AndyBsk Posted 2 January Share Posted 2 January Question is that ever of the collector have found the G.S on other piece and it was not Gebr.Simson marked on blade? . Believing is one thing, and other are real pieces with marking. As mentioned by Ruediger there were delivered parts as handle, crosspiece and blade separately. That the G.S. script on pommel is for Gebr.Simson is confirmed, because exist pieces marked G.W. for Gebr.Weyersberg identical stamped on pommel with G.W.script. Problem by similar pieces is that they were more time refurbished in period 1865-90, do You have identical inspector proof on all parts of these presented bayonets?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve1871 Posted 2 January Share Posted 2 January Those are the only places with the G.S. Stamps Andy. I keep thinking I have another bayonet with G.S. Stamp. ? Will have to dig through my digital Library to to check Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyBsk Posted 2 January Share Posted 2 January (edited) Ruediger wrote to sample on pg.104, for Bavarian rework on PFM1871 with older for Werder M1869aA rifles handgrip and low barell ring should be by conversion to newer Gew.1871 made 5575 crossguard, were ordered by firms Simson&Co, V.C.Schilling, C.G.Haenel all Suhl, and the montage was done in Amberg, how would be differentiate parts when not by small initials stamps or proofs. Pg.nr.65 how were realised PFM1871 in period 1875-1891: 1880 - klingen von Alex.Coppel endmontage by Erfurt klingen von Gebr. Simson endmontage by Erfurt 1881 - komplete PFM1871 by Hoerster, Gebr.Simson, So the explanation of twice marking by Gebr.Simson would be easy - they prepared 1880 large number of blade contract for Erfurt, but marked only blade with G.S. initials, and 1881 Erfurt ordered complete PFM1871 as the facility couldnt made quickly all PFM1871 for complete DR, so the pieces mounted in Gebr.Simson got they full stamp on blade, and are so twice marked. G.S. marked handles were too delivered to Erfurt. After 130/50 years You couldnt say how many similar piece was refurbished, as the time is from newest refurbishment more as 100 years. Edited 2 January by AndyBsk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve1871 Posted 2 January Share Posted 2 January Found 3 more Gebr Simson with G.S. They all S71 Hirschfangers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zuluwar2006 Posted 2 January Author Share Posted 2 January 2 hours ago, AndyBsk said: Hello Demitrios, have You time to measure the PFM1871 Saxon of 12.P.Batallion for width of the blade on ricasso? It would be nice to have confirmation its a 1865 or 1871 blade? Thanks. The S98/05aA with flashguard was corectly deciphered by unit and by maker, the condition is as wrongly stored last 100 years. Andy, you are correct for 98/05 bayonet. Let me know which part you want to measure on saxon pfm M/71 bayonet. Also GS i believe is for manufacturer, it does not make sense something else to explain it. Regards, D. 49 minutes ago, Steve1871 said: Found 3 more Gebr Simson with G.S. They all S71 Hirschfangers Lucky you!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 3 January Share Posted 3 January 12 hours ago, Steve1871 said: I do not believe the G.S. Stands for Gebr Simson like Trajan thinks. I just looked at my PFM’s. Two of them have the G.S. On spine and pommels and both are Gerbr Simson make. No sense/ reason to stamp name and then do the initials. I read somewhere that the G.S. Stamps are quality of metal. Both of these are Bavarian PFM’s. Hi Steve, I was at first sceptical about the association of GS with Gebruder Simson, but the fact is that it is only these Gebruder Simson made ones that have that GS, and also, the GS for Gusstahl is stamped on the blades, but some of these ones have GS on the brass hilts... Note also that the GS is used in place of the royal cipher and the year mark on the blade spine. Oddly enough, Carter vol 4, 125, and 128-130, lists a whole series of Wurttemburg Pfm/71's made by Gerb.Weyersburg and by 'G' wih no royal ciphers or year marks, but these lack the GS mark on the blade back. Julian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyBsk Posted 3 January Share Posted 3 January (edited) Thanks Demitrios, You should measure the width of blade near crossguard on ricasso and the thickness of blade there , and as i assume You have a older PFM1865/71 in collection compare the dimmension with the older blade? the best choice would be the Gebr.Simson fabrication. There exist later PFM1871 for Saxony made around 1899 by Simson and Co, which should have lighter blade, and smaller ricasso but heavier handle, normally it should be compared to any PFM1871 prussian marked, made post 1885. Weight test could help too, but the handle on Yours presented PFM1871 saxony is lighter later version already. So only newer PFM1871 could be compared by weight, and offcoarse both compared pieces should have same lenght of blade, by shortages it would be not correct by comparation then. Edited 3 January by AndyBsk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zuluwar2006 Posted 6 January Author Share Posted 6 January Dear Gents, Today i present you a very rare ersatz mosin nagant M 1891 bayonet, with a war time unit marking on the socket collar. Unit marking is stamped = 9.B.3.IX.17 Unit marking is for 9th Bataillon, 3th Company, Landstrum Infantry Regiment, IX Army Corps, weapon number 17. I have and a similar unit marking, 9.B.3.IX.7 (photos are attached). Seemed that this Landstrum Infantry Regiment had a lot of unit marked examples from M1891 Mosin Nagant ersatz bayonets. Mosin Nagant ersatz bayonets with unit markings are extremely rare. Regards to all, D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyBsk Posted 6 January Share Posted 6 January Interesting piece, how long is the blade? should be 43cm long, it looks like under 40cm, so this would be later shortage done postwar the serial on socket 8221 is mostly from romanian refurbishment. The origin bayonet was made in Ižewsk. From genwiki when the IX is Army Korps Altona, so there exist IX/3.Landsturm Batallion Schwerin but is not clear what then means the 9.B.? -there exist too IX/9. which is declared as 1.Landsturm Inf.Batallion Hamburg, from this it could be the 3.company then. The designation as Ersatz bayonet is in this case not correct, as there could be used only on captured Mosin rifle, ersatz would be in case it would replace something of german standard modells equipment. The second bayonet has probably something in front of 9B which should be deciphered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafal1971 Posted 6 January Share Posted 6 January It looks like the 9 has jumped and is struck twice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyBsk Posted 7 January Share Posted 7 January It could be so like mentioned, the 9B.4.IX was published in Danko Lykov russian book about Mosin 91 bayonets, printed 2019, evidently the armorer of this unit has stamped the socket in similar way, as exist any pieces identical marked, the blade was 42,9cm long also unshortened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zuluwar2006 Posted 7 January Author Share Posted 7 January 18 hours ago, AndyBsk said: Interesting piece, how long is the blade? should be 43cm long, it looks like under 40cm, so this would be later shortage done postwar the serial on socket 8221 is mostly from romanian refurbishment. The origin bayonet was made in Ižewsk. From genwiki when the IX is Army Korps Altona, so there exist IX/3.Landsturm Batallion Schwerin but is not clear what then means the 9.B.? -there exist too IX/9. which is declared as 1.Landsturm Inf.Batallion Hamburg, from this it could be the 3.company then. The designation as Ersatz bayonet is in this case not correct, as there could be used only on captured Mosin rifle, ersatz would be in case it would replace something of german standard modells equipment. The second bayonet has probably something in front of 9B which should be deciphered. Dear Andy, well you are correct. 38,60 cm is the length, so yes, must be a romanian refurbishment. "Ersatz" is the common way to mention this kind of bayonets, between sellers, dealers and collectors. That is said on most recognized bayonet books, like Carter, Williams etch. So dealers and collectors followed this word. And yes, this kind of bayonet, did not replace an original bayonet, then converted for Gew 88, Gew 98, M 71/84 or M/71, but used as it was originaly (i mean without any reconstruction or modifications, except from the stamping for Deutschland or unit marked on it) only on captured Mosin rifle. Regards, D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zuluwar2006 Posted 7 January Author Share Posted 7 January 10 hours ago, Rafal1971 said: It looks like the 9 has jumped and is struck twice Dear Rafal, At first i was thinking it was 29.B but then i understood it was a wrong stamping during unit marking, and the number 9 placed twice. Otherwise it will be 99.B which is imposdible!!! Regsrds, D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafal1971 Posted 7 January Share Posted 7 January There are really a lot of photos of German soldiers with Mosin rifles and assumed bayonets (interestingly some do not have scabbard for them). This is not surprising because of how much weapons and ammunition the Germans gained in the East Front. On the Dimitrios bayonets and the book shows that the gunsmith had a lot of problems to put the markings on a round crisis. X looks like it was made of y or other sign. Photos from Lukov book Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyBsk Posted 7 January Share Posted 7 January Problem is by real deciphering of unit, in case 9.Batallion of IX. Army Korps is untypical marking as normally it should be IX./9. marked listed by Landsturm (1.Landsturm Inf.Batallion Hamburg), anyway is visible on stamps that the IX was made per single dies, so the X in Lykov book was probably moved by striking to side and the looks like twice stamped lower part, on Demitrios pieces the 3 in company