1907 hooked Quillon Bayonet HELP PLEASE!

[Donnak]

I’m new to all this, so apologies for my ignorance on this matter. I have been trying to find out on line if this is worth keeping!

Been using it to stir paint in tins  for years , a friend advised maybe I should check out exactly what it is before I continue using it. To be honest it looks in terrible shape,  Missing handle and do on. All I figured out was it is a 1907 Quillon Bayonet with a Issue date of 6’09 ,

NSW 1381.

 

Any advise would be greatly appreciated. I understand whatever time this bayonet was from, it is not worth much money wise because the condition is terrible, that’s totally fine,  however if it was used in war, I feel out of respect, I should store it away in a safe place .

I live in Australia.. 

Thank you 
 

[peregrinvs]

It is valuable. A P1907 bayonet with intact quillon is a desirable thing and even in that condition it would probably attract at least £150-200 in the UK. It is worthy of some sympathetic cleaning and restoration.

[Donnak]

15 minutes ago, peregrinvs said:

It is valuable. A P1907 bayonet with intact quillon is a desirable thing and even in that condition it would probably attract at least £150-200 in the UK. It is worthy of some sympathetic cleaning and restoration.

Oh goodness, I guess it’s days of stirring paint are over !  I would like to delve into the possible history and what  all the stamp marking are of this Bayonet . My concern was that if it was used in any form of war, we would be treating it with disrespect using it as a we have been. I truly did not expect it to have any form of value to it. I am slowly understanding the terminology, Bend mark, inspection stamp and so on, therefore I will start investigating more in depth. If you or anyone out there knows any of the stamps information- eg 44 E and so , I greatly appreciate the information. Otherwise I will keep digging.

 

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR REPLYING 

[peregrinvs]

I’m sure the real experts will weigh in shortly, but I would assume the NSW is for the New South Wales military district. The symbol by the release catch is two arrows pointing towards each other, which is the British ‘sold out of service’ marking.

 

I would be thinking about cleaning it with fine wire wool and oil. Then getting the grip bolts undone and replacing the missing grip. You’ll also be wanting an early style P1907 bayonet scabbard.

 

This site contains lots of information on P1907 bayonets in British and Australian use:

 

http://www.old-smithy.info

Edited 22 March , 2021 by peregrinvs

[Fromelles]

It is correctly marked for bayonets sent out from Britain prior to WW1, the 'sold out of service' mark is common for these early 'Australian' bayonets. The NSW and number are self explanatory.

 

A very nice bayonet that's had a hard life, but with a little TLC, should be displayed with pride. 

[JMB1943]

It is a quite early (6 ‘09; June 1909) Pattern 1907 bayonet, made at the Royal Small Arms Factory, Enfield (EFD)..

The pommel lacks(correctly) the clearance hole that was implemented in 1916.

I would certainly be happy to have it in my collection ( not a request to buy, just an opinion as to desirability.)

 

Regards,

JMB

[Donnak]

5 hours ago, peregrinvs said:

I’m sure the real experts will weigh in shortly, but I would assume the NSW is for the New South Wales military district. The symbol by the release catch is two arrows pointing towards each other, which is the British ‘sold out of service’ marking.

 

I would be thinking about cleaning it with fine wire wool and oil. Then getting the grip bolts undone and replacing the missing grip. You’ll also be wanting an early style P1907 bayonet scabbard.

 

This site contains lots of information on P1907 bayonets in British and Australian use:

 

http://www.old-smithy.info

That is great , thank you very much , and yes I was wondering about it having a missing scabbard , I will check out the link ASAP ..  thank you again ... 

[Donnak]

4 hours ago, Fromelles said:

It is correctly marked for bayonets sent out from Britain prior to WW1, the 'sold out of service' mark is common for these early 'Australian' bayonets. The NSW and number are self explanatory.

 

A very nice bayonet that's had a hard life, but with a little TLC, should be displayed with pride. 

Many thanks for replying, definitely a hard life especially being used to stir paint tins .. oops. The history of all the Bayonets I have researched is so interesting. Happy to know the one I have also has some. Thank you again for the this information.. 

