Turkish Battle Damaged Bayonet?

[xf87]

Hi... I picked this up for $115 NZD at a general household auction. I think it has battle damage to the muzzle ring.... what are your thoughts - could be shell shot? All NZ and Aussie collectors would like a Gallipoli souvenir... do the markings match the time frame? I've not cleaned the bayonet and it does have a touch of green paint on the scabbard... probably sitting in a garden shed for years...

Chris - Otago, NZ..... in lock down....

[N White]

They really don't get much better.

 

Your Turkish 1890 looks pretty good.  I think the year mark equates to 1896/7, but when Trajan shows up he will of course know best.

 

I am terribly disappointed to tell you that depending on your location you underpaid by 3-4x.  The Turks shortened the ones they had left in 1935, so these are hard to find in original shape. A very nice score.

 

Edit to add, slightly old for WW1, as they did have Model 1903 rifles by then, but totally still in circulation, as far as I am aware.  Again, Trajan will know best.

Edited 20 April , 2020 by N White

[AndyBsk]

I believe the 115 for long  blade bayonet with leather scabbard would be ok, even there is missing the ball fitting part?I assume 1896/7 should be correct, so the bayonet was equiped with M1893 turkish contract rifle. 

[assafx]

The date is correct, 1312 in Rumi calendar is 1896/97.

I cannot tell if it battle damage but what ever caused it, was hot enough.

 

Assaf

 

[shippingsteel]

This Turkish M1890 bayonet was made by Weyersberg, Kirschbaum & Cie of Solingen. The date stamped is 1312 A.H. and was marked according to the Islamic Calendar so in this case it corresponds to approx 1894 in our Gregorian Calendar. This run of bayonets was shipped from Germany with the M1893 Turkish Mauser. The M1893 was a very common rifle in use by the Turks at Gallipoli so most likely a souvenir item bought back to NZ.

 

Cheers, SS

[AndyBsk]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumi_calendar

when You look closely the calculation is 584 years so 1896/7 would be more real as 1894.

[shippingsteel]

Andy, the Ottomans used 2 different calendars at that time. The Rumi calendar or the Islamic (Hijera) calendar. These weapons made in Germany were stamped with the AH (Anno Hijera) dates so they are calculated differently. The M1893 Mausers these bayonets fitted are also mostly stamped with the 1312 AH date as well.

 

Cheers, SS 

[shippingsteel]

Here are a pair of M1890 bayonets from my collection. Both were made by JP Sauer of Suhl and are dated 1312AH and 1313AH respectively.

 

 

[AndyBsk]

Thanks, possible they used AH, i couldnt confirm it or not. 

[Steve1871]

Wow SS, those 2 look Gorgeous!, I have one from another maker, but forgot what mine looks like, thanks

[Steve1871]

On the damaged Muzzle ring, I still trying to figure how a bullet could hit there???

mounted on rifle would not allow such a hit, 

in a scabbard on soldiers waist, a small chance, but still a chance all the same

[assafx]

15 hours ago, shippingsteel said:

Andy, the Ottomans used 2 different calendars at that time. The Rumi calendar or the Islamic (Hijera) calendar. These weapons made in Germany were stamped with the AH (Anno Hijera) dates so they are calculated differently. The M1893 Mausers these bayonets fitted are also mostly stamped with the 1312 AH date as well.

 

Cheers, SS 

 

As far as i recall, according to Ken Elks the dates on the SAA is according to the Rumi calendar why should the bayonets be any different?

[shippingsteel]

Well the difference is in this case we actually know which calendar they used as opposed to just guessing. I have researched the Turkish weaponry in fair detail as well as collected hundreds of pieces of information of individual examples in order to gain quite a good understanding of the different makers and the time periods in which these pieces were made. Because these bayonets were made to match rifles which were made in Germany under contract we also actually know when they were made according to the Gregorian calendar. Waffenfabrik Mauser Oberndorf was the manufacturer of the Turkish contract rifles while the bayonets were produced by 5 or 6 different firms based in Suhl or Solingen.

