P1888 Bayonets in Great War

[shippingsteel]

I recently came across this extremely clean P1888 bayonet and scabbard which display some similarly crisp unit markings, which I believe would be circa Boer War and probably Imperial Yeomanry issue.

I understand that there were some P1888 bayonets still being used in WW1 on the "Long Lee" rifles and that some I.Y. units were also serving in reserve capacities so I guess this topic still qualifies.

My main question regards the unit markings and when the major changeovers occurred in the way items were marked. You can see from the illustrations that we have a strange looking 24/99 marked on the pommel and the scabbard displays the non-matching 21/347.

From my research to date I have discovered that the 8th Battalion, Imperial Yeomanry comprised the 24th (Westmorland and Cumberland) Company and the 99th (Irish) Company amongst others and that there was a possibility that they may have been attached into a composite unit. Or the other option would have the marking mean 24th Company, Trooper 99, 8th Batt. I.Y.

To complicate matters the 24th Foot (South Wales Borderers) also served in SA but it is unlikely that the bayonet would belong there due to lack of re-issues which seemed to occur often with the regular army regiments.

Likewise with the scabbard we have the 21 which could mean either the 21st Foot (Royal Scots Fusiliers), the famous 21st Lancers (some served in SA) or the 21st (Cheshire Company) I.Y. (unlikely as the company only numbered around the 100 men). The main issue with the Lancers is when they would have been issued the Lee Metford, as I understand that by that time they were mainly a cavalry rifle.

As you can see I have a few questions and not many answers so if anyone can help it would be appreciated. Also are we allowed to cross-post new threads.? Like into the Units forum.?

Cheers, S>S

[wainfleet]

I don't know what these numbers stand for, other than perhaps rifle rack numbers. I can tell you that whilst some IY companies in SA did merge, the 24th and 99th did not, and in any case it is extremely unlikely that those which did would have restamped their kit in the field, given the conditions in SA. Also, 99 is not a possible number for the 24th Company.

Regarding the 24th Foot, numbered regiments were abolished in 1881, and whatever some of them may have unofficially styled themselves, any official stampings would have used the new system, so that this is almost certainly not an SWB issue marking.

Likewise, whatever the 24 over the 99 is, it is clearly on the same principle as the 21 over the 347. Since there was no 24th cavalry regiment, I think we can rule out the 21st Lancers.

[4thGordons]

Likewise I cannot offer an explanation for these stampings beyond a rifle/rack number. They do not conform to any practice of British unit marking of which I am aware.

Just to comment on the "topicality"

Pattern '88 bayonets were used in large numbers during the first couple of years of the Great War on the Western Front and probably continued far longer elsewhere. We have had several excellent threads on this in the relatively recent past. These have usually been initiated on the basis of a question asking about the dates of exchanging Long Lees (MLEs) for SMLEs and, IIRC, there was at least one unit that held onto them until 1917. Many of the TF battalions that went to F&F in late 1914 and early 1915 were equipped with MLEs, and MLEs are also apparent in units in the Dardanelles and therefore they would all have used the Pattern 88 bayonet because the 1907 pattern does not fit! There are lots of photographs showing these rifles in front line use. Certainly the 4th Gordons carried MLEs/Pattern '88s into action at Bellenwaarde on Sept. 25th 1915. I think that most (always with a caveat of never say never) units on the Western Front had replaced their MLEs with SMLEs by early 1916. So Pattern '88 bayonets are certainly appropriate fodder for Great War discussion.

None of which helps with your question except to say that I see no compelling reason to suppose the marks are Boer war vintage rather than Great War. What about the markings on the blade - (dates of issue/reissue?) this might give a clue. Also a possiblity is non-british use (especially in India and Afghanistan - which for obvious reasons has become a source of bayonets and weapons in the past five years).

Chris

[shippingsteel]

I don't know what these numbers stand for, other than perhaps rifle rack numbers. I can tell you that whilst some IY companies in SA did merge, the 24th and 99th did not, and in any case it is extremely unlikely that those which did would have restamped their kit in the field, given the conditions in SA. Also, 99 is not a possible number for the 24th Company.

Regarding the 24th Foot, numbered regiments were abolished in 1881, and whatever some of them may have unofficially styled themselves, any official stampings would have used the new system, so that this is almost certainly not an SWB issue marking.

