Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

Turkish Bayonets


shippingsteel

Recommended Posts

Ok, here goes again. IF it doesn't work now then maybe one day when my lads grow up I might learn the appropriate technology... Different angles of the same ones: top one an unshortened1890, with tugra mark, below shortened one with AS.FA mark and (best seen in other picture) the traces (the tail) of the ground-out sultan's mark. As you will see from the other post, of the two unshortened 1890's, the stamp can be quite lightly done - someone thinking the end of the day is fast approaching and - 'Must I raise this f*****g hammer-stamp again?'! :whistle:

Trajan

post-69449-0-05131700-1328810793.jpg

post-69449-0-38893400-1328810808.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Trajan - very interesting. They are both very nice bayonets (although what happened to the leather of those scabbards)?! I suspect you are right about the stamp - plus it was stamped on a curved surface which cant have been easy...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another point to note here is that the AS.FA. reworks have our modern numerals stamped on the crossguard, while the original pre-reform bayonets still have the Sultans tughra and are marked with the Arabic numerals on the crossguard. The Turks became the masters of "the rework" whether it be with bayonets or the rifles, and were adept in removing metal (usually including all those special and important markings.!)

Cheers, S>S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Look what that nice royalmail bloke just brought me-

DSCN5445.jpg

DSCN5443.jpg

DSCN5442.jpg

DSCN5446.jpg

DSCN5444.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey that one looks a bit familiar.! Its got a nice looking blade on that - I think it may have been somewhat protected being stored in that scabbard.

Well used though.! I'm sure that it could tell a few tales about the various campaigns. Of course I'll need the maker mark and date stamp as usual ... :blush:

Cheers, S>S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... Look what that nice royalmail bloke just brought me-

Me jealous, nah....:angry2: Actually, I saw exactly the same type in equally good condition with excellent leather scabbard at the Antique Fair yesterday. Weyersburg marking and 1322 = 1904 date. BUT, it was TL 600, which is about GBP 210... Now, that is possibly a bargain price (any comments on that?), but it was certainly outside my spending limit for this month, having just bought another Russian M91 with ersatz scabbard (which I'll show at some pint - needs some TLC first)... Think I'll save really hard this month and hope it is still there in May...

Trajan

PS: Forgot to say, there was another M1903 there, ropey condition, no scabbard, but more to the point, the feathered part of the blade had been bent upwards at an angle of about 45 degrees to the back of the blade... Vendor pointed out the Sultan's Mark on the pommel and assured me that the bent blade was 100% 'orijinal'...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I saw exactly the same type in equally good condition with excellent leather scabbard at the Antique Fair yesterday.

Weyersburg marking and 1322 = 1904 date. BUT, it was TL 600, which is about GBP 210... Now, that is possibly a bargain price (any comments on that?)

That would actually be a fair price if it was in GOOD condition, TL 600 equals approx USD 335 so around about the correct mark I should think.

Unfortunately it seems GOOD condition in the Turkish bayonet market is very seldom seen, and with condition being the ultimate arbiter of value ...

Cheers, S>S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Unfortunately it seems GOOD condition in the Turkish bayonet market is very seldom seen, and with condition being the ultimate arbiter of value ...

Too true, too true... I suspect I could have got this one for TL 500, but apart from having already gone into this month's bayonet budget I only had TL 440 on me! The condition of the bayonet was good, though, better than I have seen for a long time, with a bright steel slightly pitted blade and pommel, not the grey-black of sawdoc's latest find, and all the markings were very clear. Mind you, the scabbard was a bit on the tight and dry side... Come to think of, so's my throat: ah well, it's almost 17:30, so - an Efes and a "Şerefe!" as we say over here...:thumbsup:

Trajan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here`s the ricasso marking S/S, sure this could tell many a story by the look of it, gotta love these been there/saw it condition bayonets. Much prefer them that way to pristine/museum quality examples but that is just my personal taste in bayos/rifles.

Trajan, will need pics of your new modified peabody (looks quite scarce) when it arrives as well as the M91 ersatz mate :thumbsup:

DSCN5444.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... Here`s the ricasso marking S/S, sure this could tell many a story by the look of it, gotta love these been there/saw it condition bayonets. Much prefer them that way to pristine/museum quality examples but that is just my personal taste in bayoNETSs/rifles.

