Some new Recruits ...(P1907 variety)

[shippingsteel]

Here are some of my new recruits that came to me slightly the worse for wear, all graduates from the "school of hard knocks" to be sure. They're nothing flash and have spent the last few weeks sitting on my workbench being stripped down and tidied up. They've all got issues, but they are totally genuine WW1 dated examples which I'm happy to have picked up for what I paid for them (not a lot).

The Vickers at the top looks to have spent much of its time being thrust into sandbags, while the Chapman has received a dodgy sharpening job and the Enfield at the bottom is missing half a dozen inspection marks and a clearance hole. To me all indicators of wartime usage and expediency. But the most interesting thing for me are the differences to be seen between the different makers work, all supposedly going off the same P1907 Pattern.

While they are lined up on a bench looking all barebones with the timber off, the differences particularly in the pommel and the crossguard areas do become quite obvious. That is the advantage of picking up some 'old bangers' to clean up and work on - in the process there is always something new to be learnt. These three examples are some of the less common makers, and they are always becoming harder to find, so I thought I'd share these while I had them all together.

Cheers, S>S

[shippingsteel]

Hopefully this next diagram will assist in explaining some of the major visible differences between these 3 particular bayonets, all by different makers. I don't want to go into too much specific detail, but I have had the calipers out and trust me the differences when measured are quite considerable. If you are interested and want to look closely enough you should be able to catch what I mean from the diagrams.

I am being deliberately a little vague so as not to let too many "cats out of the bag", so to speak.! I'd just encourage anyone who has a few of these, to take the next opportunity to compare them together and see what differences you can make out. I'm not saying all examples by these makers will be the same, as machinery and processes do change over time, however this is how they were produced on the dates shown.

The interesting thing is that all the necessities are the same. The important details like the muzzle ring diameter and mortise slot measurements are all exactly the same, otherwise they wouldn't all mount on the rifles properly, and would have been rejected outright upon initial inspection. It is all the other peripheral details where the makers seemed to have taken their own "artistic impression" into the individual design process.

1. Starting with the crossguard, the short quillon on the Enfield is shaped more pointed like a V, the Chapman is more of a U shape, and the Vickers is a very rounded U shape.

2. Apart from the very obvious large diameter clearance hole that is unique to the Vickers bayonets, it also has a very rounded taper to the bevel at this point on the pommel.

3. This Chapman started without its clearance hole which has been added at a later date, and its bevel is tapered very long and appears quite sharp and angular.

4. This Enfield was made without a clearance hole and has managed to escape having one added at all, its smaller bevel is tapered very short and noticeably lower.

5. The end of the pommel at this point on the Vickers is smoothly curving and appears very rounded. The rear profile of the pommel is shaped like a flat bottomed letter V.

6. The rear of the Chapman is noticeably wider and chunkier through the middle than the others and shaped like a letter U, the pommel curves around more tightly at this point.

7. The Enfield pommel is angled quite sharply at this point, and turns almost at right angles, its rear profile is once again also shaped like the flat bottomed letter V.

8. This particular example is strangely devoid of many of the customary inspection markings including the bend test mark, we may have to discuss the reasons for that on another post.

As usual, any thoughts or comments most welcome.

Cheers, S>S

[shippingsteel]

Here is yet another diagram that illustrates some of the dimensions on the pommel of a P1907 that can vary considerably between makers. Bored yet ....?

While the A section measurement is relatively standard at around the 21mm mark, it is the B section that can vary wildly. The difference in this figure between the three particular bayonets shown above ranges from a low of 9mm up to a top of 15mm. That range is extremely noticeable even to the most casual observer.

As I said before the T shaped mortise slot that is used to attach the bayonet to the rifle always remains of the same dimensions. However the bevelled leading edges that help to "receive" the bayonet lug from the rifle do vary considerably. The range of difference in both the C and D sections varied up to 2mm over the three examples above. This amount of variation produces a greatly different "look" between each of the bevel edged "receiver" slots.

It is interesting to note that not only has the Vickers bayonet got a much larger clearance hole, it also has a much more, err... "accomodating" receiver slot. These variations would not only make it far easier to fix the bayonet under difficult conditions (such as in the dark or under battle duress) but also to allow the filth of the trenches to be cleared from the mortise slot more easily (the hole could almost be self-clearing). These small changes could make a large amount of difference under the extreme conditions of trench warfare.

The last of the manufacturers to bring out a P1907 version was Vickers, they only started making them in mid 1917. The question is - Why was their particular production of a Patterned item so different from all the others that had already been made before them.? Could it be that they incorporated some of the feedback that was received from the harsh experiences of the trenches into their design.? I am hoping someone may be able to help answer that question for me because at the moment its just theories and speculation.

Cheers, S>S

[shippingsteel]

Here is the closeup of the Enfield ricasso that I mentioned previously. As you can see it is missing a few inspection stamps including the bend test X mark. The broad arrow and the Crown/35/E inspection mark both look normal and correct to me, but why has it not got the bend test mark.?? The other ricasso all looks perfectly normal with cypher, pattern, maker EFD and date 8 '15. I am wondering if the date of manufacture may have something to do with the absence of the bend test mark.

