msdt Posted 25 July , 2016 Share Posted 25 July , 2016 My first WW1 dated Lithgow 1907 - 1916. Marked 4 MD 12982 on the crosspiece; 4 9630 on the pommel - does the slightly separated 4 equal 4 MD? Am I right that the D ^ D on the pommel is post WW1? The scabbard seems to be a WW2 rebuild - figured chape (can't see any marks) and locket with EFD inspector's stamp (some trace of green paint). The blade is well sharpened, which put me off slightly at first, but when I later looked at my other 3 Australian service bayonets (EFD 1912, Lithgow 1919 and 1920, first and third of these 3 refurbished in early 50's), they all have somewhat similar sharpening! What is stamped on the right grip? Cheers, Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancashire Fusilier Posted 25 July , 2016 Share Posted 25 July , 2016 Tony, As to the markings, the marking D^D is listed as being for the Defence Department, Commonwealth of Australia and was used from the 1920s. The mark 4. M.D. is for the 4th Military District, Central Command, South Australia. Regards, LF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msdt Posted 26 July , 2016 Author Share Posted 26 July , 2016 Thanks LF. So if the 4 MD serial fits into the right range for 1916 the bayonet has been twice stamped for Australian service. Cheers, Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Haselgrove Posted 26 July , 2016 Share Posted 26 July , 2016 Tony, Thanks very much for your post. A real coincidence as I recently acquired a 1916 Lithgow Pattern 1907 bayonet and will post some photos with one or two questions in due course. In the meantime, you may be interested in this link to another thread on GWF which contains some interesting information. Regards, Michael. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMB1943 Posted 26 July , 2016 Share Posted 26 July , 2016 15 hours ago, msdt said: What is stamped on the right grip? It looks to me like (AU)STRALIA, as might be expected given the 'LITHGOW' and MD stamps. Both the scabbard & bayonet have retained their bluing very well---very nice ! I have two questions, 1. why are the pommel and cross-guard numbered differently ? and 2. a more general question: why is that only 4-5 digit numbers are ever observed, since there were presumably 1... 11... 111... 999 etc as well as numbers such as this one shown above ? This also seems to apply to the 'Smiling tiger' Siamese P.07's that I have seen. Possibly just due to very many more nos. in the thousands than below 1000 and 100 ? Regards, JMB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gew88/05 Posted 26 July , 2016 Share Posted 26 July , 2016 The word stamped on the grip of your P07 bayonet is the remnants of the word "Australia", a common marking of Australian bayonets, it is a replacement grip placed on the bayonet during Australian service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msdt Posted 26 July , 2016 Author Share Posted 26 July , 2016 Thanks for the link, Michael. Have carefully read through it, and it throws a bit more light on the markings. It contains the following data: S>S 1917 bayonet marked 4MD 14607 jscott 1916 bayonet, rifle serial on pommel 38383 S>S 1916 bayonet, rifle serial on pommel 43823 4thGordons 1916 rifle serial 604xx So my bayonet at 4MD 12982 fits in with S>S's 1917 example, and the number on my pommel is 49630 which fits the rifle serials above. Only the D ^ D has been applied after WW1. Re the grips, is this Australia? Looking again I can see that STRALIA is a possibility, but I thought that this was a mark applied after the weapons had been released by the military to comply with possible import requirements for the civilian market. And is the grip a replacement? They look like the original Queensland Maple ones referred to in the link. Have posted pics of both grips this time. JMB, Q1 - answered above, bayonet inventory on the crossguard, original Lithgow rifle serial on the pommel. Q2 - pic of my pussycat below, number 625. Guess earlier numbers are just rarer due to more possibility of loss and smaller range of numbers. Cheers, Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMB1943 Posted 26 July , 2016 Share Posted 26 July , 2016 Hello Tony, Re: Q1, the issue for me is why the two different nos.; none of the other 1916-7 bayos from your listing above appear to be doubly numbered from. I'll accept your explanation, but...curious. Re: Q2, thanks for showing your 3-digit Siamese cat. First of these I have seen. It looks to be in good shape. Regards, JMB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5thBatt Posted 27 July , 2016 Share Posted 27 July , 2016 The rifles were also stamped twice. 1916 Lithgow with the 2MD inventory number stamped above the rifles serial number 1917 Lithgow with the 3MD inventory number stamped above the rifles serial number Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msdt Posted 27 July , 2016 Author Share Posted 27 July , 2016 Thanks 5thBatt, nice to see how the rifles were marked. Good to learn how the Lithgow production of rifles and bayonets were matched. JMB - I was selective with the data I took from the link to the old post. Most of the bayonets were doubly numbered. Cheers, Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jscott Posted 27 July , 2016 Share Posted 27 July , 2016 Hi msdt Nice bayonet, thanks for posting. I think you've already got most of the info you need, but the 4MD marking is to South Australia (as LF notes) and is a typical wartime marking. The number looks about right for 1916 (I have a 1917 marked one with 4MD 138XX). As noted the pommel marking is post WW1 but not unusual to have both markings on the one bayonet. My understanding is that the Australia marking on the grip was made prior to sale of the bayonet to the US. The sharpening is certainly apparent on a lot of Aussie bayonets that I've seen, so thats not unusual either. Michael H - looking forward to seeing your 1916 Lithgow as well! Jonathan PS. Super markings on that rifle 5thBatt! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMB1943 Posted 27 July , 2016 Share Posted 27 July , 2016 Msdt, thank you; my sometimes selective memory goes well with your selective data. 5th Batt, your upper photo shows the H(eavy) barrel mark. Do you notice a weight difference between the two rifles, and if you have fired them is there any discernible difference between the accuracy & the recoil of each ? Regards, JMB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msdt Posted 28 July , 2016 Author Share Posted 28 July , 2016 Another thought occurs to me - as the MD serial seems to be a kind of asset number, would the same number appear on the factory matched bayonet or would rifle and bayonet be numbered separately for Military District inventory purposes? Cheers, Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Haselgrove Posted 28 July , 2016 Share Posted 28 July , 2016 Jonathan, Here are two not very good photos of my 1916 Lithgow. I will post a couple more shortly. In case the photos are not clear the markings are 3MD39525 and 44640. There are no other markings on the hilt. The scabbard is the post-war double-seamed type and has the A within a star marking on the metal and leather indicating manufacture by Lithgow. I can't read any of the other markings on the leather. I am interested to know whether it is a common feature of Lithgow bayonets that they are manufactured with the screw heads and bolts aligned exactly along the axis of the blade? I have seen several examples like this. Additionally, if a bayonet is refurbished or had other work carried out was the bayonet usually marked in some way? Regards, Michael. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msdt Posted 28 July , 2016 Author Share Posted 28 July , 2016 Hi Michael, Looks in v nice condition. Yes, I think the screws were aligned originally, I have noticed this on 1907's in general. My 2 Australian service bayonets that were refurbished after WW2 are marked on the tang edge with an O and arrow (Orange Arsenal) plus date in 2 numbers, i.e. 51. Cheers, Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Haselgrove Posted 28 July , 2016 Share Posted 28 July , 2016 Tony, Thanks very much. Here are a couple more photos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5thBatt Posted 28 July , 2016 Share Posted 28 July , 2016 On 7/28/2016 at 04:29, JMB1943 said: Msdt, thank you; my sometimes selective memory goes well with your selective data. 5th Batt, your upper photo shows the H(eavy) barrel mark. Do you notice a weight difference between the two rifles, and if you have fired them is there any discernible difference between the accuracy & the recoil of each ? Regards, JMB JMB, Been quite a few years since i fired the 1917 & cant remember how it went, however i only fired the 1916 a few months ago & can say it grouped very well using some commercial ammo (cant recall the brand though) as for the weight, i will weigh them & see if there is any/much difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMB1943 Posted 28 July , 2016 Share Posted 28 July , 2016 10 hours ago, Michael Haselgrove said: I am interested to know whether it is a common feature of Lithgow bayonets that they are manufactured with the screw heads and bolts aligned exactly along the axis of the blade? Michael, Some while ago, I had been thinking of removing the grips from some of my few P. '07's to check the tangs, so I sent an e-mail to Ian Skennerton and asked the same question (P.07's generally, not Lithgow per se). He very kindly responded in short order, as below 'Regarding the orientation of grip screws and nuts on the Patt. 1907 bayonets, at the factory on assembly, the screwdriver head slots are usually oriented pointing longitudinally, in line from the pommel to the blade tip. However, some that I know to be ok, seem to have the screw heads in line with the crossguard. Maybe some armourer has done this in refitting the grips, but I've seen it on a few specimens. Bayonets on which the grip screws are not aligned have likely been removed or replaced by some unwitting collector or repairer.' Those slots in your two photos are spot on. Regards, JMB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Haselgrove Posted 28 July , 2016 Share Posted 28 July , 2016 Hello JMB, That's very interesting - thanks very much. My very limited experience is that whilst apparently untouched Australian manufactured bayonets have the screws aligned along the axis the British made examples that appear untouched mostly have the screws aligned with the crossguard. Regards, Michael. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 29 July , 2016 Share Posted 29 July , 2016 (edited) Late to get on here as I was having problems with internet plus other obstacles in the way! However, some very nice bayonets there and a very useful commentary. I vaguely recall there was a sometimes heated(!) discussion over the date of those 'Australia' marked grips, as - if I recall correctly - some P.1907's with these grips are to be found in Australia suggesting that they were never exported. But I am surprised SS has not responded on this matter (or the markings), and he doesn't seem to have looked at GWF for some time, so Tony, perhaps a PM to let him know about this thread? Julian PS: Or perhaps better not to advise him as that could be mis-interpreted as 'trolling'... Edited 29 July , 2016 by trajan Add PS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now