Ross Bayonets used by the Royal Navy

[Gspragge]

This may be my first post here; 

As background I have collected WW1 uniforms and equipment in past collections from the age of 15, I'm near 70 now~

Currently my main interest is ordnace related, mostly 37mm and mostly WW1 era. 

As there is little going on in that field I have taken an interest in Ross bayonets. 

The basic types of these are pretty much straight forward of course and well documented. 

What isn't is the thousands of Ross bayonets used by the Royal Navy. Examples from HMS Canada via Chilie

are well known and documented. These are it seems ex CEF bayonets, they have had the blade shape modified

and there is nothing else to indicate RN use aside from a perfect provenance.

I have read of a 1915 RN purchase of 500 but I have also seen this disputed. In this amount at this time the quantity seems

rather low. If this purchase was made how does one identfy one of these bayonets.

I have two examples which conform to the blade shape of those from the HMS Canada and also to the blades on the 

Ross bayonets in this great image of armed sailors wearing full pattern 1903 landing kit. 

I show these with two regular Canadian Ross bayonets for comparison.

One example has British acceptance  marks and no Canadian inspection marks or date, thus it was a British Purchase.

The question here , was it one of the many purchased by the Army turned over to the Navy, who mofified the blade ?

The other is a 1915 dated ex CEF example with the same blade modification but no British inspection marks. It would be 

one of the thousands exchanged for the Enfields, these I have understood mostly went to the Royal Navy. None of these

have the N stamp. I believe that this blade point modification was a Royal Navy specification caried out at least on the 

blunt pointed Ross bayonets provided, maybe all I don't know. Can anyone shed some light on this, possibly having the 

ww1 navel instructions for modifying these ? I would be glad to find out more information, as for now the shape of the 

blade seems to be the only way of identifying one used by the Royal Navy. Maybe some were N stamped at some time, but I

haven't come across that yet.

 

[trajan]

Hi, and welcome to the Forum! Those are nice looking examples! I know others have posted on Ross navy bayonets on GWForum, so hopefully you'll get a reply soon.

 

Trajan

[Gspragge]

Failing any information out there in collectors books on bayonets (none of which I have) where would one find

WW1  Royal Navy lists of changes etc. The incoming Ross Rifles and bayonets must have created some paper work

in various forms as to issue and modifications and so on. Who would hold this infrmation and how could on inquire about it ?

On line the Royal Navy Museum no longer take inquiries !     

[4thGordons]

Tony Edwards book series on "British Secondary Small Arms" (part 3) has quite a lot of detail on the Ross in RN service including a short paragraph and a couple of photos.  Part 4 has a couple of pages on Ross Rifle usage by the RN but focusing mostly on the MkIIIB Rifes produced as a result of British contracts, no specific mention of the bayonets. In terms of the documentary background most of what is cited is service and ministry of munitions documents about the failings of the Ross in front-line service although he does cite a number of contracts also.

 

In the commentary in Part 3 Tony writes:

"The British-contract Ross bayonets were marked with a broad arrow and and Enfield inspector's mark (Crown over E and inspector's number) on the ricasso. In addition, bayonets issued to the Royal Navy were usually marked on the right grip with an "M" between the pommel and first screw and a rack number between the screws" Broad arrow stamps are also found on the crosspiece. (AO Edwards British Secondary Small Arms 1914-19 Part 3 p23-24)

He also reproduces a copy of the British handbook produced for the Ross (25,000 copies) in Jan 1916

 

LoC 18046 11 Nov 1916 refers to modification of the Ross Rifle (bolt stop etc)

 

Skennerton and Richardson (British and Commonwealth Bayonets) p304 make reference to "The Ross Rifle Story (Dupois and Chadwick) p 315-333 illustrating and describing the series of Ross bayonets in detail, and there is also an in depth assessment of the style and variation of proof and inspection marks by John Chown, curator of Weapons at the Canadian War Museum, which makes this section of the Ross book invaluable for the serious student and collector"

 

Chris

[Gspragge]

Thanks, I don't have those books, though I do now have pages 300 - 305 from Skennertons book.   I take issue with the marking

of RN bayonets with the letter M. I suspect they have been misled by Chilean marks on the examples from the ex HMS Canada.

It was the letter N that was commonly marked on items to identify navy use, this is found on all manner of items from many pre ww1 bayonets, shell

cases to munitions boxes into WW2.  The blade profile on the ex RN-Chilean bayonets have a different blade profile as do the examples in the 

photgraph which shows a definate spear point. This did not happen by accident, so some where they were modified.  I suspect that 

not all would have needed this but any blunt pointed ones would have. So it's a matter of finding documents to this end. I don't

of course know if the other books show these pointed versions, maybe just the Chilean examples, so maybe there aren't many around ?

