pritchard-greener bayonet

[Khaki]

Question,

was the above bayonet for the MkV1 Webley formally adopted by the military? or was it a private purchase item?

thanks

khaki

[Lancashire Fusilier]

Question,

was the above bayonet for the MkV1 Webley formally adopted by the military? or was it a private purchase item?

thanks

khaki

khaki,

The Pritchard Revolver Bayonet was a private purchase item invented by Lieut. Arthur Pritchard of the 3rd Royal Berkshire Regiment, his patent applied for on 29th November 1916.

It was made by the British Company, W. W. Greener of Birmingham, and was constructed from a cut-down French Gras bayonet, the scabbard is steel and also converted from the original, it has a leather frog with a retaining strap attached.

It is a rare item, with only a couple of hundred ever being constructed and sold, mainly to British Officers. They are serial numbered.

Regards,

LF

[Grovetown]

One of the very few unequivocally genuine ones (they've been heavily reproduced) is held by the Royal Armouries. It's doubted whether any saw active service.

http://www.royalarmouries.org/nfc/single-object/221

Cheers,

GT.

[Khaki]

Hello LF & GT

Thanks for the information and link to the armouries, I guess I might have to make do with a good repro,

regards

khaki

[Lancashire Fusilier]

Thanks for the information and link to the armouries, I guess I might have to make do with a good repro,

khaki,

Repro Pritchard Bayonets sell for $125 in the U.S. and in the U.K., there is one listed for 345 pounds !

One claimed to be original, was for sale or sold in the U.S. ( no scabbard ) $1500/2000.

Links attached :-

http://www.ima-usa.com/webley-pritchard-bayonet-for-the-webley-mkiv-pistol.html

http://www.collectible-arms.de/collector-arms/other-items/pritchard-revolver-bayonet-for-webley-mk6-revolver.html

Regards,

LF

[Grovetown]

Hello LF & GT

Thanks for the information and link to the armouries, I guess I might have to make do with a good repro,

regards

khaki

Unless you're an absolute completist weapons collector, why bother? It's not representative of the war or, more particularly, trench warfare on the basis it wasn't used.

I don't want to assert it too firmly, as I can't point to a firm source at the moment, yet I have a firm feeling that the one in the Royal Armouries is the only known genuine example: our man Pritchard having had a few prototypes done and sending one off to the Tower for assessment/ approval/ whatever.

And the suggestion that there was a limited production run was something cooked up much later by those making copies from the Armouries' example.

As I say, don't hold me to that to that as it's just a (strong) recollection at the moment.

Either way, I wouldn't especially want one.

Cheers,

GT.

[trajan]

Skennerton and Richardson, p. 198-199, discuss this and show three examples: one in the Enfield pattern room, and two in private collections. The Enfield example is numbered 144. S&R state (w/o any reference) that 'No more than a hundred or two were assembled...', and then mention that unfinished examples found in the Greener factory were later assembled and sold 'to collectors' - I assume that they mean this was done post WW2.

Trajan

[Grovetown]

(w/o any reference) that 'No more than a hundred or two were assembled...',

That, if you think about it, is a huge variance.

There's an interesting article by Martin Pegler here: http://www.grifoninc.com/pdf/Pritchard-Greener_Bayonet.pdf.

He had the opportunity to consider nine originals - which included some assembled from parts post-1968 (if you are happy to call them 'original', although the parts are).

He says the highest serial found is 144 (Enfield Pattern Room), and the lowest 27 (Royal Armouries).

Five of the nine are in museums (he only identifies sources for seven of the nine); and he relates a degree of caginess regarding the 1960s assembled versions, of which there may be up to 50.

At best, I think these should ultimately be treated as curios as much as anything.

Cheers,

GT.

[SiegeGunner]

I recall an example being displayed on a Webley that was also fitted with a rifle stock attachment at an exhibition at Bisley mounted by the HBSA on the day of a talk on Mons by Dieter Storz in August 2010.

[Beerhunter]

In the 1990s, World Wide Arms were selling these with no mention that they were reproductions. IIRC, the received wisdom was that they had come from India.

They were also selling Very Pistol stocks as Webley Mk.VI stocks. I have actually seen at least one Mk.VI equipped with both the shoulder stock AND the bayonet!

As to whether these were actually used. Anyone who has handled a Mk.VI with the bayonet attached will tell how useless the so-called bayonet is as a weapon.

[trajan]

I recall an example being displayed on a Webley that was also fitted with a rifle stock attachment at an exhibition at Bisley mounted by the HBSA on the day of a talk on Mons by Dieter Storz in August 2010.

There is one like that pictured in S&R.

[sawdoc34]

No offence here but private purchase or not, it was bought & if need be used by the purchaser, would of thought that when of run out of rounds then rather than reaching for a knife it would have been easier to use an adged weapon attatched to you pistol in close quarter combat.

Give your head a shake, these are obviously bought by the poor sods who are not just sitting in their living rooms thinking of how ineffective a pistol based bayonet would be but rather would it save my life (when shitting myself on trench raids).

Head full of bonny lights comes to mind ( dont think that there is an emotion to describe single mindedness, so will have to do with sadness)

Aleck

(edit due to as usual typos)

Wish to see if anyone has any evidence to prove if this is a fantasy bayonet or no?