[Donnak]

47 minutes ago, JMB1943 said:

It is a quite early (6 ‘09; June 1909) Pattern 1907 bayonet, made at the Royal Small Arms Factory, Enfield (EFD)..

The pommel lacks(correctly) the clearance hole that was implemented in 1916.

I would certainly be happy to have it in my collection ( not a request to buy, just an opinion as to desirability.)

 

Regards,

JMB

Thank you JMB for explaining the markings EFD and the pommel holes (lack there of), that was confusing me as most of the pictures and info I have seen regarding these bayonets had the pommel hole and mine did not. I did read that if a bayonet went in for repair after a certain year that sometimes the pommel hole was drilled, Seeing mine did not have one , I assumed it was a non significant bayonet. I was starting to get lost with the research, so I decided to ask on a forum where people know and have a passion for items such as these. 
Many thanks for taking the time to reply to my questions, extremely valuable information .. 

[trajan]

Like JMB43, I wouldn't say no either! Somewhere I have a twin or cousin for it - I'll try and find it and post it for you. My bayonets are on 'lockdown' while the kids have to work at home - creating space, not an 'elf'n'safety' measure!

[Donnak]

11 hours ago, trajan said:

Like JMB43, I wouldn't say no either! Somewhere I have a twin or cousin for it - I'll try and find it and post it for you. My bayonets are on 'lockdown' while the kids have to work at home - creating space, not an 'elf'n'safety' measure!

trajan — Many thanks for that. I completely understand the safety issue / space situation. We are extremely lucky here in Australia (I live just out of Sydney) we have had very minimal lockdowns and our children were only home schooling for basically 1 term (8 weeks) early last year 2020. I am sure it has been extremely trying times for people like yourself in other countries around the world.  😕😔

It Would be amazing to see if your bayonets are connected. I am loving reading  up on all the history (war on so ) of the worlds. So very interesting and humbling. Here is a better pic of the inspection and bend marks, this may help in comparing and to determine if ours are related 😀

The people on this form have been so helpful and have not held my ignorance on this topic against me.

Many thanks for taking the time to read my question and to also being so kind by replying. 😊

 

[Guest]

Hi Donnak

 

It’s certainly had a rough life but it’s a very interesting bayonet. As others have noted it’s an early New South Wales marked bayonet and it was this form of bayonet (UK made with sold out of service marking and Australian state markings) that was predominantly used by the AIF in the first few years of the war. There is a very informative thread on this forum (from memory entitled “Australian bayonets” - started by ShippingSteel) which gives a lot of information on these. 
 

I have a similar marked bayonet - also 6 09 dated and marked to NSW but from memory the number is low 1400s. So only a few behind yours - probably same shipment from the UK.

 

a lovely price of history. If it was mine I would go very easy with cleaning (if at all) and would not replace the lost grip - I prefer my bayonets and other WW1 items original even if damaged. It’s part of their story.

 

thanks for posting.

 

Jonathan

 

PS. Do you have any information on where it came from (ie who the original owner may have been)?

 

 

Also I should say that these types of bayonets very rarely have clearance holes in my experience. Not sure that the Australians were too fussed with following technical regulations like that.

[trajan]

Off-topic, but maybe of more general interest, If I remember aright, and I am pretty certain I posted a photograph on GWF some years ago as proof, the Australian Navy had stocks of HQ on warships in WW2. I assume these came from the army but I have never discovered if these had the equivalent of the GB 'N' mark.

 

Julian 

[Chasemuseum]

The Royal Australian Navy was formed in 1911 from the Royal Australian Naval Brigade which in turn was formed from the Naval Brigades of the various colonies (NSW, Queensland, Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia & Tasmania). The colonies having federated to form The Commonwealth of Australia, on 1st January 1901. A "Dominion" within the British Empire.

