Is it typical for a 1907 pattern bayonet to be missing the bend (X) marking?

[Bjornirnside]

The majority I've seen obviously have it but with the inspection marks and it being reissued I presume the blade was fit for purpose? Is it typical for it to just be forgotten?

Edited 30 April by Bjornirnside

[JMB1943]

Bjornirnside,

Welcome to the GWF!

The Patt. 1907 should always have the bend-test X, and this is the first time that I can remember not seeing it.

Does wetting the blade and/or viewing at a different angle reveal anything? Or viewing under a magnifying glass?

Also, there should be three inspection stamps for the original 1915 inspection, plus an additional inspection stamp for the 1926 date.

Looks like only 2 of those are clearly visible.

Nice bayonet and scabbard.

Regards,

JMB

Edited 30 April by JMB1943
Typo

[Bjornirnside]

I'll have a better look at it tomorrow for faint markings, if nothing more is visible does that give cause for concern? Thank you for your reply I appriciate your input!

[shippingsteel]

There was something going on with the Enfield production around that time. I have one marked exactly the same, but without the later reissue. Mine is 8/15 dated again with the 35/E inspection marking in the centre and absolutely no bend test X mark ever stamped. I think I posted about mine years ago as yes it was quite a strange one to find ... perhaps I can find the old thread.?

Cheers,  SS 

[Bjornirnside]

Interesting to know there's another! I did some searching and was struggling to find any infomation regarding a lack of bend mark.

Would be good to see your thread, thanks.

[navydoc16]

@shippingsteel I have seen one similar somewhere that also had no bend test, also EFD. 
 

I am spitballing, but Enfield was tied up witha lot of other projects, the OPs bayonet also has a 1907 mark “ghosted” in another position.
 

enfield eventually shipped their own blades and tooling out to other companies like Sanderson to be completed

kind regards

g

Edited 1 May by navydoc16

[shippingsteel]

Here is the (very) old thread ... apologies in advance for the quality of my photos. I was still learning how to use digital cameras combined with managing the flash and lighting back then. As you can see I was struggling ... and nothing much has changed since.! 

https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/148742-some-new-recruits-p1907-variety/#comment-1434018

Cheers,  SS 

[navydoc16]

Here’s a Sanderson below- later refurbished in Aus, but EFD prod and Sanderson finished. 
 

Bend test is faint

[DisasterDog]

Yeah, mine is super faint.  And the one in question has clearly been re-struck “1907”, so maybe the rework obliterated it?

 

 

[navydoc16]

@DisasterDog the “1907” shouldn’t have been re-struck during the refurb process, but a feint “X” could have certainly been washed away with a light polish with a buffing wheel. 

or potentially it was simply part of a batch on a trolley what skipped the stamping stage for whatever reason (probably expediency) and headed on out to the next stage. 

kind regards

g
 

Edited 1 May by navydoc16

[navydoc16]

@shippingsteel would the OP bayonet be one that was sandblasted post issue? Or issued sandblasted? 
 

I don’t have my books at the moment with me

 

kind regards

g

[navydoc16]

I thought this lack of bend test mark may just be a “thing”

however there is a VERY VERY small bend text mark right next to the cross guard on the below- the OP has one too 

kind regards

g

Edited 1 May by navydoc16

[navydoc16]

OP looks like the test is at the crossguard line, just under the linishing marks 

I think EFD may be relying on the blade bend test as the only bend test and did not formally re-test and stamp the bayonet after construction. 

I will dig my blanks out tonight and re-post 

kind regards

g

 

Edited 1 May by navydoc16

[DisasterDog]

1 hour ago, navydoc16 said:

however there is a VERY VERY small bend text mark right next to the cross guard on the below- the OP has one too 

I looked & looked, and looked & looked.  But I’ll be damned you found it.  I knew there was one hiding somewhere!!!  

[AndyBsk]

By later refurbishments are similar things occured, as a thin layer of metall was probably removed so when faint bend stamp, it would be hard visible. 

[shippingsteel]

7 hours ago, shippingsteel said:

Mine is 8/15 dated again with the 35/E inspection marking in the centre and absolutely no bend test X mark ever stamped.

 

2 hours ago, navydoc16 said:

I thought this lack of bend test mark may just be a “thing"

Oh it is a "thing" alright ... just as I was saying. You would think I might know just a little about "markings" after all this time.! 

Anyway you have made me drag out my poor old EFD to try get some decent closeup photos. First time it's been out in the sunshine for decades.!

This is a proper 1915 dated bayonet in original condition. It has original bluing remaining (with some evidence of polish) but NO reissue, NO refurb and NO clearance hole added, "and absolutely no bend test X mark ever stamped".

Some cellphone photos added below to look for yourself. Hope they are clear enough ... the dark is bluing not shadow.

