1914 Bayonet question

[auchonvillerssomme]

Sorry if i'm being daft I don't know much about this subject but why would they issue bayonets for Martini Henry rifles when they had been superseded by the Lee Metford? wouldn't it make more sense that the 1888 ptn had been issued?

[auchonvillerssomme]

If they had the Lee-Enfield Carbines prior to the issue of the SMLE, weren't they fitted to take the 1888 bayonet?

[4thGordons]

If they had the Lee-Enfield Carbines prior to the issue of the SMLE, weren't they fitted to take the 1888 bayonet?

No, not the cavalry carbines - only the "RIC" and "New Zealand" Pattern carbines were fitted to take bayonets (yes P1888). The Lee Metford and Lee Enfield Cavalry carbines had no capacity to mount any sort of bayonet.

I agree that the most likely mix up would seem logically to be the issuing of P1888s (as there were units in the field using them) but this does not fit with the account presented as they cannot be made to fit an SMLE at all.

Chris

[auchonvillerssomme]

See I have retained some knowledge from this forum even if I did get the continent wrong!

[sawdoc34]

I used to have Martini Enfield artillery carbine (AC2) that had a Rigby cap to take a P1888 bayonet but that would hardly have been new to the Indians either (not even cavalry issue).

The shortened " cadet" bayonet (cut down P1856, 58 0r 60 with pommel grinding for Martini henry) is 2nd pic in the last 2 sets posted, also tried a Mk3 P1887 on the SAF nosecap but wouldnt even slide onto the bayonet boss.

Like S>S said (as the pics show) the 3rd bayonet in the last 2 sets (P1856/60) would be the 1 that I would go for but that was just a few bayonets from my collection tried on the end of a couple of my rifles, so that is no real proof.

Just have to pray for some pictorial evidence from the period to be certain.

Stumped !!!

Aleck

[shippingsteel]

It might be worthwhile to go to a solid reference to gain some idea of what bayonet types were still in general usage after the turn of the century.

It may come as a surprise exactly what relics were still in common use, having been through several conversions and modifications over time.

The more you understand about the military fiscal governance of the period, the more you think they may have had a few good Scots in charge ...

While a use could be found for some of the obsolete materiel, there was a general reluctance to throw it away, better to convert it to something useful.

Going to the L.o.C. reference #10559 (dated 5 Mar 1901) it states the following are still in use, describing the process for sharpening for active service:-

Sword-bayonet, Lancaster carbine

Sword-bayonet, Pattern 1887

Sword-bayonet, M.H. rifle converted (this being the original P1856/60 yataghans converted from 1873 to the 1890's, numbering in excess of 100,000)

Sword-bayonet, M.H. carbine (the bushed sword-bayonets were also used on the M.H. artillery carbines as well as the rifle)

"When the above-mentioned sword-bayonets are passing through the Ordnance Factories for repair, the blades will have the edges reduced ...."

So the above group provides some indication of what was still going around at that time, and what the available possibilities could have been.

And I'd just add that the Sword-bayonet, M.H. rifle converted, continued to be modified by shortening, well past this date, and not just for cadet use.

These all ended up going to the cadets eventually (and is how they got the "Cadet" tag given by collectors) but prior to that they were more mainstream.

They were often provided to rear-echelon units as a limited form of protection, and were carried as a sidearm by some units, probably even during the war.

These cutdown "Cadet" bayonets are also found with the modified muzzle-ring (like Alecks) which begs the question why it was needed if just used on M.H.

I don't really have a view on what might have been used in this very strange occurrence, we can only look at the possibilities and speculate in wonder.!

Cheers, S>S

[Steven Broomfield]

I did a bit more reading last evening.

The (British) 13th Hussars (Meerut Cavalry Brigade) received "new H.V. rifles and bayonets" at Marseilles.

Of the various Indian infantry histories I have, several mention being re-armed: one refers to "the new rifle and long bayonet", and another comments that they handed in the Mk II rifle they had only received a few months before, and received the Mk III in exchange. It then goes on to explain that this was done because of the new high velocity ammunition.

No-one aprt from the 20th Deccan Horse report any problems with bayonets. Even that acerbic commentator, Roly Grimshaw in his diary, fails to mentiuon problems with the bayonets, and the equally (possibly even more-)acerbic Maunsell (Jacob's Horse) doesn't mention problems.

Most odd. I do thank you all for all the trouble - I suspect a trip to kew to pore over War Diaries is in order.