If 500 were purchased from the Ross company in 1915 for the R.N. , then what did they look like to start ? Does any one know

how to Identufy one ?  The larger army purchase are well documented and examples seem to turn up, well not in Canada so far~ 

My examples are both British purchase and ex CEF , but niether retain the original manufactured blade shape, though they conform to

everything else. Some ex CEF examples apperantly have British inspection marks, maybe this aplies to those needing a repair before being (Old Smithy Ross bayonts online)

passed on, the others time perhaps time being an issue were not remarked.  I have not so far heard of a Ross bayonet with an N mark and perhaps

because if they were thought to be temporary issue it wasn't done. More needs to be found out yet. 

If some one is able to forward me the pertantent pages from these other books I would appreciate it very much. We are now trapped inside

like every one else now ~   

 

 

[4thGordons]

I have to admit I wondered if the M was not a typo and it was intended to be N although Tony was very detailed and careful in his research. I believe he was drawing on examples from the UK Pattern Room and the bayonets he illustrates are credited as coming from there.

I may be mis-remembering but I believe my M1910 Ross (the rifle) has an N stamp on it -- I will check next time I can get to it.

 

I have not been able to track down a copy of The Ross Rifle Story after a couple of years of intermittent searching so unfortunately I can't help there.

Chris

[Gspragge]

I have inquiries going on in the UK. N on the rifle would make perfect sence. If any one on this site has one of the Ex Chilean Ross  bayonets, do they 

have Canadian markings on the stud side or nothing and the British inspection markings ? 

[reese williams]

From The Ross Rifle Story...  pg 316 The best examples of carefully altered Ross bayonets are those used by the British recently found aboard HMS Canada. They differed from the factory output and they give the impression of being governed by another set of specifications.

 

pg 317 (I'm paraphrasing here) In 1926 a repair instruction was issued that when the scabbard loop was no longer serviceable the tag and loop were removed and replaced with a Lee-Metford scabbard locket. All aboard HMS Canada were so altered in WWI and bear a British /|\ at the top end of the leather. RN scabbards were blackened leather.

 

pg 331 The suggestion to alter the profile of the Ross bayonet was considered by the British in August 1916... ...there is no evidence to show the change was carried out. ...it was suspected to be Ross's way to dispose of rejected blades.

 

pg 333 repeats that the RN markings are an M between pommel and first screw.  Perhaps this is a typo that Tony picked up and repeated. We won't know until some one posts a picture of one. 

 

The book also indicates that there were several changes decided on from the beginning of Ross bayonets but were apparently ignored by the production facility. These included profile changes. Somewhere there must be a British specification because the finish on blades required was different from the Canadian process. British wanted sandblasted, Canadian were dipped in an oxide dark finish.

 

I have one arm immobilized due to shoulder surgery last week so I can't manipulate the book on my scanner right now. If you remind me around the end of February I should be healthy and would be glad to send you the chapter on bayonets.

 

Reese

Edited 15 January , 2021 by reese williams

[Gspragge]

My scabbard has British insection marks on the metal just below the staple on the stud side, possible Broad arrow on the leather to the left

of the seam with a number farther down, 16 or 18. Other possible markings near the tip are not legible. Therefore the upper part is a total

replacement not a modified Ross part as per the instructons.   

 

"The best examples of carefully altered Ross bayonets are those used by the British recently found aboard HMS Canada. They differed from the factory output and they give the impression of being governed by another set of specifications."  

 

This is essentially my whole question, what are these specifications, where and how and when where they carried out. Obviously one ship load is not the entire 

modified amount and 500 from one purchase hardly covers the whole R.N. nor touches the thousands that were available at the time.   

 

I purchased my scabbard with a standard Ross bayonet in it, not one of the DA marked or in any way unusual. 

These other altered bayonets that I have did not come with scabbards, I matched them up with what I had on hand. 

Putting the purchased exmple in the modified scabbard and the other dated 1915 in a regular 1915 scabbard as per the images. 

The duplicate purchase example remains naked.  Two others surplus to my requirents are on ebay at or below cost to recover some of my costs ~ 

 

[Gspragge]

This may or may not be instructive, but this is the tip of the Royal Navel Cutlas pattern 1901,  there are similarities.   

[reese williams]

The 16 or 18 is the date. I was incomplete in my quote, The leather was marked with a /|\ and two digit date. I would expect British inspection stamps on all the metal fittings added as my impression from the reading was that used lockets were employed in the repair scheme. By 1926 there would be no shortage of bits recovered by the salvage folks during the war and probably little production of new P1907 scabbards.  I think the keys to the conversion would be the locket and the leather color. Metal locket + brown leather with /|\ = British army.  Metal locket + blackened leather with /|\ = RN, Metal locket + brown leather no /|\ Canadian repair. 

Edited 17 January , 2021 by reese williams

[JMB1943]

I wonder if the "M" on the grips is actually from the spanish word "marina" (navy) or "maritimo" (naval).

This would be consistent with the marking on the Ross bayonet in the 3rd photo of the OP.