is oversized on both pieces here. The 8221 could be too a finish serial number as many german captured Mosin91 bayonets went to Finland. Anyway the font of digits is a new one, so even romanian refurbishment is in case real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafal1971 Posted 7 January Share Posted 7 January I am always associated with auxiliary units with the Corpus army number. Maybe not Landwehr maybe for example Bekleidungsamt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zuluwar2006 Posted 7 January Author Share Posted 7 January On 03/01/2024 at 09:20, AndyBsk said: Thanks Demitrios, You should measure the width of blade near crossguard on ricasso and the thickness of blade there , and as i assume You have a older PFM1865/71 in collection compare the dimmension with the older blade? the best choice would be the Gebr.Simson fabrication. There exist later PFM1871 for Saxony made around 1899 by Simson and Co, which should have lighter blade, and smaller ricasso but heavier handle, normally it should be compared to any PFM1871 prussian marked, made post 1885. Weight test could help too, but the handle on Yours presented PFM1871 saxony is lighter later version already. So only newer PFM1871 could be compared by weight, and offcoarse both compared pieces should have same lenght of blade, by shortages it would be not correct by comparation then. Dear Andy Here are the photos from measurements. Regards, D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyBsk Posted 7 January Share Posted 7 January Hello Demitrios, thanks You should buy Yourself a Schublehre, which could be better destined the width.I assume the blade width is about 36mm and thicknes over 7mm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zuluwar2006 Posted 7 January Author Share Posted 7 January 12 minutes ago, AndyBsk said: Hello Demitrios, thanks You should buy Yourself a Schublehre, which could be better destined the width.I assume the blade width is about 36mm and thicknes over 7mm. Αndy, yes, measurements are correct!!! I will do that, i will buy the Schublehre!!! Regards, D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyBsk Posted 7 January Share Posted 7 January (edited) I assume its caliper in english. Because by similar measuring You could only estimate the thickness, with caliper is measuring to 0,1mm real. Ruediger means by PFM1865/71 the thickness should be 7,5mm, width 36,5mm. PFM 1871 made post 1891 are thickness 7,2mm and width 35,8mm on crossguard. my PFM1871 made 1891 has thickness 7,2mm and width only 35,4mm on crossguard. Edited 7 January by AndyBsk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zuluwar2006 Posted 7 January Author Share Posted 7 January thickness 7,2mm and width 35,4mm on crossguard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zuluwar2006 Posted 11 February Author Share Posted 11 February (edited) Dear Gents, Today i present a unit marked ersatz bayonet. As ersatz bayonets constructed during ww1, the unit marked ersatz are 0,5% according Carter (1:200). Here it is an ersatz EB 14, very rare, because is a variation on the model described in Roy William's book, with open muzzle ring, never described before. Single edge shortened steel blade with wide rounded fullers and German crown acceptance stamp on the back edge. Steel hilt with round oil hole and slotted push button. One piece steel crossguard with double diameter open muzzle ring. Unit marking on the crossguard 1.079.R.145 As dot is on number 1, there is a confusion on this unit marking. Either is for 79 infantry regiment, or for 107 Infantry Regiment, number of weapon 145? Any opinions are wellcomed. Regards, D. Edited 11 February by zuluwar2006 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyBsk Posted 11 February Share Posted 11 February (edited) Its a ASG88/98 bayonet, in that case unit marked,it mostly depends on waffenmeister who stamped the dies, as there exist some units that have been stamped and some You will never found, the unit stamping was certainly not preferred and most real forbidden in continuation of war as the information about units could be bringt to enemy, but on training areas is continued with stamping. Here could be already a divided stamping in front when there is a dot, could be 1.C for first company? of 79.Inf.Regiment weapon nr.145, or a other inventory stamp was overstriked on older unit stamp, rust is over the area so not visible how many dots are there?. Edited 11 February by AndyBsk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zuluwar2006 Posted 11 February Author Share Posted 11 February Andy, i think they are 3 dots. On 1 On 9 On R When i got it in my hands i will post detailed photos. Yes, it could be 1st company, but in this case, why the 079 Regiment and not 79? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyBsk Posted 11 February Share Posted 11 February 1.C.79R could be there instead of 1079, but it would be the best to see in real as the pictures are low quality. 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