1907 Bayonet markings help.

[Impact93]

Hi everyone.

Great forum! I've enjoyed reading about the various topics regarding the 1907 Bayonet. I thank you all for a crash course and education.

I have this 1907 that I recently acquired i understand the date markings and the bend test X. But I'm having a hard time understanding the reissue dates and other hard to read stamps.

Id also like to know if anyone sees any markings that would indicate where this bayonet was used or who it was assigned to. I found it locally here in British Columbia,Canada. I'm hopping I can perhaps trace this back to Canada but I won't hold my breath.

I took quite a few pictures to try to get the light right to highlight various marks. I also have the scabbard but I haven't taken any pictures of it yet.

Thanks for the help folks! Really appreciate it.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v112/Impact93/A1A25E2E-1845-4DA8-A75F-498A3A382CBE.jpg

[Impact93]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v112/Impact93/19737A69-AFF5-49CD-BA53-B8A286FB35B6.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v112/Impact93/84546E65-B968-43E9-B5A5-64C8953FF411.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v112/Impact93/ADE855D5-352E-48C6-9F3C-74BE0EB8B9DA.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v112/Impact93/F7BE76E6-C55B-4C1A-9515-D30FD0C22A07.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v112/Impact93/5485DAF6-51BC-44B0-9E4E-9BC81C6D1B59.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v112/Impact93/57DBE2BF-529B-402C-AA00-FABD1F9EEDDA.jpg

[4thGordons]

Appears to be:

August 1909 manufactured (8 '09) by JAC (J.A. Chapman)

I think there is only one "reissue" or "modification" stamp '15 (1915) - the bayonet would have been manufactured with a hooked quillon that has obviously been removed (removal approved 29/10/1913), presumably then (in 1915), but it has not had a clearance hole drilled in the pommel (approved early 1916 LoC 17692). This would appear to suggest it was in service, modified in 1915 (quillon removed) and then remained unmodified from that point on.

The other marks appear to be various inspector/production process stamps.

As it is not unit marked you are not going to be able to associate it with any service I'm afraid.

Others will no doubt be along soon to add to this.

Chris

[msdt]

Ditto what Chris said. There is another reissue mark for 1912 on the left ricasso. What are the letters on the inspectors stamp that are part of the 1915 reissue mark - are they RE?

Cheers,

Tony

[trajan]

...There is another reissue mark for 1912 on the left ricasso. ...

Watching out for a potential broadside reply from Seph here... But, yeah, pedantic that I can (often) be - 'reissue mark', until someone finds out the official name!

[msdt]

They're just inspection marks with a date really! I used to think that they did signify some kind of movement, as in leaving a unit to go back into a central store, for example, or vice versa. But now I don't believe they were used that way. I don't think that getting a regimental stamp would go with such an inspection either. However I guess that if the bayonet is undergoing work/inspection and it is marked to a regiment that it is no longer with, then that regimental mark would be struck out at that time.

In terms of what to call the marks, a term is needed to differentiate from all the inspection and other marks applied during manufacture and original acceptance.

Guess we could call them 'inspection dates'??? That term then applying to the date plus the corresponding inspector's mark.

Cheers,

Tony

[Impact93]

Well Darn. I was hopping this bayonet could be traced. I thank you for all the provided information so far guys, very interesting.

I took some pictures of the scabbard as I have no clue how to read these markings at all. It seems that a crown is also stamped into the scabbard or am I seeing that wrong? Also some marks stamped into the leather. Is there a way to tell if this scabbard goes with this bayonet? I was looking for a J.A.C mark but found none.

It's hard to see in these pictures, I tried to take one with some powder in the numbers to highlight but it doesn't seem to have helped the questionable number. From what I can see this top part is labeled 5858

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v112/Impact93/C51CDE9A-B65E-4D17-B8F9-3A0AECD0D121.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v112/Impact93/CEE6FAE0-F317-4367-898F-A37A5D6F8657.jpg

--To me, this part looks like it has a crown above some characters, the characters look like 7J over top of 13.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v112/Impact93/761A6B68-A401-469B-86E8-3C9101514BEF.jpg

-Leather Markings, looks like a 5 across from a W and perhaps another mark further up from the W? Perhaps a O or a Q. Maybe just a beat mark.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v112/Impact93/CBA1AE41-6542-4102-ABA7-5E59C6CFA8EE.jpg

