P.1888 Volunteer(?) unit marked

[shippingsteel]

Of course some bayonets have serial numbers marked on them, but in this instance the thread was discussing markings on a British Sword Bayonet from circa 1900.

And British bayonets from THAT period were stamped with matching numbers to match them with the rack numbers that were stamped on the rifles, never to any serial.

Source. "The Broad Arrow - British & Empire Markings", 2001 by Ian Skennerton

[trajan]

There are dozens of posts from Shipping Steel, Trajan and other bayonet aficiandos here that refer to these pommel numbers as rack numbers. There is obviously some controversy here.

A small correction but I am fairly certain that I have never referred to such numbers as 'rack' numbers - may have done so very early on but certainly not in most of my posts. Yes, some controversy here - enough to see at a quick glance that it woke SS up after several months absence - and so I'll read on!

Trajan

[trajan]

... what is important about your reference in the 1897 Official Army ' Instruction to Armourers ' is it makes absolutely no mention whatsoever of the words ' Rack Number ' at all, let alone in reference to any bayonet pommel markings.

So again, your document confirms that anyone using the words ' Rack Number ' to describe the serial numbers/consecutive numbers shown on British/Commonwealth bayonet pommels is/was clearly in error.

Just for good measure I double-checked and LF is quite right - no mention of rack numbers...

Of course some bayonets have serial numbers marked on them, but in this instance the thread was discussing markings on a British Sword Bayonet from circa 1900.

And British bayonets from THAT period were stamped with matching numbers to match them with the rack numbers that were stamped on the rifles, never to any serial.

And as the thread is / was discussing a 'British Sword Bayonet from circa 1900', then the 1897 Instructions to Armourers' applies, and so consecutive numbers, for which serial numbers would be an appropriate alternative!

Having written all the above, though a potential element of confusion is possibly introduced by the 1897 Instructions on p. 79, in singling out the bayonets of the MSC and AOC as being marked with consecutive numbers 'from 1 upwards, according to the number ... in the whole establishment'.

And as an aside, FWIW, but also as a guide to what may have been the case in the UK, the German regulations of the period are quite specific in that bayonets were serial-numbered consecutively according to their issue to a specific unit (and in WW2 what was even better was that the bayonet serial numbers were written in the soldier's pay book!).

One final note, although I do understand that Skennerton (with and without Richardson) issued many seminal tomes on bayonet and rifle studies, these works are not infallible, as others above have pointed out, and is shown by the alternating use in these works of identifying those numbers found on bayonets as being serial numbers in some cases, and rack numbers in others.

Trajan

[shippingsteel]

Anyone wishing to get to the truth of this matter, should get hold of a copy of "The Broad Arrow" and read the first chapter ... (call it Marking of British Arms 101.!)

There are that many references that I simply can't scan and paste them all. Suffice to say, in British service rack number and serial number have 2 different meanings.

Cheers, S>S

[trajan]

Anyone wishing to get to the truth of this matter, should get hold of a copy of "The Broad Arrow" and read the first chapter ... (call it Marking of British Arms 101.!)

But SS... Skennerton is a secondary source - if we want 'to get to the truth of this matter' what we need to look at are primary sources, in which case the 1897 Instructions are the primary source for any discussion on the subject of how bayonets were marked 'circa 1900'. How Skennerton interprets what he reads is entirely up to him; official government (army) instructions are another matter, even if they do leave ambiguities in place ...

Trajan

[trajan]

Just for the record, and in a sense a continuation of my final paragraph in post 28, note that in both cases where SS has quoted Skennerton in support of his argument -

500.jpg

Source. "The Broad Arrow - British & Empire Markings", 2001 by Ian Skennerton

250.jpg

Source. "The Broad Arrow - British & Empire Markings", 2001 by Ian Skennerton

no reference is given to any government-issued mandate / instructions. And in any case, the first of these two is quite specifically referring to rifles and firearms, not bayonets...

