Bayonets for Martini Enfield 303 and Magazine Lee-Enfield Mk1* 303

[CaptainMercaptan]

G'day Gents

I have a 1899 Martini Enfield .303 and a 1902 Magazine Lee-Enfield Mk1* 303 (Long Tom) . I am seeking to purchase bayonets to fit on these rifles.

I have been told a number of different stories:

one is that the Pattern 1903 bayonet will suit both the ME 303 and the MLE 303,

another is that the ME and the MLE both take the Pattern 1888 bayonet,

still another that the ME takes the Pattern 1888 and the MLE takes the Pattern 1903

I would be very grateful if the combined wisdom of this site can give me the correct answer. Thanks for your time and I look forward to a reply.

Cheers

[trajan]

Well, off-hand - but I am not really a rifle person - I believe a P.1888 is appropriate for both. I think the Martini Enfield takes all types of P.1888, but the 1902 Long Tom, I think, only takes the P.1888 Mk II and Mk III, with the cleaning hole in the pommel. No doubt LF, 4G, Sawdoc, etc., or some other rifle person will correct me on this if I am wrong...

[shippingsteel]

I have a 1899 Martini Enfield .303 and a 1902 Magazine Lee-Enfield Mk1* 303 (Long Tom) . I am seeking to purchase bayonets to fit on these rifles.

I have been told a number of different stories:

one is that the Pattern 1903 bayonet will suit both the ME 303 and the MLE 303,

another is that the ME and the MLE both take the Pattern 1888 bayonet,

still another that the ME takes the Pattern 1888 and the MLE takes the Pattern 1903

I am not at all surprised that you have been given varied advice about which bayonet to fit these rifles, as with many 'deep and meaningful' questions - it just depends.!

Of course it depends on the detail, and specification of the rifle. While the MLE is easily explained as always requiring the common P1888, the Martini-Enfield is different.

In this case the different variants were made to attach different bayonets. The Martini-Enfield Rifle requires a converted P1876 Socket Bayonet (a.k.a the P1896 Socket)

And just to confuse matters more, the Martini-Enfield Artillery Carbine variant was fitted with a Rigby nose-cap which requires the P1888 Sword Bayonet (like the MLE)

So to answer your question properly we really need to know exactly which variant of the Martini-Enfield that you have. Then the bayonet required after that is quite simple.

Cheers, S>S

[trajan]

I am not at all surprised that you have been given varied advice about which bayonet to fit these rifles, as with many 'deep and meaningful' questions - it just depends.!

Of course it depends on the detail, and specification of the rifle. While the MLE is easily explained as always requiring the common P1888, the Martini-Enfield is different.

Oh well said cobber! I naturally assumed it was a M-E carbine given that 1899 date... But there again, I freely confess to not being a rifle buff!

[Lancashire Fusilier]

G'day Gents

I have a 1899 Martini Enfield .303 and a 1902 Magazine Lee-Enfield Mk1* 303 (Long Tom) . I am seeking to purchase bayonets to fit on these rifles.

I have been told a number of different stories:

one is that the Pattern 1903 bayonet will suit both the ME 303 and the MLE 303,

another is that the ME and the MLE both take the Pattern 1888 bayonet,

still another that the ME takes the Pattern 1888 and the MLE takes the Pattern 1903

I would be very grateful if the combined wisdom of this site can give me the correct answer. Thanks for your time and I look forward to a reply.

Cheers

So as you are not misled by the reference in post # 3 to an ' a.k.a the P1896 Socket ' the correct bayonet for the Martini-Enfield .303 Rifle was the Pattern 1895 Socket Bayonet approved on 4th October 1895, and announced in the List of Changes, para 8119.

The Pattern 1895 Socket Bayonets were converted Pattern 1876 Socket Bayonets, which were only converted at Enfield between 1895 and 1902, with a total of some 86,234 conversions.

The Martini-Enfield .303 Rifle has no provision for the fixing of a Sword-Bayonet.