Likewise, whatever the 24 over the 99 is, it is clearly on the same principle as the 21 over the 347. Since there was no 24th cavalry regiment, I think we can rule out the 21st Lancers.

Thanks for your helpful comments, so after the reforms in 1881 all the Foot regiments such as the 24th would have begun marking their kit with the regiment letters such as SWB.

I agree that the number combinations most likely refer to a unit number/rifle number grouping. One question, why is the 99 not a possible rack number for the 24th Company IY.?

While both the bayonet and scabbard are clearly marked with the manufacture date of 1896 and the WD issue stamp, I don't believe they are an original match, probably the result of some "horse trading" done whilst in SA. You can never actually be that sure where the scabbard has come from, just that it fits the bayonet.

Cheers, S>S

[N White]

I have an 1888 with a 95 in the same location. No other markings exept the ricasso, and she's been around a bit...

[shippingsteel]

Likewise I cannot offer an explanation for these stampings beyond a rifle/rack number. They do not conform to any practice of British unit marking of which I am aware.

None of which helps with your question except to say that I see no compelling reason to suppose the marks are Boer war vintage rather than Great War. What about the markings on the blade - (dates of issue/reissue?) this might give a clue. Also a possiblity is non-british use (especially in India and Afghanistan - which for obvious reasons has become a source of bayonets and weapons in the past five years).

Chris

Thanks 4th Gordons, I agree that the P1888 has certainly seen some service, in my mind the strongest designed and most well manufactured bayonet ever made, the fact that they were used from colonial times I think right through to Home Guard use in WW2 bears testament to that. I have also seen many original 88 blades that were regripped to form the P1903 which fitted the early Enfields (by the way which models actually?)

Bayonet markings are definitely Wilkinson, dated 10 '96 with all the relevant inspection stamps, no re-issue dates (which points to IY usage not regular army), never sharpened. Apparently they had no need too in SAF, the Boer bushmen were too hard to even find, let alone engage in close combat.!! I think the 3 notches carved in the hilt may indicate the number of Boers actually seen, but that can't be proven.!!

Cheers, S>S

[shippingsteel]

I have an 1888 with a 95 in the same location. No other markings exept the ricasso, and she's been around a bit...

Yeah, I'm always amazed by the number of re-issue and inspection marks on those ricasso's. How many numbers can they fit in such a small space.!!

And exactly how are they supposed to make any sense, seems to go against the reason for putting them there in the first place.

[4thGordons]

P1903 which fitted the early Enfields (by the way which models actually?)

The P1903 Bayonet - some of which as you say used recyled P1888 blades - fits the SMLE series of rifles. Given the shorter rifle length it was deemed too short (I have seen "against cavalry" and "by comparison to the overall length of potential enemies bayonet/rifle combinations" quoted as reasons - the latter seems more reasonable to me by 1900s) and replaced quite rapidly in service by the 1907 pattern with its longer blade which, when attached, approximates the length of the longer rifle/shorter blade.

Chris

[wainfleet]

IY numbers were unique within the IY. Batches seem to have gone to different companies. (Very) broadly speaking, low service numbers tend to go with low company numbers. The casualty list gives details by battalion and there are no low (3-digit or less) numbers in the 8th Battalion. I'm also fairly sure that all the low numbers in the 2nd Bn relate to the 5th Company, but I can't be categoric about that.

Edit: I've just looked at your post again and I see you say rack number, not service number. I doubt the numbered IY company weapons were ever racked; they would have been issued straight to the soldier and kept by him throughout. I was under the impression - and it's just an impression - that rack numbers were for rifles that spent most of their time in store, ie. for reservists, volunteers, naval boarding parties etc.

[shippingsteel]

I don't know what these numbers stand for, other than perhaps rifle rack numbers. I can tell you that whilst some IY companies in SA did merge, the 24th and 99th did not, and in any case it is extremely unlikely that those which did would have restamped their kit in the field, given the conditions in SA. Also, 99 is not a possible number for the 24th Company.

Regarding the 24th Foot, numbered regiments were abolished in 1881, and whatever some of them may have unofficially styled themselves, any official stampings would have used the new system, so that this is almost certainly not an SWB issue marking.

Likewise, whatever the 24 over the 99 is, it is clearly on the same principle as the 21 over the 347. Since there was no 24th cavalry regiment, I think we can rule out the 21st Lancers.

