Bayonet

[staffsreg]

I am the proud owner of an SMLE (Deac) and the bayonet to suit, but looking at some threads

where pictures of the bayonets have been shown, they seem mainly to be 'Shiny' steel,

whereas my own is a well greased matt black steel, is this the norm or the exception?

I realise of course that they needed to darken the steel to stop reflections etc. and for night

fighting, where the shiny version may have been seen... Please help

[Matthew]

My 1907 bayonet is fairly new i.e. has seen little use. It clearly has never been sharpened and and has only a few dents and scratches to show for its age (in was made in the 1920's). The blade has a dull grey finish so I suspect that it spent much of its life in stores.

Any bayonet that had seen a lot of use, even as a drill item, would have seen a lot of polishing and would have had to be kept sharp, acccordingly it would take on a polished appearance.

I suspect that even in the trenches the bayonets would have been polished as there was a strong belief in the phsycological effect of bayonets flashing in the sun (it would certainly have had an effect on me!).

[TonyE]

Bayonets in peace time establishment prior to the war were not normally sharpened (neither were swords or lances).

List of Changes Para. 15001 dated 16/03/1910 instructed that bayonets were to be sharpened when going on active service and Para 17124 in Dec 1914 gave instructions for a "war finish" for bayonets.

Post war Para. 25786 stated that blades in peace time establishment units were to be polished to a bright finish. Also Para A278 (no date), as part of the post war record keeping clean-up, said re: Para 17124, the War Finish was for blades to be "dull sand blasted".

Thus both sharpened and blunt, bright and dull are all correct at different periods. Technically, if a bayonet remained in the UK throughout the war it could still have the peace time bright blunt blade.

Regards

TonyE

[museumtom]

If you post the markings on the bayonets I will tell you what they mean. Dont forget there may be markings on the pommel also (opposite the release button)

[gunbarrel]

I know that this is a WWI forum, but I would like to show you this photo, which I think you are going to like. It shows the "old" and the "new" style bayonets, side by side.

[Heatseeker]

I am the proud owner of an SMLE (Deac) and the bayonet to suit, but looking at some threads

where pictures of the bayonets have been shown, they seem mainly to be 'Shiny' steel,

whereas my own is a well greased matt black steel, is this the norm or the exception?

I realise of course that they needed to darken the steel to stop reflections etc. and for night

fighting, where the shiny version may have been seen... Please help

It all depends on the era of the war your rifle is from ... at the beginning of the war the British Pattern 07 bayonets did not have a quillon (obsolete as from September 1913), no "clearance hole" in the pommel, were blued up to the ricasso (base of the blade) and had polished steel blades.

That said, the Australian and Indian bayonets did not lose their quillons until 1915.

By June 1916 clearance holes (which allowed any debris to all out of the attachment slot in the pommel) became part of the 1907 Bayonet design, and the blades were sandblasted to cut on reflection. All earlier bayonets that went in for repair or refurbishment subsequently had these features added.

And then after the war the blades were ordered to be polished again!

As a result, intact original British bayonets from the time the hooked quillon was deleted in 1913 until the time clearance holes were added in 1916 are exceedingly rare as those that survived the disastrous early battles and campaigns were almost all sent in for repair when a hole was drilled in them.

I have no firm figures, but I see more bayonets with hooked quillons (which were manufactured from 1908-1913) than what I see 1914-1916 examples without the clearance hole.

That said, when they do show up they generally sell for the price of a "garden variety" Pattern '07, and I was lucky enough to win a fine March 1914 Enfield from eBay which only cost 30 Pommie quid landed in Australia (picture attached).

Regards manufacturers, well just about any bayonet would have been issued with any rifle ... a quest for a bayonet for my rifle was made all the tougher because it was an intact 1913 BSA No1 MkIII SMLE that had been captured at Gallipoli sometime in 1915, which meant I needed to find an intact bayonet from that short era.

