Enfield MK1 Type2 pattern 1888 Bayonet- HELP WITH MARKINGS

[DarkMadder]

Hi all!

I Recently scored this baddie at a thrift shop that had absolutely no clue.. I believe it is a Pattern 1888 type2 MK1 Enfield bayonet. 

Here's what I think I know about it, 

Bright finished double edged blade with slight patina. The ricasso has the date 06-96 which I am assuming is manufacture date June, 1896.  On the same side are 2 inspection stamps. One has  Crown|23|E , the other is  Crown|21|E. On the same side are 3 re-issue dates: '00, '04, and '07 where the '04 is followed by the stamp "DC". The reverse side is marked with War Dept. arrow,  Arrow|WD, the bend test X, and two additional inspection stamps one marked Crown|S|25, and almost faded to the right is another marked  Crown|B|37 as well as another date of '99. Top Blade spine with ring is marked with 2 additional inspection stamps, Crown|76|S and Crown|78|S. Pommel and cross-guard have patina layer. Pommel is marked very clearly with the letters W.A.M. and under that the numbers 34.  There is also another stamped letter "E" alongside a punched dot on the underside of the tang under the cross-guard. Excellent condition wooden grips without cracks, and fixed with two brass rivets. Oil hole on the top rivet grip instead of the pommel makes this mk1 type2.

The scabbard that came with the bayonet took a long time to identify (for me). Ultimately I came to the conclusion that the scabbard is not original and is actually from a Springfield 1905-1908 U.S. bayonet instead of the British 1888 pattern. Ithink they call them R.I.A. scabbards. I had to search and search but eventually I found other versions of the scabbard that had the markings 190- something and underneath faintly visible are the inspector initials I think? anyways H.E.K. is what i think i'm seeing. 

So to summarize: 

Bayonet

Two brass rivets top one has the oil hole. 

16" overall length

Manufacture Date 06/1896 by Sanderson of Sheffield

War Dept. Arrow

Bend Test X

4 re-issue dates: '99, '00, '04, '07 (1899-1907)

x6 inspection stamps:

Crown|21|E

Crown|23|E

Crown|S|25

Crown|B|37

Crown|76|S

Crown|78|S

Unkown Markings:

"DC" after '04 on ricasso.

Punched dot + "E" on tang under cross-guard.

W.A.M. on pommel

34 under W.A.M.

Scabbard

16" overall length

Stitching ripped by the point, wood is in good condition.

Metal beltloop/frog

Has H.E.K stamped on leather

Has 19 something above the HEK

I'm also thinking that maybe since the bayonet was reissued in 1907, that the scabbard could have possibly been issued as a replacement at that time, which would explain the 19... 07? above the HEK. Only thing is it's a U.S. scabbard, with a British blade. That part confuses me.

I'm really just trying to evaluate and learn as much as i can about this blade since i've been bitten by the curiosity bug!

ANY and ALL help is GREATLY appreciated as I have absolutely ZERO military experience, no family member military history nothing. Just what I am able to sift through online

 

PS: Also please feel free to correct, insult, or make fun of me at any point!

PPS: Sorry for the novel!

 

 

 

[JMB1943]

DarkMadder,

Welcome to the Forum, and you bring us something of a puzzler!

I cannot comment on the scabbard, except to say that it and the Patt. 1888 bayonet possibly crossed paths in the hands of a collector.

The stampings on the ricasso are all standard date/ inspection stamps etc.

The puzzler is the W. A. M. / 34 stamp on the pommel.

You have obviously researched bayonet markings and would know that this a unit marking, i.e. the unit to which the bayonet was issued.

The first problem is that there is no British Army unit with those initials.

The closest that I can come is an Australian unit,

25th Light Horse (Western Australian Mounted Infantry)

which was  based in Perth, WA in the 5th Military District.

The second problem is that there is neither a sold-out-service nor a 5 MD marking anywhere.

This is one for our member in Oz @shippingsteel.

Regards,

JMB

[DarkMadder]

@JMB1943 Thanks for the welcome! 
 

Indeed I tried to do my research before coming here to bug everyone. While sitting through the links from worldbayonets.com I came across a few websites showing regiment numbers on the pommel, which is when I started trying to find regiments with these initials. Thanks for enlightening me to the Western Australian Mounted Infantry  as well!
 

 I did come across a few people claiming the number on the pommel was the rifle number that the bayonet matched, so I’m unclear on that aspect. 

