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

Remembered Today:

1907 Bayonet markings help.


Impact93

Recommended Posts

Just off to work, but some interesting points raised here!

First for Trajan - could it be that those you've seen in Turkey were captured, so explaining the lack of holes?

For S>S - the Chapman has a 27 reissue, do the 2 Remingtons have no reissue marks at all? If so then it's further evidence of unit armourers doing this work outside of one of the inspections resulting in the reissue marks.

Oh well, better clear the brain of bayonets and get out of here!

Cheers,

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How common is it for a P1907 to have no re-issue stamps, or any post production stamps?

I have a 9/18 dated Wilkinson which I purchased in the 80's which has no additional stamps and appears to to be as it left the factory with the exception of one of the wood grips being replaced.

One other thing, is it 'Quillon' or 'Quillion' as I've seen both spellings used? Edit: never mind, I looked it up on the net and it's 'Quillon'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting observation, but no more than that without some figures,

Trajan

Trajan,

You are absolutely correct, and of course the minute sample shown in post # 23 does not even offer any proof as to when the clearance holes were actually drilled, some of those clearance holes could of course have been drilled post 1918.

LOC 17692 was not mandatory except for future production, and those existing Pattern 1907s as at January 1916 could have been drilled with a clearance hole as and when it was possible, and of course with WW1 raging, who knows when a soldier at the front would have had the time or inclination to take his bayonet to the regimental armourer to have a hole drilled in the pommel, and who knows if that hard pressed armourer would have had the time or the tools to carry out the modification, and that is why so many Pattern 1907 Sword Bayonets exist today without a clearance hole in their pommel. I think you mentioned you have some, Tony mentioned he has 5, and I have several.

The truth is, some Pattern 1907 Sword Bayonets were modified with the clearance hole being added, and some were never modified.

Regards,

LF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at my notes I see that I have 5 x 1915 or earlier regimentally marked 1907's that have no clearance holes, the regimental marks are not struck out, 4 have no reissue marks at all, and 1 has reissue marks with the latest at 1914. I have one 1912 dated one that went to Australia, this has no clearance hole and has a 1951 Orange Arsenal mark. That leaves 2 other early bayonets - that DO have clearance holes: a 1910 one with a 1922 reissue mark, and a 1915 one with reissue marks for 19 / 22 / 23 / 25 / 30 / 33.

What interests me is what happened to those first 5 I mentioned in order that they stayed so unaltered over all the years (actually 4 of them are 1915 dated, the 4 with no reissue marks).

Cheers,

Tony

Tony,

Sounds like you have an excellent bayonet collection, and your sample of 5 Pattern 1907 Sword Bayonets all still without a clearance hole shows the reality of life at the front during those critical years of 1916-18.

Your bayonet's markings also show that modifications were often made much later than the date the LOC was issued, with many clearance holes probably being drilled long after 1918, when soldiers and armourers both had the time to deal with such a modification.

Regards,

LF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How common is it for a P1907 to have no re-issue stamps, or any post production stamps?

I have a 9/18 dated Wilkinson which I purchased in the 80's which has no additional stamps and appears to to be as it left the factory with the exception of one of the wood grips being replaced.

One other thing, is it 'Quillon' or 'Quillion' as I've seen both spellings used? Edit: never mind, I looked it up on the net and it's 'Quillon'.

As your Pattern 1907 Sword Bayonet is dated September 1918 it was not subject to any of the WW1 List of Changes modifications such as the hooked quillon removal or the clearance hole drilling, so unless some other post 1918 modification was carried out or the bayonet was repaired or refurbished, there could be no other markings.

Attached is a photograph of a British Pattern 1913 bayonet made by Remington in my Collection, which also has no additional blade markings, and I also have others with no additional blade markings.

You also make an interesting observation on the spelling of Quillon/Quillion, I think I used Quillion, whereas I noticed in Skennerton & Richardson's reference book, they use the spelling ' Quillon ', so I need to change to Quillon.

Regards,

LF

post-63666-0-14053000-1411562888_thumb.j

post-63666-0-89828000-1411562909_thumb.j

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...One other thing, is it 'Quillon' or 'Quillion' as I've seen both spellings used? Edit: never mind, I looked it up on the net and it's 'Quillon'.

You also make an interesting observation on the spelling of Quillon/Quillion, I think I used Quillion, whereas I noticed in Skennerton & Richardson's reference book, they use the spelling ' Quillon ', so I need to change to Quillon.

I think the OED has both as being acceptable, but I have gone over to quillon as this does seem to be the more common usage in the international bayonet fraternity.

Now, who is going to take up the challenge to compile a series of photographs of what is on GWF and the web re: pre-1916 bayonets with/without clearance holes and give us some idea of relative numbers of these as posted? :wacko: Yes, sources will be required when publishing the analysis, and yes, sample-bias will apply - but only to some extent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ayup chaps... just picked up on this thread..... interesting!