Now, if anyone can find a specific army / government reference to the bayonets of the British army in the late 19th or early 20th century being marked according to the rifle 'serial' number, then that would solve the debate. But, for the time-being, primary sources are what count, not secondary opinions / interpretations on the matter.

Trajan

[Lancashire Fusilier]

Of course some bayonets have serial numbers marked on them,

SS,

Having been clearly ' exposed ' by your previous references on the GWF to bayonet " serial " numbers, which completely undermines your sycophantic post # 21. You are now saying " yes of course bayonets have serial numbers............... " and you are then feverishly squirming trying to link a bayonet's serial number to a rifles ' Rack Number ' .

Nobody is disputing that rifles had/have rack numbers, and that a rifle's rack number may correspond to the matching serial number on a bayonet, however, they are two different types of markings, which you now seem to agree with in your post # 29.

It was nice of you to try and support GT, in a somewhat embarrassingly sycophantic way, however, I think you should stick to your previous GWF utterances on this topic and return to your previous well documented use of the term for these markings as being bayonet " serial numbers ", otherwise you undermine your own credibility.

Regards,

LF

[4thGordons]

Chris,

Many thanks for posting that interesting Official Army manual, and it may be that the use of the word " consecutive " and " serial " have one and the same meaning in this context, and that may be why " serial " is used in these modern reference books.

Irrespective of that, what is important about your reference in the 1897 Official Army ' Instruction to Armourers ' is it makes absolutely no mention whatsoever of the words ' Rack Number ' at all, let alone in reference to any bayonet pommel markings.

So again, your document confirms that anyone using the words ' Rack Number ' to describe the serial numbers/consecutive numbers shown on British/Commonwealth bayonet pommels is/was clearly in error.

Regards,

LF

Well now that would appear a little disingenuous as there is no mention of Serial Number either is there? (it's been a while since I read it all) so Serial Number is perhaps equally inaccurate/informal?

Whilst I would grant that serial and consecutive as adjectives are synonymous, we are talking about proper nouns here aren't we? "Consecutive Numbers" and "Serial Numbers" (and "Rack Numbers"). I would be happy to grant that Rack Number is colloquial (although I have heard it used by post WWII armourers and as has been demonstrated it is used in Skennerton too!) and although it is descriptive and understood (of its function) it is not, strictly speaking accurate in terms of official terminology, but neither is Serial Number and Serial Number refers to something else too in this context which arguably makes it more misleading as I think was the original point of query.

Here, for what it is worth, is my understanding, which is in essence what was set out above in the initial post by GT

"Serial Numbers" are applied at point of manufacture by the manufacturer. They remain unchanged throughout the service life of the weapon (except in odd circumstances of complete rebuilt/conversion etc when a new one would be assigned). They are intended to be unique identifiers although in practice this is not always the case

"Consecutive Numbers" were applied at the unit level (upon issue) for record keeping purposes. Their form and the proper name is described in the "Instructions to Armourers." These numbers were changed/struck out with some frequency when weapons were reissued as evidenced by surviving examples with several numbers. On Enfield rifles these Consecutive Numbers (you seem willing to accept these these as Rack Numbers in the context of rifles above which I would challenge see below) were stamped on the stock marking disc or, on earlier rifles, the butt plate tang. On bayonets these (same?) numbers were stamped on the pommel by unit armorers for the same purpose, these numbers could be struck out/changed as the weapon changed hands.

It is an assumption on my part that the a rifle would be paired with a bayonet and the same Consecutive Number applied to each so there would be a rifle marked 123 and a bayonet marked 123 and they would be issued together. There is some sense in this because even though the bayonets/rifles were intended to be fully interchangeable tolerances were such that it is not always the case. I have no direct documentation that this was the case it is entirely conceivable that rifle 001 was issued with bayonet 999, (ie there were two sets of consecutive numbers, one for rifles and one for bayonets) but this would seem perverse even by British Army standards. In peacetime I suspect they were matched up.