Tony Edwards just reported what he had seen---no typo.

 

Regards,

JMB

[Gspragge]

I would agree to that ~   which of course brings us back around to my point  that these bayonets have no

Royal Navy markings and that the only way to identify one is by the altered shape of the blade.  

With the exception of the few from that one ship.   

 

The R.N. purchase of 500 are more likely to have an N mark than others aquired 1916 onwards

I would suspect. If they don't then they would be impossible to tell from altered Army purchased

examples or any other with the same alteration except ex-Canadian marked examples. Some where there will be documentation, but it

may be very difficult to find. 

[Gspragge]

Greetings every one; I haven't gotten to the bottom of this yet. I did run across one of the Ex HMS  Canada DA marked bayonets in an auction,

but I was crushed like a worm before I could bankrupt myself. At least I got some images and it was an ex CEF example this time. 

If any member here has one of these could they post an image of it stud side up  if it has Canadian markings or if not showing British

markings. What I would like to know is the blade length as I don't have one to compare and It will allow me to confirm my 

estimated blade lengths for this type.  

 

 

[JMB1943]

Skennerton & Richardson (British & Commonwealth Bayonets) gives the blade length as 254 mm (10.0 inch) for all variations of the Ross bayonet (with LOA 373 mm; 14.7 inch).

 

Regards,

JMB

[Gspragge]

Indeed that is true for the original blunt blades, Mk1 & Mk2. My two wartime angle cut altered blade examples come in at 9 15/16" & 9 13/16" so these vary somewhat.

My three spear pointed examples come in at  2 x 9 11/16" and 9 13/16". I estimate the DA  marked ex HMS Canada blades at 9.57" , but this is worked off

of images and there is always distortion. So a real measurement of one of these (like the control element of an experiment) will set the standard as they have not been exposed to potential later mistreatment or image distortion of same if using photo references off the web. Reshaping the point to a spear point lowering the centre line of the actual tip must cause some loss of length I think. There is likely slight variation in the spear pointing alteration it's self likely

present so the specifications if ever found may have a maximum and minimum blade length expected after alteration. 

So hopefully some one has one and can obtain an actual measurement.      

Edited 2 May , 2021 by Gspragge

[Gspragge]

[JMB1943]

I have just measured the length of the pommel on my Ross at 43 mm.

You should be able to apply that to your photo above.

 

Regards,

JMB

[Gspragge]

Do you have one of these DA marked types ?  I went from pommel end to blade side of crosspiece for this in

inches for convienence (and that was how illustrater was set up). There will be distortion so an actual blade length is the best way to sort this out. 

[JMB1943]

No, not a DA-type, I'm afraid.

You may well be correct about the distortion; I measured 30 units for a 43 mm pommel and 175 units for the blade.

This gives a blade length of 9.875 inch (250.8 mm) from the last photo.

 

Regards,

JMB

 

 

[Gspragge]

Here is another one from a different source. It has been nickle plated but has a spear point blade which shows a different level of distortion

depending on the angle of the images. I will eventually have it here in maybe a months time give or take. It comes with the British purchase scabbard with the brass 

button stud which is rare enough in Canada. Whether it has any markings under the plating is doubtful but maybe. Another question is was this done for some kind of

official honour type guard or just more bayonet abuse ? I have no idea but odd things like this do happen.  In theory this ought to be an altered British purchase bayonet,

we shall see. 

 

 

[Terrylee]

Blade Length is 10 inches

 

 

 

[Gspragge]

Thanks, it gets more interesting all the time if not a little confuzing. Nice example, one thing in common, they all have

very little or none of the original finish left on them.   

Edited 3 May , 2021 by Gspragge

[trajan]

16 minutes ago, Gspragge said:

Thanks, it gets more interesting all the time if not a little confuzing. Nice example, one thing in common, they all have

very little or none of the original finish left on them.   

 One of those things, I'm afraid. Once you start getting into bayonets then you'll find out more and more interesting as well as puzzling things! Ask any collector!

[Gspragge]

Indeed, like everything else. My real speciality is 37mm mostly ww1 and older 37mm munition types (Hotchkiss and every one's version of that, there are hundreds) a can of many worms.  

Now to add to the above, there is the question of Afganistan using the Ross bayonet. But this will be post WW1 and surplus

British material which will also be mostly ex Royal Navy material I expect. So while this example has a pointed blade it likely came that way 

and then suffered more abuse with sharpening etc. The photo distortion is so bad that this blade measures out to 7 1/2" inches

when I try to estimate it. Even the above DA 320 example losses a bit less than half an inch if I try to estimate it and that is a very

good image. So trying to work out blade lengths from internet images is a dicey and a not so accurate excersise. This one from Old Smithy

posting on the subject of Ross bayonets shows what they say is an Afgan example, likely an ex British purchase as there are no markings

on the push button side. But he doesn't go into the finer points of that.