Australian Bayonets

[5thBatt]

I have seen many sets of replacement Australian '07 grips & none had AUSTRALIA stamped on them.

[4thGordons]

I have seen many sets of replacement Australian '07 grips & none had AUSTRALIA stamped on them.

I actually have some of these I think -- I have certainly seen them. A good few sold on eBay at one point few years ago... let me have a rummage in my parts box.

Chris

Edit: I take that back! the replacement grips I have are marked SLAZ 42 and SLAZ 43 the only Australia mark I have is on a very battered old bayonet.

[trajan]

The frequency of SoS marks on Australian state marked (NSW etc) rifles and bayonets might be because Australia has a federated system and they were sold out of British Service and to the State governments rather than the Australian Commonwealth government.

Good point!

[Gew88/05]

I have seen many sets of replacement Australian '07 grips & none had AUSTRALIA stamped on them.

I appologize for not being clear, not all replacement grips had the mark, but many did. The Australia mark is also seen on rifle stoks as well - both unissued replacement stocks as well as replaced buttstocks and forearms on guns. These are not US required markings. The US required import mark on firearms has to be placed on "permanent" steel parts, usually from 1968 until relatively recently, discreetly on barrels, now the marking is required to be on the receivers since, by US law, the receiver is the gun. Bayonets and parts are not required to be marked.

[4thGordons]

I appologize for not being clear, not all replacement grips had the mark, but many did. The Australia mark is also seen on rifle stoks as well - both unissued replacement stocks as well as replaced buttstocks and forearms on guns. These are not US required markings. The US required import mark on firearms has to be placed on "permanent" steel parts, usually from 1968 until relatively recently, discreetly on barrels, now the marking is required to be on the receivers since, by US law, the receiver is the gun. Bayonets and parts are not required to be marked.

This is accurate now BUT in the run up to the passage of the 1968 Act I believe there was discussion about the need to mark the origin of weapons and components. Which would include stocks, bayonet handles etc. As you say, this did not make it into the 1968 Act as it was passed (and has since been amended) but I believe both the AUSTRALIA and the ENGLAND stamps were a result of US legislative moves rather than moves in the UK or Australia.

Chris

[trajan]

The frequency of SoS marks on Australian state marked (NSW etc) rifles and bayonets might be because Australia has a federated system and they were sold out of British Service and to the State governments rather than the Australian Commonwealth government.

Good point!

Having just come back to this after a day at work on Byzantine churches... Byzantine seems appropriate to what is going on here, in the sense of complexities of bureaucracy... I confess that I know less than nowt about how Australia was governed or received military supplies, etc., in the time up to 1914 or after, BUT I am wondering why and when GB appears to have sold unhooked P.07's to the state governments such as NSW (and Victoria, if that is what my example is)? And, if they were the property of individual Austrlan states, then were the possessor states of Australia thus exempt from the LOC ordering the removal of hooks? IIRC, Australia was still making HQ's after that LOC.

Does our cobber SS have any suggestions here? See his post no. 13 at: http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=216389 where he writes: "In Australia it is a commonly seen mark on British supplied weaponry from the pre-war period, usually found on the Enfield rifles, bayonets & scabbards. So it is a useful clue when trying to ascertain some of the history behind the various pieces. With the mark indicating it has been shipped to the colonies."

That aside, IIRC, SS was suggesting on another thread )can't find which one!) that Australian SOS marks were different from GB ones - any supporting evidece?

Trajan

PS: And where IS SS - there's been lots on hookies and thing recently but narry a word... Is he doing a centurion?

[Gew88/05]

Well, the marking - if it was applied for import here and it was not - has nothing to do with the GCA of 1968. The first marking statute here in the US was enacted in 1890 and, as well as it's succesors, is still in effect today, it started out to protect US knife manufacturers from dumping of sometimes inferior products by European makers, primarily those in Britain whose labor costs were much lower. There are many items that do not require the marking, and there are instances where the container that the items are shipped in is required to be marked but not the items contained therein.

Under the '68 GCA, all firearms do require country of origin as well as importer and caliber markings but their parts do not. That includes bayonet grips but, as you say, it may have been a part of the "run up". Of course, the import of the majority of Australian bayonets and parts, once very scarce here in the US, did not take place until the early 1990s, long after the law had been passed.

For information on country of origin markings as required by the US International Trade Comission, Google "country of origin markings on imported goods" and you will get links to a number of US Government laws on the subject.

However, we are getting off topic here, so let me say this; I was told long ago when John Jovino imported the surplussed Australian Lee-Enfields, bayonets and parts that the markings on some of the wooden items - stock parts and bayonet grips - were applied by the manufacturer in Australia or the Australian government on acceptance. The stocks with the marking that were on guns were certainly covered with the same grease as the rest of the firearm and showed the same wear and tear as the rest of the rifle (or bayonet) so it appeared to be so. Who knows, maybe I was misinformed and the marking on a small percentage of the items were applied here and the rifles and bayonets had grease of the same type used on the unmarked items applied? But look again at jscott's 2 bayonets in post #31 of this thread, the "Australia" marked grip on his bayonets shows a great deal of wear from issue, they are not freshly applied. The markings were there while the bayonets were on issue, there can be no doubt about it.

[trajan]

We are going rather off-topic here, but for completeness, there does seem to be a relative glut of Australian SLAZ-marked bayonet grips around in the UK at the moment, but nothing marked 'Austalia'

[msdt]

Is that a province in Turkey, Trajan?

Not studying Byzantine churches, but Cambodian temples ready for a trip in March. Wonder if there are any colonial French bayonets around?

Cheers,

Tony

[shippingsteel]

That is an interesting statement Shippingsteel, the "Australia" marking is quite uncommon here in the US, when found it is considered a marking applied in Australia on a replacement grip that was supplied by the Australian government. If you look again at the photo supplied by jscott showing the "Australia" marking on his grip, it is quite worn indicating that the bayonet has been used quite a bit with the marking on the grip.

As far as I am concerned this issue is a "no-brainer"... but everyone is entitled to an opinion, and all I can state is my opinion based on seeing and handling many hundreds of bayonets so marked.

This marking has absolutely nothing to do with grips. It has everything to do with import requirements that were in place at the time these were being readied for sale into the global milsurp market.

I believe these markings were applied in Australia before sale, to satisfy prospective buyers (read US market) requirements. The bulk of the Aussie surplus (but not all) was then sold into the USA.

I have no real understanding of the exact legislation that caused this to happen, but I do have knowledge of what I have seen in the worldwide market, and evidence that lies in the items themselves.

From what I have seen the markings were stamped into the LHS grips ONLY, whilst the bayonet (press stud up) was resting on a bench. The imprint varies considerably in depth, some are very light.

I understand the point that some of the markings do show signs of wear and usage, however these are bayonets that have spent 50 years knocking around in the milsurp market, with rough handling.

Probably the best way to try and "debunk the myths" is for me to do a 'case study example'. This is an Aussie service bayonet with a very long history, that I got from a US junk shop & later restored.

So as you can see this is a British made P1907 that was made in September 1911 at RSAF Enfield. It then made its way into Australian service, and was stamped with the Dept. of Defence letter D^.

Now this example would have started out with a hooked quillon but it was removed during it's time in service. It also started out with British Walnut grips and I don't believe these were ever replaced.

And then after 50+ years in service, when this bayonet was being released onto the milsurp market, it was stamped with the word AUSTRALIA on what was the easiest spot to place such a marking.

And what is definitive in this case, is that as luck would have it this stamping actually caught the edge of the grip-screw nut. You can clearly see part of the letter A still imprinted into the steel.

So this proves the AUSTRALIA mark has absolutely nothing to do with grips, and that it was stamped into the bayonet with the grips in situ (and also into the earlier British made bayonets)

Cheers, S>S

[5thBatt]

But look again at jscott's 2 bayonets in post #31 of this thread, the "Australia" marked grip on his bayonets shows a great deal of wear from issue, they are not freshly applied. The markings were there while the bayonets were on issue, there can be no doubt about it.

Looking at this post shows a early British 07 with Walnut grips, to me the AUSTRALIA stamp has some wear but is not worn & looks to be stamped a lot later in life.

Gew88/05, i have been collecting for 30+ years, my focus has been 99% of that time the Lee-Enfield, mainly the SMLE, i have looked at & handle countless rifles & bayonets & owned at least 200 over those years of which i have kept a core collection of around 40 rifles & almost enough bayonets for each

My collection of Enfields as it was mid 2013.

The darker SMLE about the middle is my 1920 Siamese contact, to the right are all the inter war & WW2 & later rifles, all the ones to the left are Great war & earlier.

In all these years i would have seen one P'07 in "the flesh" with Australia stamped on the grips & as for the rifles, as they were stamped under the grip i may have missed some but otherwise, none.

Since i got on-line i have seen a few but they nearly all show up in the US with some in Australia, this is the same sort of thing i see with the Jovino marked rifles & from what i understand of them, they were marked in Australia, most were shipped to the US & the rest remained in Australia to be sold there, is there a relationship between the AUSTRALIA stamp & Jovino? this i don't know as i have not seen enough of them to link them.

While i have no hard facts as to when & why they were stamped, i certainly don't believe they were stamped by the factory or while in-service.

Edited 15 January , 2015 by 5thBatt

[trajan]

As far as I am concerned this issue is a "no-brainer"... but everyone is entitled to an opinion, and all I can state is my opinion based on seeing and handling many hundreds of bayonets so marked.

Good to have you back cobber!

One simple question - I take your word that you have handled 'many hundreds of bayonets so marked'. So any thoughts on why so few of our US of A GWF members seem to have seen these? E.g., Gew 88/05 at post no. 120?

Other thing is, any thoughts on that JAC HQ at: http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=223288#entry2213333 Somwthing not quite right there...???

[shippingsteel]

So any thoughts on why so few of our US of A GWF members seem to have seen these? E.g., Gew 88/05 at post no. 120?

I would suggest they are probably not looking in the right place or for long enough. I especially look for the Australian bayonets so I see them all the time.

As an example, since you asked I just went on ebay and found this one HERE. Not WW1 but WW2 in this case, and showing a good picture of the marking.

Cheers, S>S

[trajan]

Thanks - and whoever buys that is going to have a problem with what looks like leather rot... It ate through the belt strap part of the scabbard of one of my early P.1888 finds...

[Gew88/05]

5thBatt, I have to rethink my statements, you are correct and my apologies to all who have tried to convince me of my mistaken impression using 20 year old information. It is obvious that Mr. Jovino, when he imported the Australian items to the US wanted to comply with the existing laws as he understood them at least began making the effort. As I said earlier, the law requiring foreign produced good for the US market had to be marked to the country of origin dated back to the 1890s and he did so. Or at least started to. The '68 GCA still requires each individual weapon be marked but not so all the parts and pieces with the exception of the receiver which is by US law, the gun. We see no markings on bayonets from any other countries, witness the thousands upon thousands of bayonets imported by Navy Arms/Gibbs at the same time along with the Turkish rifles. Occasionally bayonets and military knives imported from Britain are marked but not always. As a mater of fact it is seen more on knives than bayonets, again, probably an importer trying to comply with a law that may not actually affect them.

Again my apologies for any misunderstanding I may have caused, I bow out of the discussion and wish everyone well.

[trajan]

5thBatt, I have to rethink my statements, you are correct and my apologies to all who have tried to convince me of my mistaken impression using 20 year old information. It is obvious that Mr. Jovino, when he imported the Australian items to the US wanted to comply with the existing laws as he understood them at least began making the effort. As I said earlier, the law requiring foreign produced good for the US market had to be marked to the country of origin dated back to the 1890s and he did so. Or at least started to. The '68 GCA still requires each individual weapon be marked but not so all the parts and pieces with the exception of the receiver which is by US law, the gun. We see no markings on bayonets from any other countries, witness the thousands upon thousands of bayonets imported by Navy Arms/Gibbs at the same time along with the Turkish rifles. Occasionally bayonets and military knives imported from Britain are marked but not always. As a mater of fact it is seen more on knives than bayonets, again, probably an importer trying to comply with a law that may not actually affect them.

Again my apologies for any misunderstanding I may have caused, I bow out of the discussion and wish everyone well.

We all make the odd mistake! But before bowing out from this thread, can and if so would you direct me to where I can discover more on the Navy Arms/Gibbs purchase?

TIA, Trajan

[Gew88/05]

Certainly Trajan, the link to Gibbs Rifle Company's site is:

http://www.gibbsrifle.com/

The Navy Arms link is there as well. To get information on their imports from Turkey, you may have to contact them directly. Do keep in mind that the Turkish imports came in country in 1990 - 1991 and, as far as I know, all arms and bayonets were long ago sold and distributed to dealers and collectors across the nation and around the world. A wonderful place to spend a lot of time, there were bayonets by the crate full, you would have loved it. Of course except on rare occasion, you had to have proof of dealership, and preferably a Federal Firearms License, to gain entry to the warehouse in Martinsburg, W.Va. but I was fortunate to accompany a friend with a license on two buying trips for his business. For those of us of the Great Unwashed, there were plenty of items available in their on sight store though.

[Fromelles]

5thBatt, I have to rethink my statements, you are correct and my apologies to all who have tried to convince me of my mistaken impression using 20 year old information. It is obvious that Mr. Jovino, when he imported the Australian items to the US wanted to comply with the existing laws as he understood them at least began making the effort. As I said earlier, the law requiring foreign produced good for the US market had to be marked to the country of origin dated back to the 1890s and he did so. Or at least started to. The '68 GCA still requires each individual weapon be marked but not so all the parts and pieces with the exception of the receiver which is by US law, the gun. We see no markings on bayonets from any other countries, witness the thousands upon thousands of bayonets imported by Navy Arms/Gibbs at the same time along with the Turkish rifles. Occasionally bayonets and military knives imported from Britain are marked but not always. As a mater of fact it is seen more on knives than bayonets, again, probably an importer trying to comply with a law that may not actually affect them.

Again my apologies for any misunderstanding I may have caused, I bow out of the discussion and wish everyone well.

I must say I'm with Gew88/05 on this one.

When the question was first asked as to why only AUSTRALIA had been noted stamped on 07 bayonets grips and if there were other examples of like bayonets from CANADA, BRITAIN, NEW ZEALAND, INDIA etc only one image was produced (Post 85), and then only with the stamping on the metal tang (which I'd have thought to be the place you'd want to stamp it as it couldn't be easily removed). Surely there are numerous examples of other imported bayonets out there for us to compare!

If the theory that these are US import bayonets, then there is an abundance of AUSTRALIA marked bayonets that have made their way back to Australia, but there have been no examples of any other bayonets marked in this way making their way to our shores at least, which would suggest that only Australia supplied the US with surplus bayonets. Where are all these other examples of 'country of origin' marked bayonets for the US market?

What possible reason would AUSTRALIA be stamped on the bayonets is probably the same reason that AUSTRALIA is stamped on other Australian equipment of that period. As well as bandoliers, pouches, mess tins etc, I've a bill-hook which definitely didn't make the trip across to the US and back with AUSTRALIA faintly stamped on the handle.

We're after proof, not speculation.

Dan

[5thBatt]

Fomelles, join in over here http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?385140-AUSTRALIA-stamp-on-bayonets-amp-SMLEs&p=3216644#post3216644

[trajan]

Certainly Trajan, the link to Gibbs Rifle Company's site is:

http://www.gibbsrifle.com/

The Navy Arms link is there as well. To get information on their imports from Turkey, you may have to contact them directly. Do keep in mind that the Turkish imports came in country in 1990 - 1991 and, as far as I know, all arms and bayonets were long ago sold and distributed to dealers and collectors across the nation and around the world. A wonderful place to spend a lot of time, there were bayonets by the crate full, you would have loved it. Of course except on rare occasion, you had to have proof of dealership, and preferably a Federal Firearms License, to gain entry to the warehouse in Martinsburg, W.Va. but I was fortunate to accompany a friend with a license on two buying trips for his business. For those of us of the Great Unwashed, there were plenty of items available in their on sight store though.

Thanks - I'll be looking at that when I get back home! Those must have been lovely days for bayonet hunting...

Trajan

[Gew88/05]

What possible reason would AUSTRALIA be stamped on the bayonets is probably the same reason that AUSTRALIA is stamped on other Australian equipment of that period. As well as bandoliers, pouches, mess tins etc, I've a bill-hook which definitely didn't make the trip across to the US and back with AUSTRALIA faintly stamped on the handle.

We're after proof, not speculation.

Dan

Well said Dan. The discussion on Gunboards is equally as conclusive as this one has been. How well worn bayonets with the equally worn "Australia" mark on them got that way after entering the collectors market, no one seems to know. Though a long time member and moderator there, I have not joined in and have no plans to.

[trajan]

I would suggest they are probably not looking in the right place or for long enough. I especially look for the Australian bayonets so I see them all the time.

As an example, since you asked I just went on ebay and found this one HERE. Not WW1 but WW2 in this case, and showing a good picture of the marking.

Cheers, S>S

I must say I'm with Gew88/05 on this one.

If the theory that these are US import bayonets, then there is an abundance of AUSTRALIA marked bayonets that have made their way back to Australia, but there have been no examples of any other bayonets marked in this way making their way to our shores at least, which would suggest that only Australia supplied the US with surplus bayonets. Where are all these other examples of 'country of origin' marked bayonets for the US market?

...

We're after proof, not speculation.

Dan

That was my particular thought... I can quite understand that people in the US of A may not have been looking in the right places whereas SS has, but it still seems odd that few US of A collectors seem to have noted them but many Australian collectors have - both there and in Australia itself...

Trajan

[Gew88/05]

Trajan, they were indeed "lovely days".

Along with unending varieties of modified Imperial German bayonets and scabbards, there were Turk made bayonets that had never been seen in this country before along. The unmodified German bayonets were considered the most desirable and sold for the whopping price of $35 each, complete with scabbard. With careful searching you could find almost every variety of bayonet made and used by Germany between 1914 and 1918. And a few British P07 bayonets as well.....

[Fromelles]

Fomelles, join in over here http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?385140-AUSTRALIA-stamp-on-bayonets-amp-SMLEs&p=3216644#post3216644

Thanks 5thBatt, but I don't think I'll open up a second front, doesn't usually work out well.

Trajan, they were indeed "lovely days".

Along with unending varieties of modified Imperial German bayonets and scabbards, there were Turk made bayonets that had never been seen in this country before along. The unmodified German bayonets were considered the most desirable and sold for the whopping price of $35 each, complete with scabbard. With careful searching you could find almost every variety of bayonet made and used by Germany between 1914 and 1918. And a few British P07 bayonets as well.....

Gew88/05, do these German and Turkish bayonets bear the scars of 'country of origin' branding on them?

Other than AUSTRALIA, what other examples of bayonet 'country of origin' markings are out there in the US for us to compare? Can anyone provide images?

Dan

[shippingsteel]

We're after proof, not speculation.

Following up on 5thBatt's request for some photos on the new thread he started on Gunboards, here are the shots that were kindly (and randomly) submitted.

I have cropped and resized to allow a closeup comparison of these markings, stamped on both an Australian used SMLE rifle and an Australian P07 bayonet.

So at top we see the marking stamped on the underside of the pistol grip of the buttstock. It is found on a 1916 SMLE, refurbed in 1944 (As noted by Jrhead75)

Then at bottom we have the marking stamped on the bayonet grip. Note the AUSTRALIA has overstamped the original makers marking of SLAZ 45 (Slazenger)

Not a lot of "evidence" to work with, but just from these photos we can see that they are not overly worn, and appear to have been stamped with the same mark.

The letter shape (font) all appear very similar suggesting that these markings are very much related, and most likely were stamped around about the same time.

What is important to note is that those bayonet grips were made in 1945, and that this AUSTRALIA mark has been overstamped, so clearly dating it post WW2.

As I indicated previously, as far as I am concerned this issue is a "no brainer" ... but if anyone wants to pursue it further than I suggest taking it to another forum.

Cheers, S>S