 

A quantity of SMLE rifles and bayonets were purchased to equip the RANB when the No 1 Mk III rifle was adopted in 1907/8. These were marked with the "sold out of service" stamp to designate that they were no longer Royal Navy/Royal Army property. They were marked to the State and given a rack number. Most examples appear to have been manufactured in 1909. They were subsequently transferred to the to the RAN and stayed in service until the 1960s then passing to the Naval Cadets for use through the 70s. They then moved into naval reserve stores and were disposed of in the late 80s. As the weapons received relatively little use, they were not sent to the small arms factory (Lithgow) for major refurbishments other than the rifles having the sights converted from Mk VI ammunition to Mk VII.  The bayonet in this post is one of the RANB bayonets.

 

The RAN was created as part of the process of the purchase of a fleet of capital ships to form a navy. These ships the 12-inch battle cruiser HMAS Australia and the cruisers 8-inch HMAS  Sydney and 6-inch HMAS Melbourne, were delivered in 1913. These came equipped with UK manufactured small arms but the bayonets would probably have been without quillions as they were most likely 1912 manufacture.

 

The "Army" rifles had a different fate. At the outbreak of war, a large quantity of the SMLE No 1 Mk III rifles were sent to the UK while forces in Australia reverted to stocks of obsolete weapons such as the Long Lee, both Metford & Enfield models. These SMLE rifles and bayonets never returned to Australia, they entered the British system and would mostly have had the quillions removed and later being drilled for oil holes.  The AIF troops going to Egypt & Gallipoli were initially equipped with SMLE rifles from Australia (UK manufactured) equipped for the Mk VI cartridge. Accordingly Gallipoli photos of AIF will usually show a hook quillion bayonet. After the withdrawl from Gallipoli, whilst in Egypt the rear sight beds of the rifles were replaced to convert them from Mk VI ammunition to Mk VII.

 

The SAF Lithgow started production in 1913 producing about 1,000 rifles/bayonets that year, about 10,000 in 1914 and about 15,000 in 1915. Bayonets continued to be produced with the quillion until about August/October 1915, so about 20,000 hook quillion bayonets were made at Lithgow. These appear to have been mostly or all delivered to the Army. Many remained in Australia as rifles were used to rebuild stocks of SMLE to replace the army rifles sent to the UK in 1914.

 

In the early 1920s SAF Lithgow did a major refurbishment program of Army rifles and bayonets. This included removing quillions and drilling oil holes. 

 

The Army managed the states as "Military Districts" ( Military districts | Australian War Memorial (awm.gov.au)  ). There are arguments about when markings were applied - but the popular view is that army bayonets were stamped to mark the military district and a serial number in the early 1920s. Weapons refurbished and transferred to war reserve did not receive a military district stamp and number.

 

A significant proportion of the UK manufactured HQ bayonets surviving in Australia, with Australian issue markings are the RANB bayonets. This being said, they are still relatively rare and highly collectable. In Australia a nice example with a matching scabbard will sell for GBP£ 1500 to £ 2000. It is very hard to value a paint stirrer. The condition very seriously detracts from value and I simply have never seen one in that condition sold. I would place a value higher than the previous estimate but most of the collectors I know would rather put their money into a better example.

Cheers

Ross

 

 

[Donnak]

On 30/03/2021 at 11:46, jscott2 said:

Hi Donnak

 

It’s certainly had a rough life but it’s a very interesting bayonet. As others have noted it’s an early New South Wales marked bayonet and it was this form of bayonet (UK made with sold out of service marking and Australian state markings) that was predominantly used by the AIF in the first few years of the war. There is a very informative thread on this forum (from memory entitled “Australian bayonets” - started by ShippingSteel) which gives a lot of information on these. 
 

I have a similar marked bayonet - also 6 09 dated and marked to NSW but from memory the number is low 1400s. So only a few behind yours - probably same shipment from the UK.

 

a lovely price of history. If it was mine I would go very easy with cleaning (if at all) and would not replace the lost grip - I prefer my bayonets and other WW1 items original even if damaged. It’s part of their story.

 

thanks for posting.