That ricassso marking is indeed the very ringer of the one I saw on Sunday, one of the Weyersburg 1322=1904 mates! S>S, how is the analysis of these markings going! And Aleck, yes, I go along with preferring the battered look (both with bayonets - also with fish and chips!). Of course, that said, most of the ones I see here are pretty, well, woebgone and battered ...

...Trajan, will need pics of your new modified peabody (looks quite scarce) when it arrives as well as the M91 ersatz mate :thumbsup: .

The 1874 Peabody - ahh, that is going to be one very interesting little piece for investigation and discussion! You've seen what's been said on GBF, and - for any GWF pointy-things friends who don't know, yes, it does come into the WWI area of discussion as it was still in use at the time. My own thoughts at the moment are that it is a second type: the original b***ers - at 1kg, in weight - were considered to be too heavy and so one of the later batches of Peabody rifles sent to Turkey had a modified STRAIGHTER and lighter bayonet. I keep an open mind, but when It comes I'll report back with what I see and what there is to be seen

The M91 with Greman ersatz scabbard has arrived but I've really not had a chance yet to look at it closely or photo' it. Usual problem of these ones though (well as far my experience with now 3 goes!), of a badly pitted socket but a very nice blade: the socket of my 'Austrian' one did not like having the black stuff taken off.... :blush: The scabbard of this 'German' one looks reasonably fine, and has the top collar fitted, but one third of the incredibly small circular (12 mm diameter!) frog stud top is missing. Lucky me, just before it was posted for sale the university library received a copy of Lubbe and Carter, 'German Sidearms and bayonets', volume 2, and I saw it matched their p.275, the one on the left... I'll put it on the M91 thread when I have a chance to do more on it.

Şerefe!

Trajan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That ricassso marking is indeed the very ringer of the one I saw on Sunday, one of the Weyersburg 1322=1904 mates! S>S, how is the analysis of these markings going!

The 1874 Peabody - ahh, that is going to be one very interesting little piece for investigation and discussion! You've seen what's been said on GBF ....

Hey thanks for those markings again Aleck, and I'm still slowly collecting more details Trajan - I am now up to 90 (slow process) with WKC 1322 actually the most common (15% of total)

Yes an interesting discussion about that new acquistion, the cutdown Peabody (emphasis mine.!!) Some very big hitters chiming in on that thread, my advice - always put money on JPS.!

I am just back from a quick trip away and I've been doing the usual stuff - looking at guns, searching for bayonets, buying references and other assorted good stuff, and generally 'antik-ing'.

It should be no surprise to any that my haul included a nice P'88, another Skennerton book, a handfull of genuine replacement grips, some special gun oil AND quite a handy M1887 Turk.! :D

I love it when I get let off the chain for a while, and my first point of call is always the big city gun shops that deal heavily in the milsurp rifles. Its always amazing what they unearth as surplus.

Cheers, S>S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... Yes an interesting discussion about that new acquistion, the cutdown Peabody (emphasis mine.!!) Some very big hitters chiming in on that thread, my advice - always put money on JPS.!

That Peabody has resulted in some interesting rejoinders - kind of cat among the pigeons in a way! I don't know what to think... I can't quite see how it could have been straightened w/o leaving some physical evidence, which is why I wondered if the very slight blade-back curvature, at 23 / 24 cm from the cross-guard, might be relevant here, indicating possibly a modified yataghan . I think I could get an X-ray done which might help. I am obviously a little (i.e., completely!) lost with this one... But, yes, with all respect to all of my elders (in terms of bayonet studies!), I do tend to go with what JPS says.

... I am just back from a quick trip away ... It should be no surprise to any that my haul included a nice P'88... a handfull of genuine replacement grips ... AND quite a handy M1887 Turk.!

Lucky b***er – but I suppose with my luck recently (the two M91's with ersatz scabbards and the Peabody), I shouldn't complain! Looking forward to seeing these new babies of yours – and if you have a spare (1) single P1903 grip screw; (2), a pair of 98/05 grips and screws; (3) a pair of KS 98 bakelite or wooden grips, with a single appropriate screw (yes, screw, not rivet!), well let me know! (oh, also a Gras scabbard, a shortened Lebel scabbard, etc.,etc...!!!):thumbsup:

Şerefe!