But for a World War 1 era rifle, any Pattern 07 bayonet made by any manufacturer (the Indians made Pattern 07 bayonets for the Brit Army) from 1914-1918, with or without a clearance hole in the pommel, with polished or sandblasted blade and with a scabbard with either "tear drop" or later round stud would be about as "correct" as anything.

[Smokey in Oz]

Some eye candy....

The first is a p1913 Remington bayonet (polished originally but now has patina) dated 1916 to suit p14 Enfield.

Second is a p1907 Lithgow bayonet (blackened) dated 1943 to suit SMLE (note the clearance hole Heatseeker mentions).

Third is a p1907 Sanderson bayonet (polished) with hooked quillion dated 1909 to suit SMLE.

Smokey.

[staffsreg]

many thanks for your responses Gents, most appreciated!

I think mine maybe an unused item as the blade is a very dully,'gritty'

finish and have not seen a polisher!

Could I polish to the 'shine' or should I leave well alone?

[Matthew]

Leave well alone would be my call. I think it falls to us, as collectors, not to make any changes to the objects that we have the care of. If we do later generations, when they come to own them, will get a false impression of their history. My SMLE is a shooter and I added a long butt to match my long body (!). I made suire I kept the original butt and also added a slip of paper under the butt plate to explain what I had done and when.

M

p.s. If you are fond of your SMLE the next step is to get a shooter. First stop contact your local shooting club or the Lee Enfield Rifle Association.

[staffsreg]

Leave well alone would be my call. I think it falls to us, as collectors, not to make any changes to the objects that we have the care of. If we do later generations, when they come to own them, will get a false impression of their history. My SMLE is a shooter and I added a long butt to match my long body (!). I made suire I kept the original butt and also added a slip of paper under the butt plate to explain what I had done and when.

M

p.s. If you are fond of your SMLE the next step is to get a shooter. First stop contact your local shooting club or the Lee Enfield Rifle Association.

Matthew, am I fond of it.?....after my wife,children and my family..it's my most prized possession!!! LOL

[Smokey in Oz]

Ivan, when it comes to cleaning old edged weapons, old anything really, less is more.

Remove active rust but leave the patina stains in the metal. Dont polish it as we understand polish nowdays. It's not new.....dont make it new. Get what I mean....?

Start with oil or CRC & a rag, see what that removes, let it soak if it needs it, dont rush.

At worst, find the finest wet & dry paper (1200) or fine grade steel wool to clean it with, lubricated with machine oil or CRC. Dont bring it back shiney, particularly the sharp edges. Remember.....less is more.

Smokey.

[staffsreg]

Ivan, when it comes to cleaning old edged weapons, old anything really, less is more.

Remove active rust but leave the patina stains in the metal. Dont polish it as we understand polish nowdays. It's not new.....dont make it new. Get what I mean....?

Start with oil or CRC & a rag, see what that removes, let it soak if it needs it, dont rush.

At worst, find the finest wet & dry paper (1200) or fine grade steel wool to clean it with, lubricated with machine oil or CRC. Dont bring it back shiney, particularly the sharp edges. Remember.....less is more.

Smokey.

Cheers,Smokey- I will leave well alone- it survived a while without me messing around, I'm sure

i'd cause more harm than good..... What's the best oiling method for the actual rifle, wood and

metal parts?

Iv.

[welshdoc]

I know lttle about bayonets so this is all very interesting. I have 3 for my 1915 SMLE . The first is 1917and has a W in a circle, on the other side is US and a marking like a "fusiller". Its in a scabbard/frog stamped Jewell 1917. My second appears from the information here to be a bog standard 1907 pattern Sanderson. The last is a 1913 Vickers. All have the clearance hole which I had no idea about. I must find out more about them. gareth

[Simon R]

As I remember linseed oil was used for SMLEs. Think there's a thread on this on the forum, a search may help. Or someone else will just tell you.

p.s. where is gunbarrels photo of WWI - WWII bayonets from?