 

Jonathan

 

PS. Do you have any information on where it came from (ie who the original owner may have been)?

 

 

Also I should say that these types of bayonets very rarely have clearance holes in my experience. Not sure that the Australians were too fussed with following technical regulations like that.

jscott2 

Thank you for all that information. The clearance holes where also confusing me, your explanation was excellent to a novice bayonet enthusiasts “aka me”  I now understand how and why “the Aussie used ones most of the time did not  have them” also the sos mark for earlier ones like mine,  were mainly used by the AIF really does make sense “thank you “ I checked out the old thread you mentioned “Australian bayonets” started by shippingsteel” it was definitely informative.
 

I will not be touching it as far as restoration / clean up goes, as I have no idea what I am doing, I have zero experience and would hate to do any further damage to it . So mine will be staying as is . “Part of history as you have said”

 

History wise, this bayonet has gone from work shed to work shed within our family, originally from my pops shed (when he passed) to my dads and now to mine. I will try to find out where my Pop actually got it from originally. I know he was not in any war as he was a farmer (considered primary producer) and therefore was not asked to serve . I will post as soon as I have any information for you, seeing yours is in the 1’400 ours definitely may be connected in some way.

 Many thanks for taking the time to reply to my post . So very kind of you.

Regards Donna .. 

[Donnak]

17 hours ago, Chasemuseum said:

The Royal Australian Navy was formed in 1911 from the Royal Australian Naval Brigade which in turn was formed from the Naval Brigades of the various colonies (NSW, Queensland, Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia & Tasmania). The colonies having federated to form The Commonwealth of Australia, on 1st January 1901. A "Dominion" within the British Empire.

 

A quantity of SMLE rifles and bayonets were purchased to equip the RANB when the No 1 Mk III rifle was adopted in 1907/8. These were marked with the "sold out of service" stamp to designate that they were no longer Royal Navy/Royal Army property. They were marked to the State and given a rack number. Most examples appear to have been manufactured in 1909. They were subsequently transferred to the to the RAN and stayed in service until the 1960s then passing to the Naval Cadets for use through the 70s. They then moved into naval reserve stores and were disposed of in the late 80s. As the weapons received relatively little use, they were not sent to the small arms factory (Lithgow) for major refurbishments other than the rifles having the sights converted from Mk VI ammunition to Mk VII.  The bayonet in this post is one of the RANB bayonets.

 

The RAN was created as part of the process of the purchase of a fleet of capital ships to form a navy. These ships the 12-inch battle cruiser HMAS Australia and the cruisers 8-inch HMAS  Sydney and 6-inch HMAS Melbourne, were delivered in 1913. These came equipped with UK manufactured small arms but the bayonets would probably have been without quillions as they were most likely 1912 manufacture.

 

The "Army" rifles had a different fate. At the outbreak of war, a large quantity of the SMLE No 1 Mk III rifles were sent to the UK while forces in Australia reverted to stocks of obsolete weapons such as the Long Lee, both Metford & Enfield models. These SMLE rifles and bayonets never returned to Australia, they entered the British system and would mostly have had the quillions removed and later being drilled for oil holes.  The AIF troops going to Egypt & Gallipoli were initially equipped with SMLE rifles from Australia (UK manufactured) equipped for the Mk VI cartridge. Accordingly Gallipoli photos of AIF will usually show a hook quillion bayonet. After the withdrawl from Gallipoli, whilst in Egypt the rear sight beds of the rifles were replaced to convert them from Mk VI ammunition to Mk VII.

 

The SAF Lithgow started production in 1913 producing about 1,000 rifles/bayonets that year, about 10,000 in 1914 and about 15,000 in 1915. Bayonets continued to be produced with the quillion until about August/October 1915, so about 20,000 hook quillion bayonets were made at Lithgow. These appear to have been mostly or all delivered to the Army. Many remained in Australia as rifles were used to rebuild stocks of SMLE to replace the army rifles sent to the UK in 1914.

 

In the early 1920s SAF Lithgow did a major refurbishment program of Army rifles and bayonets. This included removing quillions and drilling oil holes. 

