Observations of Bayonets

[sawdoc34]

Hello chaps,

What do you make of these?

[shippingsteel]

Well these two look to be a pair of British P1903 bayonets.? While the stamped markings are quite faint they can still tell us a little of their story.

The darker handled bayonet to the right could well be a newly made P1903 that was made by Enfield (EFD) in what looks like May of 1903.

But then again it doesn't appear to be stamped with the 1903 numerals, so there's a fair chance that it's just a very late made P1888 Mk.III ...

The bayonet with the lighter coloured grips looks to be a conversion from what was originally a P1888 bayonet made by Wilkinson, I think.?

You can see it has the freshly overstamped 1903 together with the Enfield inspection mark placed on the spine from the time of the conversion.

There are some very faint stampings closer to the crossguard which give it away as a later conversion, plus the blade profile suggests Wilkinson.

I think thats a fairly tricky one to post, Aleck - I hope I scraped through it OK.!!

Cheers, S>S

[sawdoc34]

S>S you are correct again my friend, is there owt you dont know

1 is indeed a P1888 conversion & the other is the Mk3 P1888 that I eventually managed to pick up this weekend.

Any idea on the unit markings? Looks like SIC.

[shippingsteel]

Any idea on the unit markings? Looks like SIC.

I had a look for this marking, but no - I've got nothing. I guess we now fallback to the regular suspects - probably some obscure Indian unit.?

There is much about the bayonet that suggests Indian, including the scabbard with the darkened metal fittings and the squared-end chape.

Even the date of manufacture (May 1903) suggests it was going straight to India, as by then the P1903 had started to be introduced for the SMLE.

Cheers, S>S

[trajan]

OK, time for me to breathe some life into this topic... What's this one? Clue - not exactly what it seems to be at first sight... (And yes, I know its a bit blurry - still learning how to use a digital camera - but there is enough there to make a start!)

[shippingsteel]

Looks a lot cleaner than the one I just spent most of the afternoon scrubbing rust off ....

Trajan the trick with the digital cameras is to crop and resize the original image until it fits within the 100kb limit, does take some time getting used to.

Cheers, S>S

[trajan]

Bah, I hate having to learn new technology... It was so much easier with my old Nikon, extension tubes and slide film, subsequently scanned for digital purposes... B**gg**r of a job to find slide film now never mind get it developed But I will try again later (i.e. tomorrow - ma-in-law has just arrived.. .!!! ) if this one is too blurry. Even so, the basic details are clear, and a quick right click and save and enlarge should suffice for observations to be made according to the usual rules!

Trajan

PS: and what, pray, is the new acquistion of yours?

[4thGordons]

Bah, I hate having to learn new technology... It was so much easier with my old Nikon, extension tubes and slide film,

Get yourself a used Nikon D1 - they go for a song now because everyone HAS to have the newest and greatest multi-megapixesl (pointless for most people and largely a mathematical con anyway)

They are based on the old Nikon body with digital internals - built like a tank and I bet your old lenses/tubes will fit...it'll be like the old days without the developing.

For display on the forum if you reduce DPI to 75-100 and set the image size at 5" x 7" you will get a largish picture (big enough for viewing) with a smallish file size from almost every image (although file size will vary with complexity)

Here is a complex image with lots of colours - @95kb

[shippingsteel]

Well I was working on an Austro-Hungarian M1895 bayonet that was actually made in Austria, unlike yours which I believe was made in Budapest.?

Cheers, S>S

[trajan]

S>S and 4th Gordons - thanks for photography advice!

S>S - 'Well I was working on an Austro-Hungarian M1895 bayonet that was actually made in Austria, unlike yours which I believe was made in Budapest.?'

On the right track, but it is an OEWG-made bayonet. BUT, as I said, 'Clue - not exactly what it seems to be at first sight'!

Trajan

[shippingsteel]

On the right track, but it is an OEWG-made bayonet. BUT, as I said, 'Clue - not exactly what it seems to be at first sight'!

Yeah well my sight's not that good - especially when looking at such a SMALLISH object.!!

Anyway I'll take a guess and say its some kind of rework that involved a change of crossguard or increased offset to suit another rifle.

The muzzle ring does appear to be fractionally higher-set than I would expect to see on a standard M1895 for the Mannlicher rifle.

Its either that or the MRD is just smaller than normal which gives the impression that it is sitting higher. There's a lot of M'95 'variations'.

Cheers, S>S

[trajan]

Yeah well my sight's not that good - especially when looking at such a SMALLISH object.!! Cheers, S>S

Sorry about that photo-sizing problem... I will get the hang of it soonish... Anyway, S>S, you are certainly working on the right lines no matter how bad you claim your eyesight to be (if it was that bad you wouldn't be setting us these little tests!!! . And in fact your eyesight is spot on with this... Read on...)