There was however a ' Rigby ' Nose Cap modification designed by John Rigby, who was the Superintendent at R.S.A.F. Enfield which allowed for the fixing of a Pattern 1888 Sword Bayonet.

Attached is a photograph of the Martini-Enfield .303 Rifle's Pattern 1895 Socket Bayonet and scabbard.

With regard to your Magazine Lee-Enfield Rifle Mk I* approved on 7th August 1899, this was basically the same rifle as the Magazine Lee-Enfield Rifle Mk I, but manufactured without a Clearing Rod, with Clearing Rods being abolished on May 19th, 1899.

The correct bayonet for your Magazine Lee-Enfield Rifle Mk I* is the Pattern 1888 Sword Bayonet Mark II approved 7.8.1899, this Mark II Pattern 1888 Sword Bayonet was produced specifically for the MLE Mk I* which was manufactured without the Clearing Rod, and so has no recess inside the grips for the head of the Clearing Rod.

I also assume your reference to a ' Long Tom ' rifle, is in fact the ' Long Lee ' rifle, of which the MLE Mk I* was such.

Regards,

LF

[trajan]

... The Pattern 1895 Socket Bayonets were converted Pattern 1876 Socket Bayonets, which were only converted at Enfield between 1895 and 1902, with a total of some 86,234 conversions. ... There was however a ' Rigby ' Nose Cap modification designed by John Rigby, who was the Superintendent at R.S.A.F. Enfield which allowed for the fixing of a Pattern 1888 Sword Bayonet. ...

Thanks for clarifying the socket bayonet business LF - but, a quick question on that: what did the conversion involve? 'Scuse my ignorance but I assume a bushing of the muzzle ring?

Also, I seem to recall from a post or PM from Aleck that there were two types of Rigby nose-cap? Is that so? And would you post a picture of one and / or the other?

Trajan

[Lancashire Fusilier]

Thanks for clarifying the socket bayonet business LF - but, a quick question on that: what did the conversion involve? 'Scuse my ignorance but I assume a bushing of the muzzle ring?

Also, I seem to recall from a post or PM from Aleck that there were two types of Rigby nose-cap? Is that so? And would you post a picture of one and / or the other?

Trajan

Trajan,

Here is the text from the LoC relating to the Pattern 1895 Sword Bayonet's conversion :-

" A pattern of the above-mentioned bayonet has been sealed to govern conversion as may be ordered for use with the Martini-Enfield rifle. The conversion is made from the bayonet, triangular, Martini-Henry, long, and consists generally in cutting down and re-bushing the socket, the socket then being bored and slotted, and fitted with a new locking grip, stop and screw arranged to fit the rifle. When fixed, the blade is below the barrel instead of on the side, as in the Martini-Henry rifles. "

Also attached is a photograph clearly showing the difference between the 1876 and 1895 Socket Bayonets.

Regards,

LF

[Lancashire Fusilier]

Thanks for clarifying the socket bayonet business LF - but, a quick question on that: what did the conversion involve? 'Scuse my ignorance but I assume a bushing of the muzzle ring?

Also, I seem to recall from a post or PM from Aleck that there were two types of Rigby nose-cap? Is that so? And would you post a picture of one and / or the other?

Trajan

Trajan,

Here is an official diagram of John Rigby's Nose Cap conversion.

Regards,

LF

[Lancashire Fusilier]

1902 Magazine Lee-Enfield Mk1* 303 (Long Tom) . I am seeking to purchase bayonets to fit on these rifles.

In addition to the Pattern 1888 Mark II Sword Bayonet being the correct bayonet for your rifle, it also has some important visual features making it different from the previous P1888s, in that it has a Clearance Hole drilled in the Pommel, and because of this, the grip's upper rivet has been moved closer to the Pommel. ( see attached photograph ).

Regards,

LF

[4thGordons]

Also, I seem to recall from a post or PM from Aleck that there were two types of Rigby nose-cap? Is that so? And would you post a picture of one and / or the other?

Trajan

with and without provision for clearing rod.

[trajan]

Thanks again LF!That has clarified a lot of things for me - and, I suspect, others, not the least CaptainMercaptan!