 

The Turkish M1893 Mauser rifles are found mostly with 1312 AH and 1313 AH dates with a small number of 1311 AH dates also being reported. This is of no surprise as the actual rifle is known as the M1893. Likewise with the later M1890 bayonets which were made to go along side these contract rifles. We also see some 1311 AH dates but the vast majority of examples are dated with 1312 AH and 1313 AH. No examples have been encountered past these dates. The Ottomans had priority for these new rifles as they were already substantial customers of Mauser sourcing close to half a million rifles in both M1890 and M1893 models over a 5 year period.

https://www.turkmauser.com/arabic/arabicNumbers.aspx

Edited 21 April , 2020 by shippingsteel

[assafx]

i remembered correctly, here is the paragraph from Ken's book:

 

 

 

my apologies for the quality, i was too lazy to pull my camera and used my smartphone.

 

 

Edited 21 April , 2020 by assafx

[assafx]

54 minutes ago, shippingsteel said:

Well the difference is in this case we actually know which calendar they used as opposed to just guessing. I have researched the Turkish weaponry in fair detail as well as collected hundreds of pieces of information of individual examples in order to gain quite a good understanding of the different makers and the time periods in which these pieces were made. Because these bayonets were made to match rifles which were made in Germany under contract we also actually know when they were made according to the Gregorian calendar. Waffenfabrik Mauser Oberndorf was the manufacturer of the Turkish contract rifles while the bayonets were produced by 5 or 6 different firms based in Suhl or Solingen.

 

The Turkish M1893 Mauser rifles are found mostly with 1312 AH and 1313 AH dates with a small number of 1311 AH dates also being reported. This is of no surprise as the actual rifle is known as the M1893. Likewise with the later M1890 bayonets which were made to go along side these contract rifles. We also see some 1311 AH dates but the vast majority of examples are dated with 1312 AH and 1313 AH. No examples have been encountered past these dates. The Ottomans had priority for these new rifles as they were already substantial customers of Mauser sourcing close to half a million rifles in both M1890 and M1893 models over a 5 year period.

https://www.turkmauser.com/arabic/arabicNumbers.aspx

 

If you don't mind, i'll set the dates in both calendars so people will be able to participate or understand it better:

 

 

You raised a valid point and it seems to me,  weapons wise, that both dates fit ( assuming there are tooling that need to be made in the factory and payment issues to close down, especially with the financial state of the Ottoman Empire).

 

what is your opinion regarding cartridges? the earliest that i have encountered is 1308 which puts it in 1892-1893.

 

 

 

Assaf

Edited 21 April , 2020 by assafx

[AndyBsk]

In reality i was same opinion about Rumi calendar, but the end point could be assigned by M1887 models, there were 1306 stamped when it was a Rumi calendar it would be dated 1890/91 which would be too late for a M1887 model,so in reality the dates are on bayonets mostly Hijra as 1306 correspond with 1887/8.

[assafx]

1 hour ago, AndyBsk said:

In reality i was same opinion about Rumi calendar, but the end point could be assigned by M1887 models, there were 1306 stamped when it was a Rumi calendar it would be dated 1890/91 which would be too late for a M1887 model,so in reality the dates are on bayonets mostly Hijra as 1306 correspond with 1887/8.

on the other hand, if you'll look at "Arming The Sultan", you will see that the first rifles were actually shipped to the Ottoman Empire in may 1888 (page 123) and the empire decided to stop M1887 production at July 1890, with the last group of carbines delivered in February 1891 (page 125 see also table 3.8 in page 128).

 

Regarding the M1890, he mentions manufacturing dates between July 2nd 1891 to December 5th 1893 (page 128).

 

The Mauser 1893 was Manufactured from December 5th 1893 until March 16th 1896.

A quick look at the dates shows that S^S is probably right as the Hijri dates fits better than the Rumi ones.

 

Assaf

[mark holden]

18 hours ago, Steve1871 said:

On the damaged Muzzle ring, I still trying to figure how a bullet could hit there???

mounted on rifle would not allow such a hit, 

in a scabbard on soldiers waist, a small chance, but still a chance all the same

I would go with a shell fragment strike rather than bullet and I agree the bayonet would have to have been in its scabbard for the strike to be where it is.

 

Mark

[xf87]

The damage to the ring is ball shaped.... my thoughts were that it could have been ball shrapnel from an artillery shell - just had the digital calipers out... width is 5.9mm. Forgot to mention.. blade is 46cm long.

