Use of 1903 SMLE Bayonets during the Great War

[Simon127]

Hi Chaps,

I have recently been able to acquire a rare example of a British 1903 pattern SMLE bayonet. As these are now considered rare I was chuffed to be able to pick this one up for £50 even though the condition of the blade leaves something to be desired! Most seem to be selling for £150 - £200 nowadays.

It's got me wondering just how much use these bayonets saw during the Great War. As the 1903 was replaced prior to the war by the 1907 (as the 1903 was considered not to have a long enough blade) I am curious how much service these saw. I understand that the Indian army supposedly 'preferred' this short-bladed pattern but wondered who else used this blade and for how long during the war. I know that the 1888 Lee Metford/ CLLE rifle and bayonet was used for some time despite officialy having been superseded by the SMLE.

I have to say I don't think I've ever seen any period photographic evidence of a 1903 bayonet in use and have never come across one in a museum, even those displaying battlefield relics. I have however seen numerous 1888 bayonets, namely on my trip to Gallipoli. Any info would be most welcome as always.

Incidentaly, does anyone know what rifles the 7th Battalion, PWO West Yorkshire Regiment (Leeds Rifles) would be using in mid 1915? I am interested to know what my great grandfather was blasting away with during the Battle of Festubert.

TIA,

Simon

[shippingsteel]

I certainly wouldn't be rushing out to call the P1903 a "rare" bayonet just yet. They are less commonly seen these days simply because they were made in lesser numbers over a much shorter period. But they are still getting around and turn up fairly regularly. I was able to pick up the one below quite easily just a couple of weeks back, and it was made by Mole - one of the less numerous producers of all.! So no, not "rare", but still very nice to find an example in reasonably good condition these days.

The P1903 was definitely well used by the British troops during the early parts of the war, but by 1916 was being phased out of front-line service and reissued to support troops. This example has been cancelled out and then remarked to the 148th Army Troop Company, Royal Engineers who were doing their bit on the Somme during the latter half of 1916, in preparation for the big battles. So that gives a good indication of what types of service they would have seen during that period of the war.

PS. Quite a lot of P1903's have been coming out of Afghanistan in recent times but usually found much the worse for wear. Mostly they've really taken a beating.

Cheers, S>S

[Simon127]

Yes, I suppose it might be a little premature to refer to the P1903 as 'rare' although they certainly appear less frequently than the ubiquitous 1907. I didn't mind buying this one on the cheap as although it's a bit rough, I wanted one without spending more than £100. Did you get a scabbard with yours?

So in the early stages do we know whether it was the regular army, territorials or both that found themselves using these? Is there any truth that the Indian's 'preferred' these (as I have somewhere read) or was it simply that they found themselves issued with it?

S

[calibre792x57.y]

The P.03 was certainly in service with Indian Army battalions on the Western Front in 1915, and with Australian units at Gallipoli. (See Purnells History of the First World War, Volume 3, P910, which shows a trench full of dead with several S.M.L.E.s propped against the firestep. Some are clearly fitted with the P.1903 amongst the P.07s). During the post-War enquiry into the design of a new bayonet for what became the Number 4 rifle it was stated that the Patt.03 was the preferred weapon for bayonet practice at the Small Arms School and 'many other places' as it was less likely to bend or break in use. Any inspection will reveal that the Patt 03 would likely prove superior and that it was only the consideration of 'reach' which caused its replacement by the 07. SW

[shippingsteel]

I think it would more likely be the Territorial troops that would still be equipped with the P1903 during the early stages of the war. I've seen plenty of pictures of the P1888 bayonet still being used in the trenches on the MLE rifle, so you would expect the relatively more modern P1903 bayonet to be making an appearance somewhere, but as you say the photographic evidence of this being the case is hard to find. The photo below shows a P1888 bayonet being used by a Territorial in Belgium during 1915.

I'd be careful about identifying that P1903 at Gallipoli for certain, because at a distance the P1888 and P1903 are very hard to distinguish between. They do have exactly the same blade profile and in many cases the P1903's were actually made (or converted) using the recycled P'88 blades. I think I may have seen that photo and you really need a closeup of the pommel to be sure. I do know the P'88's were being used at Gallipoli by the RND, and for some periods of the campaign they were standing shoulder to shoulder with the Australian troops, so who knows where that one came from.