This photo below shows the question bayonet above a regular OEWG (Czech) Mannlicher 95 bayonet with a vertical scale - and as you saw, the muzzle ring and crossguard on the question bayonet are just that little bit higher above the handle than a regular M95: the top of the crossguard on the question bayonet is 350 cm, as opposed to 300 mm on a regular M95 (the MRD is also slightly bigger, although you cannot, of course, see that). So, what is it? A Greek Y (for Model) 1903, made for the Mannlicher-Schönauer M1903 rifle. I bought it thinking that it was simply a nice looking Mannlicher 95 with Greek markings, but further research and help from members of another Forum established its true identity. Apparently it is pretty rare (or at least 'uncommon' according to one source): it seems that only about 128,000 of these Y1903 bayonets were made and most of them were later converted to a regular Mannlicher-Steyr fitting. So, all in all, a nice find that I am very happy to have!

Cheers,

Trajan

EDIT: regarding its rarity. One collector of Greek bayonets, the one who identified it for me, said he had only seen two unconverted Y1903's: one in a private collection and the other illustrated in a book...!!!

[shippingsteel]

A tricky one huh.? Good one Trajan .... yes, well I've just been reading up on that GB thread. Could you measure the precise MRD for me.?

Cheers, S>S

[trajan]

Yes, I knew it would be a tricky one - but it's the only puzzling one I have (so far!) that would fit this thread. I also suspected that you would get the main discrepancy, the height of the crossguard and muzzle ring. I'll check the MRD when at home (if M-I-Law and kids permit me time - end of Ramandan feast about to start) but off-hand I think its 140 mm.

Trajan

[4thGordons]

off-hand I think its 140 mm.

Trajan

that would seem rather large for a rifle.

Chris

[trajan]

that would seem rather large for a rifle. Chris

Too right! Never do things off the top of the head! Back home now... The Greek Y1903 has a MRD of (near enough) 1.0 cm. My M1894's (Hungarian and Czech) are both 1.2 cm.

BTW, even nicer about my Greek Y1903 is that it has an OEWG and Greek marked scabbard to go with it - also a frog. but with no markings.

Back to Eid preparations (with beer in hand as i am a gavur!)

Trajan

EDIT: For those who don't know. 'Eid' = end of Ramadan (= party time - starts tonight in Turkey!; 'gavur' = infidel, meaning a non-believer in Islam, from which comes 'kaffir' in Afrikaans, etc.

[shippingsteel]

Too right! Never do things off the top of the head!

Back home now... The Greek Y1903 has a MRD of (near enough) 1.0 cm. My M1894's (Hungarian and Czech) are both 1.2 cm.

Back to Eid preparations (with beer in hand as i am a gavur!)

Hey Trajan, I think you may have had that "beer in hand" for a little TOO long by the sounds of it.!!

Regarding your measurements, the standard M1895 bayonet has the 15.0mm MRD, while you'd be looking for 14.0mm on your Y1903 version.

After reading through that other thread, I'd just say that you want to be very careful jumping to conclusions when it comes to identification of bayonets.

I don't know that much about these at all, but I do know that confusion reigns supreme when discussing the multitude of reworks for different countries.

Much of that history has been either lost or garbled because of the misinformation caused by captured and modified weapons or simply diverted production.

Before providing any confirmation on a bayonet identification I think those experienced collectors would really need to see some photos with measurements.

For myself, I would only be totally happy when it was actually snapped onto the particular rifle in question, with a nice clean fit to remove any lingering doubts.!

I don't want to spoil your celebrations, but I would advise caution and suggest more research may be required, to properly nail down exactly what this bayonet is.

From what I can gather the Y1903 family of M-S rifle did continue on in service well into the interwar period and further contracts were placed with OEWG/Steyr.

There was also a Mannlicher M95/24 short rifle that was produced for Greece which used a version of the M95 bayonet (see HERE but don't rely on that information)

Note that Kiesling has your bayonet described as #80 (page 290) and does mention the 1924 contract, but again I don't believe all of that description is totally correct.

FWIW, I would suggest that from its style of manufacture (different shape fuller from early OEWG) and very clean condition that its most likely from the 1924 contract.?

Cheers, S>S

[trajan]

Hey Trajan, I think you may have had that "beer in hand" for a little TOO long by the sounds of it.!! Regarding your measurements, the standard M1895 bayonet has the 15.0mm MRD, while you'd be looking for 14.0mm on your Y1903 version.

That (those?) beer(s) - plus combination of kids running around, first use of new calipers etc... A moral there somewhere...!!! I did think those MRD's were funny and so I double checked the first chance I had this morning even before reading your post... Yes, you are quite right: the Y1903 is 14, the M1895 is 15...

