Bayonet markings identification

[Wicus]

Good day all.

I received this bayonet from my grandfather and wondered if someone could help me identifying the markings. As far as I can tell it's a British bayonet. My great-grandfather came over from the UK to South Africa during the Boer war in 1901. Greetings from SA.

 

 

 

[Andrew Upton]

Your bayonet is a 1888 Pattern MkI (Type 2) as used with the Long Lee-Metford and Long Lee-Enfield rifles. EFD is for the maker - Enfield. The 1 '98 is the date it was accepted into military service (ie January 1898). The X shows the bend test was successfully passed. The broad arrow in the letter U shows it was once owned by the Government of the Union of South Africa. Most of the other marks essentially show it passed different stages of the production process before becoming a completed bayonet.

Edited 21 March by Andrew Upton

[Chasemuseum]

The frog and scabbard are matching the bayonet. The frog is the buff leather frog for the P1888 Slade Wallace equipment. There were actually several different versions of the frog through the 1890s.

This is the standard infantry bayonet of the 2nd Boer War 1899-1902. The rifle and bayonet continued in use through WW1 as a second grade weapon for training, and use by garrison troops, prisoner of war guards  and for front line service by some empire/colonial troops. 

[4thGordons]

50 minutes ago, Chasemuseum said:

This is the standard infantry bayonet of the 2nd Boer War 1899-1902. The rifle and bayonet continued in use through WW1 as a second grade weapon for training, and use by garrison troops, prisoner of war guards  and for front line service by some empire/colonial troops. 

The Charger Loading Lee Enfield (CLLE) which was the MLE with added charger bridge was very much more than a second grade weapon - it was in front line service  (with the P1888) with numerous battalions on the Western Front until late 1915/early 1916. Many of the TF battalions that went to France in early 1915 and fought in battles like Loos and Bellewaarde (Sept 1915) were armed with CLLEs and P1888s, they were not replaced in front line use until early 1916 and almost totally disappear from the photographic record prior to the Somme. Here is a pic of a member of the 1/4th Gordons in Flanders in 1915 just prior to going into the front line.

[Chasemuseum]

Totally agree that they saw front line service through to the beginning of 1916. Also note that the NZEF at Gallipoli were armed with them as well.

But they were a second-grade weapon that was not the preferred issue to the BEF for front-line combat service and were replaced when sufficient quantities of SMLE were available.

 

My point is that the bayonet, scabbard and buff leather frog were used by British, Commonwealth and Empire forces in WW1 and is a relevant topic for the forum.

I cannot find the book at present, but I have a photo of British ceremonial guards in Jerusalem in 1917 (possibly early 1918) wearing the P88 buff leather equipment. I have always assumed the equipment was only used for ceremonial guard duties and not used in combat at that period but would love to see evidence of its use in combat. 

[Wicus]

Just want to say thanks to everybody's response regarding this topic. It's always gratifying to find out more about these historic pieces. Wicus     

 

[navydoc16]

On 22/03/2024 at 14:36, Chasemuseum said:

Totally agree that they saw front line service through to the beginning of 1916. Also note that the NZEF at Gallipoli were armed with them as well.

But they were a second-grade weapon that was not the preferred issue to the BEF for front-line combat service and were replaced when sufficient quantities of SMLE were available.

 

My point is that the bayonet, scabbard and buff leather frog were used by British, Commonwealth and Empire forces in WW1 and is a relevant topic for the forum.

I cannot find the book at present, but I have a photo of British ceremonial guards in Jerusalem in 1917 (possibly early 1918) wearing the P88 buff leather equipment. I have always assumed the equipment was only used for ceremonial guard duties and not used in combat at that period but would love to see evidence of its use in combat. 

Even the Australians had them at Gallipoli, unsure of the quantity- there is a picture floating around somewhere. But there is also several accounts of “long lees” throughout the area. 
 

kind regards

g

Edited 21 April by navydoc16

[Chasemuseum]

They were standard for NZEF troops at Gallipoli. NZ had not adopted the SMLE before the war.

That was why NZ had its own variation of WE P1908 with the pouches made to take ammunition in packets rather than in chargers.

Although both soldiers are shown with SMLE note that the NZ has the NZ variant of WE P1908.

 

[navydoc16]

2 minutes ago, Chasemuseum said:

They were standard for NZEF troops at Gallipoli. NZ had not adopted the SMLE before the war.

That was why NZ had its own variation of WE P1908 with the pouches made to take ammunition in packets rather than in chargers.

Although both soldiers are shown with SMLE note that the NZ has the NZ variant of WE P1908.

 

I bloody love that poster- never seen it. Also thanks for the information. 
 

no one should have ever know the different in the webbing on a poster, but the artist decided it needed to be “right”

that’s called work ethic and dedication to one’s job right there^

 

kind regards

g

[Chasemuseum]

Very surprised you are not familiar with it. The original is at the Auckland War museum (now only the top floor is military, but still a great museum to visit.) 

It was reproduced as a full page of colour near the front of the "ANZAC Book" a fund raising book published in 1916. Lots of original copies about and was reprinted a few years ago.