Cheers, S>S

[Andrew Upton]

The P.03 was certainly in service with Indian Army battalions on the Western Front in 1915, and with Australian units at Gallipoli. (See Purnells History of the First World War, Volume 3, P910, which shows a trench full of dead with several S.M.L.E.s propped against the firestep. Some are clearly fitted with the P.1903 amongst the P.07s)...

I'd be careful about identifying that P1903 at Gallipoli for certain, because at a distance the P1888 and P1903 are very hard to distinguish between.

If they are mounted on SMLE's though as identified by Somewalker they must be the 1903 type, as the 1888 type wont fit the SMLE...

[4thGordons]

If they are mounted on SMLE's though as identified by Somewalker they must be the 1903 type, as the 1888 type wont fit the SMLE...

Precisely!

I think we need to be very careful about generalising here. For example S/S says "I think it would more likely be the Territorial troops that would still be equipped with the P1903 during the early stages of the war. I've seen plenty of pictures of the P1888 bayonet still being used in the trenches on the MLE rifle, so you would expect the relatively more modern P1903 bayonet to be making an appearance somewhere, but as you say the photographic evidence of this being the case is hard to find"

I think I would disagree with this (in part). It is my experience that TF units often retained the MLE and CLLE which of course the 1903 bayonet will not fit as Andrew points out. This is certainly the case with the 1/4th GH and photos suggest that the same pattern was true of many TF formations. The units most likely to have the P1903 in 1914 would (I would suggest) be REGULAR army units who had been equipped early with the SMLE MkI and retained their bayonets. TF units often swapped the MLE and CLLE for SMLEs and obviously exchanged p1888 bayonets at the same time) I would agree that photographic evidence of 1903s is uncommon - but not impossible to find.

Here are two ASC drivers (of a motorised unit) admittedly photographed in the UK, in the mid war period. This raises the interesting possibility that the shorter bayonet was issued to units where a long one might get in the way (like when driving). This is pure supposition on my part but the bayonet type is clearly visible here.

Production numbers of 1903 bayonets are clearly far lower than either P1888 or P1907 - largely (as S/S points out)because they were in production for a short time nominally 1903-1907, but in fact longer if Ishapore is included.

Skennerton suggests Enfield production was the largest and that they produced 119,755 and 66,707 conversions from P1888 (production by others unknown but assumed to be far smaller) so that suggests that 1903s might be somewhat akin to the combined totals of the rarer 1907 bayonets (Remington+Mole+?) - so, given their likely use/replacement reasonably scarce if not "rare" (however perhaps twice as rare as a wartime Chapman 1907 -300,000 +/- produced)

Regarding Indian usage, the arsenal at Ishapore converted a lot of p1888 bayonets to 1903s from 1912-1914 (Skennerton & Richardson suggest @25,000 p 345) they also converted large numbers of MLEs of various types to CLLE and SMLE format in the guise of several "IP" (Indian Pattern) models in the same period so it is likely these were paired. Clearly India had some liking for the shorter blade because the bulk of their WWII production (both conversions and new production)were shortened versions of the P1907 which in their scabbard are very similar in appearance to the p1903 - and in fact, many still remain in service with paramilitary /police organisations of various sorts.

Chris

[shippingsteel]

Here is the full photo from the AWM that I was thinking of. What I was talking about was the short bright blade in the centre distance of shot which does appear to me to be a P1888 (hard to be certain). The photo that I had seen in the AWM magazine had the rifle at right foreground cropped out so I didn't take that one into account. I must say it does look like a P1903 fitted to that SMLE but have a look for yourself and let me know if you can make out any more detail. You have to watch with these old photos as sometimes they have been manipulated to some degree.

Anyway, apart from that some good points have been made. Of course I have been guilty of generalising as I always try to summarise things to avoid writing a full documentary.!

PS. The main distinguishing feature between the P'03 and P'07 that I would be searching for (apart from length) in an old photo would be the clearance hole. If there is a hole in the pommel it is a P'03 as they hadn't been brought in for the P'07 bayonet until later in 1916. The majority of bayonets that I have seen in photos of Australians at Gallipoli shows the P'07 in the original hook quillon format.

Cheers, S>S

[4thGordons]

Looks like an 03 in the foreground to me.

