P1907 Bayonet Finishes

[reese williams]

SS,

It is really hard, if not impossible, for me to distinguish between sandblast and parkerize in a photo, especially of a blade that might possibly have had both methods applied plus 80+years of oil, cosmoline, elbow grease and who knows what else.

Sandblasting produces a rough finish by actually moving the surface of the metal. Just like the surface of the moon is cratered by metor impacts, the surface of the metal object is cratered by the impact of the blasting media. The only difference is, in sandblasting all the metors are pretty much the same size and going the same speed so all the craters are the same size.

Parkerizing produces a rough finish by depositing material on the surface of the blade.

It's tough to tell the difference in a photo. Once you've handled something that's been sandblasted you'll usually be able to tell the difference by feel.

Auto repair shops and machine shops often use a sandblast cabinet to clean parts. Most use glass bead media which does not move as much metal as does sand so the finish isn't quite as rough, but it will give you a good idea.

[findabetterole]

can anyone tell me if the example shown below is in the WW1 sandblasted finish.?

'SS'...... From the illustration you show, it appears to be a parkerised finish. However, as Reese has so correctly stated.... without actually handling the blade, it is impossible to verify otherwise.

Seph

[4thGordons]

'SS'...... From the illustration you show, it appears to be a parkerised finish. However, as Reese has so correctly stated.... without actually handling the blade, it is impossible to verify otherwise.

Seph

With all the caveats mentioned above, compounded by my limited macro-photography abilities, here is a Pattern 1907, British manufactured blade (bringing in different patterns of bayonet and US manufacturers complicates an already complicated situation) which I believe to be in a sandblasted finish.

Chris

[shippingsteel]

I agree with what Reese has said. His description of the differences compare nearly exactly with what I would have said, but granted it IS difficult to know from the photos.

I acknowledge that it is a different pattern/maker which does complicate matters, but it should have been made to the current British specs under the British contract, I would think.

The reason for me posting, is that it is probably the most 'untouched' example that I have available to share, and in my mind is most probably also sandblasted. This is especially so when I compare it to the previous two Remington examples which I believe to be parkerised. As Reese mentioned, I also base this on whether the 'grit' feel appears on top of the surface, or looks to have been removed from the original surface. To me this one is definitely 'pockmarked' in appearance, which is also probably the best way of describing it. Chris's example does appear likewise, possibly a little more heavily.

The difficulty I have is understanding how it goes from that finish 'back' to the polish finish if it has had a post-war refinish (like the previous Chapman appears to have). You would think they would need to remove some serious metal to completly erase all the pockmarks that are embedded in the blade. Appreciate your thoughts.

Cheers, S>S

[4thGordons]

I acknowledge that it is a different pattern/maker which does complicate matters, but it should have been made to the current British specs under the British contract, I would think.

The difficulty I have is understanding how it goes from that finish 'back' to the polish finish if it has had a post-war refinish (like the previous Chapman appears to have). You would think they would need to remove some serious metal to completly erase all the pockmarks that are embedded in the blade. Appreciate your thoughts.

Cheers, S>S

I have no knowledge of whether or not the manufacturing specifications for the US producers were identical to those in the UK, nor whether the Pattern 13 Bayonet production specifications were identical to those of the Pattern 1907.

Regarding polishing, this had occurred to me but I don't think it would be too much of a problem. I am not sure really how much metal you would need to remove to achieve a polished look. I grabbed one of mine with a reissue date at random and had a look - then had a look at 3 or 4 more and I think the answer, upon close inspection is that not all the pockmarks were erased! Although I would have described the finish on these as "polished" under magnification there are still quite a lot of pockmarks. These photos are artificially lit (the sun having set!) however I think you can see what I mean. This is a 1917 Wilkinson bayonet with a 1922 reissue date.

Chris

[4thGordons]

Overall view of the blade show in the above close ups to demonstrate it's "polished" nature.

[reese williams]

SS,

It is really surprising how little it takes to polish a piece of metal. When you have the proper tools, the knowledge and the skills it is amazingly simple.

I had this demonstrated when I took an old Ka-Bar and converted it to a bowie style knife. After doing a little research and getting the proper tools it took me less than an hour to put a mirror polish on a heavily scratched blade. And that was my first attempt at polishing a blade. My guess is that the workers who were polishing sandblasted bayonets could do a blade in 10 minutes or less and that you would not be able to detect the amount of metal removed with anything less than the most sensitive of measuring equipment. It wouldn't take more than a couple of ten thousandths of an inch to turn a sandblasted blade into a polished one.

Try it yourself. Get a piece of steel, 100, 200 and 400 grit sandpaper and working from coarsest to finest polish a small piece of the metal, just a one inch square or so. You'll see how quickly it goes. The bayonet polishing would have been done by machine with grits probably ending in the 800-1000 range.

I guess that I have a different point of view from many. My grandfather was a master carpenter and my father was a metalsmith so I've always worked with my hands. I have no idea what you do for a living or for hobbies, but if you've never done much mechanical work it's easy to get into the mindset of "I don't have any idea how one would do that so it must be impossible to do."

Please don't take the proceeding as a personal attack, or an attack at all. I see the same reaction from friends of mine whose fathers were office workers. Their sons grew up with no understanding of the mechanical world and can barely change a lightbulb. When they watch me repair something as simple as a Coleman lantern you'd think I was wearing a pointy hat with stars and cresents on it and converting lead into gold.

I see the same thing many times on these forums, " I can't visualize that so it must be impossible."

I'm sorry, I digress. There are many of the processes used in making weapons in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries that I don't understand. But I know that there were mechanical engineers and other smart fellows who studied the problem, there were skilled craftsmen in the factories, there were records kept that have survived and most of all there are the objects. I know enough about how things are made that I can make the leap when presented with sufficent evidence. I can say "I don't know exactly how they did this, but here are the specifications and here is the object so they must have done it.

I hope I haven't strayed too far off course but it's a general idea that has been nagging at me for a while. You just presented an opportunity to air the subject.

Reese

[findabetterole]

Gentlemen,

let me try as simply as I can to impart to you what the process of polishing in British Military terms implies! By it's very nature... and I'm not trying patronise or to teach anyone to suck eggs here... the term : ''Polished Finish'' implies a bright surface. How does it get that way..... simple. It's given to the Regimental, Corps, Battalion Armourer, and he does a quick buffing job on the polishing wheel. Nothing spectacular, hard-n-fact, secretive about the process..... just buffing up!

Done!

Seph

[trajan]

Just happened on this one as I make my way backwards though what I might have missed from all you members! Clearly, this thread ended on a bit of cliff hanger with splitting hairs and the like...

So, any conclusion? And what have I got? Well, a mixture of finishes! They vary from a '14 with a standard part blued finish (although the blueing has almost gone from the ricasso); a '15 with no re-issue dates and a matt grey finish (I hesitate to say what this finish is but it is smooth and quite unlike in colour the matt grey of a 'parkerised AK 47 1st tye bayonet!); and a '17 re-issued in '24 that is totally blued.