After reading through that other thread, I'd just say that you want to be very careful jumping to conclusions when it comes to identification of bayonets.

I don't know that much about these at all, but I do know that confusion reigns supreme when discussing the multitude of reworks for different countries.

Much of that history has been either lost or garbled because of the misinformation caused by captured and modified weapons or simply diverted production.

Before providing any confirmation on a bayonet identification I think those experienced collectors would really need to see some photos with measurements.

For myself, I would only be totally happy when it was actually snapped onto the particular rifle in question, with a nice clean fit to remove any lingering doubts.!

I don't want to spoil your celebrations, but I would advise caution and suggest more research may be required, to properly nail down exactly what this bayonet is.

Point taken and thanks for the advice. Holding off on any further celebrations until further checks!

From what I can gather the Y1903 family of M-S rifle did continue on in service well into the interwar period and further contracts were placed with OEWG/Steyr.

There was also a Mannlicher M95/24 short rifle that was produced for Greece which used a version of the M95 bayonet (see HERE but don't rely on that information)

Note that Kiesling has your bayonet described as #80 (page 290) and does mention the 1924 contract, but again I don't believe all of that description is totally correct.

This is Kiesling 2nd edition, p. 290 right? But I am confused - no mention there of the 1924 contract!

FWIW, I would suggest that from its style of manufacture (different shape fuller from early OEWG) and very clean condition that its most likely from the 1924 contract.?

I did wonder about the square-ended fuller on this (let's say, 'potential') Y1903. I have the same square-ended fuller on a M95 FGGY and a scan of Kiesling suggests that this style is more often found on FGGY than OEWG. But my 'potential' Y1903 is OEWG marked - and the condition closely matches my early Czech M95.

Cheers, S>S

Thanks again S>S for your comments and for helping to keep this enthusiastic tyro on the straight and narrow!

Trajan

[shippingsteel]

So it has the 14mm MRD, what about any serial numbers.? Is that the G mark stamped on the left ricasso.?

Regards to the Kiesling reference, it is in the 2009 printing of the 'big book', and the 1924 mention is in the weapons it would fit section at the top.

Also check Old-Smithys dedicated M1895 page HERE where he has the data sheet at the top of the page. Near the bottom is the Greek M95 section.

If you look at the heading OE-WG (greek MR) it says all the Greek M95's made by OEWG have the rectangular fuller and the Greek MR ie.14mm.

I don't know enough about these to say for sure one way or the other, but from the available information I would think it a common Greek M95 bayonet.

Cheers, S>S

[trajan]

So it has the 14mm MRD, what about any serial numbers.? Is that the G mark stamped on the left ricasso.?

Regards to the Kiesling reference, it is ... in the weapons it would fit section at the top. Also check Old-Smithys dedicated M1895 page HERE where he has the data sheet at the top of the page. Near the bottom is the Greek M95 section. If you look at the heading OE-WG (greek MR) it says all the Greek M95's made by OEWG have the rectangular fuller and the Greek MR ie.14mm. I don't know enough about these to say for sure one way or the other, but from the available information I would think it a common Greek M95 bayonet. Cheers, S>S

Ok, the serial number is 1354 followed by Greek letter 'Gamma', and yes, the G mark is on the other ricasso, and it has what I assume is the small St.George (4 mm wide) on the pommel. The frog stud has a cross potent (i.e., an equal-armed Greek cross with crossbars at the end of each arm) within a circle over OE / WG.

Aaaah, the Kiesling ref - I was looking quickly under remarks for a mention of the '1924 contract' rather that under rifles... (another very embarassed sigh!)

Thanks for the link to the Old Smithy page. I hadn't realised that all Greek bayonets had the same MRD. But I still think that my bayonet is unlikely to be a 'common' Greek-marked M95 bayonet. Remember, my (?)Y 1903 has a higher cross-guard and muzzle ring than the regular M95. On my (?)Y 1903, it is 18 mm from top of handle to bottom of muzzle ring and 35 mm to the top of the crossguard. On the M95, the corresponding figures are 13 and 31 mm. The one's that Old Smithy shows both seem to match the latter figures not the former.

Cheers,

Trajan

[shippingsteel]

I don't really know what to make of it to tell the truth. The Y1903 short bayonet is probably the most obscure and badly (mis)-documented bayonet going around.

So I started to do some digging myself and found this nice colour photo taken in 1913. Greek gendarmes in Salonika with the M1903 M-S rifle and short bayonet.!

Thought you might like to see it Trajan. The bayonet may be rare in itself but I'd expect this photo of the actual bayonet being worn in use is probably even rarer.!

http://forums.gunboards.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=393443&d=1295729560

Here is another LINK which I think clearly and concisely addresses the identification issue. So it would seem it IS an original Y1903 - and the others are all wrong.

Cheers, S>S

[trajan]

Thanks S>S, that's a nice photo!

And now with some free time and peace at home (holiday here and our small flat finally empty of family and assorted relatives), time for concentrated and uninterupted attention on your posts and this bayonet.

I checked the link you gave and also re-checked the "Greek Schoenauer or Mannlicher bayonet" thread on GBF, which I have used and which you may have missed. Note post 50 on the latter (by NICK), with an illustration from Ch. Sazanidis' book, "Ta opla ton Ellinon", which I have cropped and added below - no. 2 is the "1903/14 (long) for M[annlicher-]S[choenaur]", and no. 3 is the "1903 (short) for MS" . It's a bad photo in the original book (and I still haven't worked out how to resize these things properly for GWF), but it does show the distinctive higher crossguard on these bayonets required for fitting to the MS rifle.

GBF member NICK in that same post also provided the crucial information (perhaps from the same book?) that on the Y1903, the "distance from the handle to the bottom of the muzzle ring = 17.8 mm": well, I'm still using 'analogue'(!) calipers (digital and dial ones cost US$ 50 or more over here), and these show the distance on mine to be a tad below 18 mm. GBF member HELLASBAYOS post 10 on the "Greek Mannlicher bayonets" thread (which I had not previously seen), adds "On the original [Y1903] bayonet the length of the cross guard is approx 67mm", which is again what I have on mine. HELLASBAYOS also adds, same post, "the original scabbards for the M1903 bayonets have the Steyr mark (OE over WG) and a small cross within a circle on the frog stud", which is exactly what I have.

So, yes, I think it safe to say what I have is an unaltered MS Y1903 (short). BUT what I really need to do now is get in touch with HELLASBAYOS!

Cheers, and thanks for your thought-provoking comments - and 'Observations' - on this bayonet.

PS: BTW, it looks like I might just possibly have an original frog as well. Needless to say, it is not marked, but the shape seems to be a close match to the one in the photo; and by comparing it size-wise (using the 100 mm long bayonet handle as a working scale), I make the one in the photo at about 225 mm curved tail to straight top, and mine is the same.

EDIT: Just seen on GBF today, "M95 scabbard marking" - near-identical frog stud marking to mine, confirmed by HELLASBAYOS as MS 1903 or 1903/1914 marking.

[trajan]

And finally, yes the confirmation came through from the Greek bayonet authority. I do have an unconverted Y1903. As used by the Greek army in WW1 and in the ill-fated Turkish expedition of 1922. For those who like bayonets this is one to keep an eye open for as there were only 130,000 made and most were later converted to the regular Mannlicher fitting.

On a more personal note, I realise that some GWF members are not attuned to why some other members find the artefacts of the Great War (whether medals, uniforms, rifles or bayonets) so interesting. The fact is that they represent a tangible reality of what actually went on. As such they bring home a greater reality than a name on a monument or a name in a book. My maternal grandfather and my maternal stepgrandfather (both Pals' battalions and one at least later MGC) must have been issued with P1907's. They faced others using similar artefacts. So my P1907 bayonet (and my 98/05's) gives me a clearer contact with their past.

The tangible reality aside, they have their own interest in understanding how tactical (and also political) thinking developed (or rather did not!) in the Great War. Why did Tommy have a long P1907 bayonet in August 1914? Because the 'Hun' had the long 98/05 (and the French the Lebel or Berthier) - that's why Tommy didn't like the shorter P1888 or P1903 - tactical warfare was still thinking in terms of cavalry charges and open battlefields. But long bayonets were impracticable in trench warfare except in the (increasingly rarer(?)) bayonet charge. And so we get the trench knife in its various forms.

Trajan

[shippingsteel]

Glad the bayonet turned out to be the correct Y1903 - I think bringing that example out into the open has really boosted many peoples understanding of Greek bayonets.

An interesting post Trajan, don't go getting all "deep and meaningful" on us now - we don't need excuses, and besides it's not within the charter of this thread which is 'just for fun'.!

To get us back on track, here is another one to pick over. Considering the prices these are making nowadays it surely make sense to work on our 'hookie appreciation' aspects.?

Cheers, S>S

[Andrew Upton]

To get us back on track, here is another one to pick over. Considering the prices these are making nowadays it surely make sense to work on our 'hookie appreciation' aspects.?

Cheers, S>S

One I might actually be able to get for a change - given the inter-war refurbishment date stamp for 1931, if it was a genuine hookie it should have had the hooked quillion removed at the same time to bring it into line. Combined with what looks like a reblued or otherwise refinished quillion (to help hide possible weld/grinding/etc marks), I would guess this is an original bayonet that has been "hooked" to add value and fool the unwary.