Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

A few of the other bayonets


N White

Recommended Posts

Although the Turks cancelled the contract and changed to the M1890 Mauser some 220000 1887 rifles were delivered and presumably as many bayonets. Some of the undelivered part of the contract came out of the manufacturer's storage in WW1 and ended up with the Wurttemburg Landsturm.

Hi Mike,

Love to know the source for the use of the 1887 by the Wurttemburg Landsturm, please! I must re-check my library when I get home as I have referred elsewhere to a Weyersburg 1887 with a '1306' marking that was in German service. It certainly has a 'DEUTSCHLAND' requistioned stamp on the pommel, but I can't remember if it had a crossguard marking also.,,

Mind you, it never fails to astound me just HOW ill-prepared the German Reich was in 1914 for a long-term war that they had to use weapons from storage, etc!

TTFN,

Julian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Khaki, I think what you mean is how you would class the modified/converted bayonets in an overall collection, whilst they were originally French issue before capture.

Once they have been modified or converted to suit a German issue rifle or another type of "beute gewehr", then they become known as the German "ersatz" bayonet.

Yes, I wondered for a while about how to catalogue my collection of Mosin-Nagant bayonets, none of which have any detectable or clearly visible German or Austrian markings on them, but all of which came with Austrian or German metal scabbards. I eventually decided to list them as German or Austrian Ersatz.

Incidentally, I understand that some of these M-S socket bayonets might actually be Austrian-made - I gather its something to do with the shape of the locking slot. I haven't followed up on this yet, as to be honest, they are not my favourite bayonet (which is why they all need a good clean), but I would appreciate any directions to any relevant source material.

Trajan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One reference that I am aware of for the Turkish M1887's in Landsturm service is "The German Bayonet" by John Walter, which he does mention on page 81.

I would really like to see a photo of "a stack" of M1887's (either original length or shortened) as I would expect the Turked versions to have lost the crossguard.

Also if you have an original and unmodified MN91 in a constructed scabbard, than the scabbard may be termed "ersatz" but the bayonet is at best "beute gewehr"

Cheers, S>S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One reference that I am aware of for the Turkish M1887's in Landsturm service is "The German Bayonet" by John Walter, which he does mention on page 81.

I would really like to see a photo of "a stack" of M1887's (either original length or shortened) as I would expect the Turked versions to have lost the crossguard.

Also if you have an original and unmodified MN91 in a constructed scabbard, than the scabbard may be termed "ersatz" but the bayonet is at best "beute gewehr"

Cheers, S>S

I) Indeed Walter does mention that - thanks! 25,000 of them left over... somebody made a loss on that little lot... Isn't that more than enough for the Wurttemburgischer Landsturm, though?

II) I have yet to clean up two of my 1887's, including the 'sidearm' one, and so I'll do a photograph later. I don't think I have any 'Turked' 1887's but I will check that when at home (we have a very small flat and my 'study' is shared with the kids, so most of my bayonets are in drawers). Incidentally, the Turks were using short bayonets with intact crossguards during the War of Independence and possibly after, but I suppose these ones here in this photograph showing Ataturk inspecting some of Turkey's finest are or are likely to be M.1913 (nice helmets, eh?)

post-69449-0-53365000-1395995607_thumb.j

III) Yes, strictly speaking "beute gewehr" would be correct for the bayonets and ersatz for the scabbards, but as I know that you also well know, they are generally classed as Ersatz bayonets - as EB XX or ErSoc XX or something or the other! B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is another one - do we see these very often.? I'm not sure, but anyway here it is. Remember the devil is always in the detail with these identifications. :whistle:

post-52604-0-97076200-1395998689_thumb.j

Link to comment
Share on other sites

S>S

You are spot on with the reference re the Wurttemburg Landsturm use of the 1887. Walter published that book in 1976 but it is also mentioned in 'The Bayonet - a History of Knife and Sword Bayonets 1850-1970' which he co-wrote with Tony Carter and published in 1974. Tony was always very particular about checking his sources and had lots of good German contacts so I trust the information 100%.

By the way, your post #30 shows the S98 aA for the Gew 98, the original (aA -old style) issued pattern with a one piece grip.

Must leave now as I am just about to get in the car to go to France for the weekend and won't be seeing the Forum until Monday.

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would really like to see a photo of "a stack" of M1887's (either original length or shortened) as I would expect the Turked versions to have lost the crossguard.

