sawdoc34 Posted 22 May , 2011 Share Posted 22 May , 2011 Hello, just wondering if antone has a couple of pics of another Vickers P1913 bayonet that I can compare with this 1? Only 1 I can find on the net has no date. Cheers, Aleck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 23 May , 2011 Share Posted 23 May , 2011 I am certainly not an expert on UK bayonets (and I have no reference literature with me on these) but from what I can remember the P1913 bayonet was designed for the experimental .276 calibre P1913 rifle, and very few were made as August 1914 interupted things... I seem to remember that only a thousand or so were made and that these were all Enfield products but yours says Vickers - although there are what seem to be Enfield inspector marks on the riccaso (crown over letters/numbers over E). I think these P 1913 ones were modelled on the P1907 and so have hooked quillions - but pretty certainly a smaller muzzle ring than the P1907. Another thing, again from memory, the 1913 bayonets have diagonal or transverse cuts on the grips (to eliminate confusion with a P1907 bayonet)... BUT what I really don't get is the manufacture/issue date on this one - 3-17 = March 1917. And I must admit that the '1913' stamp looks distinctly odd with the '1''s lacking a 'tail' at the top and the circle of the '9' not meeting with the stem.... Could it be UK made for US M1917 rifles? Hopefully someone with more expertise can follow this one up further than I can... Trajan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyE Posted 23 May , 2011 Share Posted 23 May , 2011 Trajan - The Pattern '13 bayonet was made for the British Pattern '14 rifles, mainly by Winchester and Remington but also in very limited numbers by Vickers. I believe it was only about 1.500 units, so a very desirable piece. Wartime production P.'13 bayonets did not have a hooked quillon. I am sure Shippingsteel will give you chapter and verse on it shortly. Regards TonyE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 23 May , 2011 Share Posted 23 May , 2011 Trajan - The Pattern '13 bayonet was made for the British Pattern '14 rifles, mainly by Winchester and Remington but also in very limited numbers by Vickers. I believe it was only about 1.500 units, so a very desirable piece. Wartime production P.'13 bayonets did not have a hooked quillon. I am sure Shippingsteel will give you chapter and verse on it shortly. Regards TonyE Thanks TonyE - but what about the 1917 date on this one? Guess we should await Shippingsteel's comments! Trajan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 23 May , 2011 Share Posted 23 May , 2011 I am sure Shippingsteel will give you chapter and verse on it shortly. Regards TonyE I have already responded to this query on another forum so there's not much more I can add. (They were made in 1917.) It's either a nice genuine (and rare) Vickers, an excellent modern reproduction, or a very clever fake done extremely well. Personally I would be leaning towards the first option, and I suspect that is what Aleck is trying to ascertain by his post. It's difficult to say for certain just from the markings provided but in comparison with my own Vickers P1907 it does look genuine. I have found the Vickers to be quite uniquely made amongst the P1907/13 line of bayonets, so some further pics may be useful here. Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sawdoc34 Posted 23 May , 2011 Author Share Posted 23 May , 2011 I have already responded to this query on another forum so there's not much more I can add. (They were made in 1917.) It's either a nice genuine (and rare) Vickers, an excellent modern reproduction, or a very clever fake done extremely well. Personally I would be leaning towards the first option, and I suspect that is what Aleck is trying to ascertain by his post. It's difficult to say for certain just from the markings provided but in comparison with my own Vickers P1907 it does look genuine. I have found the Vickers to be quite uniquely made amongst the P1907/13 line of bayonets, so some further pics may be useful here. Cheers, S>S Thanks for your posts, as Shippingsteel says I am trying to compare it against another known Vickers P1913 to find out if it is original or not as I have never seen 1 before. Markings certainly look ok by the pic of Vickers P1907 Shippingsteel posted on another board & by my cut down Vickers P1907 but would prefer to compare with genuine P1913 markings. Will post further pics when it arrives as these are just pics from the seller, Cheers, Aleck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyE Posted 23 May , 2011 Share Posted 23 May , 2011 Thanks TonyE - but what about the 1917 date on this one? Guess we should await Shippingsteel's comments! Trajan Sorry, I should have said that Vickers made these in 1917 before they switched over to making P.'07 bayonets. Regards TonyE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshdoc Posted 23 May , 2011 Share Posted 23 May , 2011 Here is an old thread with some links and pics http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=108045&st=0&p=1027359&hl="vickers%20bayonet"&fromsearch=1entry1027359 Its interesting that the gap at the bottom in the C of the V logo is the same as mine as is the Vickers stamping. Mine does not have the month year date though. Still dont know if its genuine . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sawdoc34 Posted 23 May , 2011 Author Share Posted 23 May , 2011 Welshdoc, very interesting thread mate, did you save any pics of the other Vickers P1913 on your thread? As they are no longer there. The markings on your bayonet look much akin to mine minus the date, hope you find some info on undated P1913s as your Vickers, 1913 & CV markings look real as far as I can make out. Devils advocate tho- Why no broad arrow? Would it have passed the Enfield inspectors (as it has their marks) without a date? Also 2 of the Enfield inspectors marks on my cut down Vickers P1907 are 9C over E, so seems a quite common inspectors mark for Vickers. Good luck with your search mate & hope it turns out fruitful, just wish someone had another pic of a dated 1 to compare mine with as my gut feelings is that its ok but as I have never encountered another it will bug the life out of me until know for sure, Cheers, Aleck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 23 May , 2011 Share Posted 23 May , 2011 Well I have to say my flabber is gasted by all that has been generated over this either rare or dodgy P1913! Thanks to Shipping Steel, Welshdoc and TonyE especially for comments and to sawdoc for sharing it - and my tuppence worth (as a professional archaeologist) is let's have all the one's that are known of published up front with millimetric scales, with marks, muzzle ring and other dimensions and full-lenght and detailed pictures! I am happy to lend my experience in (Roman) weapn typology and reading (Latin) inscriptions towards any analysis of this! I should add though that my own bayonet knowledge is elementary. I had a collection of P1907's that i disposed off when I left the UK in 1985 and have only recently got back into this interest.... But I am happy to help where I can! Trajan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshdoc Posted 23 May , 2011 Share Posted 23 May , 2011 Some of the pics were lost as links were changed, they were similar to yours. I do not think my bayonet was accepted or issued so no arrow . If memory serves me well it was found in a box of rusty tools and I paid I think £8. I will have a hard look and see if I can find more information that I gleaned. gareth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshdoc Posted 23 May , 2011 Share Posted 23 May , 2011 Thisisthe only link I can find at present http://www.old-smithy.info/bayonets/fullsize/canada/canada%20vickers%201907%20markings.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sawdoc34 Posted 23 May , 2011 Author Share Posted 23 May , 2011 Gareth, shame about the pics being deleted on your post. Cheers for the link mate, have already seen that 1 as Oldsmithy site is 1 of the best bayonet sites on the net but alas another P1907. Well done with the undated Vickers P1917 mate, wish I could find bayonets for that price! Here`s the other side of my cut down Vickers P1907. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 23 May , 2011 Share Posted 23 May , 2011 Just wish someone had another pic of a dated 1 to compare mine with as my gut feelings is that its ok but as I have never encountered another it will bug the life out of me until know for sure, Cheers, Aleck Firstly I would just like to say that there is "more than one way to skin a cat" .... (err, metaphorically speaking of course - I don't want to offend anyone.!) What I mean is that if it has been messed with in any way, you can rest assured that the critical markings that create the extra value would be done right. However while concentrating on these key points any would be fakers often tend to overlook some other more simple characteristics of the said item. If you can closely compare the suspect item with a similar proven correct example, any slight differences in construction can very rapidly become obvious. In this case while other Vickers P1913's can be quite hard to come across, the Vickers P1907 does provide an acceptable surrogate with which to compare. These 2 types of bayonets were both made in the same factory, in the same year and were often inspected and marked by the same people with the same tools. The blades on both these Patterns are exactly identical and any unfinished blades from the P'13 production would have gone straight into the P'07 bayonets. It is these very similarities which I used when comparing with my own Vickers example (below) to make my tentative judgement based solely on the markings. Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 24 May , 2011 Share Posted 24 May , 2011 For what it is worth, a careful comparison of sawdoc's P1913 and welshdoc's P1913 (as on his http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r260/we...oc/IMGP1640.jpg) indicates that the same (i.e., identical) stamps have been used for these two - that is, the pattern date numbers, the V-in-circle, and the VICKERS. And these are different stamps from the P1907 Vickers that have been illustrated. Note also that welshdoc's example has the two transverse cuts on the grips - are these on yours, sawdocs? Trajan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sawdoc34 Posted 24 May , 2011 Author Share Posted 24 May , 2011 Trajan, in the pics from the seller it has correct grips & cross piece/muzzle ring for the P1913 but until it arrives I can not post more detailed pics but rest assured as soon as it lands I will get them straight on here for Shippingsteel & Welshdoc to compare with their Vickers P1907 & P1913 bayonets/markings. Might even talk myself into removing the grips ( if nuts/bolts not too rusty) to see if there are any identifying marks under them but will have to wait & see. Thanks for all your help so far guys, Cheers, Aleck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshdoc Posted 24 May , 2011 Share Posted 24 May , 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshdoc Posted 24 May , 2011 Share Posted 24 May , 2011 Just included an original of my P1913 and apart from some corrosion they dont half look identical stampings even the bit of the S missing and the faint part of the V. I have no doubt they were stamped with the same tools , and they are either both right or wrong. They seem to be similar to the 1907 as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 24 May , 2011 Share Posted 24 May , 2011 Just included an original of my P1913 and apart from some corrosion they dont half look identical stampings even the bit of the S missing and the faint part of the V. I have no doubt they were stamped with the same tools , and they are either both right or wrong. They seem to be similar to the 1907 as well. Thanks for posting your example again Welshdoc. After having a quick look back at your other photos I am feeling quite comfortable with the authenticity of your Vickers. So in that respect I believe that these Vickers P1913's are "both right". All the markings are exactly what you would expect to find on a Vickers manufactured bayonet except for the 1913 stamping which due to its rarity is always going to look "unusual". I admit that your example does have a very suspect looking stamping but I believe it has just been "bounced" slightly during the impression of the mark, leaving that double-lined look (which has obviously rung some alarm bells). The lack of the date and acceptance marks should not be surprising when you consider the events that transpired with the Vickers production of bayonets. I don't have the specifics of what actually happened, but TonyE may be able to enlighten us on that point. All I know is that they only produced a very small run of P1913's before quickly switching over to the manufacture of the P1907. Obviously they were given some direction to do this by the higher authorities ie. the War Department possibly.? I suspect that your Vickers may have been one of the last of the P1913's made and missed out on being accepted into service, which explains the lack of the 'broad arrow' and probably the date ie. it was an 'overrun' which never got sold into service. Another possible explanation (from left field but plausible) is that it was a 'lunchbox souvenir' that was taken home from work by a deft factory employee looking to make a bob. This might also explain the lack of date markings and never being accepted into service. Just my opinions and further food for thought - hope it helps put your mind at ease.! Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sawdoc34 Posted 25 May , 2011 Author Share Posted 25 May , 2011 Cheers for putting the pic of your P1913 alongside mine Gareth, much easier to compare, must admit they are like twins (apart from the date obviously) Shippingsteel, thanks also for putting my mind at rest mate, gut feelings told me it looked right but wasnt 100% sure. Looks like both Gareth & I have got ourselves 2 nice examples of a pretty scarce bayonet, although mine has some pitting to the tip but will have to wait to the bloke I bought it from gets his **** in gear with delivery (paid for it last friday) to find out just how bad it is tho Cheers, Aleck Here is another blade to discuss if you wish, maybe not of this time frame but have not seen many of these about either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyE Posted 25 May , 2011 Share Posted 25 May , 2011 .....The lack of the date and acceptance marks should not be surprising when you consider the events that transpired with the Vickers production of