I've not much time on my hands at present, so cannot really give an in-depth report (so-to-speak) upon the bayonet in question. However, one point that we will never find out, is the reason as to why this bayonet has no 'Clearance Hole' in the Pommel. Individual theories about the reason why can be bantered about till-the-cows-come-home. The real reason will never be known, due to the fact that British main-stream edged weapons cannot be individually traced through their service history.

This item could have been stored away in battalion reserve, or within an officer cadet unit, or force reserve, or some other far flung outpost of the empire. It may have been part of a captured stores dump, or picked up on the battlefield, or one of numerous reasons. The list is endless. The fact of the matter is:- Pattern 1907 Sword Bayonets... with quillion and later versions without a clearance hole exist, and turn up for sale in various places... both private and public... on a regular basis.

Rarety is a term used quite often... sometimes incorrectly. A certain item may be 'Rare' to one individual.... due to it hardly ever being seen in that individuals social circle, whilst the same item is of common-place to another individual.... due to the social circles that this individual moves in. I prefer the term:- Scarcity.... not soley within my own social circles however, but as an overall picture for the item concerned.

Seph.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The truth is, some Pattern 1907 Sword Bayonets were modified with the clearance hole being added, and some were never modified.

Regards,

LF

The fact of the matter is:- Pattern 1907 Sword Bayonets... with quillion and later versions without a clearance hole exist, and turn up for sale in various places... both private and public... on a regular basis.

Seph.

I guess these quotes do kind of sum it all up! Guess we're all a bit 'clearance holed' out by now!!!

Been an interesting thread though.

Moving to the regimental markings, I have 9 x 1907's so marked, and not one is struck out. Does this mean that, apart from captured, lost etc, they stayed one way or another with the original unit (see Seph's examples) or just ended their service days in some central store?

Cheers,

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi LF,

Re British service 1913's (i.e. not those taken over by the US), I've looked at a lot, and I think additional marks on the blades is quite unusual. I have one that does have a reissue mark - it's a Remington dated 12 15 (pretty early), and it has a reissue mark for '17, which i think is kind of interesting.

Cheers,

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi LF,

Re British service 1913's (i.e. not those taken over by the US), I've looked at a lot, and I think additional marks on the blades is quite unusual. I have one that does have a reissue mark - it's a Remington dated 12 15 (pretty early), and it has a reissue mark for '17, which i think is kind of interesting.

Cheers,

Tony

Tony,

I have several Remington made British Pattern 1913s and a Remington made Pattern 1907 ( photo attached ), none of which have any additional ricasso markings, and I am not aware of any LOC relating to the Pattern 1913 bayonet after 21.6.1916.

As to why your Pattern 1913 would have the additional 1917 mark is interesting ?

Regards,

LF

post-63666-0-81707700-1411586159_thumb.j

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remington made Pattern 1907's were produced from April 1915 to January 1916. Once in the 'WD' system, they were legitimate for refurbishment the same as any other '07', as were the P13's. A 1917 refurbish mark could mean that anything could have happened to the bayonet...requiring it to be refurbished in some way during 1917. I have seen similar stampings on '07's; e.g,; a blade made in 1910, with refurbish marks of 12, 14, 16, etc. It is not out of the ordinary, and quite in keeping with the normal run of refurbishments and planned armourers inspections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... Rarety is a term used quite often... sometimes incorrectly. A certain item may be 'Rare' to one individual.... due to it hardly ever being seen in that individuals social circle, whilst the same item is of common-place to another individual.... due to the social circles that this individual moves in. I prefer the term:- Scarcity.... not soley within my own social circles however, but as an overall picture for the item concerned.

Indeed, rarity is in the eye of the beholder - and his/her location!

I have seen numerous examples of the WW1 period short Greek Mannlicher and of the Greek modified Gras bayonet on sale in Turkey, and I have at least three examples of each, and yet I know of collectors in the US of A desperate to get one of either! Similarly, the German Ersatz jobs seem to be almost two-a-penny in Turkey, but I can only recall seeing one on sale in the UK, and that was on e-bay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

..., as were the P13's. A 1917 refurbish mark could mean that anything could have happened to the bayonet...requiring it to be refurbished in some way during 1917. I have seen similar stampings on '07's; e.g,; a blade made in 1910, with refurbish marks of 12, 14, 16, etc. It is not out of the ordinary, and quite in keeping with the normal run of refurbishments and planned armourers inspections.

Yes, agreed, but there is a bit of a pinch in the timeline here. Deliveries of P'14 rifles and their P'13 bayonets did not get underway until "mid" 1916, and we have yet to see any evidence of their general (or even really limited outside of late war sniper variants) issue in F&F. So a bayonet undergoing refurbishment/repair/inspection within a year is, while not impossible as you point out, probably quite unusual, particularly when the use would most likely have been in training units at home. There is talk of small numbers of P'14 rifles (and presumably bayonets) being evaluated in F&F in late 1916/early '17, but again little in the way of hard evidence of which I am aware. So at very least, it is a pretty early "reissue" mark for a P'13

While I have no dog in this fight - it has moved me to plan on digging out my P'13s and '07s if I get time at the weekend and photograph them for analysis here.