So regarding the 24/99 marking on the bayonet, I think we can safely rule out service numbers and rifle/rack numbers, and the only company/regiment numbers possible at that time (1896-1900 era) would be from the IY companies - 24th (Westmorland and Cumberland) Company and the 99th (Irish) Company. That being so I think it is too much of a coincidence that they just happened to be both in the 8th Battalion, Imperial Yeomanry during the Boer War in 1900. I have been using this very good website as my source http://www.angloboerwar.com/forces/army_IY.htm

The interesting part is the description of the 99th Company, which is the only one incomplete suggesting that it was probably under full strength. Other references also say that the 8th Battalion only comprised the 3 companies and was stationed in Cape Town. This indicates that there may have been a possibilty they were attached. The manner of the stamps over and under the line also suggests "2 halves of the whole". If they were based in Cape Town there would have been ample opportunity for a proud young officer to have his "dress kit" marked in such a way.

Regarding the scabbard markings I think they must refer to issue to the 21st Lancers, as the cavalry regiments were the only ones still numbered at that time. The 347 is most probably the rifle/rack number and this would make sense, as the cavalry regiments numbered around the 500 men while the IY companies only comprised around the 120 men. The issue of the LE cavalry carbine (which this bayonet would fit) also occured around that time. I have also discovered that the 21st Lancers original issue LM carbine as used at Omdurman had no provision for a bayonet, so this scabbard may have been newly issued with the first LE carbines.

Wainfleet, you are obviously quite up wth it regarding the IY, how would this latest theory sit with your knowledge of how they operated.?

S>S

[4thGordons]

Question from ignorance:

The Imperial Yeomanry served in SA as cavalry did they not?

If so, I suppose they would have been armed with sword/lance and cavalry carbine as opposed to long rifle.

The carbines potentially in service during the Boer wars would be: Lee Metford Carbine MkI (1894), Magazine Lee Enfield Cavalry Carbine MkI(1896), and MLE Cavalry Carbine MkI*(1899) were not, unlike John's NZ Carbine and my RIC Carbine (other thread - what's this rifle), and contrary to your statement above ,IIRC fitted to take bayonets.

So the question is: would Yeomanry units have been issued bayonets at all?

Chris

Edit: I'll check but I am pretty certain the Magazine Lee Enfield Cavalry Carbine MkI was not equipped for mounting a bayonet - hence the official designation of the "NZ carbine" as "fitted for pattern 1888 bayonet"

[shippingsteel]

Good point 4th Gordons, by the way thanks for your helpful assistance and support through a number of recent threads, much appreciated by a new member.

I find it quite fascinating to try to join all the dots and fill in the missing pieces of a story about a marked item, bit like a jigsaw puzzle but with history involved.!!

Back to your question, I believe the IY served as mounted infantry and not as regular cavalry and quoting from the previously mentioned angloboerwar.com website,

"The mounted infantry was comprised of men equipped and trained as infantry, armed with the infantry rifle (not the cavalry carbine), and with the mobility offered by a horse".

I agree that we definitely need to establish the link between the weapons used at the time and their usage of the P1888 bayonet, including when bayonet attachments would have been fitted and under what circumstances. I am pretty confident that the IY troops would have been using the LE rifle, operating as mounted infantry in the Boer War and so would have been issued the bayonet.

Exactly when the 21st Lancers would have been issued the P1888 bayonet is my main question at the moment and I guess it depends on the rifle used and whether it had provision for the bayonet. You'd probably need to take a closer look at regiment records and also issued rifle specifications at the time. Anyway, I can definitely see what you're getting at.

S>S

EDIT: Can you tell me how the "NZ carbine" came about, is it a distinct spec or simply a conversion of the LEC. The NZ colonial troops were also present in the Boer War.

[wainfleet]

I'll keep this as brief as possble to minimise the "off topic" factor. There were three contingents of IY, but since 99 Co only existed in the 2nd contingent, that’s what I’ve been referring to here. 2nd contingent men were recruited at local offices, but basic training and equipping were centralised at Aldershot, after which men were sent to the depot in SA and posted to companies, some to those they enlisted for but many not. Arrangements both at home and in SA were chaotic, and it is highly unlikely that kit would have been stamped at Aldershot with a company number. If anything, it would be stamped with the man's unique 5-digit number. For what it’s worth I used to collect militaria of this period and never saw any IY kit stamped with a 2nd contingent number, though to be fair there was never a lot of it around. Personally I'm satisfied that these are not IY markings, which is as much as anyone can say. Nor do I think you have a 21 Lancers bayonet there, as I would expect them to be marked 21L.

