New Acquisition

[sawdoc34]

Green with envy, bloody nice collection you have there Chris, especially like the LEC, always fancied 1 of those myself.

[trajan]

kar88u.jpg

Here is the unit marking: Any suggestions? appears to be E P(R?)I XIV 10

I stumbled on this while looking for Eisenbahn markings...

I would suggest a good look at what you think is a '1' just in case it is a very badly worn 'D'. I do not claim to be an expert on unit markings but the only two possibilities I have been able to find that are anywhere close to what you have are:

E.P.D.I.30, for Ersatz-Pferde-Depot I Armee-Korps Waffe Nr. 30

E.P.D.XIII.30, for Ersatz-Pferde-Depot XIII Armee-Korps Waffe Nr.30

Other possibilities have been suggested in the above posts. To turn to these, well in my very limited experience, E for Eisenbahn almost always stands alone as a unit-identifier; and likewise with P for Pionier. Yes, there are exceptions to both to prove the rule, as with an 'E.B.1.105', for 'Eisenbahn-Betriebs [Kompagnie] 1.[Waffe Nr.] 105', but not, as far as I know, found with an Armee-Korps number. To be honest, an 'Eisenbahn Pionier [something] 1' of the whatever Armee-Korps, or an 'Ersatz Pionier [something] 1' of an Armee-Korps, does not seem 'on', as it were. However, an 'E.P.D.' marking followed by an Armee-Korps number does. And looking at the position of the 'dot' after the '1' would allow space for a 'D' to have been there.

Of course I could be completely wrong - but in the absence to my knowledge of anything like a 'E.P.1.' type marking, it could be worth looking hard at this one.

Trajan

[trajan]

... I've had cause to revisit this thread after coming across a unit marking on an old German bayonet (see pic).

brass.jpg

That's an interesting one - it looks to be a Pionier-Faschinenmesser M 1810? Sawback, 68 cm long? I am no expert, and I am making a very wild guess as I can't be certain with such a small area shown, so would you please confirm? In which case the Eisenbahn-Betriebs marking is interesting. I do know of one with a crossguard marking '"2 C 6", and a non-matching scabbard marked "E.B.3.173.", so, perhaps hand-me downs after 1850 or so? The marking on this and on yours ties in with the 1877 Regulations.

[trajan]

Actually no I don't think this is the case...as the GEW 98 also used the same mounting system (as did the later WWII 98K.)

It might refect a doctrinal orientation which did not pay as much attention to the bayonet (I'll leave that to the experts to debate)

I too have always thought the Mauser system looks a bit flimsy without the muzzle ring - but in reality I do not think it is. I have certainly never read any reports that suggest it was and if we are to indulge slightly in stereotyping it seems hard to imagine the Germans UNDER-ENGINEERING something! The fit of these bayonets is actually very tight, far tighter than many of my SMLEs which sometimes have a bit of wiggle.

Two things at issue here that might benefit from elaboration - why no muzzle ring on German rifles after 1898 and the apparent flimsiness of the Mauser system.

For the first, I understand that the muzzle ring was done away after the Mauser brothers determined the way it negatively affected barrel oscillation, a matter that was being extensively studied in the 1890's by Carl Cranz, father of German ballistic studies, and leading to the Mauser patented under the barrel fixing system of (IIRC) 1897/1898. As I understand it, new rifles were sighted in without a bayonet. So, fixing a bayonet's muzzle ring over the end of the barrel would weigh down the muzzle and alter its flexibility, thus changing the anticipated bore line of a bullet when it exited, as the greatest barrel oscillation is at that place at that point in time. In other words, firing a rifle with a bayonet attached via a muzzle ring would result in a change in the bullet's departure line from what was expected as a result of experience gained from firing the rifle without a bayonet attached via a muzzle ring. Now, I am not a physicist and so my understanding of what is involved might well be way off the mark... In which case, if somebody who is expert in these matters can momentarily resist throwing their arms up in horror at what I have written, then please - after a brief pause! - do correct me!

That aside, yes, the Mauser patented fitting system does work well, and as Chris' photographs show, it does use a pretty robust and long bayonet bar. Yet it does look flimsy and I gather that it was not entirely trusted outside of Germany.by those countries with Mauser-supplied rifles. Hence all those 'Mauser export' bayonets with muzzle rings.

Trajan

[trajan]

... There is not that much holding them in place though, just an inch of mortise slot.! ...

I thought that and am therefore glad to see you remark on it. ...

... I too have always thought the Mauser system looks a bit flimsy without the muzzle ring - but in reality I do not think it is. ...

Back onto "Wot, no muzzle ring?" as in my post 54...