 

I also read on one website that these pattern 1888 bayonets were issued to Canadian regiments that fought in the Second Boer War. One thing that I found on an old markings http://oldmilitarymarkings.com/ that I found interesting was that the DC could possibly stand for District of Canada which would reinforce this, but I was wondering if anyone else has seen this? 
 

Two other things elude me. 
 

First is the E on the under tang, I can’t find anything about stamps other than inspections stamps on that part. 
 

The other is the lack of ornate crown with the monarch’s initials. Which I initially thought was rubbed off, but my novice eyes the blade doesn’t look to be too altered, actually possibly in pretty good condition. So I’m wondering if it was made without it? Also what would that mean since I was also thinking that Sanderson was a contractor of the British government ? 

[shippingsteel]

Well that is a very unusual combination ... and an entirely haphazard meeting for sure.!

A British P1888 Mk.I (2nd Type) bayonet made by Sanderson in 1896 alongside a US Model of 1905 (2nd Type) scabbard made by Rock Island Arsenal in 1906 ... "Never the twain shall meet" 

So just to state the obvious there is no official connection here, they would NOT have seen any military service in this configuration. This P1888 bayonet appears to have seen quite a bit of British service with several reissue stampings indicating '99, '00, '04 and '07.

As JMB mentioned the unit marking is an unusual one and no regular frontline unit comes to mind. I would guess this is marked to a second-line Militia unit. More research required ... 

Cheers,  SS

[4thGordons]

6 hours ago, shippingsteel said:

A British P1888 Mk.I (2nd Type) bayonet made by Sanderson in 1896 alongside a US Model of 1905 (2nd Type) scabbard made by Rock Island Arsenal in 1906 ... "Never the twain shall meet" 

Actually I have seen this combination before for sale in the US. It is much more common however to find P1888s here in M1892 Krag Bayonet scabbards which have a similar belt attachment but are all metal (where the length is also about right).   As has been commented upon on here previously there seems to have been a significant mismatch in the survival rate of P1888 bayonets versus their scabbards (perhaps more than any other type I can think of? I wonder if this is because they were reused/reissued with P1903 bayonets?)

Rock Island Arsenal (RIA) is reasonably close to me here - they have an impressive small arms collection although it is much harder to view these days.

H.E.K. is indeed the inspector's mark - common on RIA leather goods - but the identity of the inspector is often marked as "not known" (eg according to the list I generally go to) Although this post identifies him as Henry E. Kelsey. I recently purchased a history of Rock Island and am awaiting its arrival - I hope there might be a list of inspectors in it or at least some references.

Chris

[DisasterDog]

11 hours ago, DarkMadder said:

District of Canada

Dominion of Canada

[JMB1943]

DarkMadder,

Apparently this W.A.M. issue came up about 10 yrs ago,

Regards,

JMB

[shippingsteel]

Interesting that Khaki's example from the thread noted also bore those same reissue dates of '99, '04 and '07 along with the WAM abbreviation so no doubt it is belonging to the same "unit". Still no other leads other than showing standard British service though.

I strongly suspect Militia as in both cases nothing marked after 1908, when all the Militia and Volunteer units were effectively discontinued under the Haldane reforms. So that "unit" whatever it was would have been no more.

Yes 4G, I have seen the similar Krag scabbard being used as a stopgap measure but never the M1905, mainly due I guess to it's rarity but also the length issue - it just doesn't match.!

Cheers,  SS 

[DisasterDog]

In speaking with an acquaintance of the late Richard Laughton, he was unable to find anything related to Canadian units that would fit the “W.A.M.” marking.  It seems the above link provides the most plausible explanation, especially with the similarities in dates.

[shippingsteel]

Following up on this W.A.M. abbreviation I did a little research on the British Militia units of the period. So assuming the M stands for Militia, then working backwards what was the A.?

Knowing a little about the Militia units tended me towards A for Artillery. Then we just needed a County/District starting with W to complete the trifecta.!

A quick search of British Artillery Militia units then easily bought up a couple of probable candidates. Coincidentally both are of Irish origin and both were certainly active during the time period in question.

Waterford Artillery Militia

Wicklow Artillery Militia

Quite a few hits of interest on the Google for each, including various service records of Officers etc. As I hinted to previously both these Militia units were disbanded after the 1908 reforms.