Trajan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just came to me - some GWF members might not know this pointed one, so I thought I'd put a photo' up. It's a straight and shorter variant of the Turkish Peabody 1874 yataghan bayonet, a type with a steeply curved downwards blade (as a slashing weapon) and also longer. Some of these were still in service in 1912, and so would have still been around in 1914, presumably with secondary/garrison troops - and so it therefore just creeps into GWF! But, because it is marginal WWI, I opened a discussion on GBForum, where the ongoing arguments are: was this one straightened from a standard yataghan (curved) bayonet or was it made this way? And if straightened, how was it done? And what form would the evidence for this straightening take?

Any metalworkers / blacksmiths out there???!!!

Trajan

post-69449-0-58445600-1333730460.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes Trajan, I think you have been doing quite well enough for the moment - some of your recent finds are not that common, and well could only be found in Turkey.!

One of the hidden benefits of collecting the data on the Turkish Mauser bayonets is that you find out whats common and whats scarce - guess which my new one is.

This one is an Alexander Coppel example and he only made the M1887 version, and then only for the single year, so I haven't come across very many of those at all. :)

Regarding the Peabody, I do have my theories based on my own observations, and I also did find out some very interesting stuff during my Osmanli markings research.

And you can forget about being OT, as these would definitely have still been in use somewhere in the Ottoman Empire, as the rifles had only just recently been converted.

The old Peabody rifles were being upgraded to fire the current service round (7.65x53) at the Imperial Arsenal in 1909/10. I know this as I translated the Osmanli markings.

So in that vein JPS is actually incorrect when he refers to the Peabody conversion as the M1874/12. This is a 'collector designation' based on an incorrect year conversion.

With the original Peabody yataghan bayonets, my thoughts are that there were at least 2 versions possibly from different suppliers, as I've seen a couple of differing types.

You see the very exaggerated curving yataghan blades, but you also see a milder curved variety which is much less extravagant, its these ones I believe were straightened.

To do this they lopped off much of the tip, heated and hammered out flat the remaining end, then heavily ground out the bottom edge and reformed the new tip of the blade.

This gives the appearance that the new blade is straight, but close inspection will reveal that this is not the case, which is exactly what JPS has described in the GBF thread.

The Ottomans at that time had serious expertise in these kinds of procedures, especially at the Imperial Arsenal, as the artisans there had been metalworking for centuries.

It was only later after the reforms that their standards fell away, to the extent they now have probably the worst reputation of all for the average quality of their modifications.

Cheers, S>S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

S>S,

Many thanks for that detailed reply and also the correction re: the date the original rifles were modified - very interesting!

Even with my limited knowledge I can certainly go along with your observation - based on much wider experience! - that there may have been two M 1874 yataghan types, one more curved the other less so, with examples of the latter being subsequently straightened and shortend. This would explain the - albeit very slight - curvature seen in the blade back of mine starting at the 23 / 24 cm mark from the crossguard. It will be interesting to see exactly what the curvature is in other examples of the "straight" variant - especially as thanks to Aleck I now know that the curvature on the regular M 1874 starts much closer to the cross-guard, at the 16 cm point.

Two ideas that might perhaps take matters forward?

(1) Might an X-Ray reveal some evidence of alteration to the density of the metal indicative of straightening?

(2) Some of these M 1874's certainly have letter ricasso marks (a W in my case), and/or a letter mark on the back of the tang (there may be a C on mine - haven't cleaned it yet!): now, this is a long shot, but it would be intresting to compare ricasso letter markings aong the known examples to see what ricasso letter marks are found on the "true". i.e., fully-curved yaghatan M 1874's, and what appear on the "straightened" ones.

Trajan (who is 'babysitting' the nippers today ... :huh: ...so don't know when I'll have a chance to check back later in the day...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1874 Peabody bayonets...

I managed to trawl through some web-sites today (took the nippers to [a very rare thing in Turkey] a beer garden with slides [and expensive beer]!)... While there I Googled 1874 Peabody bayonets which brought up a few pages, and the first two had eleven in all with reasonable photo's. For what it is worth, these were all bayonets of the long curved yataghan type. Did not check the comparative curvature between them BUT they all seem to have ricasso AND crossguard letter stamps. Letters B, C and S on ricasso, letters C, H and K on the crossguard. Some also had stamps on the back of the tang (the letter 'C' seems to be usual) and/or stamps on the pommel head. I have not properly cleaned mine yet but the right crossguard is pretty erosion-free, and has no stamp that I can see, but as reported before, there does seem to be a 'C' on the tang.

Perhaps, if we can get data on others, a 'W' on the ricasso and no crossguard letter is unique to these 'straightened' M1874's?