Cheers Chris

[shippingsteel]

21 hours ago, AndyBsk said:

In reality i was same opinion about Rumi calendar, but the end point could be assigned by M1887 models, there were 1306 stamped when it was a Rumi calendar it would be dated 1890/91 which would be too late for a M1887 model,so in reality the dates are on bayonets mostly Hijra as 1306 correspond with 1887/8.

 

Yes Andy, that is exactly correct. And it was the observation of the M1887 manufacture dates that initially got me interested in this Ottoman dating subject. Up till then all the people would say in the books that it was Rumi calendar that was used. Once I began studying the material and looking at the data I began to realise they were all wrong, and it was the Hijra calendar that was used (at least in the case of these German made Mauser rifles and their bayonets). Just looking at the M1887 again, with around 220,000 rifles and bayonets delivered I have never encountered a manufacture date stamping other than the 1306 AH. The rifles were made by Waffenfabrik Mauser Oberndorf and the bayonets were supplied by another 5 German manufacturers, and all the dates that I have observed have been 1306 AH = 1888/89 AD.

 

[msdt]

Hi SS,

Thought I'd like to add 1307 to the dates on M1887 rifles. Got this one last year, it's v nice, previous owner was shooting it.

Cheers,

Tony

 

[AndyBsk]

Very late production as 1910xx range so A Hijra  should be correct on rifles and bayonets.

[shippingsteel]

Well done Tony. And thanks for adding your photo of the 1307 date. I did have a vague recollection of seeing one before but couldn't be certain of it. So I knew if I said I hadn't that one would magically appear before my very eyes.!

So thanks again, and that is a very lovely old Turkish Mauser in fine condition. 

 

Cheers, SS

[trajan]

On 20/04/2020 at 06:27, xf87 said:

Hi... I picked this up for $115 NZD at a general household auction. I think it has battle damage to the muzzle ring.... what are your thoughts - could be shell shot? All NZ and Aussie collectors would like a Gallipoli souvenir... do the markings match the time frame? I've not cleaned the bayonet and it does have a touch of green paint on the scabbard... probably sitting in a garden shed for years...

 

That is a nice one! Pity that the chape is missing but even so...

 

On 20/04/2020 at 07:46, N White said:

... I think the year mark equates to 1896/7, but when Trajan shows up he will of course know best. ... I am terribly disappointed to tell you that depending on your location you underpaid by 3-4x.  The Turks shortened the ones they had left in 1935, so these are hard to find in original shape. ...  slightly old for WW1, as they did have Model 1903 rifles by then, but totally still in circulation, as far as I am aware.

 

Thanks for the vote of confidence NWhite! The uni is closed and we are in lockdown, me preparing classes for on-line teaching via ZOOM and so very busy the past few days. Looking quickly ahead at other posts I see that my dear old mate SS also down under looks to have resolved most matters / questions on this one so I'll leave this reply here and look at what else has been said.

 

Trajan  

[trajan]

On 20/04/2020 at 12:17, AndyBsk said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumi_calendar

when You look closely the calculation is 584 years so 1896/7 would be more real as 1894.

 

On 20/04/2020 at 16:04, shippingsteel said:

Andy, the Ottomans used 2 different calendars at that time. The Rumi calendar or the Islamic (Hijera) calendar. These weapons made in Germany were stamped with the AH (Anno Hijera) dates so they are calculated differently. The M1893 Mausers these bayonets fitted are also mostly stamped with the 1312 AH date as well.

 

Cheers, SS 

 

Broadly speaking SS is correct. As I understand it, what SS terms the Rumi calendar was officially known as the sene-i-maliya = 'year of the treasury' = fiscal year, and was adapted / adopted to fit the Islamic solar year and calandar to the western calendar to make it easier to deal with uropean companies. This was the system used to date the modifications the Turks made to their Peabody-Martini rifles, as explained in my article on those weapons. As I know SS is fully aware, up to 1916, the SMaliye system ran from March to December each year, with the January and February of the following year added, so that SMaliye 1312 = March 1896 - February 1897.

 

BUT, these bayonets are dated by the Anno Hegira system and so are 1894 - 1895. And yes, the dates of manufacture are corroborated by the work of Hintermeir in his German Waffen Journal articles on the supply of Mauser rifles to Ottoman Turkey which I have somewhere but cannot find right now....