Cheers,  SS 

[MrEd]

10 minutes ago, shippingsteel said:

Following up on this W.A.M. abbreviation I did a little research on the British Militia units of the period. So assuming the M stands for Militia, then working backwards what was the A.?

Knowing a little about the Militia units tended me towards A for Artillery. Then we just needed a County/District starting with W to complete the trifecta.!

A quick search of British Artillery Militia units then easily bought up a couple of probable candidates. Coincidentally both are of Irish origin and both were certainly active during the time period in question.

Waterford Artillery Militia

Wicklow Artillery Militia

Quite a few hits of interest on the Google for each, including various service records of Officers etc. As I hinted to previously both these Militia units were disbanded after the 1908 reforms.

Cheers,  SS 

Which also fits the dates of this bayo

[Dave66]

Does the orientation of the Stamping support the Irish theory, or, give an indication of country….none of my unit marked examples are stamped in this manner….also, can this be tied in with the DC stamping on the blade

Dave.

Edited 13 January by Dave66

[shippingsteel]

Good point Dave, and the DC marking was going to be my next item of research.! It is a very interesting one, and something that I have never seen before on bayonets.

It is obviously related to Inspection and "reissue" as the other 3 reissue dates all come with their associated Enfield or Birmingham inspection mark, leaving the '04 date conspicuously absent, with just this DC stamp ... very unusual.?

As for the orientation and stamping of the Unit abbreviation it does look decidedly "un-Regimental" and dare I say it, less professional than I would normally expect to see on your regular British service bayonet. Which is also one of the reasons which turned my thoughts towards "2nd-line" and Militia.

Cheers,  SS 

[shippingsteel]

So following on with the assumption that their is a strong Irish connection with W.A.M. ... and that the DC stamp (shown below) is related to the '04 reissue date due to proximity, I did a little more research.

What does the Inspection mark indicate when placed alongside the "reissue" or Inspection date.? It details the origin of the Inspector who viewed the item and "certified" it's acceptance. So normally in British service this would mean an RSAF Enfield inspector denoted with an E, or alternatively for more Northern regiments or units, an RSAF Sparkbrook inspector denoted with the B.

So what happens to Units getting their Arms inspected in Ireland.? Normally you would expect the same Inspectors to do the normal thing, which they did in 3 out of 4 cases on this bayonet. In one case, the '04 Inspection the regular Inspectors are not available so they get someone locally to do the job.?

So assuming that we are located in either County Waterford or County Wicklow, you would expect that Dublin being fairly close by would be the main centre of authority regarding military matters. Then a quick search of Dublin + Armoury brings up Dublin Castle which fits quite nicely with the DC stamping.!

Cheers,  SS

Edited 13 January by shippingsteel

[4thGordons]

Apropos of not much

if an artillery unit one might expect them to have been armed with LE carbines or possibly earlier MH carbines neither of which were set up to fit P1888 bayonets.  HOWEVER, ME carbines in .303 ( mostly conversions) WERE set up for P 1888 bayonets and continued in use for quite a long time.

For example

Chris

Edited 13 January by 4thGordons
correct link

[shippingsteel]

Thanks 4G for adding info from the Rifle viewpoint, of course the bayonets had to attach to something.! Yes the ME-AC with the Rigby nosecap fitted the Patt.1888 bayonet quite well and were a common issue amongst the 2nd-line and Artillery units of that period.

Cheers,  SS 

[Dave66]

Such a shame the W.A.M. Bayonet in JMB’s link belonging to @Khakihas no images, as it has 99, 04 and 07 stamps, it would be interesting to see if it has the same 04 DC stamp.

[DarkMadder]

@shippingsteel, @4thGordons, @JMB1943 thank you all so much! 

 

Also I apologize for the laate response as this has been a busy weekend. There is much to review! It's a completely different direction than the original one. 

 

@Dave66 Wondering if @Khaki has the buddy to mine.  Would love to see pics!

[MikeyH]

DM,

Khaki used to be a very regular contributor to the GWF.  But has not been active for a while.  

Mike.

Edited 16 January by MikeyH

[USRWB]

It would seem that I own a companion to DarkMadder's P1888, the most noticeable difference being that mine is W.A.M. 100 (vs 34). Unfortunately I don't have additional "facts" to offer as I stumbled across this page while also trying to discern the probable meaning of "W.A.M." What I can offer are additional pictures with a remarkable number of similarities. 