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it helps, I did check all my Pattern 1913s made by Remington and none had any additional date markings, I also checked my Pattern 1913 made by Winchester ( photo attached ), and again, it has no additional date markings other than its original September 1916 date.

LF

post-63666-0-32900600-1411653459_thumb.j

post-63666-0-53555400-1411653477_thumb.j

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK so here is one I had sitting on my desk, its in pretty rough shape and missing the latch/button but:

April 1909

I think Wilkinson

Hooked Quillon removed, No clearance hole, No "reissue" stamps.

post-14525-0-08189300-1411653949_thumb.j post-14525-0-78841000-1411653942_thumb.j

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing out of the ordinary about this '07' Chris. If the quillion had been removed by one of the official armourers teams, it would have been stamped in verification. Yours must have been done -in theatre- by the unit at the time. I can't think of any other logical explanation for the lack of verification stamp.

Seph.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, who is going to take up the challenge to compile a series of photographs of what is on GWF and the web re: pre-1916 bayonets with/without clearance holes and give us some idea of relative numbers of these as posted? :wacko: Yes, sources will be required when publishing the analysis, and yes, sample-bias will apply - but only to some extent.

Come on! No takers? Nobody with time on their hands? Or a bored child sitting around looking for something to do? Yes, I could do it myself, but not until I have some articles completed and submitted to the relevant journals...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now that's what I like about this forum.... DEDICATION! Thank you TRAGAN.... very kind of you to VOLUNTEER... Well Done! :thumbsup:

Seph.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony, let's not think on those HQ's or the Vickers lurking in LF's store room... :(

TRAGAN.... chear up. If I can work out how to post my pics on here, I'll show you the VICKERS '07's I have here = x7, and those I have in the USA. Chris has seen those, and my Remington '07's when I lived there... from my last time on the forum. Erm... look up my former scree-names: RSM + Bootnecks. :innocent:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now that's what I like about this forum.... DEDICATION! Thank you TRAGAN.... very kind of you to VOLUNTEER... Well Done! :thumbsup:

Hang about! Not just yet! :blink: Still trying to do my proper work!

I'll show you the VICKERS '07's I have here = x7, and those I have in the USA.

But, there again, a Vickers 1907 for Christmas would probably speed things up...! :whistle:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a pretty rough looking clearance hole! I think most (all?) of the RAF marked bayonets are between the wars.

Will photo my 1913 Remington with the '17 reissue mark - will be a week before I have access to it. The implication is that it was actually 'doing something'. From what I can see most 1913's just ended up in store, and 'did something' in WW2.

Cheers,

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK so here is one I had sitting on my desk, its in pretty rough shape and missing the latch/button but:

April 1909

I think Wilkinson

Hooked Quillon removed, No clearance hole, No "reissue" stamps.

No sign of a SOS (sold out of service) mark stamped on the pommel, or any faint markings remaining on the crossguard.? I am sure you would have checked ...

One possibility that should be considered is that the bayonet was in Colonial hands when the hook was removed, which would explain lack of inspection & date.

There is another Wilkinson 4-09 recorded as being issued to the 2nd Military District (Australian) but this is probably not related. (yes I did check my database.!)

Personally I think that Seph's explanation is probably as good as your going to get. Done in the field by the unit armourers, not in any RSAF or Ordnance Depot.

Cheers, S>S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And speaking from a personal observation perspective, I have been actively seeking out the wartime NCH (no clearance hole) examples for several years now.

S>S,

While we have been discussing the ' clearance hole ', it made me start looking at bayonet clearance holes in general, and I do not know if your checking for NCH examples related just to the Pattern 1907s, or it included other Patterns, however, on checking my Pattern 1913 Sword Bayonets, I noticed that some have a clearance hole and some do not.

In Skennerton & Richardson page 192, they refer to the List of Changes 17798's approval dated 21 June, 1916 and quote the differences in design between the 1913 Trials Sword Bayonet and the Pattern 1913 Mk.I Sword Bayonet as being, the Pattern 1913 Mk.I Sword Bayonet has no hooked quillon, has two vertical grooves across the grips, and the addition of a clearance hole in the pommel.

The 225,000 Winchester Pattern 1913s. and the 1,243,000 Remington Pattern 1913s, were all manufactured 1916/17 and date after the issuing of the LOC 17692 clearance hole modification for the Pattern 1907 Sword Bayonets.

Is it correct to assume that the design specification for the Pattern 1913s given to Remington and Winchester included a clearance hole ? and if so, why do some Pattern 1913s not have a clearance hole in their pommel ?

I just wondered if this was something you had looked at when checking for NCH examples ? or if you have any ideas why this is ?

Regards,

LF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...