-Bonus pictures of bayonet including a better picture of the handle/pommel

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v112/Impact93/FA6AA54C-D333-4D9F-951F-58BFD57886CE.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v112/Impact93/7FF6D1C1-EF20-439F-BD25-BD9AE2CA461E.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v112/Impact93/B97DC21A-F72E-43CE-B919-4E325917D4F8.jpg

[msdt]

Hi Impact93,

The scabbards are not matched to the bayonets maker-wise. Also the scabbards would get swapped during the service life of the bayonet. Sometimes you can find bayonets and scabbards with matching numbers though, though it still won't necessarily be the first scabbard the bayonet ever had.

Your scabbard is numbered, but your bayonet isn't, so at one time that scabbard was with a numbered bayonet. If the bayonet has a regimental marking it almost always has a number too.

It's a nice 'teardrop pattern' scabbard, and the date is visible, which is nice as they are often worn off on the leather - it is '15 for 1915. Looks like an Enfield inspection stamp on the leather, but the locket has the script B (not 13) for BSA inspection. Maybe the locket has been changed at some time. The W is also a change that has been carried out, it means the leather has been impregnated with heated parafin wax.

As your bayonet is 1909, it would originally have had the first pattern teardrop scabbard - there are no visible rivets on the outside of the locket (yours has 3 each side).

Cheers,

Tony

[Impact93]

Chris, Tajan and Tony you guys are a wealth of information and knowledge. Thank you so much for taking the time to look at the pictures and giving your thoughts on these items.

So in summary, I have:

A 1907 J.A Chapman bayonet manufactured in

August 1909.

There are two reissue/modification stamps on the bayonet because it's an early bayonet it would have been manufactured with a hooked quillon but it was removed during the 1915 reissue/modification date as the removal of the quillon was approved in 1913 so the 1912 modification date that is on the bayonet would have been too early.

It has not had a clearance hole drilled in the pommel (approved early 1916 LoC 17692). This would appear to suggest it was in service, modified in 1915 (quillon removed) and then remained unmodified from that point on.

The scabbard is a teardrop pattern, likely made by Lee Enfield in 1915. It has a BSA inspection mark which likely means the locket was modified (rivets as proof) and the W stamped in the leather indicates that at some point this scabbard was impregnated with paraffin wax.

What is this set worth? (Not selling,curious)

Is it true that a bayonet lacking a clearance hole is a rare thing?

This bayonet doesn't look like it was lost on the battlefield or in particularly bad shape so what is the likely reason that it never made it to another modification date? I guess there wasn't many other modifications to be made before the end of the war, right?

Once again, thanks for the answers guys.

-Jon

[msdt]

Hi Jon,

The lack of a clearance hole isn't rare as such, but does indicate that the bayonet probably did not remain in British service after WW1 when they seem to have been inspected between 1919 and the early 20's and when a hole would have been drilled. Obviously the survival rate of bayonets made in 1917 or 1918 for example is high, whereas the prewar bayonets would have suffered high rates of attrition and anyway were not made in the same quantities as later. I suppose there are many reasons why your bayonet did not get a clearance hole; perhaps it was outside of Britain? That's an area I'd like to learn more about.

As an example of relative scarcity, my little collection of 1907's has been built up over the last 3 or 4 years. I like regimentally marked ones, which tend to be pre-war up to about 1915 (though I have a couple which were probably marked in the 30's). I have 15 so far, and the earliest one I have is January 1910.

Although some dealers try to ask a lot, I would say a fair price for your bayonet in the UK would be between £70 and £90.

Cheers,

Tony

[Impact93]

Thanks Tony!

I look forward to adding this to my collection!

I really appreciate the answers.

[Lancashire Fusilier]

It has not had a clearance hole drilled in the pommel (approved early 1916 LoC 17692). This would appear to suggest it was in service, modified in 1915 (quillon removed) and then remained unmodified from that point on.

Is it true that a bayonet lacking a clearance hole is a rare thing?

Jon,

The reason your British Pattern 1907 Sword Bayonet dated August 1909 does not have a clearance hole, is simply because the approval given in early 1916 ( List of Changes para 17692 dated 5th January 1916 ) for clearance holes to be drilled in the pommels of Pattern 1907 Sword Bayonets, related only to future production. Those Pattern 1907 Sword Bayonets already in service, were not covered by the 5. 1. 1916 LOC.