Here's the best version I could find:

There are some very clear shots of 1888s at Gallipoli HERE

Chris

[shippingsteel]

There are some very clear shots of 1888s at Gallipoli HERE

Chris

I wonder if they actually are all Australians in those trench shots, they don't appear so to me.? Perhaps they could be members of the RND which as I stated earlier this thread were "standing shoulder to shoulder" with the Australians at one point during the Gallipoli campaign. And we know for certain they were one of the few units that were still equipped with the MLE and P1888's at that time.

Cheers, S>S

[Simon127]

Hi Chaps,

Thanks for all the interesting input here.

The bayonet in the Gallipoli photo certainly looks like a 1903 to me, The blade is clearly shorter and broader at the ricasso than the 1907. Before SommeWalker mentioned it I had a vague recollection of seeing this photo somewhere before and noting what appeared to be a P1903.

So would we say that it is a safe bet to assume that in Mid 1915 territorial units would be using the MLE/ CLLE (whatever we wish to call it)?

Out of interest, how long did the 1888 rifle and bayonet continue to be issued? I've heard some Canadian troops had them at Vimy Ridge; their CWM collections have a relic example from there and I have the hilt and short section of blade of a relic 1888 that was supposedly recovered in the Vimy Ridge area,

S

[shippingsteel]

Out of interest, how long did the 1888 rifle and bayonet continue to be issued?

Well here's a shot of one P1888 bayonet that was reissued and marked in 1916. I don't recall having seen any in British service being issue marked later than that date (thats barring anything Indian of course.!)

Cheers, S>S

[4thGordons]

So would we say that it is a safe bet to assume that in Mid 1915 territorial units would be using the MLE/ CLLE (whatever we wish to call it)?

Out of interest, how long did the 1888 rifle and bayonet continue to be issued? I've heard some Canadian troops had them at Vimy Ridge; their CWM collections have a relic example from there and I have the hilt and short section of blade of a relic 1888 that was supposedly recovered in the Vimy Ridge area,

S

We have had lots of threads on this. The never entirely safe to assume, but the consensus appears to be that:

Some units (mostly) TF forces kept their MLE/CLLEs as late as (early) 1917, although this was unusual and most had exchanged them by early 1916. Obviously P1888 bayonets (no such thing as a 1888 rifle in British service)would have remained in service with those units until the exchange.

Lots of picures of 1915 (ie Loos etc) show MLE/CLLE and 1888 bayonets... far less common by the Somme in mid 1916. So I would suggest that the exchange for the majority of units on the Western Front happened between )October 1915 and July 1916 (there will always be exceptions of course). CLLE/MLES and 1888 bayonets will have remained in service with 2nd and 3rd line units in the UK throughout the war. In more far flung theatres they may well have persisted longer in the front line.

Personally, I would be a little surprised at the idea of Canadians with them as it would seem to imply they traded Ross rifles not for SMLEs but CLLEs and I think that unlikely (but never say never).

Chris

[Simon127]

Well thanks for everyones' help. I feel more satisfied that I've got hold of a bayonet pattern that saw service in WW1 rather than just a scarcer SMLE bayonet. Some irresponsible so-and-so looks like they've tried to blue the blade so I can look forward to removing that.

Kind regards to all,

Simon

[4thGordons]

Well thanks for everyones' help. I feel more satisfied that I've got hold of a bayonet pattern that saw service in WW1 rather than just a scarcer SMLE bayonet. Some irresponsible so-and-so looks like they've tried to blue the blade so I can look forward to removing that.

Kind regards to all,

Simon

WAIT...check before you do that

I think some Indian conversions were indeed blued blades as part of the refinishing process.

I certainly have one that is not bright finished.

Chris

[shippingsteel]

WAIT...check before you do that

I think some Indian conversions were indeed blued blades as part of the refinishing process.

I certainly have one that is not bright finished.

Chris

Spot on Chris, from "B&CB" p.345 (Skennerton) "the Indian converted Pattern 1903 bayonets usually have a blued blade"

This describes original P1888's in Indian service that were being converted into the P1903 style sometime between 1912-1914.

So Simon, if you want to confirm that yours is one of these conversions, you need to check for any P1888 style markings on the ricasso.

If you can describe all the markings that are found on both sides (LH/RH) of the bayonet, we should be able to help identify it properly.

Cheers, S>S

[Simon127]

Hi Chaps,

Ricasso marks as follows:

One side:

Broad Goverment arrow at top beneath which is enfield maker's mark 'EFD' followed by enfield inspector's stamp (Crown over what looks like 75 over E) plus bend mark.

