could be a blade that was pre-marked that went into storage, and then was later drawn out of stores for final assembly and then dated. Just going on the way the stamps have been applied it does look as though this particular example was dated well after the cypher was applied. As usual it's hard to say for certain, your suggestion also sounds quite plausible. Just a few more of those questions that can only be solved through more discussion, comparison and further research. Lucky we've all got you on board TonyE.!!

Cheers, S>S

[4thGordons]

Here you go S>S,

I dug out pics of the ricasso on a couple of my P'88 for you to look over. Not sure about "the neat and fastidious manner in which these earlier markings were applied." in some of these cases!

Chris

[4thGordons]

Obverse of the Wilkinson showing wartime ('15) reissue date on that side as with p1907s, but no date/cypher visible on the front side

[N White]

4thgordons, what is the meaning of the OO on the ricasso in your 1st picture? It isn't a reissue stamp is it? I ask because my example has the exact mark in the exact same place...

[shippingsteel]

Here you go S>S,

I dug out pics of the ricasso on a couple of my P'88 for you to look over. Not sure about "the neat and fastidious manner in which these earlier markings were applied." in some of these cases!

Chris

Yeah, I know, I know .... (Sometimes when I'm typing this stuff I actually grit my teeth in anticipation of the response that I just know is coming.!!)

Perhaps I should have put more emphasis on exactly which markings I was referring to ..... never mind, point taken. Anyway I still think they're all "neat", but as you know I'm biased.

Cheers, S>S

[Pete1052]

Sometimes we historians and collectors learn more about these infernal things than the guys in the war knew or would have ever cared to have known. Their main concerns were probably about getting drunk and laid on their next trip home to Blighty. As for bayonets, their principal concern about them was probably whether money would be deducted from their pay had they lost one.