As a result, only some of the Pattern 1907 Sword Bayonets already in service at that time were actually ever modified with a clearance hole being drilled in their pommel by regimental armourers, and probably the majority were never modified.

After 5. 1. 1916, no other List of Changes were issued relating to a clearance hole in a Pattern 1907 Sword Bayonet.

Regards,

LF

[shippingsteel]

LF, your statement above is actually incorrect. The wording of LoC para 17692 applies both to the future manufacture, as well as bayonets already in service.

Under the headline "Drilling of clearance hole through pommel"

It reads, "In future manufacture, sword-bayonets of the above mentioned pattern will have a hole drilled through the pommel to facilitate the removal of mud, dirt, ... etc., that may accumulate in the bottom of the mortice for the sword bar of the rifle nose-cap, and so prevent the bolt of the sword-bayonet shooting and locking the sword-bayonet on the rifle."

And also, "In workshops where the necessary machinery and tools are available the hole may be drilled, as occasion offers, through the pommel to the size and in the position shown in the accompanying drawing, the position first being marked off."

It also illustrates by way of the drawing and measurements, the exact position on the pommel for this hole to be drilled by the armourers. Many were so drilled.

Cheers, S>S

EDIT. Full text from LoC now added (extra detail in italics)

Source "List of Changes in British War Material in relation to Edged Weapons, Firearms and Associated Ammunition and Accoutrements" Vol.IV I.D.Skennerton

[trajan]

Would someone post up the full text of that LOC please? Or indicate where it can be seen? I note that in the parts SS quotes that the option is left open - "In workshops where the necessary machinery and tools are available the hole may be drilled, as occasion offers" (my added emphasis) - which would explain why (as LF says) some were never drilled

Note, by the way, http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=140883 post 10: clearance hole drilled through a unite mark on a 11/15 with two or three blurred 're-issue' / 'inspection' dates which I haven't yet worked out.

Trajan

[Lancashire Fusilier]

"In workshops where the necessary machinery and tools are available the hole may be drilled, as occasion offers" (my added emphasis) - which would explain why (as LF says) some were never drilled

Trajan

Trajan,

Jon asked a question as to why his pattern 1907 Sword Bayonet did not have a clearance hole, and was that unusual ? as I pointed out, the reason for that was logical, as from January 1916 all new production Pattern 1907 bayonets had a clearance hole drilled in the pommel by the manufacturer, whereas those Pattern 1907 Sword Bayonets manufactured prior to January 1916, all of which did not have a clearance hole may or may not have been subsequently modified by regimental armourers.

If a Pattern 1907 Sword Bayonet needed to be sent to the armourer for repair, and assuming the necessary machinery and tools were available, then the clearance hole may have been drilled. Armourers were working around the clock to keep weapons repaired and in working order, and priority would have been given to rifles, pistols, machine guns etc., drilling a clearance hole in the pommel of a bayonet was probably not at the top of their list.

Leading up to WW1, and in the year 1913-14 some 250,000 Pattern 1907 Sword Bayonets had already been manufactured by Enfield alone, none of which had a clearance hole in their pommel, that is without taking into account the thousands of Pattern 1907s made by Wilkinson, Mole, Sanderson and Chapman prior to January 1916, again, none would have had a clearance hole in their pommel, how many man hours would it have taken regimental armourers to modify just 500,000 Pattern 1907 bayonets, allowing for say 10 minutes per bayonet, the answer is way too many armourer man hours, and that is precisely why so many Pattern 1907 Sword Bayonets made before January 1916 were never ever modified under LOC 17692.

Even bayonet modifications which were subject to an LOC may or may not have been carried out, and as we saw recently, a Forum member who ' pontificated ' about the the removal of the hooked quillion was proven to be completely wrong when documentary photographic evidence was produced showing that some British troops were still using the Pattern 1907 Sword Bayonet with the hooked quillion attached as late as April 1920.

Jon's bayonet shows that not all bayonets manufactured before January 1916 were ever modified by having a clearance hole drilled in the pommel, remember this was at the height of WW1, and anyone who thinks that soldiers automatically brought in or sent in their bayonets to their regimental armourers just to have a hole drilled in the pommel just because of LOC para 17692, knows very little about WW1 and even less about the Pattern 1907 Sword Bayonet.