[Grovetown]

There is one like that pictured in S&R.

I understood too that the stocks were, as Beerhunter says, from Very/ flare pistols.

Apparently, a Herbert Woodend of the Enfield Pattern Room had made a hybrid - for a bit of a joke - by machining bits out of the standard Webley grip to enable it to take the Very stock.

This fantasy item hung on the wall there and, unfortunately and seemingly, so many (quite credible) people came to mistake it for real that such an item is now equally mistakenly believed to have existed (where it didn't/ doesn't); and more hybrids were then 'created' accordingly.

Cheers,

GT.

[trajan]

You have a good point (sorry!) there Sawdoc! In fact they do sell pistols today in Turkey with bayonets on - kind of a flick-knife system...

[Lancashire Fusilier]

There's an interesting article by Martin Pegler here: http://www.grifoninc.com/pdf/Pritchard-Greener_Bayonet.pdf.

GT,

Martin Pegler's article, which I had not seen before, is the best I have seen on the Pritchard-Greener bayonet, thank you for the link.

With the serial numbers showing that at least 144 were actually produced, and as Aleck has rightly said, some were inevitably purchased by British officers for use at the Front, this bayonet, whilst clearly being a rare private purchase item, was a legitimate part of WW1 weapons history.

Regards,

LF

[Beerhunter]

No offence here but private purchase or not, it was bought & if need be used by the purchaser, would of thought that when of run out of rounds then rather than reaching for a knife it would have been easier to use an adged weapon attatched to you pistol in close quarter combat.

Give your head a shake, these are obviously bought by the poor sods who are not just sitting in their living rooms thinking of how ineffective a pistol based bayonet would be but rather would it save my life (when shitting myself on trench raids).

Head full of bonny lights comes to mind ( dont think that there is an emotion to describe single mindedness, so will have to do with sadness)

Aleck

(edit due to as usual typos)

Wish to see if anyone has any evidence to prove if this is a fantasy bayonet or no?

I am afraid that first time a naive purchaser tried to use it for real he would have found out that he had been had.

However, as has been alluded to, I have yet to see evidence that these bayonets were bought by anyone let alone used.

[Grovetown]

I have yet to see evidence that these bayonets were bought by anyone let alone used.

I agree. One can't make the assumption - especially with 50 'rogue' 1968 assembled items out there.

Cheers,

GT.

[Radlad]

Sam Cummins had a real one in his collection. I saw and handled it whilst helping out as a temp. Worker at Interarms in the mid 1970's. What serial number it was or what happened to it, I don't know.

[SiegeGunner]

It's not a very good pic, but here's the beastie I saw displayed at an HBSA event at Bisley in August 2010.

[trajan]

I am afraid that first time a naive purchaser tried to use it for real he would have found out that he had been had.

However, as has been alluded to, I have yet to see evidence that these bayonets were bought by anyone let alone used.

Yet if only 50 or so rogue ones were assembled in the late 1960's, and there is one GW period example serial marked 144, then where have all the others one? One would assume sold to somebody... Practically is neither here nor there - good sales pitch?

It's not a very good pic, but here's the beastie I saw displayed at an HBSA event at Bisley in August 2010.

That looks to be the scabbard under the butt of the 'Luger' - is it?

[Grovetown]

Where have all the others one? One would assume sold to somebody...

The Pegler article above might encourage re-visitation of that assumption.

First, he relates that they needed a fair degree of hand-fitting to a weapon. And then a specific weapon - once it'd had been ground off etc to fit your Webley, it was probably not interchangeable with others. Of four tried, two wouldn't fit a pistol at all, one would with effort - but wouldn't lock on, and the fourth hand been had-fitted to its particular weapon.

This, he suggests, would mitigate (heavily) against it's commercial success.

Secondly, he relates that of the nine originals examined eight had no provenance of use, and all but one only signs of very light use. That's a very high proportion of the sample.

Third, there's nothing anywhere - as far as we can tell - to show that even one of them made it into the line.

I appreciate that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; yet it rather compounds the two points above.

If we can assume that up to 94 (144 - 50 1960s ones) were sold, we can perhaps also equally assume based on the above that up to 94 sat in the shop as not being much good to anyone (especially if you had to take your own pistol with you to buy one, and hang around while it was tailored to fit).

Cheers,

GT.

[SiegeGunner]

That looks to be the scabbard under the butt of the 'Luger' - is it?

I would imagine so, Julian. I went to the event with TonyE, but don't remember discussing this item with him, as he was engrossed in conversation with the owner of a Villar-Perosa machine gun at the time.

[Beerhunter]

That looks to be the scabbard under the butt of the 'Luger' - is it?

Nope. If its the same one its under a Mauser C96.

[trajan]

Nope. If its the same one its under the butt of a Mauser C96.

Luger? Mauser C96? Well, you know what I mean... kind off...???

[trajan]

Those interested in the subject of revolvers with bayonets might like to look at these Luxemburg police examples, although I haven't found any evidence for their dating as yet other than broadly 1890-1940... See: http://www.deutsches-blankwaffenforum.de/topic.php?id=3922&