1914 Bayonet question

[Steven Broomfield]

Looking in a copy of The Royal Deccan Horse in the Great War (Lt Col E Tennant), which I was given for a recent birthday (the N&M reprint, not the original ), I noticed this passage, relating to the arrival of the 20th Deccan Horse in France in late 1914:

... it came as a shock and a surprise when an issue of infantry bayonets was made to the Brigade (the Secunderabad Brigade: 7th Dragoon Guards, 20th Deccan Horse and 34th Poona Horse) ... What was specially unfortunate was that this pattern of bayonet did not fit the new rifles which had been issued to the Brigade on landing at Marseilles and, as will be seen later on, this had lamentable consequences.

When the regiment went into the Line in November, this comment is made:

Another difficulty with which to contend was the bayonets. These did not fit and shook off after rapid fire, due to the fact that an old-fashioned bayonet had been issued with the latest-pattern bayonet. Apparently the GOC of the Sirhind Brigade (Lahore Division) submitted a report on the matter, commenting that his men, when they confronted the enemy frequently had no effective weapon.

Subsequently, in the action at Givenchy (19th/20th December 1914), the Secunderabad Brigade took part in a counter-attack:

... their sole weapon was ... the bayonet ... which fitted the rifles so insecurely that many of the men resorted to binding then on with bits of string and old rags ....

So, I assume the rifle with which the regiment was equipped was the standard Lee Enfield SMLE, but what would the bayonet have been? Also, are their any other known reports of units (British Territorial, possibly) having these problems? From the fact that the GOC of an infantry brigade felt moved to submit a special report, one assumes this must have been a widespread problem, but not one I've seen before.

Any comments, anyone?

[Garron]

If they were armed with SMLEs, all I can think of if they were issued with the 1888 pattern bayonets as the 1903 pattern would fit the SMLE. I very much doubt they would have been issued with the 1887 Martini Henry bayonet.

Gaz

[4thGordons]

I doubt it would have been p1888 bayonets as I don't think these will fit at all on any variant of SMLE (I will away and try but I think all the dimensions are wrong). As this was 1914 rifle possibilities were:

MLE / CLLE which would take the p1888 bayonet

SMLE (all versions) which would take the p1903 or p1907

I don't think the two types are even loosely interchangeable as their method of attachment is very different

I assume they were fighting dismounted? If so it is possible (in 1914) that they were issued with CLLEs rather than SMLEs. This would mean they would need P1888 bayonets but it is perhaps possible that P1887 sword bayonets (designed for the Martini-Henry) were issed with these? These had a much larger MRD (18mm) than the 16mm MRD of the P1888 but .303 versions used a similar bar to mount at the rear (Rigby nosecap) so this seems to be a possibility. Although it would seem an odd mistake to make on this scale I think these might "fit" ish..

Certainly a puzzle I shall repair to the shed and see what fits what

Chris

The more I think about it the more I am certain there is no way to make a p1888 even losely fit an SMLE but you might make one of the earlier Martini bayonets....The more I think about it the more that seems the best bet

Edited 6 August , 2011 by 4thGordons

[Garron]

I've just tried Chris, its a no go with the 1888 on the SMLE there is no way to lock it in place though it does fit on. I've tried a 1888 on my MKIV martini henry the bayonet lug is too small for the larger gap in the 1888s pommel if you get what I mean so its unlikely a 1887 would fit on a CLLE with Rigby pattern nose cap. If you reverse that, a 1887 would have too small a pommel to fit.

Gaz

[4thGordons]

I've just tried Chris, its a no go with the 1888 on the SMLE there is no way to lock it in place though it does fit on. I've tried a 1888 on my MKIV martini henry the bayonet lug is too small for the larger gap in the 1888s pommel if you get what I mean so its unlikely a 1887 would fit on a CLLE with Rigby pattern nose cap. If you reverse that, a 1887 would have too small a pommel to fit.

Gaz

So...could you jam an 1887 onto an SMLE? that seems to be a remaining possibility that I was thinking of last? I don't have a 1887 I can get to.

Chris

[Garron]

Sadly I don't have an P1887, I couldn't afford one when I bought my MH from the states.

Working in reverse again using a P1907 and MH MkIV its might be possible as the MH bayonet boss is bigger than the SMLEs, so a 1887 should fit the boss albeit loosely, The muzzle ring being in the right place, I cant test.

Gaz

[4thGordons]

Sadly I don't have an P1887, I couldn't afford one when I bought my MH from the states.

Working in reverse again using a P1907 and MH MkIV its might be possible as the MH bayonet boss is bigger than the SMLEs, so a 1887 should fit the boss albeit loosely, The muzzle ring being in the right place, I cant test.

Gaz

Grrrrrr....OK anyone out there who can test this easily? Otherwise I am going to have to rootle around and try and dig mine out.

Can a Martini-Henry P1887 sword bayonet fit (however poorly) on an SMLE?

Gaz - let me know if you want me to keep a look out for one I see them with some frequency.

Chris

[Garron]

Its been on the list, Im going to Ypres in 2 weeks so I'll get back to you once the bank has recovered I can find a socket bayonet no problem, they just don't fit the MKIV either due to ramp front sights or the A pattern (mine having a 1/8th too short barrel from the conversion from its .402 calibre)

Actually thinking outside the box, what about the 1895 socket bayonet? a knife style blade isn't mentioned. Plus it wouldnt fit the CLLE due to the ramp style front sights which would block the locking ring from locking.

Gaz

[shippingsteel]

I have heeded your desperate calls for help, chaps - so never fear, help is near .... :lol:

Bear with me for but a moment and I shall go get my little doctors bag with the micrometer and other 'utensils'.!!

PS. Yep I'll be comparing the P1887 with the P1907 to see if a match is plausible, otherwise that ones BUSTED ...

EDIT. So I don't really like your chances with a P1887. Here is the data for comparison :-

P1907: MRD 16.5mm, mortice slot width 11mm, length bar slot to MR 91mm, offset mortice to bottom MR 12.5mm

P1887: MRD 18mm, mortice slot width 10mm, length bar slot to MR 107mm, offset mortice to bottom MR 16mm

Pretty much every important detail is out by A LOT, so ... NEXT.!!

Cheers, S>S

[4thGordons]

Actually thinking outside the box, what about the 1895 socket bayonet? a knife style blade isn't mentioned. Plus it wouldnt fit the CLLE due to the ramp style front sights which would block the locking ring from locking.

Gaz

OK if you are going for outside the box - how about Arisaka bayonets? visually very similar to a p1907 hooked quillon......

Chris

[shippingsteel]

No the Arisaka bayonet has too small a muzzle ring and too large an offset - plus it is not an "old-fashioned bayonet".

I'm thinking one of the 'bar-on-barrel' versions of the P1856/58/60 family of Yataghans may be closer to the mark here.

The two things you need to look for are a T-shaped mortice slot of at least 11mm wide, and a lowset muzzle ring larger than 16.5mm.

The 'bar-on-band' style bayonets like the P1887 have too much offset between muzzle ring and hilt. The SMLE bayonet is low mounted.

Many of the earlier pattern yataghan bayonets were cutdown/shortened and bushed during the late 1890's through the turn of the century.

These modifications were done to suit them to fit the later Martini-Henry versions, and they became known as "P1895" or "Cadet" bayonets.

I'm thinking one of these modified 'bar-on-barrel' yataghans might suit the description provided, and circa GW marked examples have been found.

Cheers, S>S

[auchonvillerssomme]

Were they talking about SMLE's?

[Steven Broomfield]

Thanks, chaps. Kept you all amused for a few hours!