 

The Army managed the states as "Military Districts" ( Military districts | Australian War Memorial (awm.gov.au)  ). There are arguments about when markings were applied - but the popular view is that army bayonets were stamped to mark the military district and a serial number in the early 1920s. Weapons refurbished and transferred to war reserve did not receive a military district stamp and number.

 

A significant proportion of the UK manufactured HQ bayonets surviving in Australia, with Australian issue markings are the RANB bayonets. This being said, they are still relatively rare and highly collectable. In Australia a nice example with a matching scabbard will sell for GBP£ 1500 to £ 2000. It is very hard to value a paint stirrer. The condition very seriously detracts from value and I simply have never seen one in that condition sold. I would place a value higher than the previous estimate but most of the collectors I know would rather put their money into a better example.

Cheers

Ross

 

 

Chasemuseum —

Ross. Sincere thanks for your exceptionally informative reply. I have been overwhelmed by the extensive knowledge of the members on this GWF ,and more importantly ,their willingness to share their knowledge and expertise with people like myself whom are “uneducated in this area” 

I agree that this Bayonet is in terrible condition and the likelihood of a person being interested in obtaining this one is extremely unlikely/ and undesirable. Thank you for your candid honesty. I was personally not concerned with the dollar value seeing it was being  used as a paint stirrer . My initial concern/interest  was if this Bayonet had any form of historical value. If so, I wanted to make sure I treated it with respect it deserves. “More on a symbolic level”  From the members of this gwf, and their immensely informative replies “like yours” I am assuming this bayonet deserve exactly that. The paint from it’s “paint stirring days” have now been gently removed ,and for now will be put away in our firearms safe until such times I can establish how my pop ,who has passed obtained it. I am absolutely loving delving into the historical aspects.

With kindest regards 

Donna 

 

[Chasemuseum]

An interesting photo from the illustrated weekly newspaper "Sydney Mail" for November 1916 showing a parade of RAN personnel from the Sydney depot (Garden Island). They are armed with a mixture of rifles, those with rifles "sloped", bayonets fixed are the .303 (Long) Lee Metford Mk II (first produced in 1892) and those with the rifles slung are equipped with the .303 SMLE No 1 Mk I and Mk III rifles. (The earlier SMLE No 1 Mk I series of rifles use a different nose cap to the Mk III. Both appear in the photo. ) The Lee Metford uses the P1888 bayonet, this will not fit on an SMLE rifle. The early version of SMLE bayonet was adopted in 1903 and is similar to the P1888. Where the bayonets being carried by sailors armed with an SMLE are visible these are all hook quillion P1907 bayonets.

 

As these sailors are from a NSW depot, the bayonet discussed in this post may well be one of the bayonets being carried by the sailors with slung rifles.

 

Although the photo is from 1916, the cap tallies of their hats appear to be RANB rather than RAN.

 

The field equipment being worn is the Royal Navy pattern for ship's landing parties armed with a .303 rifle, adopted in 1890. A new pattern was adopted in 1901 for sailors to use with the SMLE rifle.

 

The combination of RANB cap tallies, some Lee Metford rifles/bayonets and RN 1890 equipment suggests that these men are naval reservists rather than RAN sailors from a warship. The original caption from the photo implied that they are active service RAN sailors. At this stage of the war all of the RAN capital ships were deployed with the Royal Navy in the North Sea.

Cheers

Ross

 

 

 

[Chasemuseum]

Another UK made P1907 RANB bayonet with NSW markings. Manufactured August 1909 by "SANDERSON"

 

 

[trajan]

On 31/03/2021 at 04:38, Chasemuseum said:

1) The "Army" rifles had a different fate. At the outbreak of war, a large quantity of the SMLE No 1 Mk III rifles were sent to the UK while forces in Australia reverted to stocks of obsolete weapons such as the Long Lee, both Metford & Enfield models. These SMLE rifles and bayonets never returned to Australia, they entered the British system and would mostly have had the quillions removed and later being drilled for oil holes.  ...