Now, I wonder who came first with that idea of incorporating the cleaning rod into the hilt of a bayonet - the Mauser's with their T-O slot or Rigby? I am away from home, but I do recall that during the development of what became the S.98 the Mauser's tried several designs for what eventually became the T-O slot we are all familar with - they are shown in Franz's vol.V.

Trajan

[Stoppage Drill]

The Pattern 1895 Socket Bayonets were converted Pattern 1876 Socket Bayonets, which were only converted at Enfield between 1895 and 1902, with a total of some 86,234 conversions.

Regards,

LF

Only ? ?

Also converted at Cairo Citadel. The conversions were carried out differently to the Enfield conversions, and whereas the latter (Enfield) had the blade falling below the muzzle, the Citadel conversions retain the old orientation with the blade to the right.

I own a Citadel Enfield and the correctly converted bayonet, so can state this with complete confidence.

[shippingsteel]

Just as SD mentions above, the danger with making categorical statements is that there is always that one exception that will pop up to bite you.! (As with this one quoted below)

I do wonder though with the Citadel sockets, if it would be recognised as the same Pattern, being of slightly different manufacture.? Strictly speaking it wouldn't match the Pattern.

The Martini-Enfield .303 Rifle has no provision for the fixing of a Sword-Bayonet.

That is except for the 500 Martini-Enfield Rifles that were fitted with bands to allow the attachment of the P1887 Sword Bayonet. These rifles were used in Queensland colonial service.

Another exception is the Martini-Enfield Rifles that were ordered for use in the Western Australian colony. These Rifles being fitted with the Rigby nosecap for attachment of the P1888.

Cheers, S>S

[Lancashire Fusilier]

My references are to the British Army's Martini-Enfield Rifle and their Pattern 1895 Socket Bayonets, which were only converted at Enfield.

The Socket Bayonet Stoppage Drill is referring to, is a completely different Socket Bayonet, officially known as the Bushed Pattern 1876 Bayonet, Citadel Arsenal, Socket Bayonet, so my statement that the Pattern 1895 Socket Bayonets were only converted at Enfield is 100% correct and factual.

I assumed this Thread was discussing the British Army's Martini-Enfield Rifle and it's Pattern 1895 Socket Bayonets, If others want to widen the scope of this Thread to include those rifles and bayonets sent to the far flung Colonies' services for use by other than the British Army, including those sent to the Colonies for use by local Police Forces and even the Australian Boy Scouts, who used a variation of the Martini-Enfield rifle for their marksmanship badge, which were probably part of the 200 Martini-Enfield variants sent to Western Australia on 27th August, 1897, all of which were fitted with the ' Rigby ' Pattern Nose Cap and accepted the Pattern 1888 Sword Bayonet, so be it.

There is nothing whatsoever in my accurate statements regarding the British Army's Martini-Enfield Rifle and it's Pattern 1895 Socket Bayonet which will come back to bite me, whereas others who make incorrect references as in post # 3 to an 1896 Socket Bayonet being made for the Martini-Enfield Rifle, such inaccuracies will come back to bite you.

Regards,

LF

[Lancashire Fusilier]

Only ? ?

Also converted at Cairo Citadel. The conversions were carried out differently to the Enfield conversions, and whereas the latter (Enfield) had the blade falling below the muzzle, the Citadel conversions retain the old orientation with the blade to the right.

I own a Citadel Enfield and the correctly converted bayonet, so can state this with complete confidence.

Stoppage Drill,

My statement that the British Army's Pattern 1895 Socket Bayonets were only converted at Enfield is perfectly correct and factual.

The Socket Bayonets you are referring to, which were converted in Egypt, are a completely different type of Socket Bayonet known officially as the Bushed Pattern 1876 Bayonet, Citadel Arsenal, Socket Bayonet, so you are unfortunately confusing two completely different types of Socket Bayonets.

Regards,

LF

[shippingsteel]

Here is an interesting LINK which hopefully provides a little background information on the bayonet in question ... the converted socket for the Martini-Enfield rifle.