So, these "Consecutive" (official)/ "Rack"(colloquial) / "Inventory"(descriptive), Numbers were applied upon issue, at the unit armourer level for accounting / record keeping purposes in a manner proscribed by the instructions to armourers. At least one armourer (post WWII vintage) has described these to me as a "rack number"

During the war, the scale of the conflict and the significant turnover/wastage etc, in addition to security concerns with unit marking meant this practice was discontinued -- hence the huge number (majority?) of wartime bayonets without Consecutive Numbers on the pommel. Rifles of course continued to have Serial Numbers applied to them by the manufacturers. The same remained true in WWII.

As contrary examples a foreign contract (Siam) where the bayonets were indeed serialled to match the rifles has been cited. The Siamese contract did indeed have the (refinished) bayonets serialled to the rifle by the manufacturer but this was a foreign contract, the stamping was on the blade and used non-arabic numbering, this is not particularly relevant to the discussion of British Bayonet marking practice in my view.

An example of a post WWII Canadian/British TRIALS rifle/bayonet which were serialled has also been provided. It is in the nature of trials that close accounting has to be kept, again these are hardly typical examples, neither of these are examples of great war (or immediately preceding) practice nor are they generalizable. It is not clear to me from the extract (or going to the source) if this was the rifle's serial or if in this case the pre-production bayonets were serial numbered by the manufacturer those conducting/documenting the trials.

To these exceptions (trial/foreign contracts) we might perhaps add commemorative or special "limited edition" / "presentation" bayonets which might sometimes be serialled (ie 1 of 100) but as a general matter bayonets, unlike rifles, were not serial numbered by the manufacturer.

Therefore it appears to me that using Serial Number in this context is as lease as "inaccurate"/"colloquial" as Rack Number however the latter has the advantage of describing (albeit colloquially) the function of the numbering.

No mention has been made of it thus far, but Australian service presents a more interesting example/challenge. In Australian service rifles were often marked with an additional "Inventory" number related to the Military District (MD) that issued them. This is the equivalent of a much "higher level" Consecutive Number as it is for property-control/inventory/issue purposes. Australian practice was also to mark the rifle number on the paired bayonet. On early examples this was done on the pommel (State/Number) and later on the cross guard (MD/Number) but in this case I believe the bayonet carries the rifle's serial number. It was not a serial number unique to the bayonet

" and you are then feverishly squirming trying to link a bayonet's serial number to a rifles ' Rack Number ' .

Nobody is disputing that rifles had/have rack numbers, and that a rifle's rack number may correspond to the matching serial number on a bayonet, however, they are two different types of markings, which you now seem to agree with in your post # 29.

Regards,

LF

No "feverish squirming" here - the number on bayonets is the number on the rifle - they are both officially CONSECUTIVE NUMBERS as far as I can see. I simply do not understand this claim "that a rifle's rack number may correspond to the matching serial number on a bayonet, however, they are two different types of markings" As far as I can see they are identical in purpose (unit level record keeping)and form (as per instructions) and may in fact be the exact same number (as the rifle and bayonet are paired).

And for what it is worth, as indicated above, I am disputing that rifles (officially anyway) had Rack Numbers, they too had CONSECUTIVE NUMBERS(applied by the unit) but they also had SERIAL NUMBERS(applied by the manufacturer) thereby illustrating the difference which GT indicated initially.

Now, if one refers to a rifle's Rack Number, although strictly speaking inaccurate - at least I have not found a reference to it in official documentation - it would be a good functional description of the purpose of the additional number and I suspect we would all understand what is being referred to. Likewise, if we made reference to a rifle's Serial Number. I remain unconvinced that the same is true when referring to a bayonet's "Serial Number"

So the CONSECUTIVE NUMBER on the rifle may/should/would usually correspond to the CONSECUTIVE number on the bayonet - I'm sorry but I don't see the claimed difference in function.

As I understand the position you have articulated : we would have rifles with Serial Numbers (applied by manufacturer as an important part of the manufacturing/proofing process where bolts and receivers were mated/proofed) to which are added Rack Numbers (applied by the unit upon issue) which correspond to bayonet Serial Numbers (applied by the unit upon issue).