 

2) The SAF Lithgow started production in 1913 producing about 1,000 rifles/bayonets that year, about 10,000 in 1914 and about 15,000 in 1915. Bayonets continued to be produced with the quillion until about August/October 1915, so about 20,000 hook quillion bayonets were made at Lithgow. These appear to have been mostly or all delivered to the Army. Many remained in Australia as rifles were used to rebuild stocks of SMLE to replace the army rifles sent to the UK in 1914.

 

3) The Army managed the states as "Military Districts" ( Military districts | Australian War Memorial (awm.gov.au)  ). There are arguments about when markings were applied - but the popular view is that army bayonets were stamped to mark the military district and a serial number in the early 1920s. Weapons refurbished and transferred to war reserve did not receive a military district stamp and number.

 

 

Ross, an excellent summary - but some questions / comments!

 

I) I assume you mean here rifles and bayonets sent to the GB in 1914 independently of the despatch of ANZAC. Is that correct? I had always assumed that rifles and bayonets that went over with ANZAC went back with the troops in 1918

 

2) For some reason I had it in my mind that HQ were produced at Lithgow after 1915 and as late as 1918... Where on earth did I get that idea from...!!!

 

3) I had always wondered when the MD mark was applied - seems rather late in the day as - correct me if I am wrong - of the top of my head the MD system was established pre-1910 or so.

 

A final one, so an Australian HQ around today is more likely than not to have been one that saw service with the Navy, and never went to, e.g., Gallipoli, etc.. That news will more than upset a few collectors!

 

Julian

[Guest]

Very interesting information Ross - thanks very much for posting. 
 

In relation to the markings being applied in the 1920’s - are you able to confirm which form of markings you are referring to? I have a number of these bayonets and there are a wide variety of markings which suggests they were marked at different times: for example there are state markings  (Q1234, NSW1234, V1234 etc), MD markings (1MD, 2MD etc) plus a variety of D arrow markings. The thread I refer to above contains a summary of these. From memory ShippingSteel (who started that thread) was of the opinion that the markings were applied pre / during the war, based on the information he had gathered from his own collection and research.

 

Trajan - yes those Aussie hookies are always sold (or offered for sale) at a massive premium - which is probably why I don’t have any of them. Hope you are well - it’s been a long time since I’ve been on the forum but excellent to see you are still going strong.

 

And Donnak - I’m glad you are finding so much information on your bayonet. Certainly an item to be treasured.
 

Cheers, J.

[Chasemuseum]

 Hi Julian,

1a. I assume you mean here rifles and bayonets sent to the GB in 1914

Yes, the UK government requested the Commonwealth to provide any No 1 Mk III SMLE (Short Magazine Lee Enfield) rifles they could spare, to be shipped directly to UK for use by UK forces. The Commonwealth of Australia was given a credit for these weapons. A very substantial number were sent.

 

1b rifles and bayonets that went over with ANZAC went back with the troops in 1918

I will cheat a little in the summary. 1st & 2nd Divisions AIF and several regiments of Australia Light Horse (ALH) went to Egypt and from there to Gallipoli. Lots of reinforcements went to Egypt but were never transferred to Gallipoli. All of these troops brought rifles and bayonets with them from Australia. After the withdrawal from Gallipoli the troops in Egypt were reformed. The various ALH were made up into the ANZAC Mounted Division by splitting regiments of combat experienced troops to make new regiments and then bringing regiments to full strength with reinforcements. The AMD also included regiments of the New Zealand Mounted Rifles (NZMR). Structures changed at various times, but these troops always remained in the middle east. They did provide troops to the Imperial Camel Corps and a motorised infantry force using Model-T Fords to operate in the Libyian deserts. Libya had been invaded by Italy in 1912 and was an Italian colony during WW1. The Italians never had good control of territories away from the coastal port towns and with the Ottoman call to Jihad and Germany making weapon supplies by submarine from Trieste, several tribes of Libyan arabs fought against British & ANZAC troops along the western border of Egypt for much of the war. The main focus of the AMD was against the Ottoman army in Palestine, and latter in Lebanon & Syria. Overall casualties were not that high and these troops ultimately returned to Australia and appear to have returned with the small arms they took over. Additional machineguns were supplied during the war from the UK and were brought back to Australia, Vickers, Hotchkiss and Lewis. When they went over their original MG was the Hotchkiss but there was only a small number. Today Hotchkiss LMGs are extremely rare in Australia, and there are simply not enough surviving examples to evaluate whether any that went over in 1914/1915 ever returned.

 

The infantry went through a similar process, splitting battalions of combat experienced troops and making up full strength units with recruits. So the 4th and 5th Divisions were created.  The 3rd Division had been created in Australia, undertook initial training in Australia and was shipped directly to England (around the Cape of Good Hope due to submarine activity in the Mediterranean Sea) and underwent final training in the UK. 1, 2, 4 & 5 Div transferred to France in mid1916 and went straight into combat in the latter part of the year at Fromelles and Pozieres. The five AIF infantry divisions saw extensive action in 1917 and 1918 with severe casualties and a constant supply of reinforcements. SAF Lithgow could never produce anywhere near enough SMLE rifles for the demand and the reinforcements were mostly armed in the UK with British made rifles before proceeding to the Western Front. Before returning to Australia in 1919/1920 these divisions were re-equipped with new small arms manufactured in the UK as a good will gesture from the UK Government. Consequently the bulk of the AIF's smallarms which saw service at Gallipoli & France never returned to Australia.

 

There were a number of 18pdr field guns in Australia prior to the war. 1 & 2 Div went with their own guns which went with them to the Western Front. None of these guns returned, as they were worn or damaged they were replaced with UK guns. The Divisions returned with 18pdrs & 4.5in howitzers (and 6in 26cwt howitzers) supplied by the UK. A very small number of the 18pdrs that were in Australia prior to the war were retained in Australia for training and some have survived. One is fully restored and is a very rare example of a 1914 configuration gun.

 

For the NZEF, they went to Gallipoli equipped with a shortenned (Long) Lee Enfield rifles as their government had elected to modify the rifles and only purchase a relatively small quantity of SMLE. Because of this, New Zealand purchased a unique version of P1908 web field equipment to hold packet ammunition as the LE rifles were not charger loading. There are plenty of photos of Samoa and Gallipoli with NZ troops using the shortened long LE with P1888 bayonets. There are also a number of hook quillion P1907 bayonets with NZ serial numbers surviving. The examples of these I have handled have always been in very good condition. After Gallipoli the shortenned long LE seem to disappear from NZEF overseas photos. I have no evidence but assume that they were returned to NZ from Egypt in early 1916 and replaced with SMLE from the UK. In Epypt the infantry of the NZEF were made up to a Division and they served on the Western Front in a similar role to the AIF infantry. They experienced particularly severe casualties at 3rd Ypres. 

 

2) For some reason I had it in my mind that HQ were produced at Lithgow after 1915

Any post 1915 hookie is a problem - same as a UK made bayonet with a manufacture date for one of the war years. They are out there and when placed beside a genuine HQ the problem is confirmed. Lithgow HQ definitely finished in 1915. They were serial numbered on acceptance and the date of the last month was estimated by a collector based on his research of the highest 1914 and 1915 serial numbers and the highest serial of a bayonet that had had a hook and the lowest that appeared to have been newly manufactured without a hook (as opposed to quillion removed at the SAF). Unfortunately I do not have a copy of the research data and cannot remember which month (August or October) was estimated as the transition.

 

3) I had always wondered when the MD mark was applied

The Military District system was introduced some time in the first decade of the 20th century, with the first major alteration to the system in 1911. If you follow the link to the AWM website in my original post, they explain the system in detail but unfortunately do not give the actual year of introduction. There is ongoing debate about when the MD and serial number marks were stamped on bayonets. I am not convinced when it started, I would like to think that it predated the start of WW1 but am unsure. It was definitely in use by the early 20s. If someone has good research to give a firm start date, I would love to see it. 

