Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

Interesting Sequence of Remington Bayonet Pat.'13 / Mod.'17 Markings


Terrylee

Recommended Posts

359.JPG.54aa60aa3c8e3a7748e2ede2aa08bb3a.JPG

                1                           2                             3                             4

360.JPG.481a03bab7bad4e048f1ee906c50307f.JPG

{1) Pat.1913 British Markings.  (2) Pat.1913 British Markings Cancelled. 

(3)  Pat.1913 American Markings. (4) Mod.1917 American Markings.

 

 

Edited by Terrylee
Date left out
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you have a specific question regarding the sequence above? or just for show. 

Effectively, when the Pattern'14 rifle and bayonet contract were ended by the United Kingdom, the US absorbed existing stocks of bayonets and bayonet components into their own arsenal. There were huge stockpiles of bayonet blanks and foundry castings in various stages of completion and acceptance.

Hence you have a standard 1913 with a date that is one month past a bayonet that was marked to the US followed by a bayonet No.3 that has been scrubbed of its inspection markings and remarked US - you can see a remnant of the inspectors markings under the US- in a way it is similar to No.2. Then you have a standard M1917 

And just to you annoy you - you are missing the last variation of M1917 which is actually marked 1918 as the factory stuffed up and marked the blades 1918 for several months not realising it was a Pattern and not the year. 

Kind regards,
g

 

 

Edited by navydoc16
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Hi Navydoc,

Just for interest, thanks for the input. Have yet to see a "1918" M 1917. Unfortunately, the M 17s are rather uncommon in South Africa.

Regards,                                                                                                                                                             

Terry

  

 

Edited by Terrylee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a shot of the 1918 marking on an M1917 bayonet just for reference.

Cheers,  SS 

post-10020-0-99349000-1354136812_thumb.jpg.ef4db96071d34aeddab36c97a315a0c3.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am going to post these comparison shots up here just as an illustration of the difference between the Winchester and Remington manufacture of the British P1913 bayonet.

I like to study the various types of fuller and run-out shapes at the ricasso end of the P1907/P1913 family of blades. They can be very useful in identifying between the various makers, and also a handy aid to picking up fakes and other dodgy stuff.

So anyway, at top we have the Winchester production and below is the Remington. Note the original sandblasted finish on these blades as after years of service, regular maintenance/polishing, later refurbishment and storage many of the P1907/P1913 examples collected have lost their original finish.

Cheers,  SS

post-52604-0-70654600-1349053048_thumb.jpg.82fa8e632b7ef300f3990e5bddfba0a1.jpg

post-52604-0-81958300-1349053836_thumb.jpg.b7e9db8df44e2b03865776e634d1874e.jpg

Edited by shippingsteel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, shippingsteel said:

I am going to post these comparison shots up here just as an illustration of the difference between the Winchester and Remington manufacture of the British P1913 bayonet.

I like to study the various types of fuller and run-out shapes at the ricasso end of the P1907/P1913 family of blades. They can be very useful in identifying between the various makers, and also a handy aid to picky up fakes and other dodgy stuff.

So anyway, at top we have the Winchester production and below is the Remington. Note the original sandblasted finish on these blades as after years of service, regular maintenance/polishing, later refurbishment and storage many of the P1907/P1913 examples collected have lost their original finish.

Cheers,  SS

post-52604-0-70654600-1349053048_thumb.jpg.82fa8e632b7ef300f3990e5bddfba0a1.jpg

post-52604-0-81958300-1349053836_thumb.jpg.b7e9db8df44e2b03865776e634d1874e.jpg

 

Great for posterity, I have saved the photos as well. My understanding is that the earlier W bayonets are relatively polished on their own and not sandblasted? 
 

kind regards

g

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, navydoc16 said:

My understanding is that the earlier W bayonets are relatively polished on their own and not sandblasted? 

I don't believe so, and certainly not that I know of. All were originally in the dull grey looking sandblasted finish with blued ricasso, as shown in my photos posted above.

This link below is my "go to" reference page for all things P1913/M1917 and such like. The photos show the main (but not all) variations and mostly all feature the same finish. The odd one shows some age and wear, and I think one has been later refurbished with the markings dulled somewhat.

http://www.usmilitaryknives.com/bayo_points_10.htm

Cheers, SS 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hello to the contributors here,

My interest was piqued by the mention of sandblasting of Remingtons. Thirty years ago I bought what I thought was a Lee Enfield bayonet. At the time, I thought it had been pitted by rust, and was disappointed it wasn't an SMLE pointy thing. I was young and not knowledgeable in such things.

I attach some photos of my Remington. Could someone confirm sandblasting and not rust pitting? As always, other observations welcome!

Thanks,

Dave

 

_DSC0446.JPG

_DSC0447.JPG

_DSC0448.JPG

fuller.jpg

_DSC0449.JPG

Edited by depaor01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Dave, your Remington shows evidence of both the original sandblasting and later rust pitting. So the pock marking on the pommel area, crossguard and ricasso are from the rust pitting. These areas would have been originally blued and appeared as smooth steel surfaces.

However the blade itself on your example looks to be mostly in it's original sandblasted finish with those very fine indentations visible along the blade being normal.

Obviously any darker stained areas with rougher surfaces will again be rust pitting however it is not unusual for blades to have survived better in damper conditions as they have had some protection from the scabbard whilst in "storage" over the years.

Cheers,  SS 

PS. See my reference photos previously posted above for comparison 

Edited by shippingsteel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, shippingsteel said:

Hi Dave, your Remington shows evidence of both the original sandblasting and later rust pitting. So the pock marking on the pommel area, crossguard and ricasso are from the rust pitting. These areas would have been originally blued and appeared as smooth steel surfaces.

However the blade itself on your example looks to be mostly in it's original sandblasted finish with those very fine indentations visible along the blade being normal.

Obviously any darker stained areas with rougher surfaces will again be rust pitting however it is not unusual for blades to have survived better in damper conditions as they have had some protection from the scabbard whilst in "storage" over the years.

Cheers,  SS 

PS. See my reference photos previously posted above for comparison 

Thanks SS for the info. I did study your photos and reached some conclusions you were kind enough to expertly confirm.

Much obliged. 

Dave

 

Edited by depaor01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...