[Smokey in Oz]

Welshdoc,

I suspect your W marked bayonet is made by Winchester in the US and is a pattern 1913(to suit the Enfield p14 Rifle) or a M'1917 to suit the US .30cal. They all fit the p'07 scabbard but the p'13 and M'17 dont fit onto the SMLE due to different muzzle ring dimensions. You should be able to tell if it's a p'13 or M'17, they have different grips to the p'07. The first one in my photo is a p'13, note the two grooves in the timber grips.

Winchester (and Remington) won the contract to supply British forces bayonets after Vickers failed to fill their share of the contract in 1915.

The Jewell marked scabbard is also made in the US by the Jewell Belting Co in Hartford, Connecticut., it's possibly the original supplied with the bayo. Do the bayo & scabbard have matching rack or issue stamps?

The Sanderson is the most appropriate for the SMLE.

Smokey.

[laughton]

From Canada I present my Grandfather's bayonet.

Originally CEF, switched to BEF (3rd Army, 134th Bn, 26th Northumberland Fusiliers:

This and other details are on his site here:

GVL's Memorabilia

[welshdoc]

Welshdoc,

I suspect your W marked bayonet is made by Winchester in the US and is a pattern 1913(to suit the Enfield p14 Rifle) or a M'1917 to suit the US .30cal. They all fit the p'07 scabbard but the p'13 and M'17 dont fit onto the SMLE due to different muzzle ring dimensions. You should be able to tell if it's a p'13 or M'17, they have different grips to the p'07. The first one in my photo is a p'13, note the two grooves in the timber grips.

Winchester (and Remington) won the contract to supply British forces bayonets after Vickers failed to fill their share of the contract in 1915.

The Jewell marked scabbard is also made in the US by the Jewell Belting Co in Hartford, Connecticut., it's possibly the original supplied with the bayo. Do the bayo & scabbard have matching rack or issue stamps?

The Sanderson is the most appropriate for the SMLE.

Smokey.

Hi Smokey thanks for the info, to answer your points:

The Winchester baynet and scabbard are both marked 1917 so are probably originals. There are no other markings on the scabbard, Im not sure what I called a frog is a frog though. Its leather is attached to the scabbard by a double bolt and has a brass fitting which would fit on a belt. It has the 2 grooves in the handle just like the vickers, so is a p13 and your right it does not fit my SMLE, I never checked if it did, I picked it up in a boot sale a few months ago. I never realised there were so many variations and makers. Cheers from sunny South Wales, Gareth

PS just went upstairs to check the Vickers its not for the SMLE either! thats what happens when you know nothing about a subject, although in my defence it was another bootsale bargain so no harm done. Gareth

[museumtom]

The two grooves in the wooden part of the handle was there to show that the bayonet would not fit on an smle. The 1907 pattern bayonet has no such grooves. The other difference is that the bayonet with the grooves has a higher muzzel ring, too high to slip on to an smle.

Tom.

[Smokey in Oz]

PS just went upstairs to check the Vickers its not for the SMLE either! thats what happens when you know nothing about a subject, although in my defence it was another bootsale bargain so no harm done. Gareth

Not to worry Gareth......hopefully you've learned a bit more between Tom & myself. I was in the same boat a few years back but other helpfuls on the net fed me some info, that inspired me to get a few reference books. Now I can sponge off someone elses knowledge.

Did you check the Sanderson for fit on the SMLE?

Cheers, Smokey.

[welshdoc]

Not to worry Gareth......hopefully you've learned a bit more between Tom & myself. I was in the same boat a few years back but other helpfuls on the net fed me some info, that inspired me to get a few reference books. Now I can sponge off someone elses knowledge.

Did you check the Sanderson for fit on the SMLE?

Cheers, Smokey.

Hi Smokey, yes the Sanderson fits on the SMLE, it was bought with the SMLE from a dealer, the gun was only deactivated a couple of years ago it was still being used for targets until then by the dealer. I just wonder how on earth they managed to carry the things let alone shoot or charge. GAreth

[Devils Own]

I've got a couple of 1915 1907s and they don't have clearance holes. I'd never really thought about it before. What was a clearance hole needed for?

Steve

[Smokey in Oz]

Steve,

The clearance hole was used on the previous model bayonet, the pattern 1887.

I believe the clearance hole was re-introduced in 1916 to the pattern 1907 after it was noted on the battlefield that dirt and mud got stuck in the slot of the bayonet and was difficult to remove when bayonets needed to be fixed to the rifle. The clearance hole made it easier to clear the slot from debris.

Smokey.

[Heatseeker]

I've got a couple of 1915 1907s and they don't have clearance holes. I'd never really thought about it before. What was a clearance hole needed for?

Steve

See my post earlier ... the clearance hole essentially allowed any debris in the pommel groove to fall out when the bayonet was fitted.

Hold on to those 1915 bayonets without the clearance hole - the Pattern 1907 was only in this configuration for less than two years, and hence there were less made than the hooked quillon and many were upgraded during repair.

In two years of searching I have only enountered one intact bayonet without the clearance hole (see my earlier post for a picture) and as a big bonus in is March 1914 made, which means it is among the earlier batch.

Many novice collectors regard the original manufacture stamp as gospel ... many a time I have been offered a "1915 Lithgow", which, upon closer inspection, was re-built in 1955 and the original features such as long range volley sights, windage-adjustable rear sights and magazine cutoff are long gone.

So it is with bayonets ... I have encountered plenty of Pattern 1907s made in 1911 wihout a quillon and with a clearance hole in the pommel, which in my book effectively makes them a post-1916 example.

[Smokey in Oz]

So, Heatseeker,

What are your thoughts on my p1907.......

It's a 12/1909 dated Sanderson with hooked quillion and no clearance hole with matching rack numbered tear drop scabbard.

It has a blokes' name and date neatly drawn or burnt onto the scabbard leather.

'DAVID FORD Nov 10th 1916' this date puts him en-route to France on the HMAT Nestor A71.

This fellow enlisted with the AIF 22nd battalion, 16th reinforcement on September 16th 1916.

Strange he would be issued with a hooked quillion in 1916, unless maybe it wasn't really his or he had it from prior home guard/reserve duties.

Your thoughts appreciated. I've drawn a blank.

Smokey.

[Heatseeker]

So, Heatseeker,

What are your thoughts on my p1907.......

It's a 12/1909 dated Sanderson with hooked quillion and no clearance hole with matching rack numbered tear drop scabbard.

It has a blokes' name and date neatly drawn or burnt onto the scabbard leather.

'DAVID FORD Nov 10th 1916' this date puts him en-route to France on the HMAT Nestor A71.

This fellow enlisted with the AIF 22nd battalion, 16th reinforcement on September 16th 1916.

Strange he would be issued with a hooked quillion in 1916, unless maybe it wasn't really his or he had it from prior home guard/reserve duties.

Your thoughts appreciated. I've drawn a blank.

Smokey.

Not strange at all Smokey ... Australia made the hooked quillon bayonet up until 1915, and at the time the bayonet was issued to that Digger they would have been co-existing with later bayonets and hooked quillon bayonets remained in their original form until they went in for refurbishment.

I would suggest that bayonet's still in its original form because it was taken "out of the system".

Perhaps the Diggers issued with the curved quillon bayonets were ordered to hand in their bayonets and this fellow thought better of it.

I have little doubt curved quillon bayonets served until the end of the war and beyond ... to a quartermaster they would have just been a "Bayonet, Pattern 1907", just as a rifle would have just been a rifle, regardless of whether it was fitted with mag cutoff and long range volley sights..