 

4) A final one, so an Australian HQ around today is more likely than not to have been one that saw service with the Navy, and never went to, e.g., Gallipoli, etc.. That news will more than upset a few collectors!

 

A lot of Australian collectors are obsessive about Gallipoli. Unfortunately relatively few surviving objects in good condition will have come from Australian service at Gallipoli. The war continued for another 23months after the evacuation and it becomes extremely difficult to make absolute links. A few years back a Sydney gunshop imported a number of rifles which had been sourced from Turkish Government surplus. These included pre-WW1 SMLE No 1 Mk IIIs with Australian ownership markings and still with the Mk VI rear sights. The condition was rough but they were reliably "Gallipoli" captures.

 

Cheers

Ross   

 

 

 

 

[5thBatt]

The Long lees NZ had during WW1 were just that, there were no "shortened" MLE rifles

[4thGordons]

On 01/04/2021 at 07:33, Chasemuseum said:

 

For the NZEF, they went to Gallipoli equipped with a shortenned (Long) Lee Enfield rifles as their government had elected to modify the rifles and only purchase a relatively small quantity of SMLE. Because of this, New Zealand purchased a unique version of P1908 web field equipment to hold packet ammunition as the LE rifles were not charger loading. There are plenty of photos of Samoa and Gallipoli with NZ troops using the shortened long LE with P1888 bayonets. There are also a number of hook quillion P1907 bayonets with NZ serial numbers surviving. The examples of these I have handled have always been in very good condition. After Gallipoli the shortenned long LE seem to disappear from NZEF overseas photos. I have no evidence but assume that they were returned to NZ from Egypt in early 1916 and replaced with SMLE from the UK. In Epypt the infantry of the NZEF were made up to a Division and they served on the Western Front in a similar role to the AIF infantry. They experienced particularly severe casualties at 3rd Ypres. 

 

 

This whole section is confusing to me.

Shortened MLEs?

Are you referring to Con'd rifles (which took P1907 bayonets) so I assume something else?

The only shorter MLE actioned rifles specific to NZ of which I am aware are the NZ carbines which do indeed take p1888 bayonets but I am not aware of their widespread use in WWI

 

Could you point me in the direction of some of these "plenty of photos of Samoa and Gallipoli with NZ troops using the shortened long LE with P1888 bayonets" as I would be very interested in seeing them.

Thanks

Chris

[5thBatt]

Edited 4 April , 2021 by 5thBatt

[trajan]

On 01/04/2021 at 15:33, Chasemuseum said:

4) A final one, so an Australian HQ around today is more likely than not to have been one that saw service with the Navy, and never went to, e.g., Gallipoli, etc.. That news will more than upset a few collectors!

 

A lot of Australian collectors are obsessive about Gallipoli. Unfortunately relatively few surviving objects in good condition will have come from Australian service at Gallipoli. The war continued for another 23months after the evacuation and it becomes extremely difficult to make absolute links. A few years back a Sydney gunshop imported a number of rifles which had been sourced from Turkish Government surplus. These included pre-WW1 SMLE No 1 Mk IIIs with Australian ownership markings and still with the Mk VI rear sights. The condition was rough but they were reliably "Gallipoli" captures.

 

 

Hi Ross,

Thanks for your reply and sorry for my delay in replying to it. Over here in Turkey anything remotely WW1 related is from 'Gallipoli', and one of my dealer buddies is always asking me if this or that bayonet might be 'Gallipoli' related. My own view has been that a bayonet bought here before about 2014 or so, with the appropiate year and origin markings, has a reasonable chance - but not more than that - of being Gallipoli or Kut el Armana related. I am basing this judgement on why would anyone import a bayonet for sale in Turkey before people started getting interested in WW1? Not improbable, of course, but on the other hand I probably have the largest private collection of unaltered Greek Y1903's all bought here in Turkey, for which the only real explanation for their avaibility is they were 'souvenired' during the Turkish Independence War.

 

Julian