Trajan

(I was about to cross-post this on GBF then cross-checked and saw an interesting JPS reply so have amended it for there!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You see the very exaggerated curving yataghan blades, but you also see a milder curved variety which is much less extravagant, its these ones I believe were straightened.

Here's an example of a Turk M1874 with what I would term a 'mild yataghan' blade. I have added the illustrations to better describe what I think occurred with the modifications.

When you look at these type of yataghans its not quite as much of a stretch to believe that they could have been cutdown, reformed and ground to produce a 'straighter' blade.

Trajan, you will notice on your example that the fuller is much closer to the bottom edge as you near the tip, similar to the black line that I drew, this is where it has been ground.

Also note near the tip the top of your fuller also dips down, showing that it has been made from the original yataghan blade. The straightening used force (in the red) from below.

The blue diamond would be the 'fulcrum' area where the major distortion would have occurred, so if you see a dip on yours at about that area, I think that's probably the 'tell-tale'.

Cheers, S>S

post-52604-0-40797400-1333875875.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

S>S,

Now, that photo is fascinating! And I do see what you mean about straigthening. I'll give mine a better looksee when I get back home tonight,

Thanks for sharing this insight / knowledge!

Trajan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok S>S, ready for some figures? For what they are worth!

Total fuller length is 37.00 +/- cm

Fuller ends 6.45 cm from point

Fuller bottom to blade edge at crossguard end is 1.55 cm

Same at mid-way point is 1.20 cm

Same at max. width of fuller before curving in twoards the point is 0.95 cm.

MRD by the way is 0.175 cm.

I do see what you mean and I can see how this could be a 'straighter' yataghan that was later straightened even more.

Of course, as is always the case in archaeology, one possible answer brings in more questions. (1) What markings on that Peabody you illustrate, if any? (2) I know hardly anything about the rifles involved, but according to one web-site I looked at (the 'saga' one) the first Peabody rifles that went East had socket bayonets and these 1874 sword models are a later issue - is that so?

Trajan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Enough of Peabody's for now!

S>S, for your pleasure I take great joy in attaching yet one more Osmanli marked bayonet to add to your data! This one turned up on Gitti, but is lacking a crossguard and the blade has been shortened...

Trajan

post-69449-0-86185500-1337166473_thumb.j

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for that contribution Trajan, I appreciate your persistance. With your help I have now accumulated the markings data from 100 of these bayonets.! :thumbsup:

Cheers, S>S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Well, here's another for S>S to catalogue - it's been shortened and is on sale with metal scabbard and leather frog at a ridiculous price (TL 175!!!) so I won't be buying it!

Trajan

post-69449-0-83163500-1339514210_thumb.j

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Mr.T - I'm still collecting these markings but its starting to get a bit boring. There doesn't seem to be any 'new' discoveries popping up now, I think we've got them covered.!

Your 87/90 conversion has been a highlight.! I'm continuing to work on the translations though (moving on to swords) and also trying to decipher the markings on heavy naval guns. :)

Cheers, S>S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
...I'm still collecting these markings but its starting to get a bit boring. There doesn't seem to be any 'new' discoveries popping up now, I think we've got them covered.!...

Quite understand - but

(1) I can't remember if I sent you this one below?

(2) Will you be putting a final version of identified makers marks on the forum so we (well, me!) can carry it around for ID purposes? and

(3) Any chance of you posting the results of your analysis, ie.,who made what types and when?

Cheers!

Trajan

post-69449-0-37555500-1341332054_thumb.j

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Evening guys, I'm doing a bit of research into a bayonet belonging to my sister-in-law.

After a visit to the RLC museum to see Andy Robertshaw, he confirmed this was a Turkish Bayonet for a Mauser, but beyond that wasn't able to help with the markings etc.

Reading through the thread so far, this seems to be confirmed, but I was hoping you could help me with the specifics?

Here's the overview.

5ltees.jpg

From earlier posts, it appears this is the makers mark, and date. I think the date is 1306 (1890?) but not sure on the maker.

34i39rt.jpg

I think this is the Sultan's tugra, but doesn't seem to match the tugra of Abdulhamid II or Mehmed V

2hhi33t.jpg

Not seen any other reference to this mark on the other side of the handle to the tugra.

mWtgZ.jpg

And finally (thanks for your patience!). The star is fairly obvious I assume ( there are several stamped along with a crescent elsewhere on the blade and handle). I don't know what the other mark is though.

a7UUg.jpg

Any help is gratefully received.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...