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

Remembered Today:

Metrics of P.1907 bayonets


JMB1943

Recommended Posts

Having read the bayonet threads here for the last 18 months, it is obvious that the serious collectors (both through handling bayonets & reading about them) are almost always able to identify any given bayonet in their field of interest. This is usually even true of identification from a photo., where length may be difficult to judge without a linear scale. As Shipping Steel has said in his opening of the thread "Observations of Bayonets", he pays particular attention to all of the DETAILS in a photo. I assume that overall, the visual noting of details leads to a sub-conscious pattern recognition of the whole from the parts (blade, cross-piece, muzzle-ring diameter, grips etc). Further, a blind-folded collector (given some initial detail, such as country of origin) could at least differentiate between patterns/models by blade shape, apparent length/width, texture of grips etc. Another metric could be the apparent heft of a bayonet, i.e. the weight.

My interest is in the British P1907 bayonet, and all further discussion relates to that.

Many posts over the past 18 months have referred to less than perfect stampings on the blades due to the demands of faster production required by the war effort. This had me thinking about the QC of war-time materiel (artillery shells falling short/failing to explode etc) and the opportunity provided by the thousands of P '07's that still exist. There were multiple British manufacturers (E = Enfield; C = Chapman; M = Mole; S = Sanderson; V = Vickers; W = Wilkinson), and most of those manufactured over multiple years. The only QC for the P07 were the bend test, and production within the specifications of manufacture which included length (blade & overall) and weight.

I have two GW P '07's (S & W) and a WW2 (W), and a relative also brought a GW P '07 (W) for me to look at; none of these has a hooked quillion (HQ), and all do have a clearance hole. These were weighed (to the nearest gm on a modern, digital kitchen scale) and EACH was more than the standard 468 gm (= 16.5 oz; from "The Lee Enfield Rifle, by E.G.B. Reynolds, App. C, 'Rifles & Carbines in the British Service in1910). This excess weight is even more surprising when the 1910 P'07 is an HQ bayonet. [Calibn. of scale with US coins indicates 1-2 gm low @ 470 gm]

So here are the starter questions.....

1) Is it possible to compare the QC efforts of the various makers internally over time (skilled workers leave, different quality of steel etc.) and externally against each other, by weight of their bayonets ? Would it be worthwhile, i.e. would it contribute any useful info. to the GWF ?

2) Was there a range on the weight specification ?

3) Would any collector with an HQ P'07 by any random manufacturer care to post the weight (gm or oz) and also the weight of a non-HQ bayonet by the SAME manufacturer (without clearance hole, if possible) ?

Regards,

JMB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I get a chance I'll certainly be happy to add details of my small P.1907 collection to your data base.

The funny thing is, though, that - 'great minds think alike' and so on(!) - I have only just started on an analysis of my larger collection of 98/05 bayonets from a similar standpoint, and in particular, how far the Waffenfabrik Mauser ones (all made between mid-1916-mid 1918) match up to the original design specifications and requirements as officially issued in 1905...

Best,

Julian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The latest and completely untouched version is a 2/44 Orange Arsenal - 540g (19.05oz)This can be accounted for by the length of the pommel which is longer than the earlier bayonets.

Wilkinson 4/17 is 500g (17.6oz)

Wilkinson 3/18 is 500g (17.6oz)

I will check the others later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One other thing that might be useful would be to get a sense of how consistent metal quality was as well, from maker to maker and year to year, but that will involve access to a XRF device... I did this for a selection of Érsatz' and regular German bayonets with some interesting results... So, do you know any friendly university or commercial people you might con into helping you? A hand-held device is adequate - it won't pick up minor trace elements (e.g. carbon) but it will give you a good sense of what is there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The latest and completely untouched version is a 2/44 Orange Arsenal - 540g (19.05oz)This can be accounted for by the length of the pommel which is longer than the earlier bayonets.

Wilkinson 4/17 is 500g (17.6oz)

Wilkinson 3/18 is 500g (17.6oz)

I will check the others later.