I assume they refer to SMLEs: the book states:

Before leaving the docks all the rifles were exchanged for new ones of the latest pattern. This change was necessary owing to an alteration having been made in the shape of the clip loaders. (This was at Marseilles)

The other Indian cavalry histories I have make much less mention: the 36th (Jacobs) and 2nd (Gardner's) seem not to mention the matter. The 18th Lancers merely say: The regiment had to be re-armed, bayonets issued and their use explained and taught. Hodson's and the Central India Horse also mention the issue of new rifles and bayonets, but nothing further.

I'll have a read through The Indian Corps in France later and see if anything is mentioned there.

I'll also have a look at a few other possible sources. Odd, though, isn't it?

[sawdoc34]

I have 3 of the brit/nepalese yataghans, 1 of the cut down "cadet" bayonets & 2 SMLEs in the collection, will see if they are any where near a match later today & let you know.

[sawdoc34]

Found some old pics on the laptop, as you can see certain bayonets do fit the bayonet boss but the rear of the pommel hits the piling swivel boss & I cant remember if they actually locked on or not. I suppose they could be made to fit if you removed the piling swivel, extended the mortise on the bayonet, bushed the muzzle ring & maybe altered the locking button. Will try the bayonets on the Indian SAF nosecap (no piling swivel boss) later,

Cheers,

Aleck

[sawdoc34]

[Garron]

Nice one Sawdoc, very well could be the P1887 then as it almost fits and would shake loose after use.

Gaz

[4thGordons]

Nice one Sawdoc, very well could be the P1887 then as it almost fits and would shake loose after use.

Gaz

I agree - would seem to be a possibility to me too.

Sawdoc - looks like you have a sling swivel rather than a stacking swivel mounted on your nosepiece. Piling swivels are not complete loops (there is a gap to allow them to hook together and by the look of it that is absent)...unless you are set up for slinging the rifle from muzzle to magazine in keeping with the cavalry theme of the original post!

Chris

[sawdoc34]

Chris, it came with the sling swivel instead of piling swivel, keep meaning to change it but need to get volley sights for the MLE & P14 aswell.

Here are the three that fit the bayonet boss on the SAF nosecap, could probably extend the mortise on all 3 but only 1 muzzle ring could easily be bushed for this SMLE (altho you would also have to remove the comb on top of the ring)-

[sawdoc34]

[shippingsteel]

Here are the three that fit the bayonet boss on the SAF nosecap, could probably extend the mortise on all 3 but only 1 muzzle ring could easily be bushed for this SMLE (altho you would also have to remove the comb on top of the ring)-

Very well done Aleck, and a great use of the items in your collection.

The P1856/60 (bar on barrel) Yataghan Sword Bayonet shown above is clearly the closest fit on the SMLE, and with modifications could do the job, albeit loosely.

This is the pattern of bayonet that they were modifying in the 1890's to suit the Martini-Henry, which included bushing the muzzle-ring and grinding the pommel.

Another thought is to what Indian troops would perceive as an "old-fashioned bayonet". Note that the P1887 was still a well-used bayonet in 1914, especially in India.

Cheers, S>S

[Steven Broomfield]

Thanks, chaps. I appreciate this.

However, I confess to being slightly bewildered (probably too much information ), so can anyone come up with a probable answer? If the likely candidate can be identified by a phot of it alone (so I recognise it), I'd be ever so pleased. Being really demanding, is it possible to identify its official designation, and what rifle it was originally intended for?

My suspicion is that the bayonets came from British, not Indian, stocks, so although the Indian infantry might not have thought the 1887 model "old", the cavalry would have no terms of reference (as noted, they'd not seen bayonets before). All they knew was that the bayonet wasn't current for the new rifles they'd been issued.

One would assume that whatever was issued was capable of allowing the rifle to be fired (no mention that it didn't) - would that be correct?

I really appreciate all the effort that's gone into this: I was pondering penning a short article about this aspect of the Indian Army's arrival in France, so I will (of course) acknowledge all assistance.

