smac61 Posted 30 January , 2011 Share Posted 30 January , 2011 I'm looking for a correct 1907 Bayonet for my 1914 LSA No. 1 Mk 3 Year range?, quillions (I think no), clearing holes (again no?), oil holes etc. Any other such information to help me find the proper Bayonet would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Sean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 30 January , 2011 Share Posted 30 January , 2011 I'm looking for a correct 1907 Bayonet for my 1914 LSA No. 1 Mk 3 Year range?, quillions (I think no), clearing holes (again no?), oil holes etc. Any other such information to help me find the proper Bayonet would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Sean Sean It rather depends on what you mean - and I am sure others will have other views regarding what I am about to say. However; if we assume rifles would have been paired with bayonets produced around the same time (personally I am not sure how safe an assumption this is and I am absolutely sure that no one involved in issuing the weapons would have paid any attention to dates of manufacture and or manufacturer) then you would want a 1914 dated P1907 which would not have had a quillon or a clearance hole. Having said this, later in its service life (post 1915) the rifle might have been paired with a bayonet with a clearance hole in the pommel. I think you will find it harder than you might think to find a 1914 dated P1907 that has not been modified with the clearance hole and does not bear post war reissue dates. I would not be too concerned; for a WWI rifle in service I would suggest almost any wartime dated P1907 would be appropriate. Personally, as you can perhaps tell I do not worry too much about this sort of thing - almost any post 1914 dated P1907 would be correct for your rifle and actually you might even make a case for a pre 1914 dated bayonet being appropriate too (as I said issuing authorities would not be paying attention to the dates stamped on the blade) Is your rifle in original configuration? (with cut-off and volley sights?) if so could we see a picture or two of it? BTW (and as I know TonyE, our resident pedant is asleep!) in 1914 the rifle would have been known as an Short, Magazine Lee-Enfield (SMLE) MkIII the designation Rifle No1 was not introduced until the 20s Cheers, Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smac61 Posted 30 January , 2011 Author Share Posted 30 January , 2011 Personally, as you can perhaps tell I do not worry too much about this sort of thing - almost any post 1914 dated P1907 would be correct for your rifle and actually you might even make a case for a pre 1914 dated bayonet being appropriate too (as I said issuing authorities would not be paying attention to the dates stamped on the blade) Is your rifle in original configuration? (with cut-off and volley sights?) if so could we see a picture or two of it? BTW (and as I know TonyE, our resident pedant is asleep!) in 1914 the rifle would have been known as an Short, Magazine Lee-Enfield (SMLE) MkIII the designation Rifle No1 was not introduced until the 20s Cheers, Chris Hello Chris, I'm just trying to get a target defined for an antique firearms show coming up next weekend. A local bayonet enthusiast has mentioned he should have a few to choose from and is interested in trading for a Mouser bayonet / scabbard / frog I have. I guess I'd like to find a 1914 or 15, but I would be happy with any of the war era units. The rifle appears to be all original, and includes the cut off, with no indication of FTR. It was purchased here in the States in the 60's and has been a safe queen ever since. Unfortunately the volley sights are missing and the fingers have been removed from the upper hand guard. No stock disk either. I wasn't aware the No. 1 Mk 3 designation did not apply, I'm new to this and have a bit to learn. The goal is to have a rifle that would be representative of what my grandfather would have been issued. He was a US citizen in the Co. I 6th Infantry that was granted an honorable discharge to join the British forces. He signed up with the KLR was reassigned to the RE's and finished up the war in the RFA. I've included a few pics. Thanks for the help, Sean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smac61 Posted 30 January , 2011 Author Share Posted 30 January , 2011 Couple more... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 30 January , 2011 Share Posted 30 January , 2011 Removal of the fingers is usually associated with WWII service - often with Indian forces as the practice seems to have been far more common with them than other forces. Is the original barrel fitted (remove the upper hangaurd and look under it - the barrel will probably be dated on the left side) Looks like a nice example: do the serial numbers match? they are found on the rear of the bolt handle, the reciever, the barrelknox form, the underside of the rear sight, the bayonet boss and the foreend. Is the magazine numbered? (on the spine) One last question: is the rear sight windadge adjustable originally it would have been? One easy change you could make is to put a British sling on rifle! These are easily available The story about your grandfather as an American being allowed to be discharged to join the BEF is fascinating....when was this? (year?) I would be interested in hearing details of this. Just FYI a standard wartime p1907 should not cost you more than about $75 in decent condition complete with scabbard...just as a