I can however be categoric that the absence of “raised 1901” on the website you refer to does not mean 99 Co was incomplete. It just means the website owner forgot to add this. 99 Co was raised on the same basis as all the others. 8 Bn comprised 3 cos. in the 1st contingent, 6 in the 2nd. In both contingents, some bns. served together, some were split up. Also, yes, IY served as MI and not as cavalry.

I would caution against forming firm conclusions on the basis of very incomplete and speculative information.

Regards,

W.

[shippingsteel]

Thanks Wainfleet, that certainly answers a few questions that I had about the 99th Company, been coming up blank with them, but 2nd contingent would explain.

As I said there are plenty of questions that remain to be answered and basically all I've got is unsubstantiated theories, so thanks for your help.

But the kit is clearly marked 1896 and still pretty much intact, so it obviously meant a lot to someone once, for it to be put away and kept clean for so long.

Im sure it has a story to tell and I for one would definitely like to find out what that is - if only some of the old kit could talk.!!

Cheers, S>S

[4thGordons]

For comparative reference I have stuck some snaps of markings on a few of my p88s here in photobucket and my pride and joy one is HERE

As you can see - two of these have WWI (1915) reissue dates.

Regarding the NZ carbine:1500 were produced (in two batches, 1000 and 500) in@ 1901/02

Chris

[shippingsteel]

For comparative reference I have stuck some snaps of markings on a few of my p88s here in photobucket and my pride and joy one is HERE

As you can see - two of these have WWI (1915) reissue dates.

Regarding the NZ carbine:1500 were produced (in two batches, 1000 and 500) in@ 1901/02

Chris

Just comparing the regimental stamps on your bayonets it would suggest that my 24/99 marks were not done at the armoury level, as they appear too clean and well arranged.

Possibly done for a ceremonial or "show" purpose for OR by the owner of the bayonet and then obviously privately kept as a momento of time in service, no further re-issue marks.

Adding some more detail to my previous quotes -

"The mounted infantry was comprised of men equipped and trained as infantry, armed with the infantry rifle (not the cavalry carbine) and with the mobility offered by a horse."

"Two companies of mounted infantry were attached to each cavalry brigade." (Demonstrates the link between the MI and the Regular cavalry - I wonder who would have been placed in charge of such a detachment)

"Apr 1901. As the First Contingent Imperial Yeomanry returned from South Africa, the part-time Yeomanry Cavalry in the UK were reorganised as 'Imperial Yeomanry'.... They were equipped with carbines and bayonets, but swords were later permitted for certain ceremonial and escort functions. Some of the new regiments were raised from South African veterans."

From my research there were 43 servicemen from 21st Lancers that received the QSA, which they gained while being attached to various units. (The regiment did not actually make an appearance as such). My next step is to ascertain if any of those troops were involved with the IY companies and on what basis.

Cheers, S>S

[4thGordons]

S/S - all of what you say could be correct (I would be interested to know which carbine types were issued with bayonets) but I have to say it seems to me to be reading a huge amount into 4 stamped digits. I can think of several alternate and to me equally plausible scenarios. Neatness of the stamps for example, could have as much to do with the personality type and skill of the person doing it as the organisational level at which it was done.

Personally, I have resigned myself to the idea that many of the markings on bits and bobs I have picked up will probably never be definitively identified. For me that's part of the "charm" (although I must admit to discomfort at using that term in respect of weapons)

BTW - what did you make of the WA stamp?

Cheers,

Chris

[shippingsteel]

Each to their own opinions, of course if I already knew all the answers I wouldn't be asking so many damn questions, now would I.!!!

Your WA most probably refers to the West Australian Mounted Infantry, contingents of which also served in SA during the war.

I liked the manner in which you displayed your "pride and joy" - nice tartan, obviously highland regiment, is the 4th a battalion number.?

BTW, your "pride and joy" appears to be missing a Crown VR, may be just the photo, any thoughts ...

[4thGordons]

Each to their own opinions, of course if I already knew all the answers I wouldn't be asking so many damn questions, now would I.!!!

Your WA most probably refers to the West Australian Mounted Infantry, contingents of which also served in SA during the war.

I liked the manner in which you displayed your "pride and joy" - nice tartan, obviously highland regiment, is the 4th a battalion number.?

