1914 P.'07 Bayonet

[JMB1943]

[JMB1943]

Well, that was not quite what I had intended but here is the accompanying text.

I had been looking for a 1914 example for a while, and this showed up; this pommel sits atop an Enfield 1 '14 bayonet.

Although the blade is not in too good condition, it seemed interesting because,

1) the unit marking is on the side of the pommel from which the release button protrudes,

2) is the marking S. M. G or 5. M. G. ? I'm inclined to the former, but then what is the unit (Machine Gun Corps) ?

Although the blade is quite rusty, the grip bolts were surprisingly easy to remove. On the underside of EACH grip is stamped '240', apparently matching the rack number.

Regards,

JMB

[shippingsteel]

Hi JMB,

We really need some more information about this bayonet which would help to make an informed decision on its possible history. Both ricasso's would be good.

These photos would show not only date of manufacture, but later inspections and dates if any. Any information at all that can provide possible clues does help.!

That being said, from the photos and details provided I would be suggesting Indian service. Very dark & oversize grips of lesser quality timber spells Indian use.

The fact that they have matching numbers stamped underneath says that they have been replaced, as does your point that they were relatively easy to remove.

Also the irregular style of the unit marking suggests to me that it is not British, and India is always a good contender for extended use of British pattern weapons.

Regarding the unit marking itself, a possible contender would be one of the Sappers & Miners Groups which were common type of Indian Army engineering unit.

Cheers, S>S

[Lancashire Fusilier]

JMB,

I am not sure that the 3rd marking ( letter or number ) on the right, is actually part of the original mark. It looks like the original mark is only the ' S.M. '

I am not aware of any British ' M.G. ' mark or ' S.M.G. ' or ' S.M.C. ' or ' 5 M.G. ', the only initials that fit, assuming it is a British mark, are the first 2 letters ' S.M. ' for the ' School of Musketry ', that is assuming the 3rd marking is not part of the regimental mark.

The 240 is the bayonet's serial number.

Regards,

LF

[Lancashire Fusilier]

The Indian Sappers & Miners marks listed, typically include a number or letter prefix i.e. 1 S.M., 2 S.M. etc. or A S.M. or B S.M.

As S>S has said, and he knows about Indian markings, a lot more will be known if you can show the bayonet's ricasso markings and any possible Indian Inspector's markings.

LF

[trajan]

Well, looks to me as if the guy marking it forgot the push-button, and so had to drop the 'G' lower down.

But, other than that, can't think of anything except that while SS's Sappers and Miners sounds good, LF's caution re: the lack of a number / letter and the use of the otherwise unattested 'G' for Group has to be taken into account.

Trajan

[JMB1943]

Is the blade having a black (paint ?; oil-blackened ?) finish beneath the rust consistent with it having seen service in India ?

There are no re-inspection date stamps that I can see on either ricasso, but plenty of corrosion to cover any. My understanding is that an original, unmolested blade will have two identical stamps associated with the bend-test X, and a third different stamp for the broad arrow.

This blade has crown/T6/E twice and arrow/EFD/30 quite visible; under a strong light & mag. glass there is also a barely visible trace of another possible stamp.

The tang also shows some markings; apart from the 3/80, there is also a very small arrow/EFD/58 and between the '3' & '80' there is B over 11 over 13. Given the acceptance date of 1 '14, I wonder if this means Batch November 1913 ?

Removal of Corrosion: has anyone had experience with the 'sharp brass edge' method ?

I do have #0000 steel wool, and I think that I would rather remove the rust & possibly leave scratches than leave the corrosion there.

Any do's/dont's to recommend ?

Regards,

JMB

[Lancashire Fusilier]

JMB,

Based on your photographs, my eyes can only see Enfield Inspector's marks on an Enfield Pattern 1907 Sword Bayonet issued in January 1914.

I still think the original mark is just the ' S.M. ' for the School of Musketry, and nothing else seems to fit ?

The third mark, a possible ' G ' or ' C ' looks to be a completely different mark, not as deeply stamped as the ' S.M. ' and using a different style of lettering/font.

As rust only gets worse, to use a very fine grade wire wool and a light oil to remove the surface rust can only improve matters in the long term.

Regards,

LF

[shippingsteel]

Is the blade having a black (paint ?; oil-blackened ?) finish beneath the rust consistent with it having seen service in India ?

Yes it is. This bayonet has certainly been refurbished at some point, with it's grips replaced. All the markings seem to be the original manufacture and inspection markings.

The Indian Army continued to use the P1907 right through WW2 and beyond, and darkened refinishes are commonly seen on their SMLE bayonets (including the P1903's)

My guess would be that this bayonet was refurbished circa WW2, as the Sappers & Miners Group marking would match with an Indian Army engineering unit of that period.

Cheers, S>S