Bayonet by J A Chapman info

[David Hewitt]

Gentlemen,

I have a bayonet made in Pitsmoor, Sheffield by J A Chapman. As you can see it has no cleaning/oil hole. Why would this be as Ive seen other bayonets of a similar age with them. Would these holes have been done at a later date when re called to have thew hook quillon removed? Also, am I right to assume this is one used by the Naval Division? Any information would be gratefully received, thank you 

Dave

[better late than never]

The British began removing the hooks from late 1913, but didn't introduce the pommel holes until 1916. The hook may have been removed before 1916 and the bayonet never went back later for the holes to be drilled. The story would be a lot clearer if the British stamped a re-issue date on all their modifications. Some modifications were stamped and some weren't. 

[4thGordons]

It has a N stamped on it indicating Naval issue at some point but I don't think that necessarily means it was used by the Naval Division - that is a possibility but the Navy had many more weapon than those used by the land component (every warship had an armoury - as did many shore establishments). Early in the war the Navy transferred large numbers of SHtLEs (and presumably bayonets) to the Army (in exchange they were provided with secondary arms such as the Ross etc) so as a pre war weapon probably statistically (just in terms of sheer numbers) it is more likely that if it saw battlefield service in WWI it may have been with the Army. Unfortunately all such speculation remains just that as, with the exception of a tiny number of particular examples, it is virtually impossible to tell the service history of most individual weapons at 100 + years distance.

Chris

[RGJDEE]

Hello David,

I can’t give you anymore information than already supplied ,

but I must say What a superb example you have there !

Fabulous condition / Rare Maker

Quillion removed & no oil hole.

Ticks all the boxes Great piece !

kind regards 

Richard 

[Gunner Bailey]

Thanks for posting. Nice rare maker.

[sgt-maj]

Hello David.

 

There are no hard and fast rules about implementing official modifications to weapons. The case of your '07' having no 'Clearance Hole' is proof of that fact. I have a couple of examples in my own collection. It all depends upon where the item was used, and by whom ( Arm of service / Regiment / Unit / Location ), where it has been stored / for how long?  As has already been mentioned by '4thGordons', your item has an 'N' stamping, which indicates it was in Royal Naval service. That one factor invokes so many issues as to hampering the implementation of a weapons modification, as compared the Army or RAF. It is one of the fascinations of our hobby. Many '07' Hooked Quilon examples remain today as originally issued. There are also those examples, as yours, which have not escaped the Quilon removal, but have managed to avoid the 'Clearance Hole' modification. Question's like yours will be asked I dare say.. for many more years to come.

 

A very nice example... well done.

[David Hewitt]

Thank you all for taking the time to reply, much appreciated!

 

[David Hewitt]

What would the value be of this bayonet...I acquired it along with four others from a friend so have no clue as to its worth, thank you once again

 

[better late than never]

For a rough comparison, an April 1912 Enfield (not Chapman), with no clearing hole and HQR, with a 3 rivet pear stud British scabbard was sold in Australia last week on a popular auction website. There were no Navy markings. But the bayonet and scabbard were both stamped "2md", meaning they were issued to Australia, which makes them attractive to the Australians. It sold for AUS $305 (about US $195). 

[trajan]

For a couple more Naval ones with a number '2' prefix on the pommel go to: