BelgianM 1916 bayonet - the 'quadrilateral' version

[trajan]

Looking for some clarification on this bayonet, and so breaking away from a thread elsewhere - Belgian M1889 Mauser Carbine - where is has also been discussed in an OffT manner.

OK, there are two versions of the Belgian 'M.1916' bayonet, as shown (from JPSheenan via SS) on that particular thread and also below.

One is T-backed, based on the Gras blade, some in fact adapted from Gras examples (and note also that some M1889 rifles/carbines are adapted to take the regular Gras 1874 - with a shaved down hilt), others are newly made, both new and old types being for Guarde Civile use with the M.1916 carbine. The other, for military use, again (apparently) with the carbine M.1916, and in this case apparently Birmingham made up to 1918 or so, and which is described variously as a 'quadrilateral' blade'; or as a 'double-edged [blade] with broad flat medial rib, tapering to double-edged tip'; or (thanks to SS), "a double-edged sword bayonet in the traditional epee style".

I'm in the market for a more succinct / accurate description of this second version! Also some confirmation that the only ricasso stamps on this one are a 'B' for Birmingham...

But I also wondering, shouldn't these bayonets (both versions) be more correctly referred to as the Model 1889/1916? As I understand it, the Belgian Model 1916 was a basic carbine that replaced the three or more versions previously in service (including my favourite, the bicyclist's carbine!). But always happy to be corrected!

Trajan

[shippingsteel]

Firstly I don't understand what the problem is with discussing these in the other thread - its hardly "Off-Topic" to talk about the very accessory each rifle was issued with.

And its getting a bit pedantic to want a different description or a different name for reference, they are what they are and the Belgians have already officially named them.

Both types were adopted for use in 1916 ... so Modele 1916 it is. The top version is an Épée-Baïonnette (designed and named by the French) so a T section / Epee style.

This bayonet could be fitted to any of the M1889 or M1916 Mauser rifles with the 17.5mm MRD, being often issued to Gendarmerie who were para-military "fighting" troops.

The bottom bayonet is the more standard Infantry version Modele 1916. It's a double-eged version of the top bayonet made virtually in the same image, again in Epee style.

Again could be fitted to any of the Belgian Mauser rifles or carbines with bayonet lugs and the normal barrel diameter. The ricasso stampings on these are still 'unconfirmed'.

Bayonets get called by many different names (especially by collectors) but the Armee of origin is usually the place to go to find the official name an item was designated with.

I always reckon the French "Poilu" were the smart ones when it came to their bayonets. Instead of trying to call them some fancy official title, they just called them 'Rosalie'.!

Cheers, S>S

EDIT. This is an example of the Mle 1916 Belgian Mauser Short Rifle or Carbine that was made in Birmingham during the war.

EDIT. A closeup showing the attachment of the bayonet on the Mle 1916 Carbine.

[trajan]

Firstly I don't understand what the problem is with discussing these in the other thread - its hardly "Off-Topic" to talk about the very accessory each rifle was issued with.

Well, the basic reason for starting a new thread on this is that like - I suspect- many followers of 'Arms' and other forums on GWF I don't have lots of spare time to leisurely review or follow up on every subject that comes up there just in case it is relevant to my own interest. My interest is bayonets, and not specifically rifles, even though you are quite correct to say they go together. But so does a button or collar badge or belt buckle or watch-chain go with a tunic… So I look for the key word ‘bayonet’ in a thread's title - and if it says that, then I use my time to follow that up! Now, would you like to know how I found out that that GWF 1889 carbine thread had M1916 bayonets on it? – I was googling Belgian M1916 bayonets... Otherwise I probably never would have found it on GWF until August, holiday time… And thanks to the GWF Mods who have allowed it to stay up, I hope that others might also become aware of this bayonet – and the T-backed one as well.

A second point. I do come to this forum for help and advice, and to contribute when I can, and I would expect to be treated the same way as I treat my sometimes numbskull students: with courtesy and respect, not with a putdown. You state that: "...its getting a bit pedantic to want a different description or a different name for reference, they are what they are and the Belgians have already officially named them. Both types were adopted for use in 1916 ... so Modele 1916 it is...". Now, it is the nature of being an academic to be pedantic – I confess it. But instead of accusing me of being pedantic, when asking if M.1889/1916 might be a better term, would you please back up your statement - that M.1916 is the correct designation - with a published or verifiable reference? The specific point being that I never would have broached this subject without having read several Belgian French-language sources that refer to ‘carabines M1889/1916’ (sources probably exist in Vlaams as well but that is not the best of my other languages).

Here’s one:

‘ETAT BELGE BIRMINGHAM (UK) : Fabriquait principalement des fusils M1889 et carabines M1889/16 ou effectuait les réparations quand ils étaient endommagées. Lettre de série comme chez FN lettre d'imprimerie majuscule suivie du numéro de série. Pas de lettre d'unité.’

Here’s another:

‘Mauser Belge Mle 1889/16: Caractéristiques: Calibre: 7.65 mm... Généralités: Cette arme destinée à la gendarmerie à pied et à l'artillerie de forteresse est équipée d'un levier de culasse coudé. L'exemplaire … fut transformée au cours de la Première Guerre Mondiale par les ateliers de Birmingham....’

And if that’s not enough (I can give many more!), how about this, a decree, signed by King Bauduoin, 20 September 1991. ‘Arrêté royal relatif aux armes à feu d'intérêt historique… (modifié par l'A.R. du 29.12.2006 - M.B. du 09.01.2007)… DÉNOMINATION: Fusil d'infanterie, Carabines de cavalerie, de gendarmerie & d'enfants de troupe. MARQUE: M.A.E., Liège ; F.N., Herstal ; Anc. Ets Piper, Liège; A.F.A.P., Birmingham; Hopkins & Allen, Norwitch (sic) – USA. MODÈLE: 1889, 1889/16.’

SS, en avez-vous assez?

So, which do you want to go for? Your M.1916, because you have a source that says that “the Belgians have already officially named them” as such? Or the M1889/1916 designation which is given in the decree of 20 Sept., renewed in 2006 and 2007? I certainly would not like to argue against the decision of a monarch and his advisers - even if Belgium has always been a constitutional monarchy…!

Well, as you say:

“Bayonets do get called by many different names (especially by collectors) but the Armee of origin is usually the place to go to find the official name an item was designated with. I always reckon the French "Poilu" were the smart ones when it came to their bayonets. Instead of trying to call them some fancy official title, they just called them 'Rosalie'.!”

Indeed! I would agree! Far better to call it a Rosalie (with year) than the Épée-Baïonnette modèle 1886 à soie courte (the first version), the Épée-Baïonnette modèle 1886 à soie longue (second version), and so on until we get through six more variants until we get finally to the Épée-Baïonnette modèle 1835...

But if we are going to be precise, then if there are reliable sources – even a royal approved one – that refer to a ‘carabine M.1889/1916’, isn’t that the correct nomenclature for the Belgian weapon we are concerned with, and, ipso facto, its bayonet?

Best wishes,

Trajan

PS: and I would still like offers on a suitable description of this ‘quadrilateral’-sectioned bayonet – and one more manageable than the IWM version...

[shippingsteel]

You are making a very simple mistake for an academic - you asked the question about the bayonet ... but instead you answer referencing the rifle/carbine.?

And while the rifles and bayonets are of course very closely related, it should be remembered they are separate items and are often designated separately.

Here are a few examples to help explain my point.

British .. Rifle, SMLE Mk.I was introduced in 1903 ... original bayonet was Sword Bayonet Pattern 1903 ... later bayonet introduced in 1907 ... Pattern 1907

German ... Gewehr 98 - first introduced in 1898 ... original bayonet was the Seitengewehr 98 ... later bayonet introduced in 1914 ... the Seitengewehr 1914

Belgian Mauser M1889 - first introduced in 1889 ... original bayonet was the Modele 1889 ... later bayonet introduced in 1916 ... Epee Baionnette Mle 1916

In my opinion, there is more information on Belgian bayonets contained in that earlier thread than is to be found in any reference book (reread Koen's posts)

Cheers, S>S

[trajan]

... You are making a very simple mistake for an academic - you asked the question about the bayonet ... but instead you answer referencing the rifle/carbine.... ? And while the rifles and bayonets are of course very closely related, it should be remembered they are separate items and are often designated separately. ... Here are a few examples to help explain my point...British .. Rifle, SMLE Mk.I was introduced in 1903 ... original bayonet was Sword Bayonet Pattern 1903 ...

True, I gave you examples of Belgian official nomenclature to a M 1899/1916 carbine, from which I have inferred rightly or wrongly a bayonet model M.1899/1916. But apart from ignoring my side point - and correction - that the official designation of the carbine was M.1899/1916 - you have still not provided a proper reference to the bayonet being a M.1916 in official Belgian nomenclature. I don't have the time to search Belgian archives and publications, but if you or anyone else does, then please let's have the reference! Then I will be happy to concede that I am wrong!

Even so, let me give you an example to help explain my point. The firearm is the Prussian Gewehr 98, but the bayonet can be a Sg. 98, or a 98/02, or 98/05, according to the year of the bayonet's design/introduction into service (they all fitted the same rifle); that said, the firearm had the same bar mount as the pre-war S.American export bayonets, undelivered and on the workbench examples of which were then taken into service and so became known as the Sg. 14, but that is an exception that proves the rule.

All I am asking for is clarification with reliable/official sources that the cruciform/quadrilateral (or whatever!) bayonet in question was officially designated as a M. 1916. And with all due respect to you and Koen, that is what will tip the balance as far as I am concerned.

Best,

Trajan

[shippingsteel]

If you stopped for a moment to consider the actual situation in Belgium at the time these items were being first made, you might realise why the lack of reference material.

The country was under almost total occupation with no manufacturing facilities of its own. The normal factory record keeping was not possible and obviously not a priority.

I have put many hours of study and research into this very matter, and I can tell you the only constant thing is scarcity of information and the confusion amongst collectors.

Regarding the rifle/carbines, I indicated in the earlier thread that the original M1889s were converted and rebuilt into M1916 format, while others were new made M1916s.

I don't have a problem if you want to call them M1889/16 but there is a technical difference between the rifles which should be acknowldeged & thats how they were 'born'.

The way I see it, unaltered Belgian rifle/carbine is the M1889, modifed and/or rebuilt short rifle/carbines can be M1889/16, but newly made carbines were certainly M1916.

The new wartime bayonets were introduced to replace lost stocks of the M1889 sword bayonet and were also dubbed M1916 but this fact has been dogged by speculation.

The T section version (top above) was known as Epée-Baïonnette de la Carabine de Gendarmerie à pied et à cheval, Mle 1916 (ref. A.Carter & J.Walter 'The Bayonet')

The fact that Belgium also produced the double-edged version after the war (at the FN factory for export) has also been a source of confusion, but there are 2 distinct types.

The wartime version has the simple crossguard which is pinned to the tang while the latter post-war type has the reinforced attachment of the crossguard (known as M1924)

From my photo posted above it is evident that the long Epée-Baïonnette was in use by Belgian Infantry during the war, these are not Gendarmerie (perhaps it is the M1916)

The search for hard references will continue, but it appears that this is now the accepted position of most of the acknowledged experts in the field of Belgian arms collecting.

Cheers, S>S

[trajan]

The search for hard references will continue, but it appears that this is now the accepted position of most of the acknowledged experts in the field of Belgian arms collecting.

Cheers, S>S

Mais oui, M. Navigationacier, as I finally get confirmation from a Belgian source - http://www.abbl1940.be/ABBL1940files/Wapens/Bajonet/Bajonet%20algemeenNL.htm

Although, to add to the confusion, there are two Belgian M 1916 bayonets... One with a quadrilateral and one with flat-topped (Gras-type-blade)...

Still, not to worry...Thanks to my Belgian contact I was able to identify the quadriltateral-bladed one I have as almost certainly having belonged originally to the private collection of Charles Dangre, curator of the Brussels Royal Army Museum between 1925-31, and the first scholar to study those ersatz jobs!

Trajan

[calibre792x57.y]

Hey, S>S. I continued to search sites for information about the Belgian M.1889 bayonet and eventually came across a Dutch language site in which the author says that most of the information we have from Carter & Co about the nomenclature of this sword bayonet (Mle.1916) is wrong. The bayonet with the pinned crossguard is the Mle.1916. The reinforced attachment is not the M.1924 it is simply a wartime change in production assembly and was referred to as the Mle.1916/17 from the year it was introduced. The bayonet with the Gras type blade (many of which are in fact cut down French Mle 1874 blades). was also the Mle.1916 and was regarded simply as a production short cut which used up the many Gras bayonets which were in stock, not a change in pattern. An 'ersatz' pattern in effect. Many of the Mle.1916 actually used Gras scabbards and can be found with re-profiled points to accept the shortened scabbard. If you go to my original post on the M.1889 and go to the bottom you will find a Dutch collector's post with a link to the Dutch site which explains it more clearly. The author certainly seems to know what he is talking about. - see http://www.depatrouilleurs.be/Bewapening.html. Thanks to RMLI1914 for the original post. -- SW

[shippingsteel]

Hi SW, thanks for the follow up information which correlates with most of what I was saying above. Yes it is hard to explain to people that sometimes respected authors may be wrong.

They forget that 'early research' should be treated exactly as it is ... early research which is by it's nature incomplete. But the world moves on and more knowledge is slowly uncovered.

But again there is so little work on the Belgian bayonets (especially in the English language) I can certainly understand the confusion, but when asked for a reference what can you do.?

Cheers, S>S

[trajan]

I thought it might be interest to other bayonet collectors if I post up the 'star' mark between the rear grip rivet and the pommel on this 1916 'regular' bayonet of mine that indicates it was probably once in the collection of Charles Dangre, one time curator of the Brussels Royal Army Museum (1925-31), and the first scholar to study those ersatz jobs! My Belgian source indicated that bayonets with this mark were among the ones in a collection put together by another collector who got many of his from Dangre. So, no proof of Dangre's former ownership of this one, but more than likely.