There has always been somewhat of a debate concerning the CORRECT nomenclature for this particular socket, with some contradictions about the terminology.

Many state the 'official' term for the bayonet is actually Bayonet, Martini Enfield, Triangular and that P1895 is just another term that is being applied incorrectly.

I note the website states "the bayonet was officially introduced in LOC §8119 1st February 1896 as Bayonet Martini Enfield Triangular with locking ring and screw"

Everyone knows that LF is quoting Skennerton verbatim from the 'bayonet bible' British & Commonwealth Bayonets, but IS Skennerton actually correct in this case.

It would be interesting to get a look at the LOC para 8119 itself, to see exactly where the truth lies. Even if only to put to bed another of those old "collector's myths".

Cheers, S>S

[CaptainMercaptan]

Many thanks you everyone. I now have q lot of information and can make a correct decision.

Cheers

[trajan]

Here is an interesting LINK which hopefully provides a little background information on the bayonet in question ... the converted socket for the Martini-Enfield rifle.

There has always been somewhat of a debate concerning the CORRECT nomenclature for this particular socket, with some contradictions about the terminology.

Many state the 'official' term for the bayonet is actually Bayonet, Martini Enfield, Triangular and that P1895 is just another term that is being applied incorrectly.

I note the website states "the bayonet was officially introduced in LOC §8119 1st February 1896 as Bayonet Martini Enfield Triangular with locking ring and screw"

Everyone knows that LF is quoting Skennerton verbatim from the 'bayonet bible' British & Commonwealth Bayonets, but IS Skennerton actually correct in this case.

It would be interesting to get a look at the LOC para 8119 itself, to see exactly where the truth lies. Even if only to put to bed another of those old "collector's myths".

Cheers, S>S

Well, of course the link adds no source for its statement and may even have the LOC date wrong... It just so happens that one source I have to hand (bed-time reading!) mentions List of Changes 8119 and gives the date as 4 October 1895, not 1st February 1896, and quotes from this: “The conversion [from the P.1876] is made from the bayonet, triangular, Martini Henry, long, and consists generally in cutting down and rebushing the socket, the socket then being bored and slotted, and fitted with a new locking ring, stop, and screw arranged to fit the rifle. When fixed, the blade is below the barrel instead of at the side, as in the Martini Henry Rifles.” I am not saying my source is correct but it confirms to what LF has said above, in posts nos. 5 and 7, and so I think we should credit LF for already providing the relevant data, which SS has overlooked in this case.

Also note that unless I am completely mistaken (which is always possible!), the IWM at: http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/30002475 describes this type as: "Socket bayonet, triangular section, for Martini-Enfield rifle & Pattern 1895 / socket bayonet, Martini-Enfield, Pattern 1895" - but they have been known to be wrong before, but perhaps it really was introduced in 1895, whether or not it was officially known as a P.1895

Oh, and finally - the 'bayonet bible' is a joint work by Skennerton and Richardson... Credit due where credit is owed...

Trajan

EDIT: The Pattern 1895 designation for this bayonet is also used in an article published in the Records of the Western Australian Museum (1993.16(3): 283·296) by one of the museum curators...

[trajan]

Many thanks you everyone. I now have q lot of information and can make a correct decision.

Cheers

Glad that all this has helped you somewhat - if it did not leave you even more confused than before! But, what exactly is the Martini-Enfield that you have - a rifle or a carbine? My money (a Turkish kurush) is on a carbine... And I am sure that many on GWF would welcome photographs of and more data on both weapons!

Trajan

[Lancashire Fusilier]

In order to better and more fully understand all the various stages a pre-WW2 British Bayonet went through from concept to manufacture and finally it's issue into military service, through a mutual aquaintance, a fellow Bayonet Collector, I was able to consult with one of the world's leading experts on British Bayonets, Mr. Ian Skennerton, and during an almost 1 hour conversation with Mr. Skennerton yesterday, he gave me much information on what is actually an extremely complicated process, particularly during the period from 1860 to the 1920s.