I checked the Mauser patent, Nr. 11311, 9 December 1895, 7/4 Uhr p. which states:

Die vorliegende Erfindung betrifft eine Einrichtung zur Befestigung des Seitengewehres an Militärgewehren, ohne, wie dies bisher üblich war, den Lauf hierbei in Mitleidenschaft zu ziehen, sondern gänzlich unabhängig von letzterem und doch auch ohne zu große Beantspruchung des Schaftes.

So, something along the lines of: "The present invention is for a device for fixing the bayonet to a military rifle without, as is usual, by the barrel shaft, but completely independent of this, yet without giving excessive stress to the shaft." - yes, SG, of course, I am happy to be corrected on that translation!

There is nothing about muzzle rings and oscillation there or in the rest of the patent, as far as I can see. When I get time I'll double check the relevant text in Thiem, Deutsche Versuch- und Musterseitengewehre, and also Franz, vol V.

BTW, the patent itself was for what we know as the basic under-the-barrel Mauser mounting system, but actually showed a bayonet with a T mortise slot (and naturally a Weyersburg patented spring press stud catch system), and perforated upper crossguard that fitted over the under barrel clearance rod of the Gew.88, and so nothing like the standard Mauser T-O fitting we all are familiar with from the Gew.98 series... There are actually some examples of Versuchsseitengewehre designed for this fitting, based on the S.71 and so classified as S.71/95.

Trajan

EDIT: one of these S.71/95's is shown at: http://images.google.de/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dhm.de%2Fdatenbank%2Fimg.php%253Fimg%253Dmi001424%2526format%253D1&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dhm.de%2Fdatenbank%2Fdhm.php%3Fseite%3D5%26fld_0%3DMI001424&h=800&w=499&tbnid=ngKQTYfwcPD4TM%3A&docid=p9J6Plb-xitMOM&itg=1&ei=p33QVsm3H8m56ATpk7ToBA&tbm=isch&iact=rc&uact=3&dur=2111&page=1&start=0&ndsp=27&ved=0ahUKEwiJp9WK7ZXLAhXJHJoKHekJDU0QrQMIHTAA

[Michael Haselgrove]

Julian,

I looked this up in "Mauser Bolt Rifles" by Ludwig Olson (Third Edition, 8th Printing) At page 99 he writes "The improved bayonet lug fitted over the forward end of the stock and had a long surface to support the bayonet. With this arrangement the bayonet did not touch the barrel which helped prevent the normal vibratory motions of the barrel being interfered with"

Regards,

Michael.

[4thGordons]

I don't think it has been mentioned but I would point out that on the ShtLE and it's Pattern 1903/7 bayonet it's not really a muzzle ring either, fitting as it does over the round block on the nosecap/foresight protector below the barrel muzzle proper, also therefore not touching the barrel by design. Stocking up and muzzle harmonics on ShtLEs are actually quite complex (there is an internal sprung plunger pushing upwards on the barrel inside the forestock). Presumably the impact of the bayonet on the barrel was considered negligible though as by the 1930s and the No4 rifle the bayonet (spike) fits directly to the barrel again.

Chris

[trajan]

Julian,

I looked this up in "Mauser Bolt Rifles" by Ludwig Olson (Third Edition, 8th Printing) At page 99 he writes "The improved bayonet lug fitted over the forward end of the stock and had a long surface to support the bayonet. With this arrangement the bayonet did not touch the barrel which helped prevent the normal vibratory motions of the barrel being interfered with"

Regards,

Michael.

Thanks Michael - I am in Istanbul for a few days and will have to check on what Thiem and Franz say when I get back. Franz may not have much but Thiem's work is focussed on these Versuchsseitengewehre and so should say more. BTW, Off Topic, I know, but he has an excellent section on the WW2 S.42 and its Sudan clone!

I don't think it has been mentioned but I would point out that on the ShtLE and it's Pattern 1903/7 bayonet it's not really a muzzle ring either, fitting as it does over the round block on the nosecap/foresight protector below the barrel muzzle proper, also therefore not touching the barrel by design. Stocking up and muzzle harmonics on ShtLEs are actually quite complex (there is an internal sprung plunger pushing upwards on the barrel inside the forestock). Presumably the impact of the bayonet on the barrel was considered negligible though as by the 1930s and the No4 rifle the bayonet (spike) fits directly to the barrel again.

Chris

I have to admit that I have long had a feeling in the back of my mind that the introduction of the Mauser system and the reasons for this somehow influenced the decision to mount the P.1903 and 1907 that way, but never looked into it to establish if this was the case.

Julian