AVS, thanks for your input. I have been in contact with the owner of an OA 11'42 (533 gm), which has a 3.6 x 2.85 mm pommel (same as my Wilkinson 9 '16). How does the size of the "longer" pommel compare ?

Regards,

JMB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The OA is 3.6cm, both of the Wilkinson's are a touch under 3.5cm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AVS---as you say, a touch under 3.5 mm, now that I revisit in a good light; thanks for the correction.

Regards,

JMB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course the battery for the scale went dead just after I started doing this, and so I only got 4 done for you to be going on with. No clearance holes on any...

HQR EFD 3/11 489 gr. pommel - 3 LEIN / 950

HQ EFD 1/11; ?/12; ?/14 500 gr. pommel - WEL / 262

HQ EFD ?/12 479 gr. crossguard - V 20845

NHQ WILKINSON 2/15 506 gr. pommel - 599

Yes, the difference between the the 3 EFD's is surprising... The last one of these (V 20845) is corroded, but even so, it cannot have been more than the first, at around the 489 mark.

All my others (6 or 7 or so, two HQ), are SANDERSON, and one at least is a late one - I think a '17. Funny how it goes: in Turkey, Sanderson P.1907's are two a penny compared with the rest! Anyway, I'll try to get those done over the weekend...

Julian

PS: I haven't posted the second of the HQ's yet, to the Welsh, and will do so soon. Another Turkish find and so another potential capture from somewhere in the Ottoman Empire...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Interesting! Yes, various explanations possible for the variations, but some of those variations are quite extreme.

BTW, I still owe you my SANDERSON readings - if you still want these then I'll try and get them done sometime this week...

That aside, the relatively large numbers of WILKINSON's you have recorded ties in with this maker being recorded (IIRC) as the most productive for P.1907's. This might point to the survival rates of the various makers tying in with their productivity rates, if you see what I mean!

Trajan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The results of a survey into the weights of P.1907 bayonets issued in the period pre- and during the Great War are given, for the domestic makers, in Table 1. Most of the data was provided by sellers on Ebay. Have had to put the tables into an attachment, otherwise they become scrambled.

Table 1(see attachment)

Foot Notes

  1. E = Enfield; C = Chapman; M= Mole; S = Sanderson; V = Vickers; W = Wilkinson and U = Unknown.
  2. No bayonets have a hooked quillion, except those designated as HQ.
  3. All bayonets have a clearance hole (CH), except those designated by an asterisk, and HQ or HQR.
  4. The weight of an Enfield 10 ’12 HQ bayonet was kindly provided by Dennis Ottobre, a researcher, collector and dealer (http://www.ebayonet.com/bayonetsg.htm).
  5. All weights were determined on scales whose calibration and accuracy is unknown.

RESULTS

C (2), M (1) and V (1) have too few data points to be able to draw any firm conclusions about their QC.

However, the overall results are quite surprising, given that

(a) the weight specification was 468 gm (see OP),

( B) there does not seem to have been an allowable range,

and

© this specification was for a bayonet produced with a hooked quillion (HQ) and that did not have a clearance hole drilled in the pommel.

(A) It would be expected, therefore, that any bayonet that had been so modified would come in under the specified weight.

Result: only one bayonet (E 10 ’12 HQ; 454 gm) was below the specification, and this was an unmodified piece.

It was expected that some manufacturers might have had better initial QC than others. It was also hoped that changes in QC, within any given maker and between makers, would be revealed especially as the war progressed and skilled workers left. However, there is too little data to answer those questions in any detail.

From Table 1,

Enfield (7) has a range of 454 – 500 gm; difference is 46 gm.

Sanderson (9) has a range of 482 – 510 gm; difference is 28 gm.

Wilkinson (19) has a range of 479 – 524 gm; difference is 45 gm.

Result: Sanderson has a more tightly grouped dataset, possibly due to a better controlled manufacturing process.

( C ) From the expected database, it was hoped that it might be possible to correlate an Unknown P. ’07 to a manufacturer, purely from its weight.

Result: However, too few examples of Chapman/Mole/Vickers were available to generate a range for them. Also, the very wide ranges noted above for Enfield/Sanderson/Wilkinson make such a correlation impossible. By inspection, the single Unknown (493 gm) could easily be an Enfield, Sanderson or Wilkinson bayonet; it is even close to the single Mole example.

Data was also recorded for some bayonets that were either manufactured outside of the U.K., or during WWII. This is shown in Table 2.

Table 2 (see attachment)

Foot Notes

BSA (Siam) = Birmingham Small Arms; bayonets that were re-worked leftovers from the Great War, and accompanied the SMLE rifles supplied to Siam by BSA under a 1920 contract.

L = Lithgow (1917, 1918, 1920); Australia

MA = Made in Australia (lower wt. 1916; higher wt. 1941)

OA = Orange Arsenal (lower wt. 1942; higher wt. 1944); Australia

WSC = Wilkinson Sword Company (WWII contract to Admiralty); U.K.

BSA (Siam): I don’t know who originally made the ‘smiling tiger’ bayonets that BSA supplied to Siam in 1920. Given that the three examples listed have weights of 499-505 gm which are in the middle of the range observed for Great War bayonets, no single manufacturer can be definitively assigned. However, from the numbers produced by each maker, we know that they are least likely to be Mole and Vickers and are most likely to be Sanderson or Wilkinson. Inspection of the data in Table 1 shows that the weights of the Siamese bayonets are consistent with both of these latter manufacturers, but are (possibly) not consistent with Chapman.

Lithgow: The numbers for these Great War bayonets are in agreement with those of the domestic makers.

MA & OA: The weights of three (all WWII) of the four examples in this category are noticeably higher than the values for the domestic Great War bayonets; have been told that this is due to a longer pommel. The lowest weight (497 gm) is of an MA bayonet made in 1916.

WSC: These weights are similar to those determined for the Wilkinson bayonets made in the Great War period.

CONCLUSIONS

Difficult to rank manufacturers by QC effort, due to (a) wide spread of weights from most manufacturers, and ( B) lack of enough data points for some makers.

Chapman, especially, is very under-represented and needs more data points; if anyone can supply such data, it would be gratefully received.

Possible causes for the differences observed between makers may be due to (1) the use of steels of different density, and (2) length and depth of fullers. The condition of the wooden grips is not relevant, because of the very low density of walnut compared to steel. Even the loss of 1/4 of a grip would account for only ~ 2 gm.

Best regards,

JMB

Cannot delete emoticons.

Bayo Wts for GWF.docx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can add 3 more Siamese bayonets and a couple of dozen P1907s with all manufacturers represented (except Mole) and dates ranging from 1909 (HQR) - 1943 (WSC) with some inter-war Lithgows too if there is interest. I also have several Ishapore made full length 1907s which I do not see listed.

I will have to find a suitable set of scales/a bit of time to record them.

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting work JMB. I have a correction in regard to the MA maker you have noted. MA is the later factory code for Lithgow and the 1916 date you show is impossible.

The 1916 production were stamped with Lithgow, the MA came later. Also OA is the code for the Orange Rifle Factory (not Orange Arsenal) which was set up in WW2.

Cheers, S>S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4th Gordons---I'll take as many as you can send, thanks.

Trajan----yes, please send any more that you can. By the way, because of time zones, your reply (09:01) pre-dating my post (09:11) looks a little odd....

S>S---thanks for the corrections.

Regards,

JMB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

S>S,

I have just been looking for the original eBay entries of these L/MA/OA bayonets---of course cannot find now.

But, I have found 4 or 5 of the following Australian pieces marked 'MA over 1907 over 1? over month year on one ricasso' (WWII) and 'arrow over bend test and OA' on the other ricasso.

Is this MA/OA duality common ? Does MA indicate 'Made in Australia' ?

Regards,

JMB

[edit: should have noted that MA and OA are in different fonts.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here you go - these are the ones I could get to easily.

Weighed on a digital kitchen scale all in the same location etc, each weighed twice to check.

1907 Metrics.pdf

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, I have found 4 or 5 of the following Australian pieces marked 'MA over 1907 over 1? over month year on one ricasso' (WWII) and 'arrow over bend test and OA' on the other ricasso.

Is this MA/OA duality common ? Does MA indicate 'Made in Australia' ?

So you will have different markings for "Pattern" & Maker Code and possibly Inspection Code. All Australian production was undertaken under the Lithgow 'umbrella'.

MA was the code for the main Lithgow factory, I don't believe it stood for Made in Australia. Orange (OA) was a smaller 'feeder' factory to the main facility at Lithgow.

The ones you mention were apparently made at Orange, but bear the Lithgow "Pattern marking" configuration of the MA over 1907 over 1 (This equates to P1907 MkI)

Cheers, S>S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

S>S,

Just when I thought that I had it down pat .........but that's OK ! Happy to learn (and maybe remember).

Regards,

JMB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4th Gordons recently provided weights of some P.'07's in his collection: BSA Siam (5), Chapman (1), Enfield (1), Lithgow (5), Remington (2), RFI (5), Sanderson (11), Vickers (1), Wilkinson (11) and WSC (2).

The Wilkinson's (478-512 gm) values are very similar to those already in Table 1, and confirm the spread of weights previously given.

The Sanderson's (480-532 gm) values are also very similar to those already in Table 1, but have two weights (528-532 gm) almost as outliers.

The lone Chapman (466 gm) is somewhat lower than the two values (482 gm; 485 gm) noted in Table 1.

The lone Enfield (476 gm; HQR with CH) lies within the range previously noted in Table 1.

The lone Vickers (488 gm) is consistent with values (480 gm; 488 gm) in Table 1 for two other examples.

Because these weights from these manufacturers essentially add nothing new, they have not been added to Table 1.

However, Table 2 has been significantly enhanced by inclusion of the new data, and is attached. The most intriguing data is that 7 of 8 values for the BSA Siam are tightly clustered in the range 498-505 gm, with the eighth at 512 gm; I doubt that this is due to a statistical fluke.

It's tempting to speculate that these bayonets were selected for the contract (of 10,000) on the basis of the similarity of their weights. Given that the two most likely makers (S; W) yield weights with wide ranges, it does raise some issues. For instance, there are references to the blades being re-worked by having the standard British markings erased, prior to marking for the Siamese government. So presumably, the Siam bayonets were not freshly made with better QC.

Regards,

JMB

Table 2 Bayo Weighjts.docx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

... Trajan----yes, please send any more that you can. By the way, because of time zones, your reply (09:01) pre-dating my post (09:11) looks a little odd....

FINALLY... Here are my SANDERSON's...

HQ 8/09 ('reissue' '11) 480 gr. pommel - 3 EX / 595

HQ 12/09 487 gr. pommel 'SOS' mark; crossguard - 1877

12/14 478 gr.

10/15 466 gr. NO GRIPS!

3/17 488 gr.

??/18 488 gr. pommel - RAF / 1.E. / 1016 - the ricassos have been part-scrubbed

So, in general all this fits in with what you already have for the SANDERSON's, a hint at better QC. The big surprise is the 10/15, at 466, which I checked four times... OK, so it has no grips, but as you know, these add hardly anything.

Trajan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trajan,

Thanks for the Sanderson weights; including those will give a more nearly equal sample set with the Wilkinson samples.

Nice try with the 10 '15 that comes in at 466 gm without grips !!! "OK, so it has no grips, but as you know, these add hardly anything."

Actually, a pair of grips alone is 17 gm while the two sets of nuts/bolts are 6 gm----not negligible. So your 10 '15 will be entered as 489 gm, which is consistent with your other examples. I must say that I'm still somewhat surprised to see yet more examples where an HQ weighs in at less than a non-HQ (or HQR).

Regards,

JMB

Edit: The closest yet to official spec (468 gm) is the Chapman 9 '17 at 466 gm, submitted by 4th Gordons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trajan,

Thanks for the Sanderson weights; including those will give a more nearly equal sample set with the Wilkinson samples.

Nice try with the 10 '15 that comes in at 466 gm without grips !!! "OK, so it has no grips, but as you know, these add hardly anything."

Actually, a pair of grips alone is 17 gm while the two sets of nuts/bolts are 6 gm----not negligible. So your 10 '15 will be entered as 489 gm, which is consistent with your other examples. I must say that I'm still somewhat surprised to see yet more examples where an HQ weighs in at less than a non-HQ (or HQR).

There I was, thinking to myself - "What about those grip screws?"... :blush: So, yes, grips and grip screws add a tad more than I expected!

Glad to help with the SANDERSON data set. They are the most common ones over here, followed by EFD's, and aside from the Wilkinson P.07 I have already submitted to you, I have only seen one other Wilkinson in Turkey, and that was one of those late 'Pall Mall' types and so I didn't buy it.

BTW, I still haven't started weighing my 98/05's yet, but as I still have the scales out I randomly chose two of my WAFFENFABRIK's 98/05 n.A's, both W/17, one is 593 gr., the other is 566gr.; and then I picked out at random another maker, a Coppel 98/05 a.A, W/15, high ears, no flashguard, and got 537 gr. From what little I know of these bayonets, I believe that the official specification for the original 98/05 a.A version was 515 gr.

Julian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trajan,

Your Sanderson weights (but not others in the table) do form a quite tight group, and I had speculated in an earlier post that the BSA/Siam examples (also very tight group, but a very small sample) might have been hand selected.

Do you see/handle your bayonets before purchase ? I ask because it makes me wonder if a conscious "looks good/feels right" component to your decision making does indeed lead sub-consciously to a group of bayonets that are very similar in physical characteristics.

Glad to help with the SANDERSON data set. They are the most common ones over here, followed by EFD's, and aside from the Wilkinson P.07 I have already submitted to you, I have only seen one other Wilkinson in Turkey, and that was one of those late 'Pall Mall' types and so I didn't buy it.

On the face of it, that is a rather unusual state of affairs. It almost implies that either (1) Germany sent captured bayonets that were entirely only Sanderson/EFD, or (2) they sent only Sanderson/EFD from all of the captures, or (3) the captures at Gallipoli were all Sanderson/EFD, or (4) none of the above.

Do you have any thoughts on this ?

Regards,

JMB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you see/handle your bayonets before purchase ? I ask because it makes me wonder if a conscious "looks good/feels right" component to your decision making does indeed lead sub-consciously to a group of bayonets that are very similar in physical characteristics.

...

On the face of it, that is a rather unusual state of affairs. It almost implies that either (1) Germany sent captured bayonets that were entirely only Sanderson/EFD, or (2) they sent only Sanderson/EFD from all of the captures, or (3) the captures at Gallipoli were all Sanderson/EFD, or (4) none of the above.

Do you have any thoughts on this ?

Good question... They are a mix, and one - the RAF example - actually come from the UK, now I think about it. But certainly the HQ's were bought from my dealer friend in Turkey, and likewise the one w/o grips (well, it did have P.13 / M.17 grips on when I bought it!), and so these three at least w/o handling. So, at a guess, roughly half and half.

I really have no idea why there are so many more SANDERSON's 'for sale' over here than WILKINSON's, which is what one might logically expect. And in all honesty, although I don't collect P.1907's per se, I really can't recall ever seeing any other WILKINSON's except the one I do have and the PALL MALL version I did not buy. It's odd. EFD's are certainly also around, as apart from mine, I know of one Turkish collector who only collects these(!).

Julian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trajan,

Your Turkish friend who only collects the EFD would have a slow time here in the USA. They, and the Chapman brand, are relatively scarce while the Sanderson/Wilkinson types are abundant. The numbers for S/W that I have from Ebay are 20/30, which is about in the ratio of their production (~1.6 mill. / ~2.4 mill.); there definitely seems to have been some selection going on in Turkey.

Regards,

JMB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record, outside of Sanderson's and EFD's and the odd Wilkinson, in five or so years of collecting I have seen exactly two Lithgow HQ, can't remember which year(s) but early ones, and exactly one Chapman, again a HQ - and all of them out of my price range, but as I don't focus on these P.1907's I am not too upset... :unsure:

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...