Regards,

LF

[trajan]

Thanks, LF, for giving such a detailed reply. As you know, P.1907's (and clones thereof) are not my especial favourites, although I do have a few, including two pre-1916's that lack clearance holes, and it is good to have the matter of clearance holes or the lack thereof on these spelt out in such a comprehensive way. Incidentally, while looking for a post in which I had shown these two of mine, in the mistaken belief suggested by A.N.Other that they were indeed rarities, I came across http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=203891&page=1entry2003294, in which I see you covered the same subject - but your post above is a much clearer statement of the actuality as opposed to the theory.

Thanks again,

Trajan

[Lancashire Fusilier]

There are two reissue/modification stamps on the bayonet because it's an early bayonet it would have been manufactured with a hooked quillon but it was removed during the 1915 reissue/modification date as the removal of the quillon was approved in 1913 so the 1912 modification date that is on the bayonet would have been too early.

It has not had a clearance hole drilled in the pommel (approved early 1916 LoC 17692). This would appear to suggest it was in service, modified in 1915 (quillon removed) and then remained unmodified from that point on.

Jon,

There is far more to the issue of the Pattern 1907 Sword Bayonet clearance holes than just glibly spouting out the text of the LOC 17692, you have to also understand the realities of WW1, the WW1 soldier and his bayonet.

To further illustrate the realities of WW1 as it related to the Pattern 1907 Sword Bayonet and LOCs., attached is a photograph of 4 Pattern 1907 Sword Bayonets in my Bayonet Collection which still with their hooked quillions attached and with no clearance holes ever having been drilled in their pommels.

I doubt that it would have served the war effort by having all the regimental armourers do nothing else other than work around the clock drilling holes in the pommels of Pattern 1907 Sword Bayonets manufactured before January 1916.

As I said previously, if anyone thinks that some 500,000 soldiers automatically brought in or sent in their bayonets to their regimental armourers just to have a hole drilled in the pommel just because of LOC para 17692, that person knows very little about WW1 and even less about the Pattern 1907 Sword Bayonet.

Regards,

LF

[Lancashire Fusilier]

Staying with the topic of the clearance hole on a Pattern 1907 Sword Bayonet, here is an example from my Bayonet Collection, of the rarest production WW1 Pattern 1907 Sword Bayonet which was made by Vickers Ltd., of which only 10,000 were made. Also of interest, the clearance hole on a Vicker's Pattern 1907 Sword Bayonet, is for some reason, much larger than on any other Pattern 1907 Sword Bayonet. As Vickers did not get into Pattern 1907 Sword Bayonet production until mid-1917, all Vickers Pattern 1907 Sword Bayonets will have a larger factory drilled clearance hole in their pommel.

In the attached photographs is a November 1917 Vickers Ltd., Pattern 1907 Sword Bayonet with the much larger factory drilled clearance hole in the pommel.

LF

[msdt]

Hi LF,

Some lovely hookies - and now a mint Vickers while I pen my post!!! I doubt if I will ever own an HQ at the present market prices .

You have provided some good detailed information, but I'm not sure where the focus on modifications made during WW1 came in. As you rightly point out the armourers had far better things to do with their time. I imagine that the vast majority of those early 1907's that got clearance holes drilled did so after WW1.

My collection is clearly pathetically small compared to yours, but as I have a rather analytical brain I like to try and put 2 and 2 together. Looking at my notes I see that I have 5 x 1915 or earlier regimentally marked 1907's that have no clearance holes, the regimental marks are not struck out, 4 have no reissue marks at all, and 1 has reissue marks with the latest at 1914. I have one 1912 dated one that went to Australia, this has no clearance hole and has a 1951 Orange Arsenal mark. That leaves 2 other early bayonets - that DO have clearance holes: a 1910 one with a 1922 reissue mark, and a 1915 one with reissue marks for 19 / 22 / 23 / 25 / 30 / 33.

What interests me is what happened to those first 5 I mentioned in order that they stayed so unaltered over all the years (actually 4 of them are 1915 dated, the 4 with no reissue marks).

Cheers,

Tony

[trajan]

... I have one 1912 dated one that went to Australia, this has no clearance hole and has a 1951 Orange Arsenal mark.