[auchonvillerssomme]

I find it unlikely that bayonets of that age would be issued in 1914. I have found unrelated mention in Hansard in 1909 of this problem, so it wasn't as if they weren't aware.

Special Army Reserve (Short Rifle).HC Deb 29 July 1909 vol 8 c1449W 1449W

§ Mr. STARKEY asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Special Reserve in some parts of the country have had served out to them a new short rifle, and that in many cases the bayonets do not fit and cannot be fixed on the rifles; and whether he will cause bayonets that do fit to be issued?

§ Mr. HALDANE The new short rifles were issued without bayonets which are special to them; the issue of these bayonets has just been completed. I may point out that the bayonet belonging to the long rifle does not fit the short rifle.

[4thGordons]

There appears to be no mention that the bayonets were modified so I think all talk of extending slots/bushing etc or modifying the nosecaps is a distraction - as none of this is mentioned in the original source.

In my view, what we are looking for is an earlier pattern (ie pre1903) of rifle bayonet which can be forced onto the SMLE and will sit loosely in place "which fitted the rifles so insecurely that many of the men resorted to binding then on with bits of string and old rags"(This suggests to me they "drooped" as one would expect if the muzzle ring did not fit) , and which "shook off after rapid fire", (so yes the rifle was able to be fired it would seem). From Sawdoc's pictures the only concern I have is that the muzzle ring looks perilously close to obstructing the muzzle but in this respect "droop" as a result of poor latching would actually help!

Of the bayonets shown/discussed above therefore the p1887 seems the most likely candidate to me (the cadet cut down would be far less common IMHO) and would appear to meet the criteria.

The p1887 bayonet (OAL=602mm, Blade=465mm, MRD 18mm) was designed for the MkIV Martini-Henry Rifle.

There were four marks of this bayonet with relatively minor differences (the MkIII had an unfullered blade). Production (and conversion of earlier types) was between 1887 and @ 1900 and ran into the many tens of thousands (although the figures in Skennerton and Richardson are a bit difficult to work out....this was general issue and so there would have been a lot of them! 21,000 converted in 1887, @ 52,000 MkI produced, 8,600 MkIIproduced at Enfield, 42,000 at Wilkinson etc)

So for my money the best candidate in terms of meeting the description and the likelihood of large numbers being around in stock is the Pattern 1887 Sword Bayonet originally intended for the MkIV Martini-Henry Rifle.

I am not certain this will ever be resolved unless period photos of the unit can be unearthed.

Chris

PS It is not really relevant to your question but I am interested if you know what kind of weapons the cavalry gave up when they recieved the "new" rifles and mismatched bayonets - do you know?

[4thGordons]

I find it unlikely that bayonets of that age would be issued in 1914. I have found unrelated mention in Hansard in 1909 of this problem, so it wasn't as if they weren't aware.

Special Army Reserve (Short Rifle).HC Deb 29 July 1909 vol 8 c1449W 1449W

§ Mr. STARKEY asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Special Reserve in some parts of the country have had served out to them a new short rifle, and that in many cases the bayonets do not fit and cannot be fixed on the rifles; and whether he will cause bayonets that do fit to be issued?

§ Mr. HALDANE The new short rifles were issued without bayonets which are special to them; the issue of these bayonets has just been completed. I may point out that the bayonet belonging to the long rifle does not fit the short rifle.

This is referring to the incompatibility of the P1888 (MLM, MLE and CLLE) vs the P1903/7 (SMLE) I think.

P1888s WERE issued and used in large numbers in 1914/15 and in to 1916 by units that remained equipped with the MLE/CLLE (a large proportion of the TF troops who went to F&F for example)

The original extract seemed to imply that the bayonets could (however insecurely) be made to attach to the rifle (as they can "rattle loose") even this is not possible with the p1888.

Chris

Chris