To have two terms for the same type of number (possibly even the same NUMBER) seems unnecessarily confusing, and not what is specified in the the Instructions to Armourers which as far as I can see has rifles and bayonets both marked with Consecutive Numbers

Thus, as I understand the official position during the period under consideration in British service: we have rifles with Serial Numbers (applied by the manufacturer) to which are added Consecutive Numbers (applied by the unit) which correspond to bayonet Consecutive Numbers (applied by the unit).

This is very much "angels on a head" of pin stuff and I can see 99% of the forum shaking their heads and going and doing something more productive than read this thread, (which I had promised myself I would do after reading through this when I got up!) but Grovetown I thought raised a question and made a useful distinction initially - to which there was a rather overblown response and increasingly personal/ad hominem responses. I think focusing on the answers rather than the answerer might be more productive.

The correct term for both rifle and bayonet numbering at the unit level is, as far as I can see, Consecutive Number. I am happy to be corrected but it would take primary source references so to do.

It has been argued that Consecutive Number is identical with/interchangeable with Serial Number. I would disagree with this because Serial Number has a specific and different use in this context and serial numbering has a specific purpose that differs from Consecutive Numbers.

Others (and some of the same) have used "Rack Number", and indeed I have used this referent in the past and will probably continue to I suppose because it describes the purpose (unit level record keeping) of the Consecutive Numbering and is broadly understood (it also works rhetorically by creating the image of lines of rifles, where Consecutive Numbering may not) - as I have said above, I am happy to accept that there is no official basis for this term that I have found (cue someone finding one?) in primary sources, so to that extent it is "inaccurate/colloquial" but it is no more inaccurate than "Serial Number" which also I do not find used in the context of bayonets in the official marking documentation.

Perhaps then, we might agree (subject to someone producing a primary reference) both Rack and Serial Number are, in this context both; strictly speaking, "inaccurate" /"colloquial". The official terminology for both rifles and bayonets in British Service was Consecutive Number.

I would suggest that as far as I am concerned Rack Number is frequently used and it's meaning is understood despite the fact that it is colloquial and descriptive rather than official terminology. As noted I have heard it used by at least one armourer. Personally, I would hesitate to claim to be unequivocally correct on anything (as the number of equivocations and caveats above I hope make clear) and I think perhaps part of the cause of the heat and fury (but perhaps less light than their might be) here is the definitive nature of some of the claims -- I would also be even more hesitant to claim that everyone else is wrong.

As far as I am concerned "Serial Number" is related to production rather than stock keeping/issue and thus whilst as "inaccurate" as Rack Number in terms of official terminology, is also unnecessarily confusing when used in the context of bayonet markings.

This would appear to be the beginning and ending of the disagreement here, and I think the point that Grovetown was making in his initial comment.

Cheers,

Chris

[trajan]

... It is an assumption on my part that the a rifle would be paired with a bayonet and the same Consecutive Number applied to each so there would be a rifle marked 123 and a bayonet marked 123 and they would be issued together. There is some sense in this because even though the bayonets/rifles were intended to be fully interchangeable tolerances were such that it is not always the case. I have no direct documentation that this was the case it is entirely conceivable that rifle 001 was issued with bayonet 999, (ie there were two sets of consecutive numbers, one for rifles and one for bayonets) but this would seem perverse even by British Army standards. In peacetime I suspect they were matched up.

...

During the war, the scale of the conflict and the significant turnover/wastage etc, in addition to security concerns with unit marking meant this practice was discontinued -- hence the huge number (majority?) of wartime bayonets without Consecutive Numbers on the pommel.

...

No mention has been made of it thus far, but Australian service presents a more interesting example/challenge. In Australian service rifles were often marked with an additional "Inventory" number related to the Military District (MD) that issued them. This is the equivalent of a much "higher level" Consecutive Number as it is for property-control/inventory/issue purposes. Australian practice was also to mark the rifle number on the paired bayonet. On early examples this was done on the pommel (State/Number) and later on the cross guard (MD/Number) but in this case I believe the bayonet carries the rifle's serial number. It was not a serial number unique to the bayonet

...