Obverse side:

3 '05 (March 1905) Surface corrosion obscures the other markings I'd expect to see.

Thought it was British myself but will wait for the expert opinion to filter through....

S

[shippingsteel]

Well they were all originally British made, but some of the P1888's of course ended up in Indian service where they were later converted, and at the same time blued.

The RH ricasso marks are not conclusive as they could be for a P1888 blade or a newly made P1903 bayonet. See similar markings on a P'88 in my above post #12.

The obscured markings on the LH side are a bit of a problem though. If it was a newly made P1903 then I would normally expect to see the Crown ER cypher over the 1903 pattern stamp.

However the '05 date would suggest that it was made new in the P1903 form and not a converted P'88 blade. Some of the Indian conversions that I have seen have heavily stamped inspection marks in the Indian style, such as a very triangular looking Arrow and the letters I & G or an I & S.

If you can't make out anything else than its most likely just a standard newly made P1903 - but where it has got itself blued is anyones guess.?

Cheers, S>S

[Simon127]

Cheers S>S,

I'm sure that there was an ER cypher there once but unfortunately a nice swathe of rust obscures where it would have been. Would a converted blade not warrant another inspection stamp?

I can't yet say for definite whether the blade has been blued as the blade is so crap that it could just be dark age patina - I've yet to receive the bayonet although I understand that it's en route at present.

Having attached the 1907 bayonet to my SMLE I think I would have been happier with something a bit shorter like the P1903. Wielding a SMLE with fixed bayonet in a trench can't have been the easiest thing in the world. Although still preferable to a G98 with a 1898 'quillback' bayonet - that's just plain silly.

S

[shippingsteel]

So here is a shot of the LH ricasso of my newly acquired P1903, showing the Crown ER cypher over the Pattern number, and the date of manufacture as July 1904.

Cheers, S>S

[shippingsteel]

And on the RH ricasso we see the quite unique looking markings from the maker R. Mole & Sons of Birmingham. Note the unusual shaped arrow and the very strange crown over the inspection stamps. Also the bend test X mark is of its own particular style. These are all very different markings to what we are used to seeing from other makers that were in production around that time.

Cheers, S>S

[shippingsteel]

Here is my supporting evidence for P1903 bayonets seeing service in the GW. Following on from the previous posts, this example also shows having been marked to a wartime formed unit of the Royal Engineers, which concurs with the slow phasing out process and these eventually ending up in the hands of support troops. The 148th Army Troop Company was an unattached Engineer unit that was raised after the war began, and is noted as seeing service on the Somme in mid 1916. Apart from the normal bumps and bruises, this example also exhibits some serious "scabbard wear", which when you think about it is probably commensurate with having been issued to a hard working engineer unit during the war (ie. spending plenty of time carried about "in use", but mostly just rattling away in the scabbard) Mind you on quite a few occasions these support troops were called on in an emergency situation to do their bit to help defend the lines.

Cheers, S>S

[Simon127]

That's a nice example of a unit stamp S>S. There appears to be one on the pommel of my 1903 so I will let you know what it says (when the bloody thing turns up) and hopefully you good people can tell me what it MEANS! My 1888 has a pommel stamping of three numbers but no letters and I have German bayonets with various unit stamps on including one for a Foot Artillery Regiment.

[Simon127]

Received the bayonet today - finally. There is a hand stamping on the pommel which appears to be '1 R' with what looks like a sort of tear drop between the two characters and further down is '21'. It has been applied in the opposite direction to that in the photo that ShippingSteel kindly added, that is to say the flat side of the locking button is at the bottom when you read. The marking doesn't seem to be immediately identifiable to me.

The bayonet locking button still works but will need a good dose of oil and general TLC before I can get it to attach to my rifle. As for the blade, I still can't say whether it's been blued or not. Could just be greyish patina.

Any suggestions on what the stamp may mean?

S

[shippingsteel]

Any suggestions on what the stamp may mean?

It's a bit hard to say too much from that information, normally you would expect at least 2 letters to give you some idea. If you could post a photo of the markings it might make it a little easier to work something out. Sometimes there are other clues which can give something to go on.

The P1903 blades were originally made in bright finish with only about a 1cm blued area above the crossguard. (Look closely post #2) Check that part of the ricasso on yours to see if you can make out any difference in shade of colour there.

Cheers, S>S