BTW, your "pride and joy" appears to be missing a Crown VR, may be just the photo, any thoughts ...

Ahhh well you would think wouldn't you - but, as it is a private purchase bayonet if you do a service number search using the number underneath - guess what the initials of one of the few that turn up are?

How about this one:

Yes 1/4th Battalion Gordon Highlanders (aka 4th Gordons - hence my interest) Territorial Force - who bought their own equipment pre war...or inherited it from the Volunteer Battalions (who also bought their own equipment) You will note that the WA is also missing the cypher. Neither commercial contract bayonets nor volunteer patterns carried the cypher as far as I am aware. I have plenty of photgraphic evidence that the 1/4th had P'88s until at least Oct of 1915.

Chris

[shippingsteel]

Ahhh well you would think wouldn't you - but, as it is a private purchase bayonet if you do a service number search using the number underneath - guess what the initials of one of the few that turn up are?

How about this one:

Yes 1/4th Battalion Gordon Highlanders (aka 4th Gordons - hence my interest) Territorial Force - who bought their own equipment pre war...or inherited it from the Volunteer Battalions (who also bought their own equipment) You will note that the WA is also missing the cypher. Neither commercial contract bayonets nor volunteer patterns carried the cypher as far as I am aware. I have plenty of photgraphic evidence that the 1/4th had P'88s until at least Oct of 1915.

Chris

Yeah that's all good, just shows you need to use ALL the clues, hence my reference to your missing cypher on "pride and joy".!!

It's my understanding that the ones stamped with WD and the Crown VR were issued to the regular army forces, and the "cleanskins" (no cypher) were private purchase items.

That is probably the most important clue when it comes to interpretation of the pommel/hilt stampings, as it provides your basic field of reference.

No cypher, no issue stamp = Volunteer, Militia, Territorial or Commercial = They own the bayonet, no re-issue marks, and other markings would be personal in nature.

With cypher, WD issue stamp = Regular Army Troops = They have been issued the item already stamped with reg. or rack numbers, they must return it for next re-issue.

So unlikely to come across army issue items with markings that would be personal to the individual as they don't own the actual item. Hence all the re-issue markings seen.

Which is why I am so hung up on this particular bayonet of mine, as its date, markings, condition and appearance with same dated and marked scabbard, appear "Special".

The blade on this is virtually mint with scabbard markings only, and it is Regular Army issue but has been privately kept, not re-issued, suggesting officer "dress" usage.

For a Regular Army bayonet the markings don't seem to correlate, however the numbers could refer to the IY companies, which were basically militia. Hence my dilemna.

Cheers, S>S

[4thGordons]

Good morning!

A couple of observations: It was not usually the individual soldiers (apart from officers) who bought the equipment but Territorial (or previously) Volunteer Associations (ie the Unit) - and whilst they generally conformed to the regular army patterns and standards (far more so after the creation of the TF) there was some variation. There was a proliferation of such units in late Victorian Britain and consequently a minefield of markings and practices. These were considerably rationalized with the army reforms following the Boer War and the creation of the Territorial Force in place of the Volunteer Battalions. Also once WWI began and TF battalions began serving alongside regular army battalions all such distinctions disappeared (or virtually) so my Gordons bayonet has both a reissue mark ('15) and an official style unit mark (not personal). One also finds commercial/volunteer patterns which carry "Sold out of Service" markings - indicating that at some point they became part of the official inventory from whence they were sold.

Additionally, while your statement "unlikely to come across army issue items with markings that would be personal to the individual" is fine as a general statement it is not universally so - I have several durable items (buff leather belts, web belts and even a kilt) which have several [personal] service numbers inked into them - clear examples of issue items with individual markings. Unofficial personalisation of "bringback items" is also common but admittedly not usually neatly stamped!

What I am trying to say is I think it is always very difficult to say why odd items survive in better condition than most examples and I am really not sure how much you can infer from the fact that your bayonet is in above average condition. It could be as you say that "it is Regular Army issue but has been privately kept, not re-issued, suggesting officer "dress" usage" or it could be that it was issued to an official but second line unit that never saw action (perhaps a public school or university OTC) or even something as prosaic as it was dropped behind a rack in an armoury sometime early in its life and didn't surface until the base was closed down almost a century later. I know I might be stretching it a little here but I have seen (in school OTC racks etc) mint examples of very old equipment (I believe you participated in a recent thread discussing a 1907 hooked quillon bayonet where the mint condition was to some an indication that all might not be right?). I have a small selection of bayonets - most of them in "well used" shape (ie pretty battered!). Examples surviving in mint condition are usually beyond my limited means and I console myself with the idea that I collect my battered ones because they reek of long and interesting service lives whereas the mint examples probably sat forgotten in a store room for decades or were issued to a colour guard etc. The point is there are all sorts of explanations as to how individual items remained in excellent condition and I am uncertain as to how much one should, absent any other provenance, base on that in terms of inferring a particular history to the item.