Tony, let's not think on those HQ's or the Vickers lurking in LF's store room...

Like you, I go for the analysis of the data, but I was astounded to see the reference to a 1912 with a 1951 mark! OK, it's not GW, but would you post a photograph when you can?

Julian

[msdt]

Hi Julian,

Yes, guess ready for Korea! Suppose that bayonet does deserve a Long Service medal!!! Got it before I bought my camera, so will take some shots when I am next in Shropshire where it is residing.

The marks are on the tang edge: 51 - R O / arrow. The grips also have SLAZ / 51.

It has 2ND MD 25253 on the crosspiece (2nd Military District - New South Wales), which S>S identified last year as a mid 1912 number. The bayonet is an Enfield from January 1912.

Cheers,

Tony

[shippingsteel]

The very reason that the clearance holes were reintroduced on the P1907 in December 1915 was due to the dirty conditions encountered in the trenches.

When dirt and mud lodged in the sword bar groove it would prevent the proper attachment of the bayonet, something that was very important at that time.

People can write reams of misinformation and point fingers at individuals, but facts are facts and they are irrefutable, the LoC's don't lie, only people do that.

LF wrote this above :-

"the approval given in early 1916 ( List of Changes para 17692 dated 5th January 1916 ) for clearance holes to be drilled in the pommels of Pattern 1907 Sword Bayonets, related only to future production. Those Pattern 1907 Sword Bayonets already in service, were not covered by the 5. 1. 1916 LOC."

This statement is simply incorrect, the P1907 bayonets already in service were covered by this particular LoC, and this explains why they were so often drilled.

To argue that armourers had better things to do is simply laughable. The LoC was introduced to overcome an extremely serious problem in the current design.

Skennerton puts it well on page 192 "British & Commonwealth Bayonets".

"A minor change was suggested for the Patt.1907 bayonet in December 1915, which resulted in its approval in early 1916. This was the drilling of a hole in the pommel to facilitate expulsion of dirt or mud in the sword bar groove when the bayonet was fitted onto the rifle. This clearance hole had previously been used on the Patt.1887 and 1888 bayonets, but omitted with the introduction of the Patt.1907 and trials 1913. The hole was applied to future production, and some bayonets already in service were modified as well. Officially announced in the List of Changes, para 17692, the precise dimensions are given for drilling the hole, to permit workshop modification by armourers." (emphasis mine)

Cheers, S>S

[shippingsteel]

And speaking from a personal observation perspective, I have been actively seeking out the wartime NCH (no clearance hole) examples for several years now.

From what I have seen I believe there are far more 1914/15 dated examples out there with the hole drilled than there are without the hole drilled in comparison.

Just quickly looking through some of the cabinet drawers here next to my computer, I have at least 5 examples of armourer drilled P1907's with 1914/15 dates.

These include the following bayonets :-

Wilkinson 11 - 1914 ... drilled ... reissue date '18

Sanderson 12 - 1914 ... drilled ... reissue date '16

Chapman 5 - 1915 ... drilled ...

Remington 8 - 1915 ... drilled ... reissue date '18

Remington 10 - 1915 ... drilled ...

Remington 11 - 1915 ... drilled ...

Cheers, S>S

EDIT. Photos now attached showing the Remington 8-15 with the hole drilled as mentioned above (on the left) and the Chapman 5-15 (shown on the right)

[trajan]

Skennerton puts it well on page 192 "British & Commonwealth Bayonets".

Oy! What about Richardson, as in S and R? Poor chap always seems to get forgotten...

[trajan]

... From what I have seen I believe there are far more 1914/15 dated examples out there with the hole drilled than there are without the hole drilled in comparison....

Interesting observation, but no more than that without some figures, and if you have been deliberately seeking pre-1916 NCH examples then this may well be your perception of the evidence - i.e., you are looking for these and so you do notice the others. All I can say is that of the exactly 4 pre-1916 P1907's that I have seen for sale in Turkey, the two that I own are NCH, and likewise the two that I don't own. This is an admittedly very small sample and quite possibly reflects sample-bias (.e., ithis is what I have seen in Turkey only), but as a straightforward observation it serves as a counter to yours. A useful test of the theory would be to look at all the pre-1916's published on GWF and all those available to view on the web (including sale sites) and see what the result is.

Trajan