guide for your trade Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smac61 Posted 30 January , 2011 Author Share Posted 30 January , 2011 Is the original barrel fitted (remove the upper hangaurd and look under it - the barrel will probably be dated on the left side) Got something going on there, I've included a few pics.... Looks like a nice example: do the serial numbers match? The numbers all match, but the rear sight is not adjustable for windage and a serial number has been struck and restamped with this rifles number they are found on: the rear of the bolt handle, check the reciever, check the barrelknox form, see above and pics the underside of the rear sight, see above and pics the bayonet boss check and the foreend. lower yes, upper no markings Is the magazine numbered? (on the spine) no, just a "4" and a few marks that dont really look like anything One last question: is the rear sight windadge adjustable originally it would have been? see above and pics One easy change you could make is to put a British sling on rifle! These are easily available One is waiting for me at the show this weekend The story about your grandfather as an American being allowed to be discharged to join the BEF is fascinating....when was this? (year?) I would be interested in hearing details of this. Just FYI a standard wartime p1907 should not cost you more than about $75 in decent condition complete with scabbard...just as a guide for your trade Chris Regarding my Grandfather, He enlisted 12 April 1912 with Co. "I" 6th Infantry and served until 24th April 1915. I have a letter from the Ohio Adjutant General's Office stating he reenlisted Co. "I" 6th Infantry 14 July 1915 and then "honorably discharged 25 March 1916 S.O. 67-1 by reason of enlisting in the English Army" I am trying now to find a bit more about his BEF service with the help of this site. I have a postcard dated 29 Oct 1915 where he signs "Chas J McCarthy, 4826 3/8 Irish KLR" and have found his medal index card showing his Royal Engineers and Royal Field Artillery service through the end of the war. Most of this can be seen here and here. FWIW, he reenlisted with the 6th Infantry in 1922, was in the merchant marine and the US Coast Guard between the wars, served in WW2 Stateside and went back to England as part of the Civialian Technical Corp during WW2 as well. Fighting Irish I guess... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smac61 Posted 30 January , 2011 Author Share Posted 30 January , 2011 Two more... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyE Posted 30 January , 2011 Share Posted 30 January , 2011 Thanks Chris! Just to keep my pedantry credentials up to date, the change from SMLE Mark III to No.1 Mark III was in 1926 and covered by List of Changes Paragraph A1635. That is a very nice rifle. It has obviously been through workshops at some time as the change of rear sight indicates and has also been commercially proofed in the UK. It is pity the proof house managed to obliterate most of the prior military proof and inspection marks. For Smac's information the commercial proof marks are those on the knox form, "2.22" the length of the .303 case, "NP 18.3 TONS", Nitro Proof and proof pressure, and the arm bearing a scimitar, the proof house mark. Chris, what do you make of the barrel date? It is badly stamped but it looks more like "16" than "14" to me. With regard to the "correct" bayonet, somewhere I have seen a WWI photograph of a soldier sitting with a pile of SMLEs and a crate of baynets, trying to match them to fit. Although both rifle and bayonet were machine made they do differ in size between individual pieces. I have a bayonet that will not fit one SMLE and another that is so loose it rattles (great for night patrols). As Chris says, don't get too bogged down trying to find an exact match between rifle and bayonet, the world did not work that way. Regards TonyE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 30 January , 2011 Share Posted 30 January , 2011 I think you will find it harder than you might think to find a 1914 dated P1907 that has not been modified with the clearance hole and does not bear post war reissue dates. I would not be too concerned; for a WWI rifle in service I would suggest almost any wartime dated P1907 would be appropriate. As Chris has mentioned, just about any P1907 bayonet will fit - it just depends how serious you want to get about being "correct" with the match. The majority of the rifles have been modified in some manner along the way anyway, and so too have many of the bayonets. A newly made (British) P1907 being fitted to a SMLE rifle in 1914 would have had no hook quillon, no clearance hole and featured a brightly polished blade. To go out now and find one exactly like that would be extremely difficult as most bayonets have been modified with the clearance hole added and the blade finish altered during one or more minor reworks or major refurbishments during their long service life. Of course there were some that somehow managed to slip out of service during the war and missed any further modification, and it is these relatively uncommon examples that are know quite sought after by collectors. From what I have seen the 1914 dated examples are harder to find, the '15s and '16s a little easier to come across, and the late war '17s and '18s are just about everywhere. You can be lucky and find what you are looking for easily, but mostly you have to spend quite a bit of time scouting about to pick up the nicer ones. For example, I have two 1914 dated P1907's in my drawer at the moment that have both been modified during their wartime service. They are a Sanderson 12 '14 that was drilled and marked (reissued) in 1916 and a Wilkinson 11 '14 that was drilled and reissued in 1918. And both these bayonets have had their original blade finishes modified during their time in service. In your case I would suggest skipping all the time and effort looking, and just settle on an average later wartime dated example that is in very clean condition that will display extremely well with your nice rifle. Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 30 January , 2011 Share Posted 30 January , 2011 I have a bayonet that will not fit one SMLE ..... Regards TonyE Hi TonyE, perhaps you should consider bringing this "offender" forward for some very belated "prosecution".!! (I mean why don't you take some closeup pics of said bayonet and post here so we can check it out for you, and maybe work out if its ever fitted an SMLE.?) It may also mean identifying the Enfield inspector responsible for this fiasco and giving him the proper "grilling" that he's obviously had coming to him ..... Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smac61 Posted 30 January , 2011 Author Share Posted 30 January , 2011 Chris, what do you make of the barrel date? It is badly stamped but it looks more like "16" than "14" to me. Tony, Are these supposed to be the date? It the only thing that looks like it could be "16" as you point out. If thats the case, does it seem odd that the receiver bears that poorly stamped date as well? Thanks for your help, Sean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyE Posted 30 January , 2011 Share Posted 30 January , 2011 Hi TonyE, perhaps you should consider bringing this "offender" forward for some very belated "prosecution".!! (I mean why don't you take some closeup pics of said bayonet and post here so we can check it out for you, and maybe work out if its ever fitted an SMLE.?)....... Cheers, S>S Well of course I don't know anything about these things, so I would like your help. The bayonet says "1907" so is that a clue? Also I have tried fitting the end with the metal slotty bit and wood handles to the rifle and the pointy bit pointing the other way. Unfortunately the lumpy bit on the rifle is a bit tight in the slotty bit on the bayonet. If I hammer it the catchy thing will engage but then I can't get it off. Is that a problem you have? Regards TonyE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiegeGunner Posted 30 January , 2011 Share Posted 30 January , 2011 Well of course I don't know anything about these things, so I would like your help. The bayonet says "1907" so is that a clue? Also I have tried fitting the end with the metal slotty bit and wood handles to the rifle and the pointy bit pointing the other way. Unfortunately the lumpy bit on the rifle is a bit tight in the slotty bit on the bayonet. If I hammer it the catchy thing will engage but then I can't get it off. Is that a problem you have? 1907 is the date the blade was forged. If your bayonet is not forged, it is a fake. If the bayonet is properly forged but does not fit your rifle, then your rifle is probably a fake ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smac61 Posted 30 January , 2011 Author Share Posted 30 January , 2011 Well of course I don't know anything about these things, so I would like your help. The bayonet says "1907" so is that a clue? Also I have tried fitting the end with the metal slotty bit and wood handles to the rifle and the pointy bit pointing the other way. Unfortunately the lumpy bit on the rifle is a bit tight in the slotty bit on the bayonet. If I hammer it the catchy thing will engage but then I can't get it off. Is that a problem you have? Regards TonyE I love it Cheers, Sean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 30 January , 2011 Share Posted 30 January , 2011 Tony, Are these supposed to be the date? It the only thing that looks like it could be "16" as you point out. If thats the case, does it seem odd that the receiver bears that poorly stamped date as well? Thanks for your help, Sean I think that is the mark TonyE was referring to but I think it is actually part of the proof stamp (with the crossed flags etc) - if so that would explain why it is on both the barrel and the receiver. Usually the date stamp would be in the form '14 (apostrophe 14) for 1914. It may well be that you would have to remove the action from the forend to see the date stamp which might well be below the level of the wood. I have a couple of actions apart at the moment so I will see if I can photograph one and post it for reference. I should just add as I haven't said it yet that I think yours is a nice example of the type. Early war dated rifles with even partial volley sights are significantly less common than later war ones. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smac61 Posted 30 January , 2011 Author Share Posted 30 January , 2011 I should just add as I haven't said it yet that I think yours is a nice example of the type. Early war dated rifles with even partial volley sights are significantly less common than later war ones. Chris Thanks, I'm quite pleased with it. Scarcity and cost aside, what is your opinion on trying to find volley sights, upper wood with good fingers, correct rear sight and unit marking disk? If I do this, it will be only with period correct original parts IF I can find them. Part of me says "it tells a story" leave it as is, but my OCD side wants to "fix" it... Thanks, Sean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyE Posted 30 January , 2011 Share Posted 30 January , 2011 Even if you got another rearsight with windage, it would not then be numbered to the rifle. Original volley sights are pretty scarce although there are reproductions available, and it would not be hard to find a handguard with fingers. However, I suggest you talk to your OCD side and dissuade it from interfering with a very nice rifle and leave it "as is". Regards TonyE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 30 January , 2011 Share Posted 30 January , 2011 Even if you got another rearsight with windage, it would not then be numbered to the rifle. Original volley sights are pretty scarce although there are reproductions available, and it would not be hard to find a handguard with fingers. However, I suggest you talk to your OCD side and dissuade it from interfering with a very nice rifle and leave it "as is". Regards TonyE I would agree with Tony. Although not "original" the rifle demonstrates official modifications made during its long service life, I would leave it as is. Besides - this gives you a reason to go hunting for another in original condition!! Warning: if you start down this path this can happen: Here are a couple of date stamps for reference Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smac61 Posted 30 January , 2011 Author Share Posted 30 January , 2011 Thought I'd get a look at the whole knox form... One more. Where is that pesky date? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 30 January , 2011 Share Posted 30 January , 2011 Thought I'd get a look at the whole knox form... One more. Where is that pesky date? That is interesting - there does not seem to be one! It would usually be by the broad arrow stamp unless perhaps it is covered by the civilian proof stampings on the other side.... it looks a bit like there is a 30 in the middle there on the second picture. I am going to have to ponder this, the most obvious explanation would be a civilian rebarrelling at some point or simply omitting to stamp the date on when assembled. One can never say never with Enfields. Is the bore in decent shape? Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smac61 Posted 30 January , 2011 Author Share Posted 30 January , 2011 I am going to have to ponder this, the most obvious explanation would be a civilian rebarrelling at some point or simply omitting to stamp the date on when assembled. One can never say never with Enfields. Is the bore in decent shape? Chris Bore looks very good to me. That is to say it looks clean, shiny, and pit free with well defined rifling... I'll include a link to all of my pictures in case your interested. Being new to this, I would appreciate any observations you may have. 1914 LSA S.M.L.E. Mk 3 <---- (would this be the proper way to identify this rifle) Thanks again, Sean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 30 January , 2011 Share Posted 30 January , 2011 Bore looks very good to me. That is to say it looks clean, shiny, and pit free with well defined rifling... I'll include a link to all of my pictures in case your interested. Being new to this, I would appreciate any observations you may have. 1914 LSA S.M.L.E. Mk 3 <---- (would this be the proper way to identify this rifle) Thanks again, Sean Strictly speaking MkIII (roman numerals) The only rifles marked Mk3 (arabic numerals) are post independence Indian produced rifles LSA Co (London Small Arms Company) is of course the manufacturer and not therefore part of the official designation, but nice for the description. off to look at your piccies Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyE Posted 30 January , 2011 Share Posted 30 January , 2011 I agree that it is an interesting one Chris. I think you are correct that any date stamp has probably been obliterated by the civilian proof. It is unlikely to be a civvy re-barrel because of the militray proofs but I suppose it could be a surplus barrel fitted later in civilian life. As you say, never say never. Regards TonyE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smac61 Posted 31 January , 2011 Author Share Posted 31 January , 2011 I received a reply on another forum regarding the lack of date. What do you guys think? It's an LSA barrel, whenever it was installed. LSA didn't date their barrels. My thinking is running along the lines of original barrel. I've got a CLLE with an LSA replacement barrel, and it's dated to the conversion...the LSA inspection stamps appearing noticeably older than the date. It's certainly possible that it was an interwar replacement (EFD Inspection stamps), but I'd have thought it would've picked up a date at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 1 February , 2011 Share Posted 1 February , 2011 It is badly stamped but it looks more like "16" than "14" to me. Regards TonyE Whats all this nonsense about a "missing date" anyway.? TonyE (our resident armourer) has already identified the date stamp, and I'm sure he will point it out to the rest of us in due course ..... BTW Smac61, that weird looking stamp which you had pointed out is in fact the cypher part of the barrel proof. The stamping is a lot easier to make out as the letters GR (for Georgius Rex) when the pic is rotated as shown below. Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now