Thus, as I understand the official position during the period under consideration in British service: we have rifles with Serial Numbers (applied by the manufacturer) to which are added Consecutive Numbers (applied by the unit) which correspond to bayonet Consecutive Numbers (applied by the unit).

You raise a lot of interesting points there Chris, but one of the things I was hoping that somebody might comment on was how were bayonets issued in the UK during WW1? This is why I mentioned the matter of the Wehrmacht bayonets - each individually serialed (at the factory!) and that serial number being written in the soldier's pay book. So, what was the practice in the UK in WW1? You are implying a belief in bayonets and rifles being matched at unit level and then given the same consecutive number which was inscribed on the butt disc and the bayonet. But, was that the case? I had always assumed that a bayonet was issued on an individual basis as a sort of personal sidearm - I may well be wrong - while rifles were given 'rack' numbers to keep a control of when and to whom they were issued as needed (for guard duty, action, etc.). Yes, rifles do have proper manufacturer's serial numbers (and if IIRC, it was the barrel serial number that remained the constant reference point in official documentation as bolts, etc., could change?), bayonets don't, but I do not feel that the number given to a bayonet by an armourer need correspond to whatever 'rack' number was applied to a rifle. I guess a possible clue to help unravel this mystery and debate would be to establish how bayonets were issued in the first instance.

The point being - and one that must also be taken into account here - is the sheer number of pre WW1 bayonets that have NO number of any kind on them (or on their scabbards!), whether we call it a serial, rack, or consecutive number. I have a very small collection (less than 20) of P.1888's and P.1903's, and about half that number again of pre-war P.1907's, and the simple fact of the matter is that less than 50% of these pre-WW1 bayonets have any kind of number on them, never mind a unit mark. If bayonets were paired to rifles, then why no number on these? Now, if these bayonets were individually issued on a kind of personal equipment basis, then a number (or unit mark) may not have been considered necessary by many units, as opposed to that unit's rifles, which, being assigned on as-need basis, would need a number to keep a close check on what was what with regard to a clearly more lethal weapon. In other words, while conceding that some pre WW1 bayonets may have been numbered to match a given rifle 'rack' number, I find it it hard to believe that this was general practice.

Best,

Trajan

EDIT: Whatever our differences, though, perhaps we can agree on the primacy of using primary sources?

[Lancashire Fusilier]

Chris,

I am not sure your epistle helped, as you seem to have lost your way somewhere near the beginning, and it turned into a rather rambling, disjointed, incoherent, repetitive homily. I am wondering, if in fact you wrote it after having a " little tipple " ?

I can be a little more direct by referring you to Ian Skennerton's current website ( Skennerton being an accepted expert on such bayonet markings, rather than the armchair bayonet marking expert wannabees with typing diarrhoea ), and as part of his reference to serial numbers in general, he also quotes the following when talking about the " serial numbers " on Enfield bayonets :-

" Enfield Bayonet serial numbers are usually those of the rifle with which it was issued ", this acknowledged expert on bayonet markings makes no mention of ' consecutive numbers ' or ' rack numbers ' only serial numbers.

So please excuse me if I completely dismiss your treatise on the meaning of bayonet markings as utterly irrelevant, and instead rely on the writings of a renowned expert on the subject, and continue to accept his version of these bayonet markings as being serial numbers.

Regards,

LF

[trajan]

As a sideline, even if an example of yet more 'typing diarrhoea', whatever the numbers on butt discs indicated, it may be of interest to some that when troops were being shipped abroad with arms, "a label (A.F. G 1064) showing the owner's company, regimental number and name, should, before leaving the station, be gummed to the heel of the butt of each rifle and pistol. Slings will be removed from the rifles before the troops embark, and will be packed with the remainder of the equipment. Bayonets with scabbards on will be "fixed" before the arrival of the train at the port of embarkation." - Kings Regulations for 1912, para 1561.