Can anyone tell me something about the bayonet?

[MotleyMetal]

i really have no idea of the history behind this, we arent sure how it entered the family or really anything about it

 

[MikeyH]

It's a British model P1907, used in both WW1 and WW2, am unable to see a date of manufacture or a maker as the ricasso has been  polished.

 

Mike.

Edited 14 March , 2018 by MikeyH

[MotleyMetal]

Mike, where would you be able to find the date on the weapon? Because i can see a small "5" on the side with the crown but on the other i see a small "15"

 

 

Edited 14 March , 2018 by MotleyMetal

[MikeyH]

The date appears below the '1907' stamping.  The month and the final 2 digits of the year as separate stamps, so the 5 on your example would be May.

Think I see another faint 5, so possibly 1915.

 

Mike.

Edited 14 March , 2018 by MikeyH

[MotleyMetal]

ok thank you so much for the help

 

[2ndCMR]

The very faint impression of the crown stamp can just be made out.  IIRC, the Patt. 1907 was strongly influenced, if not patterned after the bayonet of the Japanese Arisaka rifle, which continued to feature the hooked guard or "quillon" after it was dropped from the P.1907  The length of the blade helped to give back the "reach" which the shorter S.M.L.E. rifle had lost from the early long Lee Enfield rifles, which used the shorter P.1888 bayonet.

A most effective weapon and one whose psychological effect was considerable.

[JMB1943]

To my eye, the supposed "5 '15" date is in a much smaller font than usually appears on these Pattern 1907 bayonets, but never say never......

I suspect that they may be remnants of the (vertical) "crown//number/E” stamp that is added each time the bayonet has been re-inspected.

 

The pommel does have the clearance hole (CH) drilled through it; this modification was introduced for new manufacture in very early Jan. 1916.

Of course, it could have been originally made (1907 to 12 '15) without the CH, which was added later.

This would have been more appropriately posted in the "ARMS" section, to get more attention from bayonet aficionados.

 

Regards,

JMB

Edited 17 March , 2018 by JMB1943
Add info

[trajan]

On 3/14/2018 at 20:14, MotleyMetal said:

Mike, where would you be able to find the date on the weapon? Because i can see a small "5" on the side with the crown but on the other i see a small "15"

 

On 3/16/2018 at 22:25, JMB1943 said:

To my eye, the supposed "5 '15" date is in a much smaller font than usually appears on these Pattern 1907 bayonets, but never say never......

I suspect that they may be remnants of the (vertical) "crown//number/E” stamp that is added each time the bayonet has been re-inspected.

 

The pommel does have the clearance hole (CH) drilled through it; this modification was introduced for new manufacture in very early Jan. 1916.

Of course, it could have been originally made (1907 to 12 '15) without the CH, which was added later.

This would have been more appropriately posted in the "ARMS" section, to get more attention from bayonet aficionados.

 

Regards,

JMB

 

Just spotted this as work - the curse of the over-tasked teaching classes - has intervened! Certainly had a lot of, well, what, polishing? reconditioning? What do you reckon JMB? 

 

I concur on the '5' NOT being part of the date stamp, so this is a 'homeless' one. But, Motleymetal, let us know the weight and that might help - just possibly - indicate a maker JMB?

[JMB1943]

Motleymetal,

As suggested by Trajan, it certainly looks to have been well-polished and even the maker’s name has been lost.

The probability is that it is made by WILKINSON (Sword Co.), since they made just under 50% of total P. ‘07 production and were the single largest maker; the bulk

of this production by WILK was in 1917-18.

If you could get a photo of the area between 907 and the cross-guard that is better illuminated, maybe lightly oiled, it may help.

Angle the bayonet for the view by eye, then use the camera at that angle to pick up any faint impressions.

Although the AVERAGE weights of Bayonets from different makers are different, the weights of any individual Bayonets overlap widely,

so even an accurate weight is not likely to help in this case, but it certainly would not hurt.

 

Regards,

JMB

 

Edited 25 March , 2018 by JMB1943

[MotleyMetal]

Idk if it helps but it says MANGROVITE44 on the scabbard. ill try and get better photos once im home.

[MotleyMetal]

 

It also seems to be about 1.5 Ib with the scabbard on and 1 Ib without

[MotleyMetal]

[MikeyH]

10 hours ago, MotleyMetal said:

Idk if it helps but it says MANGROVITE44 on the scabbard. ill try and get better photos once im home.

 

MANGROVITE44 is an Australian scabbard marking.

 

Mike.

Edited 10 April , 2018 by MikeyH

[MotleyMetal]

Interesting, as far as i know both the bayonet and the scabbard have been together since to 70's. So is it most likely the bayonet is Australian as well?

 

its weird because we are pretty sure it came from my great grandfather because he was in WWII but we are certainly not Australian.

[MotleyMetal]

Is there anyway to trace its service history?

[MikeyH]

MANGROVITE is  Mangrovite Belting Pty. Lld. an Australian scabbard maker and 44 is 1944.

Generally Australian made bayonet grips are marked SLAZ, for Slazenger, but this may have been

sanded off, as your P1907 seems to have been heavily polished generally.

So yes, could be Australian origin, but bayonets and scabbards were frequently interchanged.

 

Mike.

 

 

 

[MotleyMetal]

So, basically there is no way of knowing exactly what or where it came from? This is probably a stupid question but is there a way to undo what has already damaged it? Because i have literally been looking everywhere and anywhere for answers on it, as you know its obviously not pretty but you guys seem to really know what your talking about.

[MotleyMetal]

And do you know if the lee enfields these were made for were they used by the us army?