 

[navydoc16]

3 minutes ago, Chasemuseum said:

Very surprised you are not familiar with it. The original is at the Auckland War museum (now only the top floor is military, but still a great museum to visit.) 

It was reproduced as a full page of colour near the front of the "ANZAC Book" a fund raising book published in 1916. Lots of original copies about and was reprinted a few years ago.

 

Sorry I have seen the poster, but I was not famillar with seeing the NZ pouches in detail on it.
 

but I am not familiar with that book I will read up and maybe add one to the library. 
 

kind regards

g

[Mattr82]

I’m unsure of the Australians having Long Lees at Gallipoli as the Australians took the latest pattern rifle and there was no need to take Long Lees considering the Australians didn’t have the logistical capacity to support the use of Long Lees and they had the numbers of SMLEs required at home. 
 

The kiwi mounted units had SMLEs and took them to the Dardanelles. 

[navydoc16]

1 hour ago, Mattr82 said:

I’m unsure of the Australians having Long Lees at Gallipoli as the Australians took the latest pattern rifle and there was no need to take Long Lees considering the Australians didn’t have the logistical capacity to support the use of Long Lees and they had the numbers of SMLEs required at home. 
 

The kiwi mounted units had SMLEs and took them to the Dardanelles. 

Mhhh I don’t necessarily think that is quite right, I think there still documentation of Long Lees at Gallipoli in Australian hands (not widespread) Including from memory- letters from the front about troops salty about having been issued the older rifle, and salty Turks accusing them of using Dum Dum ammunition - as well as some issues firing Mk6 .303.
 

A long lees were also transferred from the armouries of the ships in the coves with ammunition to the front line. Although I can’t remember specifically if this was Australian, could have been British 
 

The SMLE was not a major leap ahead and the MLE and CCLE were not obsolete in any meaningful way that they couldn’t be used. Plus we were short of  Smle 
 

kind regards

g
 

 

 

Edited 22 April by navydoc16

[Mattr82]

The only references I’ve seen regarding being issued older rifles was amongst the Light Horse when they were being issued Mk.IVs from the yeomanry when they handed in their Mk.6 sighted rifles in 1917.

The AIF elements were issued rifles as a priority which meant a shortage of SMLEs in Australia but there was enough to be deployed overseas. 

Have you got the Collector Magazine #25? 

[navydoc16]

1 hour ago, Mattr82 said:

The only references I’ve seen regarding being issued older rifles was amongst the Light Horse when they were being issued Mk.IVs from the yeomanry when they handed in their Mk.6 sighted rifles in 1917.

The AIF elements were issued rifles as a priority which meant a shortage of SMLEs in Australia but there was enough to be deployed overseas. 

Have you got the Collector Magazine #25? 

No I don’t have that magazine, good reference in it? 
 

kind regards

g

[Mattr82]

It has an 14 page article that was written by Damien Allan and is probably one of the best references for the use of the SMLE in Australian service. 
 

He goes into quite a lot of detail about the use of inventory numbers and the amount of rifles used by the Australian forces during subsequent military campaigns.

Edited 22 April by Mattr82

[navydoc16]

Ah that’s great I’ll have to look it up, cheers. 

but I’ll think you’ll find a lot of these little tidbits of information regarding deviation from standard practice are rarely documented in large overviews or systemic reviews. 

I am searching for the reference and photos, if I can get them I will post them for you to read - just racking my brain where and when I read them 

kind regards

g

Edited 23 April by navydoc16

[Fromelles]

12 hours ago, Mattr82 said:

I’m unsure of the Australians having Long Lees at Gallipoli as the Australians took the latest pattern rifle and there was no need to take Long Lees considering the Australians didn’t have the logistical capacity to support the use of Long Lees and they had the numbers of SMLEs required at home. 
 

The kiwi mounted units had SMLEs and took them to the Dardanelles. 

Matt,

All the Long Lees that went to Gallipoli will have the soldier's Regi number on them. I learnt from the best of them: if you can't back it up, make it up.

Dan 

[M1890 ottoman]

There were indeed Lee Metford bayonets as side arms at the Gallipoli campaign. They are referred as "British artillery bayonets" by collectors in turkey. Not sure about the rifles them selves. 

have seen one taken right out of the soil from an trench in an video posted 6months ago.

[navydoc16]

1 hour ago, M1890 ottoman said:

There were indeed Lee Metford bayonets as side arms at the Gallipoli campaign. They are referred as "British artillery bayonets" by collectors in turkey. Not sure about the rifles them selves. 

have seen one taken right out of the soil from an trench in an video posted 6months ago.

The British and NZ accounts are more plentiful- below is an excerpt from an original manuscript from Gallipoli from a Stephens Moyle. 
 

sometimes the references arnt specific enough, but this one is rather detailed. Often they just say “older rifle” and references to that respect. 

“It is necessary to explain we were landed with the long Lee Enfield rifles, Mark 6 ammunition, which for those not familiar with was a round nosed bullet. Johnny Turk accused us of using Dum Dums compared with the modern short Lee Enfield and pointed nose bullets. The trenches were so disposed at that time, stray bullets were coming from many directions, and one of ours had hit Jim”

Kind regards

g

 

Edited 23 April by navydoc16