I was able to discuss pre-WW2 British Bayonets generally, and I specifically discussed with Mr. Skennerton the Pattern 1895 Socket Bayonet, and he confirmed the following :-

The process relating to the Pattern 1895 Socket Bayonet, started with the Superintendent of the Royal Small Arms Factory ( RSAF ) at Enfield identifying the need for a new Socket Bayonet for the Martini-Enfield .303 Rifle, and then devising such a bayonet, which it was agreed would be made by converting stocks of the then existing Martini-Henry Pattern 1876 Socket Bayonet, for use with the Martini-Enfield .303 Rifle. With some 86,234 Pattern 1895 Socket Bayonets being manufactured exclusively at Enfield by way of this conversion, and it is important that these conversions produced exclusively at Enfield, are not mistaken for the ' Bushed Pattern 1876 Bayonet, Citadel Arsenal ' Socket Bayonet converted in Egypt, as that ' Egyptian ' conversion was an entirely different ' Pattern ' of bayonet and a different design of bayonet.

Once the RSAF Superintendent approved the new Socket Bayonet for the Martini-Enfield .303 Rifle, that approval was given an ' Approval Date ', and in the case of the Pattern 1895 Socket Bayonet, that bayonet was approved on 4th October 1895.

The bayonet's ' Approval ' was then sent to the Pattern Room at RSAF Enfield where it was entered in the ' Pattern Book ', the date of it's entry into the Pattern Book ( 1895 ) then determined it's ' Pattern Date ', i.e. the Pattern 1895 Socket Bayonet.

The next step in the process was the drawing up of a detailed manufacturing specification and Blue Print for the new Pattern 1895 Socket Bayonet, known as the ' Specification for Manufacture ' which would then be provided to the new Bayonet's manufacturer, i.e. RSAF Enfield.

Detailed financial costings, and cost estimates for the new bayonet's manufacture were also drawn up

Once the manufacturing process for the new bayonet was completed, an example of the completed new bayonet was lodged with the Pattern Room at RSAF Enfield, and given a ' Pattern Seal ' which was attached to the bayonet, this example then became the ' Sealed Pattern ' for that particular bayonet, and the new Pattern 1895 Socket Bayonet was then ready and available for service issue.

This new Bayonet was then added to the monthly Army Circulars containing the List of Changes which was sent to the Commanding Officers of each and every Unit, and in the case of the Pattern 1895 Socket Bayonet, it appeared in the Army Circular for the month of February 1896.

These Army Circular's lists ( the List of Changes ) detailed all the new weapons, equipment, items of uniforms etc., etc., plus details of any changes or modifications to be made to existing items, or items to be withdrawn from service and discontinued, which would have been available to the Commanding Officer for order, or in the case of changes to existing items, implementation of those required changes or modifications, or the items withdrawal from service.

Those lists, the ' List of Changes ' and the headings attached to the items on those lists, differed from those used by the Pattern Room at RSAF Enfield, as it was important for the description of the item on the List of Changes to be a much fuller and more detailed physical description of the item so that its use and suitability for a particular military unit could be identified by the Commanding Officer and his Staff, that is why it is not unusual to see an item described in full military jargon in the LoC, for example :-

Loc No. 20298 dated 23 March 1916, the military jargon describing the new canvas Hand Grenade Carrier, is listed as :-

" Carrier, hand grenades L ( for Land Forces use ) Hessian with hook, with 10 pockets ( Mark I ) Khaki drill, Bucket type ( Mark I ) Waterproof canvas "

There then follows 1/2 a page of further detailed physical descriptions of the canvas Hand Grenade Carrier.

Each item listed in the ' List Of Changes ' ( LoC ) is given a ' Paragraph Number ' denoting where it appears on the list, known as it's ' Para Number ' in the case of the Pattern 1895 Socket Bayonet, it's LoC Para Number was 8119 and it's physical description on the February 1896 List of Changes was described as :-

" Bayonet, Martini-Enfield L ( for Land Forces use ), Triangular, Locking, with Locking Ring and Screw, converted from M.H. ( Martini-Henry ) Long. "

This LoC description is then again followed by a 1/2 page detailed description of the Pattern 1895 Socket Bayonet.

