SommeTrenches Posted 3 February , 2012 Share Posted 3 February , 2012 I know the list of changes gives the adoption date of the SMLE bayonet as 1908, but it does not say what month they were first manufactured? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancashire Fusilier Posted 3 February , 2012 Share Posted 3 February , 2012 According to Skennerton & Richardson in their book " British & Commonwealth Bayonets ", page 186, they state - " Introduction of the Pattern 1907 bayonet was approved on 30th January 1908, in List of Changes, para 14170. During the 1907 financial year, only one Pattern 1907 bayonet was recorded as having been made .... and production did not begin in earnest until the following year, commencing after April, 1908 ". Although they do not say, they seem to imply, that production possibly began at Enfield in May 1908 ? I am attaching a photograph of one of the early Pattern 1907 bayonets from my Collection, dated May 1909, and made at Enfield. LF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
303man Posted 3 February , 2012 Share Posted 3 February , 2012 When you say SMLE Bayonet remember there was the 1903 Pattern First, approved 14.12.1902 then the 1907 pattern approved 30.01.08 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SommeTrenches Posted 3 February , 2012 Author Share Posted 3 February , 2012 According to Skennerton & Richardson in their book " British & Commonwealth Bayonets ", page 186, they state - " Introduction of the Pattern 1907 bayonet was approved on 30th January 1908, in List of Changes, para 14170. During the 1907 financial year, only one Pattern 1907 bayonet was recorded as having been made .... and production did not begin in earnest until the following year, commencing after April, 1908 ". Although they do not say, they seem to imply, that production possibly began at Enfield in May 1908 ? I am attaching a photograph of one of the early Pattern 1907 bayonets from my Collection, dated May 1909, and made at Enfield. LF Thanks much, that is what I was looking for! Nice quillion, if I've understood correctly the removal of the quillion was authorised in 1913 and not actually during the war? When you say SMLE Bayonet remember there was the 1903 Pattern First, approved 14.12.1902 then the 1907 pattern approved 30.01.08 Quite right, I meant the 1907 pattern. I should have specified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancashire Fusilier Posted 3 February , 2012 Share Posted 3 February , 2012 Thanks much, that is what I was looking for! Nice quillion, if I've understood correctly the removal of the quillion was authorised in 1913 and not actually during the war? Quite right, I meant the 1907 pattern. I should have specified. Same book, page 187 - " An important change was decided upon in 1913, resulting in the Pattern 1907 bayonet with Hooked Quillion removed, B325. The official approval date for the modification was 29th October, 1913, and it resulted in a new pattern of the 1907 Sword bayonet being sealed, without the hook on the crosspiece. " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
depaor01 Posted 4 February , 2012 Share Posted 4 February , 2012 " An important change was decided upon in 1913, resulting in the Pattern 1907 bayonet with Hooked Quillion removed" Why? I've looked on this forum and elsewhere, and can't find the reason the armourers were put to so much trouble to remove existing quillions. Surely the effectiveness of the bayonet wouldn't have been diminished by their presence (the quillions, not the armourers!)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancashire Fusilier Posted 4 February , 2012 Share Posted 4 February , 2012 Why? I've looked on this forum and elsewhere, and can't find the reason the armourers were put to so much trouble to remove existing quillions. Surely the effectiveness of the bayonet wouldn't have been diminished by their presence (the quillions, not the armourers!)? I cannot recall hearing about, or seeing the official reason given anywhere. I always thought it was put there to assist in a fixed bayonet fight by snagging and snapping the enemy's bayonet blade ? I always wondered if they were worried the hook would get caught on barbed wire ? I would love to know the " official " reason. LF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 4 February , 2012 Share Posted 4 February , 2012 Well no reason was "officially" given for the introduction of the bayonet without hook quillon, and I have seen no order that the others were to be modified. But they were done. The LOC #16755 dated 29 October 1913, simply states :- "Future manufacture to be without hook on cross-piece." Thats all the reason and explanation that was provided.! They must have had a reason, and I'm sure 'cost' would have been paramount, but without seeing the minutes of their prior meetings everything else must be speculation. Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bombadier Posted 5 February , 2012 Share Posted 5 February , 2012 I have heard (absolutely no proof available) was that the hook was apt to catch on absolutely anything at the most inopertune moments. Barbed wire. soldier's webbing, anything available would do and this could prove fatal if there was another chap in front of you with a pointy thing on his rifle. Nigel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Tom Posted 5 February , 2012 Share Posted 5 February , 2012 Interesting terminology. The item in question is referred to as a quillon while the official document quoted refers to a hook. Quillon seems to have dropped out of use, at least its not in my dictionary, I suppose its origins are as part of a sword. Rifle Regiments used to refer to their bayonets as swords. Musing; the hook is on the lower side of the rifle when the bayonet is fixed, i.e. opposite the fore sight and its protector. Both might have a role in bayonet fighting in stopping the opponents blade sliding along the rifle to the users hand. Equally musing; would the hook actually break another blade unless the opposing rifle was forced out of the owners hands and was being levered against the ground. Surely a twisting action on the part of the hook wielder would be insufficient to break a blade or are they more brittle than I thought? Or are my musings rubbish? Old Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 6 February , 2012 Share Posted 6 February , 2012 Interesting terminology. The item in question is referred to as a quillon while the official document quoted refers to a hook. Quillon seems to have dropped out of use, at least its not in my dictionary, I suppose its origins are as part of a sword. Rifle Regiments used to refer to their bayonets as swords. You make a good point Tom. The hook is called a "hooked quillon" because thats what it is. The quillon is the part on the underside of the crossguard, with or without hook. So when they talk about removing the hook they are technically correct, however they did not remove the entire quillon, just modified part of it. See the illustration below. I believe the term quillon was derived from the guard on the earlier swords, and you are correct that all the British bayonets were officially known as Sword Bayonets. The idea of the hook I think was to assist in bayonet fighting, it being able to block slashing moves, and also 'capture' blades with a quick twisting motion of the rifle. Whether they would be able to 'break' the blade is debateable, however I believe the idea was more to 'grab' the rifle and dispossess the enemy soldier of his weapon. Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auchonvillerssomme Posted 6 February , 2012 Share Posted 6 February , 2012 Interestingly there is nothing in HANSARD about modifications, which suprises me given the obsession MP's had with them. As an aside (you know I like a distraction), size is evidently everything. BAYONETS.HC Deb 19 May 1915 vol 71 c2329 2329 § 69. Mr. HOUSTON asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can state the length over all from butt-plate to muzzle of the British, the French, the Russian, the German, and the Austrian rifle, respectively, and the respective length of the bayonets from muzzle of rifle to point of bayonet used with the rifle of each of these armies; whether he is aware that, in the opinion of British and Canadian officers who have seen much bayonet fighting, the French bayonet is a far more effective weapon than the British; and whether the Secretary of State for War will consider the advisability of adopting the French pattern of bayonet so that our soldiers may not be handicapped in their bayonet fighting with the Germans? § Mr. TENNANT The lengths of the rifles from butt-plate to muzzle are:— § British … … 3 feet 8.5 inches. French … … 4 feet 3.12 inches. Russian … … 4 feet 3.875 inches. German … … 4 feet 1.4 inches. Austrian … … 4 feet 2 inches. And from muzzle to point of bayonet:— British … … 1 foot 5.2 inches. French … … 1 foot 8.72 inches. Russian … … 1 foot 5.125 inches. German … … 1 foot 8.35 inches. Austrian … … 9.5 inches. § As regards the second part of the question, no reports to this effect have been received, and, in the absence of any official report or recommendation on the subject, it is not intended to change the pattern of our bayonet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 6 February , 2012 Share Posted 6 February , 2012 ... As an aside (you know I like a distraction), size is evidently everything... And that is an interesting 'aside'! I knew of the anecdotal evidence claiming that poor old Tommy was wont to complain about the shortness of the SMLE with bayonet attached, but I never knew before that the matter had been raised in parliament! Thanks!!! Trajan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auchonvillerssomme Posted 6 February , 2012 Share Posted 6 February , 2012 Trajan, it is always worth undertaking a search on HANSARD, many members of parliament at that time had served or were serving in forces and took an interest in everything. Just type in the word 'bayonet' and see what you get back. http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/search Mick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 6 February , 2012 Share Posted 6 February , 2012 Thanks again, but I'll hold on searching the 2,751 entries until summer comes along! Trajan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Tom Posted 6 February , 2012 Share Posted 6 February , 2012 SS, Many thanks, a precise informative answer. Old Tom 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