This is ust a thought: would the bayonet for the Mk II rifle fit the Mark III? Is there a possibility (however remote) that the Deccan Horse received a batch of discarded Mk II bayonets?

[4thGordons]

Of the various Indian infantry histories I have, several mention being re-armed: one refers to "the new rifle and long bayonet", and another comments that they handed in the Mk II rifle they had only received a few months before, and received the Mk III in exchange. It then goes on to explain that this was done because of the new high velocity ammunition.

This is ust a thought: would the bayonet for the Mk II rifle fit the Mark III? Is there a possibility (however remote) that the Deccan Horse received a batch of discarded Mk II bayonets?

Curiouser and Curiouser!

There isn't really a "MkII" in terms of a functionally distinct rifle. There was a COND. II (converted II) that was adopted in 1903 and took Mark II and II* Lee-Metfords and MkI and MkI* Lee Enfields (MLE) and converted them to the short rifle format - functionally and in appearance and bayonet fitting these are virtually identical to the MkI (and the later MkIII) and use the same bayonet (the P1903 or P1907)

There was also a training rifle in .22 known as the .22 Short Rifle MkII but obviously that is not the one!

Exchanging rifles for those sighted for the MkVII ammunition makes sense and there was an ongoing program to resight service rifles (for example the MkI* rifles are mentioned in this respect in the LoC 16910 on the 22nd of April 1914.) We have discussed some problems related to this at various times on here, however none relate to bayonet fitting but to sighting and magazine feed issues (the new ammunition had a different profile bullet)

The most pertinent point would be that all Short, Magazine Lee-Enfields, regardless of mark (I, I Cond, II Cond, I*, Cond II*,I***, III, I**, CondII***, I**IP, III* all utilize the same nosecap and fit the same bayonets. In GW service the P1903 (which India continued to favour) and the longer P1907.

Chris

[Steven Broomfield]

Here's a thought: given that these units (including the 13th Hussars) were equipped by the Indian government, one would assume that British infantry regiments coming home from India were similarly equipped.

Does anyone have any information of re-arming British battalions on arrival home in 1914?

[sawdoc34]

S>S got me thinking about the Lancaster bayonet as I had not even considered it, so I tried it on 1 of the SMLEs & we now have another suspect that could easily be bushed to to fit as it has pleny of movement to any position on nosecap due to the pommmel grinding to make it fit a different rifle (dont ask me which 1 tho) although the comb would have to be removed & locking mech would have to be altered as well.

Could it have been 1 of these without the altered catch that kept coming off?

[sawdoc34]

Bloody hell S/S,

took some finding this thread with it being so far back but here are the pics on the P1879 on an SMLE.

Aleck

[shippingsteel]

Bloody hell S/S, took some finding this thread with it being so far back but here are the pics on the P1879 on an SMLE.

Ha Ha, I did wonder how you would go finding this thread.! I do remember just how much you like a challenge, so many thanks for persevering (great photos)

I thought it would be close, as the MRD (muzzle ring diameter) is virtually a perfect match. There is just that somewhat trifling problem of the mortise slot length.!

EDIT. Here is a LINK to the earlier thread where Aleck posted pictures of his P1879 bayonets, and as requested he kindly posted the comparison shots above.

Cheers, S>S

[sawdoc34]

S/S,

No problem mate, just had to trawl thru about dozen pages of threads & pray that my memory (which at the best of times is not that good) would not fail, otherwise it would have been open/read every thread.

Suppose I could try the bayonet back to front against the boss or could hunt down the calipers & compare both but as you say that would still leave the problem of mortise extension/catch alterations

Aleck

[shippingsteel]

You can really see why those poor Indian troops were feeling a little peeved off ... taking on the enemy would be hard enough without having this obsolete kit as well.

The boffins in charge of the supply department must have just said "yep thats close enough" without really checking to see if it would work, which it obviously doesn't.

Cheers, S>S

[4thGordons]

There is an additional twist here.

Aleck is appears to be using a GF rifle fitted with a much later (Indian) nosepiece - without the piling swivel boss in these most recent pictures. All ShtLEs in 1914 would have had this piling swivel boss and probably the piling swivel too - which would have prevented the bayonet from sliding as far back as it is in the photos and would have rendered the "fit" even more precarious!

Chris

[shippingsteel]

I thought about that problem as well. How about fitting the muzzle-ring over the bayonet boss on the SMLE (the measurements are 16.7mm versus 16.5mm, so will work) ...

... and forgetting about the attachment at the mortise slot altogether.? From the photos it looks like it should sit underneath there OK ... and then just "tie it on with string".!

Cheers, S>S