bayonets. I don't have the specifics of what actually happened, but TonyE may be able to enlighten us on that point. All I know is that they only produced a very small run of P1913's before quickly switching over to the manufacture of the P1907. Obviously they were given some direction to do this by the higher authorities ie. the War Department possibly.?....... Cheers, S>S The contract to Vickers was Number 94/B/3080 for 50,000 Pattern '13 bayonets dated 14 October 1916 with delivery of 250 per week from 2 December 1916 rising by 250 per week to 5,000 per week from 17 February 1917. As of 31 March 1917 only 410 had been delivered, which is typical of Vickers delays in production. They had of course had an earlier order for 100,000 P.'13 bayonets to go with their order for P.'14 rifles but that was cancelled as they could not deliver. Control of production for all armaments was under the authority of the Ministry of Munitions, and so the change from P.'13 to P.'07 bayonets would only have been made on their instructions. The orders for P.'14 rifles and bayonets in America had been under scrutiny since mid 1916 as it was felt that deliveries were so far behind that domestic production would be able to meet the anticipated needs for rifles. The American P.'14 orders were formally cancelled in September 1916, but because Winchester and Remington threatened to stop production immediately, the cancellations were themselves cancelled and negotiations started in London. Final production figures were agreed with the manufacturers in 1917 and one can only presume that at this point the Min. of Mun. decided that there would be no need for any further P.'13 bayonets and so changed the Vickers order over to P.'07 bayonets. It makes logistical sense and the timeline matches the facts as we know them. Regards TonyE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peregrinvs Posted 25 May , 2011 Share Posted 25 May , 2011 Here is another blade to discuss if you wish, maybe not of this time frame but have not seen many of these about either A Pakistani combat knife? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sawdoc34 Posted 25 May , 2011 Author Share Posted 25 May , 2011 Not sure how to classify it as pre 1947 Pakistan was part of Colonial India, so as far as I know both muslims (now state of Pakistan) & hindus (now state of India) served in the Indian army. This being so it could be an Indian combat knife (sometimes known as a paratroopers knife) but M.I.L. is in the state of Pakistan so it could be classed as a Pakistani knife. But most folk class WW2 M.I.L. No.1 mk2* bayonets as Indian, so the question is with this being a 1942 dated knife is it Indian army or Pakistan army? Its got me stumped? Anyone got any info on WW2 R.F.I. full length No.1 bayonets? I have 1 dated 4 41 & was wondering when they started converting to the shorter patterns? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 25 May , 2011 Share Posted 25 May , 2011 Rather off topic for a WWI forum but I will try and keep my response closer to the timescale. Ishapore made the 1907 full length bayonet from 1911 (hooked quillons) prior to that the Indian Army had preferred (and hence India produced and converted) the P1903 (mostly from P1888s in India)Given the shape of the blade on the knife you posted I wonder if this was a 1903 at some point in its life?. Under British pressure the P1907 was eventually adopted and production commenced. Skennerton and Richardson (p347) put 1941 as the date India began shortening blades to 12.2" (The No1 MkI*/MkI**) and also 1941 as the year newly made 12.2" bladed bayonets were produced (No1 MkII) but they also note that this may be misleading as paperwork took some time (sometimes as much as 5 years!) to catch up with what was being produced. Even the unfullered blade of later MkIII bayonets appears to be a development of a trials pattern manufactured at Ishapore in 1917. Given the 1941 date for shortening one might guess that production of the full length blade ceased at that point, making yours one of the last. Full length P1907 Ishapores (of any period) are relatively difficult to find in my experience (btw yours identical to the one pictured in Skennerton and Richardson p346). Here are some of the Indian types - the first three being relevant to the Great War period. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sawdoc34 Posted 26 May , 2011 Author Share Posted 26 May , 2011 Thanks 4th Gordons,must invest in the Skennerton book but everytime I go to order it someone comes along with a lovely pointy thing that I end up buying. Have a few of the 12" versions & 1888 bladed P1903 marked BB&CIR to pommel(RFI on end of pommel) but always wondered about the date they converted to P1907s to shorter types? Sorry for going out of timeline, will post pics of Vickers P1913 next to bring it back in line, Cheers, Aleck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.