It is very important to understand that a bayonet's entry in the monthly List of Changes issued with the monthly Army Circular, is really the last step in the process, and the purpose of the monthly List of Changes circular was just to let everyone know of new military items that had become available for service use, others that needed changing or modification, or other items which were to be withdrawn from service use.

By the time the LoC was issued, the bayonet's concept, design and manufacture had all been fully completed.

The official title given to a bayonet at the time it is entered in the Pattern Book, which was kept in the Pattern Room at RSAF Enfield, denotes the bayonet's official ' Pattern ', as with the Pattern 1903 Sword Bayonet, or the Pattern 1907 Sword Bayonet with Hooked Quillon, or the Pattern 1895 Socket Bayonet etc.

Whereas the items description shown in the monthly Army Circular's List of Changes is the physical description of the item shown in military jargon to help identify that particular piece of military equipment from the millions of pieces of military equipment then in service.

So in the case of the Pattern 1895 Socket Bayonet, that is it's official title as recorded in the RSAF's Pattern Book in 1895, which at that time, was held at Royal Small Arms Factory at Enfield.

I am extremely grateful to Mr. Ian Skennerton for taking the time to explain this complicated process in detail to me, make detailed notes, and enabling me to then pass this information along to interested GWF members, and hopefully it clears up much of the misunderstandings relating to the process, starting with a bayonet's Concept, it's Approval, it's Patterning, it's Specification for Manufacture, It's Manufacture, it's Sealed Pattern, it's notification via the monthly Army Circular and List of Changes that this new bayonet is available for service issue, and finally it's issue into military service.

Regards,

LF

[trajan]

Thanks LF for taking the trouble to do that all that. It is nice to have the matter cleared up - but it would of course help if people read posts more thoroughly before rushing to comment, a fault I confess I am sometimes guilty of meself!

Trajan

[Lancashire Fusilier]

Thanks LF for taking the trouble to do that all that. It is nice to have the matter cleared up - but it would of course help if people read posts more thoroughly before rushing to comment, a fault I confess I am sometimes guilty of meself!

Trajan

Trajan,

Many thanks, and yes it was extremely interesting to learn so much from that conversation with Mr. Ian Skennerton, and come away with a much clearer understanding of the process, and the various stages of the process, which were actually far more involved than I had previously understood.

It was also nice to learn all the different terminologies used in the process, and also to understand the actual reason behind the monthly Army Circular and it's attached List of Changes, all very interesting.

Regards,

LF

[4thGordons]

Does anyone have any photos of M-E .303 rifles and their bayonets in use between '14-18?

I have a photo or an ASC detachment with M-E Carbines and their P1888 bayonets but I am not sure I have seen a picture of .303 M-E rifles in service during the war.

I know the Navy bought 2000 from the trade in 1914 and supplied them to Trawlers but as these were principally to deal with mines I don't know if bayonets were issued

I would expect early VTC or school OTC units would be the best bet (I know some of the latter had .22 Martini conversions) in the UK, or very early K1 unit photos perhaps.

My M-E .303 rifle is New Zealand marked so that might provide another source.

Chris

[trajan]

... It was also nice to ... understand the actual reason behind the monthly Army Circular and it's attached List of Changes, all very interesting.

That was the part I found in many ways the most interesting!

Trajan

[Lancashire Fusilier]

That was the part I found in many ways the most interesting!

Trajan

Trajan,

The monthly issued Army Circulars which contained the List of Changes, started in 1860 and until August 1919 were issued on the first day of each month, after August 1919, they were issued on the last day of each month.

What is also extremely interesting, and particularly important for us British bayonet collectors, is the date of a bayonet's introduction into military service is generally the date that it appeared in the monthly Army Circular's List of Changes.

It was nice to be able to see the position and relevance the List of Changes took in the overall process, from a bayonet's concept to it's issue into military service.

Regards,

LF