Cheers,  SS 

[AndyBsk]

This last blade looks like sanded on the area of crown GR, but its possible there was not a bend test.

[navydoc16]

1 hour ago, shippingsteel said:

 

Oh it is a "thing" alright ... just as I was saying. You would think I might know just a little about "markings" after all this time.! 

Anyway you have made me drag out my poor old EFD to try get some decent closeup photos. First time it's been out in the sunshine for decades.!

This is a proper 1915 dated bayonet in original condition. It has original bluing remaining (with some evidence of polish) but NO reissue, NO refurb and NO clearance hole added, "and absolutely no bend test X mark ever stamped".

Some cellphone photos added below to look for yourself. Hope they are clear enough ... the dark is bluing not shadow.

Cheers,  SS 

Sorry mate didn’t mean that as a dig, I remember seeing one too, I think EFD had both very light bend tests as well as some production expediency implemented at this time. Your bayonet is a beautiful example of what the theory, and I think there is enough photographic evidence online to say it was at least not-uncommon practice. 
 

Here is another 

Of note - a lot of these bayonets are missing the full set of inspector marks 

kind regards

g

 

Edited 1 May by navydoc16

[navydoc16]

@shippingsteel do you think EFD was just tying to fly these out the door as quick as possible?

kind regards

g

[Bjornirnside]

This turned out to be more interesting than I first thought! Appriciate all your input.

 

I've just found a bend marking on the handle of the one I originally posted 

[navydoc16]

@Bjornirnside yes so during bayonet production, bayonets seem to be “bend tested” at least 2-3 times which is not the most commonly known thing- bayonets often have an bend test on the handle (usually under the grip scales), on the blade near the cross guard (which is normally linished off during cleaning of the brase/sodder material)  and one last offical time which is the heavily marked test everyone is familiar with with a large “X”- the offical X seems to be a relatively early step before any real production steps are completed. 
 

I’m guessing these production steps are to ensure that the tempering of the blade has not changed by braising, drilling/milling, broaching or any other steps of production- otherwise they would have wasted a lot of resources making a bayonet that was scrap. 
 

also sometimes- it seems that a re-check of the “bend test” is recorded on the spine of the bayonet, during refurbishment - however I am unsure if this applies only to later Australian and am familiar with the British conducting this same re-test 

see below R56 (Refurbishment 1956) “X” (re-test) + plus new broad arrow to indicate end user
 

Kind regards

g

Edited 1 May by navydoc16

[navydoc16]

See below “X” bend test on both blade and grip

I didn’t feel like pulling grips off tonight and this was in easy reach- it’s a unfinished English blade

kind regards

g

 

Edited 1 May by navydoc16

[Pete_C]

Just to depart briefly on a slight tangent, is this a bend test device - it’s a very old screenshot and I don’t recall its origin, possibly the Lithgow museum ?

Pete

[shippingsteel]

12 hours ago, navydoc16 said:

@shippingsteel do you think EFD was just tying to fly these out the door as quick as possible?

To me this all revolves around the implementation of the Peddled Rifle scheme and the phasing out of actual bayonet production at RSAF Enfield.

The references indicate "the bayonet shop was moved to Sheffield in October 1915" so I think this shows that Enfield was certainly under the pump at that time, and needed to change some practices for the sake of expediency.

And I believe the Crown/35/E inspection marking was central to this happening. It's not just any inspection marking but the mark of an older and very senior Inspector, if not the Chief Inspector at the time. (This stamp is found on Patt.88 examples)

I even dubbed it the "Master stamp" as I felt it was being used as the Approval "override button" for the lack of the normal inspections and bend test marking being applied. As we all know it certainly wasn't normal or standard practice for these stamps to be absent.

Cheers,  SS 

[navydoc16]

9 hours ago, Pete_C said:

Just to depart briefly on a slight tangent, is this a bend test device - it’s a very old screenshot and I don’t recall its origin, possibly the Lithgow museum ?

Pete

Yes I believe that is one of the older displays at the Lithgow museum. 

and yes it is the bend test machine, there is two I know of in private hands- they come from a tool and die manufacturer in the UK and were “proofed” by the the UK government and were sold from the Lithgow Museum I believe in the late 80’s and early 90’s-  a good friend of mine has an ex-Lithgow bend test. 

Of note- be careful of fakery, there was several rather authentic looking ones that were made about 5-6 years ago and were sold in Australia as original, they are not an overly complex make, but I believe the maker was not able to view an original- as at first glance everything was good and aged correctly, good amount of dings.

However one of the few reproduced images in books (think it was Skennerton) does not fully show the bar that locks the tip, and the maker used a carefully cut scabbard throat by error. 

kind regards

g

Edited 1 May by navydoc16