My P1888 was also made by Sanderson in June of 1896 and has at least 3 out of 4 identical re-issue dates (00, 04, 07). The pictured date closest to the hilt might also be '99, but I'm having a hard time making it out. Additionally my bayonet is marked DC - be that Dublin Castle as conjectured or otherwise. 

I have an a copy of Ian Skennerton's "The Broad Arrow" which has no explicit reference to W.A.M., but does support the nomenclature upon which ShippingSteel's theory of Waterford / Wickford is based. I wish I could offer more, but at a minimum I think it's fascinating to re-unite these former companions (albeit "virtually"), particularly since at some pint in the past mine made it's way across the pond and now resides in the US State of South Carolina. 

[Dave66]

Welcome USRWB,

Great markings, many thanks for posting….nice to see the WAM is the same unusual orientation, and the DC marking in shown in its entirety…fascinating.

Dave

[USRWB]

@Dave66 - thank you for the gracious welcome.

This forum is a wonderful resource. It's my pleasure to be able to contribute, even if only a little. 

[shippingsteel]

Well that is just amazing ... a deadset identical twin.!! Well as identical as it gets in this game, what are the chances of you finding this thread to be able to reunite them back together ... Thanks USRWB. 

And from the markings we can safely say they were together from "birth" ... same maker, same acceptance date, same inspection dates, same WAM unit marking (with the errant floating full-stops or period punches).!

And these new photos (see closeup added below) also absolutely confirm the DC mark was an Inspection marking as surmised. Albeit just a partial stamp with the full Crown/B/DC now fully shown. Amazing to see this as it confirms that the Dublin Castle inspector was acting under the auspices of RSAF Sparkbrook, as shown by the letter B above the DC.

Further research into the history of Dublin Castle is fascinating as it formed an integral part of the previous British military rule over Ireland. Not only the centre of Government but a  functioning Armoury producing and repairing weapons over centuries.

Cheers,  SS 

[DarkMadder]

5 hours ago, USRWB said:

It would seem that I own a companion to DarkMadder's P1888, the most noticeable difference being that mine is W.A.M. 100 (vs 34). Unfortunately I don't have additional "facts" to offer as I stumbled across this page while also trying to discern the probable meaning of "W.A.M." What I can offer are additional pictures with a remarkable number of similarities. 

My P1888 was also made by Sanderson in June of 1896 and has at least 3 out of 4 identical re-issue dates (00, 04, 07). The pictured date closest to the hilt might also be '99, but I'm having a hard time making it out. Additionally my bayonet is marked DC - be that Dublin Castle as conjectured or otherwise. 

I have an a copy of Ian Skennerton's "The Broad Arrow" which has no explicit reference to W.A.M., but does support the nomenclature upon which ShippingSteel's theory of Waterford / Wickford is based. I wish I could offer more, but at a minimum I think it's fascinating to re-unite these former companions (albeit "virtually"), particularly since at some pint in the past mine made it's way across the pond and now resides in the US State of South Carolina. 

WOW! How amazing is it that we can do this. Amazingly enough the one that I found is in Tucson, AZ all the way across the U.S. and it's in just about the same shape! It seems that @shippingsteel theory about the irish militia seems to fit best, and they are undoubtedly brothers. I match the 99,00,04,07 years as well as the DC, the spine inspection stamps and the war dept marks. Which is alot of matching haha. I'm interested to see the underside of the tang so to see if there is a stamp there (mine has an E) I'm currently trying to determine if the lack of QV crown and V.R. is because it's either irish or australian militia rather than official royal troops?  Nice Find!

[USRWB]

@shippingsteel it is indeed serendipity! Thank YOU (and all others) for the intimate knowledge of the nuance and markings. The history so deeply enriches the connection to these wonderful pieces. 

 

@DarkMadder - wow indeed! Credit for the find goes to my Father who spent much of his life collecting pre-WW2 rifles, bayonets, and all things associated with them. I'm slowly working through cataloging and preserving that collection. Emphasis on slowly - it's a big collection. I'm not sure when and where he acquired WAM 100. As a tangential side note, I was just north of you in Phoenix for a number of years. I loved my time in AZ, but SC is home. 

Apologies for missing the underside of the tang earlier - picture attached. 

And, because it's within the theme of this thread and I believe this is the right audience, I'm adding pictures of our other P1888's as well as our 1889 3-Rivet mounted on our 1895 Martini-Enfield Carbine (which started life in 1881 as a Martini-Henry Mk III).