It is with some embarrassment that I show this photograph... Last weekend, at the request of she who must be obeyed I cleared out my long Turkish bayonets from their drawers so that she could clean inside them... (something to do with spring, I gather). So I stacked them all up at one end of the 'office' table, next to a TV set we don't know what to do with, and they are still there, as this photograph, taken 10 minutes ago, shows... A mix of everything - 1874's, shortened 1874's, 1887's, 1890's and 1903's... But none of my collection of 'Turked' Turkish bayonets which I did put away!

My aim has been and is to get at least three of each type of bayonet that I am interested in, two to keep, one always ready to trade on if a better one turns up. Except, of course, that for the 1887's, 1890's and 1903's there are several different makers to consider and collect as well... And as you can probably just make out, I have succeeded in that aim with the Turks, except that I do need one more unshortened Martini-Peabody 1874 (and our mate sawdoc is holding on to one for me!). With a very few exceptions, though, they all need cleaning, a task that awaits for this summer. I used to clean them immediately after purchase, but as the boys have gotten older (and so more demanding) I haven't been able to do that for the past two years or more, and its really only one of each type that is in proper condition to put up here, so you'll have to wait for me to get all the 1887's done before you see those...

Even so, here's a stack of Turkish bayonets, which includes a few of the 'rareish' 1887's - two on the top!

post-69449-0-93901100-1396010731_thumb.j

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...I must re-check my library when I get home as I have referred elsewhere to a Weyersburg 1887 with a '1306' marking that was in German service. It certainly has a 'DEUTSCHLAND' requistioned stamp on the pommel, but I can't remember if it had a crossguard marking also...

Well, I was only able to find photographs of two examples of these 'requistioned' 1887's, neither with a crossguard marking, both with 'Deutschland' (sic) along the right-hand side of the pommel, to be read from the mortice slot looking down, one certainly and the other seemingly Weyersburg products. In one case the Ottoman Tugra mark has been nearly completely erased, in the other it is still visible. Walter mentions several versions of the marking and it would be nice to see one!

Trajan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also if you have an original and unmodified MN91 in a constructed scabbard, than the scabbard may be termed "ersatz" but the bayonet is at best "beute gewehr"

OK, now I have had a chance to look at my books...

"Beute gewehr", indeed, but the captured M-N 1891 in German or Austrian use is generally classed as the EB 147. The bayonets themselves are rarely marked, and so only identifiable as having been in use by the Central Powers on account of their scabbards. When these bayonets are marked, the Imperial German Eagle is more usual (such a mark being more common on the elbow than anywhere else), but the 'Deutschland' mark also occurs, under or on the side of the elbow.

Unit markings for these are really rare, but reported examples include '1.K 103', '4.K.231', '5.K.32' and '5.K.260', and also '9.B.4.IX.40'.

Although the assumption might be that these captured bayonets were used by troops fighting in the east, they were certainly used by units fighting in the Alsace region. And there is even one fitted with a S.98 n.A. handle that is thought to have been made in Belgium!

TTFN,

Trajan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A quick glance through the 1909 regulations indicate that the “K” marking is for kommando, or kurrasier, or kriegsschule, amongst other things (well, I don't think these bayonets are Kannnen!, and I would suspect that as we have four of these markings on – let’s face it! – 2nd class bayonets, then kriegsschule or ‘military academy’ is perhaps the more appropriate interpretation of the letter. At least one book I have states that kriegsschule were Weimar institutions, but that does not match up with the 1909 regulations.

But I know nowt on the subject of kriegsschule so explications and elaborations are welcomed!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two more bayonets from Great War participants, although one is a postwar blue job.

Since everyone is having so much fun guessing... Enjoy.

post-38182-0-47947000-1396024536_thumb.j

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh you teaser - have to get back to cooking (rissotto alla primavera, if you need to know!) but if I get back later (funny things happening in Turkey right now) then I'll have a go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Internet e-mails and other things have just gone crazy here, shades of Twitter and Youtube, but this link works, so hopefully I'll be back at sometpoint after the rdinner!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unit markings for these are really rare, but reported examples include '1.K 103', '4.K.231', '5.K.32' and '5.K.260', and also '9.B.4.IX.40'.

These K markings are not Imperial regimental markings, but are another aspect of the whole markings story ... the "internal" unit administrative mark.

I have seen these before on weaponry where there is no other possible explanation (as for being a regiment unit mark etc) ... the K is for Kompagnie.

See below an example which I just popped on the scanner, showing this type of marking on the frog stud of the steel topmount of an SG98 scabbard.

8.K.85. (8.Kompagnie Waffe Nr.85) These are secondary markings for internal purposes, as they are not sized correctly as per the official regulations.

Cheers, S>S

post-52604-0-12590100-1396050054_thumb.j

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two more bayonets from Great War participants, although one is a postwar blue job.

Well one is definitely a "pork and beans" poker often used in cooking etc. :rolleyes: (Otherwise known as the bayonet for the Mauser-Vergueiro M1904 rifle)

And the other at the top I certainly need a clearer photo for, however I think it might well be a regripped M1903 for the Siamese Mauser.? (but GW.??) :huh:

Cheers, S>S

post-52604-0-18509400-1396074752_thumb.j

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These K markings are not Imperial regimental markings, but are another aspect of the whole markings story ... the "internal" unit administrative mark.

I have seen these before on weaponry where there is no other possible explanation (as for being a regiment unit mark etc) ... the K is for Kompagnie.

Hi S>S>,

You could well be right on that marking on a frog stud being an "internal" unit administrative mark” – but I would not put absolute faith in people adhering to the last mm. when making the dies for those numbers and letters! I believe that there are too many exceptions to prove that rule! (Also, are you sure there is not a dot after that second 8 there? Lightly impressed, if so, but similar to the one after the first 8)

But, the markings I am talking about in post 34 (i.e., '1.K 103', '4.K.231', '5.K.32' and '5.K.260'), are on bayonets, not on scabbards. And the fact is that ‘K’ was a recognised letter in use to mark weaponry to denote a specific military unit or something similar.

See, for example, pp 49-50 of the "Vorschrift über das Bezeichnen und Numeriren der in den Händen der Kommandobehörden,Truppen und Administrationen ....... Waffen", better known as the 1877 regulations(!), where there is a list headed “Beispiele der Bezeichnung” (which I would translate along the lines of “Examples of the Naming method”), and which gives on p. 50 the following:-

“K. Kommando, Kaiser, Küraßier, Kriegstaffe”

But more pertinently, as the markings I mention in post 34 are on WW1 captured Russian bayonets, see pp. 12-14 of the DVE 185, also known as the 1909 regulations, where there is a list headed “Bedeutung der Stempelzeichen” (which I would translate as “Meaning of the Stamped marks”), and which gives on p. 13 the following: -

“K. Kommando, kanonen (Batterie lg. 15 cm Kan.), Küraßier, Kriegsschule”

My copy of this has the hand-written insertions “Kavallerie, Korps” also between the words Kommando and Kanonen. Of course I cannot put a date on these additions, but there is no handwritten entry in my copy of anything at all to do with ‘Flieger’ and so I assume these corrections pre-date the creation of the Fliegertruppen des deutschen Kaiserreiches, which I think was in 1916?

That aside, in post 35 I referred to a book in my library which indicated that the Kriegsschule were a Weimar institution, but I have found several Wikki (German) articles indicating that the original Kriegsschule was founded in 1902,

TTFN,

Trajan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was just looking for something else on the DVE 185 and found that my printed copy is the April 1911 supplement to the original, and has a handwritten notation suggesting that it was received or filed by whichever unit originally owned it that June. So, those handwritten entries under 'K' must date to that year or later.

Interestingly, with regard to stamping weapons, on p.5 it notes something to the effect that in the case of unstamped weapons at the outbreak of a war ("kriegsfall nötigen"), then the units must make certain themselves that the weapons are properly stamped. It goes on to note who these stamps are to be made by, but a handwritten addition corrects the original printed "Zeughausbuchsenmacher" to "Zeughauswaffenmeister, and corrects the original printed "Truppenbuchsenmacher" to "Truppenwaffenmeister" - am I correct in interpreting buchsenmacher as a gunsmith?

Trajan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... These are secondary markings for internal purposes, as they are not sized correctly as per the official regulations.

It just occurred to me that the above sentence might not make a lot of sense to some readers!

What SS is referring to are the directions given in the DVE 185 of 1909, the official regulations regarding weapons marking in Prussia, and a system later adopted by Bavaria. On p. 6 of these regulations it specifies that:-

“Buchstabenstempel in der Schrifthöhe von 4,2 und 2,5 mm. / Stempel mit römischen Zahlen in der Schrifthöhe von 4,2 mm, Zahlenstempel in der Schrifthöhe von 3,1 mm”

Which I would translate as-:

“Letter stamps are to be in the character height of 4.2 and 2.5 mm high. / Stamps using Roman numbers are to be the character height of 4.2 mm, other numbers in the character height of 3.1 mm”

The text then goes on the explain how the markings are to be done and in what sequence, etc., which is really a bit too much for me to tackle for all of you just now...not the least because it is all printed in that Kurrent schrift that the Germans used up to the introduction of the somewhat simplified Sütterlinschrift in 1935

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for the sake of completeness, I thought I’d add the relevant regulations concerning stamp sizes as these are set out in the 1877 Regulations, the Vorschrift über Bezeichnen und Numeriren ... von Waffen, the full title of which is –

"Vorschrift über das Bezeichnen und Numeriren der in den händen der Kommandobehörden, Truppen und Administrationen befindlichen, resp. für den Fall einer Mobilmachung bereit zu haltenden Waffen” :excl:

Under the title Art der Bezeichnung und des Numerirens (p. 45-6), and with reference to marking unit weaponry, this specifies the use of:-

(p.45) Buchstabenstempel in der Schrifthöhe von 4,2 mm (0,16”) / Stempel mit römischen Zahlen in der Schrifthöhe von 4,2 mm (0,16”) / (p.46) Zahlenstempel in der Schrifthöhe von 3,1 mm (0,12”)

This then goes on to explain how the units marks are to be formulated, etc. So, only a slight difference between the two sets of regulations (excepting of course the way the marks are arranged!), that is to say the 1909 regulations also have letter stamps that are 2.5 mm high.

TTFN,

Trajan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

As mention has already been made on this thread on the German use of Gras bayonets in WW1, I wonder if anyone would like to comment on a strange ricasso marking on a Châtellerault 1878 Gras I have been looking at - a simple figure '8'.

There is nothing on the bayonet to indicate German use, but not having seen anything like this before I wondered if it might just be a German marking - or is there a more prosaic explanation (Yes, NWhite, looking at you for an ID/explanation!).

TIA,

Trajan

post-69449-0-21012300-1427781229_thumb.j

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Trajan, let us go to the pile of comparative reference. On the left, Gras without numbers on the ricasso, including 3 different Steyr variants, both private contract and French military St. Etienne, Alex Coppel examples, as well as Paris-Oudry and L. Deny Paris.

On the right, numbers on the ricasso, ranging from 3 to 10. The ones on the right, all came from Tulle or Chatellerault INCLUDING interestingly enough, 2 private contract Henry Entrepreneur examples.

But what does it mean? In a thread on another board some time ago, some gentlemen who know far more than I referenced the numbers having to do with the steel alloys used. (You actually commented in that thread, though on a different subject)

I cannot say why only Tulle and Chatellerault marked such, but the subject of that other thread was a Tulle, and yours is a Chatellerault, I find this explanation likely.

post-38182-0-79853400-1427834872_thumb.j

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Trajan, let us go to the pile of comparative reference. On the left, Gras without numbers on the ricasso, including 3 different Steyr variants, both private contract and French military St. Etienne, Alex Coppel examples, as well as Paris-Oudry and L. Deny Paris.

On the right, numbers on the ricasso, ranging from 3 to 10. The ones on the right, all came from Tulle or Chatellerault INCLUDING interestingly enough, 2 private contract Henry Entrepreneur examples.

But what does it mean? In a thread on another board some time ago, some gentlemen who know far more than I referenced the numbers having to do with the steel alloys used. (You actually commented in that thread, though on a different subject)

I cannot say why only Tulle and Chatellerault marked such, but the subject of that other thread was a Tulle, and yours is a Chatellerault, I find this explanation likely.

Thanks,

Toooo many pots on the boil here... I knew I'd seen something somewhere on this topic and knew you were involved but couldn't remember where it was!

I have this one on hold, as I don't have this maker (not that I specifically collect these of course - but maker aside, it is a cleaner example of one of the other French Gras that I have!).

Interesting that these marks are found on the Henry Entrepreneur examples... Could tie in with the differences in alloy explanation, double check with private contractors? What you need to do is get hold of a mobile XRF and see!

Thanks again,

Trajan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Henry Entrepreneur were made at Chatellerault, same guys, same machinery, just a commercial contract.

So, if it is a systemic way of marking, it makes sense. What puzzles me is why St Etienne did not. Their examples are much more common than any others, and none of mine were marked such.

I should add, thanks for causing me to sort through them all, as I found a Colonial Anchor mark on one otherwise unremarkable example that I had missed before. In my defense, the small amount of pitting on the guard is of course directly over the mark, and partially obscures it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks again for information on these. I have just checked and somehow I seem to have acquired ten of these 'Gras', a mixture of French, Greek, Greek converted, French-supplied Greek converted, and even a Romanian version... They are getting to be like my P.07's, which I also don't specifically collect... Breeding when one is not looking... Thank god I only have two Berthiers... One's a first type, the other's a second, so perhaps they'll not realise that they are the same species?!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...