With the operation of the "peddled rifle scheme", RSAF Enfield had to do more assembly of parts and components that were supplied by external contractors. Because of the extra workload, the production of bayonets was closed down and some of the machinery and equipment moved to Sheffield in October 1915. As the example bayonet was marked as being made in August, could this relocation and associated disruption be a possible explanation.?? When were the last of the wartime production bayonets by Enfield actually completed.??

There are quite a few questions to be answered so hopefully someone can help me out here. If anyone has got any thoughts or comments, please feel free ....

Cheers, S>S

[Gunner Bailey]

Very interesting thread. Can you give details of the best way to clean up a neglected blade? I often get blades which have been neglected and I normally give them a light rub over with 1000 gauge wire wool then WD40. I'm sure there are better ways but I try to clean only and not be too abrasive. Expert guidance would be useful.

John

[shippingsteel]

Very interesting thread. Can you give details of the best way to clean up a neglected blade? I often get blades which have been neglected and I normally give them a light rub over with 1000 gauge wire wool then WD40. I'm sure there are better ways but I try to clean only and not be too abrasive. Expert guidance would be useful.

John

Most specialists recommend using the 0000 gauge wire wool in combination with a good quality gun oil, with the oil being applied first, before rubbing lightly with the wire wool to loosen any rust, etc. You must repeat this oiling/rubbing process many times, wiping off the discoloured oil regularly in between. This is what I do for the blades. Sometimes I use gun solvent for the more stubborn rust spots found on the pommel areas and under the grips. I only use WD40 initially to help loosen up the badly rusted grip screws and aid in their removal. Mostly its just oil and rubbing and lots of time - you don't want to get too agressive cause you'll only make matters worse. When your oil rubs off still clean, thats as good as you're going to get. Thats what I do anyway - pretty simple stuff.

Cheers, S>S

[Gunner Bailey]

Thanks. I'm on the right lines. I think I may have misnamed the wire wool I use. It is the finest gauge, so is probably 0000.

John

[shippingsteel]

Here is a shot of the other ricasso of the Enfield bayonet. Everything seems to be in place as per usual on this side. Its a little hard to make out from the photo but its an 8 '15 over the EFD. The cypher and pattern number are a little easier to see. (Photographing bayonets under artificial light is harder than you think.!)

Which brings me to my main question - did Enfield stop making these bayonets at some point during the war.??

And if they did stop, when were the last ones made, and what dates are the latest that have been found.??

All the reference material points to bayonet production at Enfield being terminated during the latter part of 1915, but many of the documents that would shed more light on this have been lost. I think this is why Enfields wartime production bayonets are now less common than you would expect. (The focus of production at this time was shifted over to Wilkinson and Sanderson)

If any forum members have wartime production P1907 bayonets made by Enfield, I would appreciate the latest dates of manufacture that you have amongst your collection. This kind of data would help too put a finger on exactly what happened to the bayonet shop at RSAF Enfield. Thanks in advance for any assistance you can offer.

Cheers, S>S

[findabetterole]

Can you post a clearer pic of your item (post 4).... without the resulting shadow to the ricasso? This is in effect masking any faint markings that may be present.

Seph

[shippingsteel]

Can you post a clearer pic of your item (post 4).... without the resulting shadow to the ricasso? This is in effect masking any faint markings that may be present.

Seph

Seph, the darker area to which you are referring is not shadow but the remains of the original bluing on the ricasso.

The line of bluing does appear to be lower than you would normally expect - either that or the upper portion has been worn off over time.

If you compare with the other ricasso, the residual bluing on that side is also appearing quite low - the lines seem to match, but I might be mistaken and its just the wear pattern.

Under close inspection there doesn't seem to be any other partial markings on that example ricasso. I think the flash would have managed to pick up anything if it was there anyway.

Cheers, S>S

EDIT: Now added shot with slightly different angle - there are no other markings visible

[findabetterole]

Thank you for the edit S-S. I have over the years handled many a pattern 1907, and have noticed many with very light, very light/partial, and partial stampings to the ricasso's. The Bend-Test mark is no exeption. However, your example does seem to have a Bend-Text mark omission. This could could be for a vast array of reasons, and if it were a ...very light/partial stamping... then over the years, with polishing, this could cause the mark to dissapear. We have no way of knowing as to what form of upkeep the blade has been subjected to during its service, then out-of-service life, so we can only place conjecture in theary as to the reason.

In my personal view, the mark has originally been very light/partial during manufacture, then polished off at some point due to a combination of reasons mentioned above.

Seph

[shippingsteel]

Any ideas as to the wartime production of P1907's by Enfield.? What is the latest date of manufacture that you have come across.?

Also any thoughts on the Crown 35E inspection mark on that ricasso - unusual to see only the single view mark from around that time of production.?

The way in which it was stamped is almost reminiscent of the P'88 markings, and the 35E mark is mostly seen on earlier pre-war bayonets. It is indeed a strange one....

Cheers, S>S

[trajan]

Here is a shot of the other ricasso of the Enfield bayonet. Everything seems to be in place as per usual on this side. Its a little hard to make out from the photo but its an 8 '15 over the EFD.

Which brings me to my main question - did Enfield stop making these bayonets at some point during the war.??

And if they did stop, when were the last ones made, and what dates are the latest that have been found.??

SS, found this via another search, and, as you probably know by now (but useful to clear up loose ends!), S&R p.190 say that production moved the shop to Sheffield in October 1915 and ended bayonet production completely by August 1916.

TTFN,

Trajan