Chris

[shippingsteel]

Great background information regarding the Volunteer units, appreciate you sharing some of that knowledge gained through experience. It appears the apparent "disarray" amongst the various formations has not made the job of identifying items from that period any easier. Many of the ways of marking appear to be specific to the organisations involved. And then there is always the exception, as you say.

I agree totally with your comments regarding condition and my own items are always sought based on markings, and not on condition or rarity value. It is always the history behind the item that gets me interested. And as you follow the clues of the markings the story usually just gets bigger and better. I love doing the research, beats reading paperbacks any day of the week.!!

If the item isn't marked or show signs of actual usage it doesn't interest me at all. Monetary value is also never a consideration.

I think when your looking at markings you have to start with a theory, however improbable, and then as scientists do, either prove or disprove elements of that idea until you end up with a most probable conclusion. And always keep an open mind and be willing to change your ideas and admit you might have been wrong. The research is the way to finding the answer, and it is just amazing what a little research will uncover.

As an example, with the marked scabbard, it's marked WD issue made 1896 and with the 21 over 347. I speculated 21st Lancers as a possibilty, Wainfleet discounted that idea based on the lack of an L marking, last night my research uncovered this -

"Formally moved into the British Army in 1862, when they were designated as hussars and titled the 21st Regiment of Hussars. In April 1897 they were redesignated as lancers, becoming the 21st Lancers, and in 1898 served in the Mahdist War in the Sudan."

So the reasonable explanation for the lack of an L would be that the regiment was in transition at the time of issue and to avoid confusion they decided to drop the letter suffix altogether.

Cheers, S>S

[4thGordons]

As you say,

..... the story usually just gets bigger and better. I love doing the research, beats reading paperbacks any day of the week.!!

Until I read the above I must admit had not really considered research as a substitute for popular fiction - but I do now see your point.

I think with the introduction of the Mahdist Wars in Sudan and a late 19th Century crisis of identity within the 21st Lancers/Hussars as "the reasonable explanation" we have probably strayed far enough off the WWI topic to risk the wrath of the moderators. Not sure I can add anything useful given that we are essentially down to trying to establish why 21 was stamped (or perhaps L was not stamped) on a scabbard that was made in the tens of thousands and used in conflicts over multiple decades and spread over several continents.

I am awaiting the arrival of a Snider-Enfield this week - I bet the markings on that will be fun!

Cheers,

Chris

[shippingsteel]

I am awaiting the arrival of a Snider-Enfield this week - I bet the markings on that will be fun!

Cheers,

Chris

Thought I'd give you an update on how the "ongoing saga" is unfolding - just when you thought it was over ....!!

Still uncovering some little gems of information, also found a picture and some details that might interest you re the above.

Just been looking over THIS SITE which offers something for you and something for me.!!

Your most probably already familiar but I direct you to Weapon No.4 (does yours happen to look like that.?)

The two below that are what interests me and especially in reference to the date which is circa issue date of my bayonet and scabbard.

Firstly Weapon No.7 of passing interest being an Artillery Carbine with bayonet attachment in 1897.

Then we have Weapon No.8, the original MLE with bayonet attachment in 1897, hardly surprising until you read the bottom line.

"Marked - Issue mark '12 L.D.' (probably for the 12th Light Dragoons). Rack Number 787."

So the kicker here is this, in 1897 the MLE was being issued to cavalry regiments, and not just any cavalry units.

You see the 12th Light Dragoons at that time was actually the 12th Lancers, hence my sudden interest. (No other units were numbered at the time)

You would expect if the 12th was getting them so would the 21st (with the bayonets), so another piece of "evidence" seems to have fallen into place.!!

I realise that you are a "known sceptic" of my theories, but hey, sometimes you just have to show a little faith and "believe" .... (how hard can that be .!!!)

Cheers, S>S

[4thGordons]

"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate"