1913 Pattern bayonet

[auchonvillerssomme]

It doesn't look painted, but thats a good tip. I was fairly certain it was a HG item. It is a very nice, well looked after it came with a standard 07 scabbard which is dated 1915 and a Home Guard leather belt, in those days HG stuff was almost given away and I believe I was mocked when I bought a load of the stuff. Thanks for your help.

Mick

[TonyE]

I will have to try to find a reference, perhaps in the History of the Ministry of Munitions volume dealing with the Inspection department, but I very much doubt if the "E" inspection stamps were applied in America. The inspectors in America were mainly British anyway. I suspect that it is much more likely that the early bayonets were re-inspected at Enfield and were stamped again there to ensure that the US production was satisfactory.

I am looking into the workings of the inspection department at the moment for my thesis research.

Regards

TonyE

As I hate to make a statement that I cannot back with a primary source, I have found the reference I was looking for.

H.M.S.O. The Official History of the Ministry of Munitions, Volume IX, Review of Munitions Supply, Part II, DESIGN AND INSPECTION, (London;1922), p.29

To turn to the American side, an enormous amount of administrative work had to be undertaken by a very attenuated staff. It was necessary to organise a department on the lines of that at Woolwich, but with this difference, that in the main the inspection carried out was not to be final as far as issue to the service was concerned. The stores dispatched from America were to be subject to final examination and proof (to a varying degree according to the article) on arrival in this country.

The history does not make it clear whether this was on a percentage basis, nor if that was later changed as the American Inspection Department under General Phipps increased in competence when locally recruited inspectors became more trusted.

However, it does explain the Enfield inspection stamps on some early P.'13 bayonets.

Regards

TonyE

[shippingsteel]

Interesting quote TonyE, but I just wonder how much it would apply to the P1913 bayonets, especially considering approx 100,000 of the P1907 variety had already been delivered from the USA.

Cheers, S>S

[TonyE]

I should have been clearer about the period that the quote referreed to.

The Remington P.'07 contract (No.B.7230 dated 1 December 1914) called for delivery at 500 per day from 1.3.15 and 1,000 per day from 1.4.15. Inevitably production was delayed but delivery was complete by late 1915. These would have been inspected by teams supervised by British inspectors sent out from Woolwich with their own gauges, but even so, final acceptance would still have been in Britain.

The quote was actually talking about the organisation of the American inspection department run by General Phipps from 1915 onwards under the Ministry of Munitions. Although this was being set-up during 1915 from the teams mentioned above, Phipps and his staff did not sail from the UK until late December 1915.

Regards

TonyE

[shippingsteel]

The Remington P.'07 contract (No.B.7230 dated 1 December 1914) called for delivery at 500 per day from 1.3.15 and 1,000 per day from 1.4.15. Inevitably production was delayed but delivery was complete by late 1915. These would have been inspected by teams supervised by British inspectors sent out from Woolwich with their own gauges, but even so, final acceptance would still have been in Britain.

The quote was actually talking about the organisation of the American inspection department run by General Phipps from 1915 onwards under the Ministry of Munitions. Although this was being set-up during 1915 from the teams mentioned above, Phipps and his staff did not sail from the UK until late December 1915.

Regards

TonyE

I guess the point I am trying to get across is that even assuming the 'final acceptance' was being given in Britain, I still don't believe that the primary inspection mark was being applied there.

I have never seen an inspection mark under the 'broad arrow' on a US made P1907 or P1913 bayonet, that has even remotely looked like the comparative period British/Enfield applied mark.

The differences are relatively minor and perhaps insignificant to the casual observer, but when you are looking over large numbers of these period items, the slightest change becomes apparent.

As an illustration I will post an example of an early Remington made P1907 manufactured 8 '15 that most probably saw action in France ie. clearance hole drilled, refurbished, and reissued '18.

You can see even at that early a date that the 1/A code was being used under the arrow, the Enfield stamp being applied at the time of rework/reissue, however 2 bend test X marks have been stamped, which may or may not be significant - unfortunately I can't be certain exactly when those tests were done.

Cheers, S>S

[TonyE]

Sorry, S>S, but I do not understand the point you are trying to make.

If by "primary acceptance mark" you mean the Broad Arrow and "1A" stamp, then of course they were placed on the bayonet by the inspectors in America. I never suggested they were not; we were discussing the Enfield inspectors' stamps which you claimed in Post #42 were stamped in America.

It appears that you now agree with my point but have switched the subject to the American stamps!

My point, and the quote I offered in support, was that although the bayonets were inspected in America (and obviously stamped) they were subject to a second final acceptance into service in the UK, probably on a percentage basis. This then explained the Enfield stamp on some.

In fact the bayonet you post is open to that interpretation. The Enfield acceptance and the second proof "X" may not have been applied at re-issue in 1918, but could just as easily be an example of the second inspection and proof in the UK.

Regards

TonyE

[shippingsteel]

The initial discussion I believe was in relation to the markings that Chris first posted in #39 (pic shown below for convenience) aka the "primary acceptance mark"

I said that I didn't think the Crown K5/E mark would have been applied in England, but would have been stamped during manufacture in America, like all the rest.

Sorry if I am a little confused - I may have misinterpreted something. I'm just going on what you were saying earlier about that marking being applied in England.

BTW the bayonet that I posted above has had the clearance hole drilled in service, I can't see this having been done without having that extra inspection mark stamped.

Cheers, S>S

[TonyE]

I think we had better leave it there S>S, for the sake of the sanity of other members.

You are entitled to your belief so good luck. I thought I had explained my point clearly but obviously not!

Cheers

TonyE

[shippingsteel]

Sure TonyE fine by me. Just a quick comment in passing, probably more for the benefit of other members, as you say.

Next time your looking at an Enfield inspection mark, just check the style of the E lettering - it will always be in the Italic style, not a clean Block letter as shown above.

Cheers, S>S

[trajan]

This was the thread that came up first when looking for information on P1913 bayonets. I am currently in the UK, and having just been offered by a friend of my brother's two 1913 Remingtons, one dated 01 16, the other 05 16, both with just 'A' not 'E' inspection stamps, just what is the consensus on these now? WW1 use or later? All help and advice appreciated!

[Lancashire Fusilier]

This was the thread that came up first when looking for information on P1913 bayonets. I am currently in the UK, and having just been offered by a friend of my brother's two 1913 Remingtons, one dated 01 16, the other 05 16, both with just 'A' not 'E' inspection stamps, just what is the consensus on these now? WW1 use or later? All help and advice appreciated!

Trajan,

A British Pattern 1913 Mk.I Sword Bayonet made by Remington and stamped with British Inspector's ' A ' inspections markings is perfectly fine for this WW1 bayonet.

I have such an example in my Collection, see attached.

Reference to this British ' A ' Inspection mark for the Pattern 1913 WW1 Sword Bayonet is also found on page 194 of Skennerton & Richardson's ' British & Commonwealth Bayonets ' reference book.

Regards,

LF

[Lancashire Fusilier]

Trajan,

That particular British Pattern 1913 Sword Bayonet made by Remington and shown in my previous post, is dated ' 1 17 ' for January 1917.

Regards,

LF

[trajan]

A British Pattern 1913 Mk.I Sword Bayonet made by Remington and stamped with British Inspector's ' A ' inspections markings is perfectly fine for this WW1 bayonet.

I have such an example in my Collection, see attached.

Reference to this British ' A ' Inspection mark for the Pattern 1913 WW1 Sword Bayonet is also found on page 194 of Skennerton & Richardson's ' British & Commonwealth Bayonets ' reference book.

Thanks LF!

As you might imagine, travelling sans reference books is an annoying state of affairs... I'll get another look at these two tomorrow, but I did like the one dated 1/16, which also had (if I recall properly) a nice example of one of those narrow HG frogs. I freely admit that I don't have the same affection for P1907's and the clones thereof as many others do, but I don't have one of these in my small collection so it will certainly fill the gap between my P.1907's and my P.1917's!

Trajan

[Lancashire Fusilier]

Thanks LF!

As you might imagine, travelling sans reference books is an annoying state of affairs... I'll get another look at these two tomorrow, but I did like the one dated 1/16, which also had (if I recall properly) a nice example of one of those narrow HG frogs. I freely admit that I don't have the same affection for P1907's and the clones thereof as many others do, but I don't have one of these in my small collection so it will certainly fill the gap between my P.1907's and my P.1917's!

Trajan

Trajan,

Here is the other side of the Remington made British Pattern 1913 bayonet's ricasso, dated January 1917.

Enjoy your shopping trip, and have a safe journey.

Regards,

LF

[trajan]

Ta again, LF.

I guess I should get this one for the collection... Just have to get it back to Turkey afterwards! I'll check in again later as to purchase and what it is really like, but from memory, stamps broadly match yours, other than the date of course.

Trajan

[trajan]

Hi LF,

Well, I went for the Remington 5/16 P.1913 I was offered in the UK, and got it back safely on my return for a brief stay in Turkey, only to discover that I already had a Remington P.13... That one is 1/17, with a crown/8 as well as crown/1A - might that crown/8 be an Enfield one? There is no letter below the '8'.

Back to the new one. I was happy to get this anyway because of the frog that came with it (a WW2 dated 1940 example), but more happy to discover this morning, when I finally had a chance to really look at this bayonet, that it had a pommel mark which I had completely missed when looking at it in the evening under artificial light.

This is OUN/OTC/1 78. I assume that this is: 'Oxford University New (College)/Officer Training Corps/ (rack) 178' (OR '1 (company) (rack) 78'?) I'll post a picture later, when I am a bit more organised.

On other thing. In addition to the two 1913's, I also have a US Winchester P.1917, and looking at the three side by side, I noted that all three have badly fitting grips - the bottom edge overlaps the tang, Is this usual / normel in your experience?

TTFN,

Trajan

[Lancashire Fusilier]

This is OUN/OTC/1 78. I assume that this is: 'Oxford University New (College)/Officer Training Corps/ (rack) 178' (OR '1 (company) (rack) 78'?) I'll post a picture later, when I am a bit more organised.

Trajan

Trajan,

That is an interesting pommel mark, as ' OUN ' is for the Oundle School OTC.

Oundle school was founded in 1556 in the town of Oundle, in Northamptonshire.

Regards,

LF

[trajan]

Trajan,

That is an interesting pommel mark, as ' OUN ' is for the Oundle School OTC.

Oundle school was founded in 1556 in the town of Oundle, in Northamptonshire.

Regards,

LF

Well, there you go! Thanks LF!

I assumed this one was Oxford as it was shown to me in Oxfordshire, and I had discovered that the uni did have its own OTC with what I thought were college-based sections / companies. See, e.g., http://www.oua.ox.ac.uk/holdings/Officers%20Training%20Corps%20OT. Heck, that looks like I now have two of these school-based 'OTC' bayonets! The other is a P.1903, which you (LF) suggested might be the Bury Grammar School - http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=213982&page=1entry2116742originally for the Manchester Regiment...

Trajan

[Lancashire Fusilier]

I assumed this one was Oxford as it was shown to me in Oxfordshire, and I had discovered that the uni did have its own OTC with what I thought were college-based sections / companies.

Oxford and Cambridge Universities were both in the OTC Senior Division, with Oxford using the mark ' OXF ' and Cambridge using ' CAM '.

Regards,

LF

[trajan]

Oxford and Cambridge Universities were both in the OTC Senior Division, with Oxford using the mark ' OXF ' and Cambridge using ' CAM '.

Well, something else to look for! That P.1913 I bought all goes to show, that even when looking at something more as a curiosity piece and a filler rather than a one to fit into the collection, a good look is required.

[msdt]

Hi Trajan,

Regimentally marked 1913's are not very common I think - in fact I've only seen 1 or 2 at fairs.

Guess Oundle must have had P14's not SMLE'S. Wonder when they got them - late in WW1 or after???

Cheers,

Tony

[Lancashire Fusilier]

In addition to the two 1913's, I also have a US Winchester P.1917, and looking at the three side by side, I noted that all three have badly fitting grips - the bottom edge overlaps the tang, Is this usual / normel in your experience?

Trajan,

See if you can post a photo showing the " badly fitting grips - the bottom edge overlaps the tang ".

Regards,

LF

[trajan]

Regimentally marked 1913's are not very common I think - in fact I've only seen 1 or 2 at fairs.

Guess Oundle must have had P14's not SMLE'S. Wonder when they got them - late in WW1 or after???

I have never seen a single example of a regimentally marked P.13 - - but there again P.13's are not common in Turkey. What is even more intriguing, though, but I haven't followed this up yet, is that RAF marked P.1914 rifles do exist - http://forums.gunboa...RAF-Marked-P-14 and one of the posters on that thread claimed to have a RAF marked P.1914 bayonet, by which I suspect he meant a P.13...

See if you can post a photo showing the " badly fitting grips - the bottom edge overlaps the tang ".

Will try later - need some play-doh to prop them up!

[trajan]

See if you can post a photo showing the " badly fitting grips - the bottom edge overlaps the tang ".

Lego did the trick! The foreground one is a P.1917 (hence the 'clearance hole'!), the one at the back is a P1913. The grips on both stand proud of the tang by about 1-2 mm.

Trajan

[Lancashire Fusilier]

Lego did the trick! The foreground one is a P.1917 (hence the 'clearance hole'!), the one at the back is a P1913. The grips on both stand proud of the tang by about 1-2 mm.

Trajan

Trajan,

Those grips look perfectly fine, and are the same as mine, which all very slightly overlap the blade tang ( see attached ).

Regards,

LF