Pattern 1907 sword bayonet - Strange "RE" inspection marking?

[navydoc16]

As for the “R” marking. I had an interesting conversation with someone who used to be an Australian Army Armourer. His statement is that the “R” and “RR” was seen on multiple parts throughout his service career – he states it signifies a “reclaimed” part, or effectively “recycled” part.

When SAF produced the MkIII, the main failure was in the sear engagement with the remainder of the group, the second most common error was MkIII’s that failed to meet the minimum group size. Minor machining errors in this trigger region of the action pins could prevent the piece in question from passing final inspections. Whilst improper woodwork pressure from warpage, bedding of the action, bolt head squareness, or other issues with the machining of the barrel would cause the piece to fail grouping standard.
 

His statement that is that a piece failed inspection more than 2 times at SAF; on its 3rd time it was broken down and the parts recycled. This was to prevent lost pursuing these “U/S” actions or barrels from cycling the facility indefinitely consuming good parts and time when they had major underlying defects.  

A major component to recycle was the existing barrel, so it was marked “R” after its first failure and recycled. Hence if it was re-installed in another piece, one could look directly at the barrel as bring the likely culprit. After 2 times being “R” marked despite no reported issues with the barrel, the barrel would be scrapped regardless the remainder of the rifle would be “R” marked and the cycle would continue. he said that likely the “Double R” is not due to probability, but that the experienced machinists trying to gauge and fix these Recycled rifles would often continue to use components from the same rejected and recycled rifles and operate independently of the line of work. 
 

Small “Reclaimed” parts were also recycled at the unit level for use within the units themselves which he recalls doing, however the barrels themselves were reclaimed at the depot level. Barrels were apparently reclaimed wherever it was suitable to do so. 

^sorry no documentation to go with but he did teach his trade later in his career so I do think he knows a bit about it

perhaps your bayonet marking is down the similar vein, a “recycled” bayonet condemned and them repaired? 
 

kind regards

g

 

[ColonelKlink1942]

5 hours ago, navydoc16 said:

My RE marking is associated with a much later date 24

Oooh, a July 1917 Mole-manufactured P1907, beautiful! Your associated year date is the same as mine.

[navydoc16]

@ColonelKlink1942 she is an Iraqi contract piece (note pommel and crossguard), I think she was repaired/refurbished for sale for the mid 20s contract hence the later RE mark, there was also a later 1936/37 contract of new BSA SMLEs with Wilkinson blades. 
 

I put the photos on another thread but enjoy the pics none the less- as well as the indigenous scabbard

I actually have a couple Moles lying around the place, I’ll have to see if I can dig out the other one 

kind regards

g

[navydoc16]

@ColonelKlink1942 other one is a 11-17 , there’s another somewhere, can’t find it right now 

inspectors mark T5 E ‘22

 

 

 

Edited 15 August by navydoc16

[navydoc16]

@JMB1943 here is a pair of my 12-45 R

Kind regards

g

[Dave66]

After replying to another thread yesterday, It reminded me of the RE marking on one of mine….a 9-08 Chapman, completely forgot!

Dave.

[ColonelKlink1942]

Gentlemen, may I say that I am blown away and astounded by the number of folks who have witnessed and own examples of bayonets with these RE markings. Upon creating this post, I was not confident that any information would come up and the marking (and its history) would be lost to time and obscurity.

I am glad I was so wrong.

[navydoc16]

8 hours ago, ColonelKlink1942 said:

Gentlemen, may I say that I am blown away and astounded by the number of folks who have witnessed and own examples of bayonets with these RE markings. Upon creating this post, I was not confident that any information would come up and the marking (and its history) would be lost to time and obscurity.

I am glad I was so wrong.

I pulled apart a cabinet today as I am rebuilding it regardless, 13 have the RE marking.
 

Performing a bit of a miniature audit. A lot appear to come with 1914, 1919 and a whole bunch with 24 and 25

kind regards

g

 

Edited 16 August by navydoc16

[navydoc16]

Another “R” marking showed up, some context to the mark is that it’s the last clear marking on the piece, and was Drill Purposed  

kind regards

g

[Andrew Upton]

 

I've been following the use of the stamped R marking here with interest lately. I recently replaced a magazine in one of my SMLE's as the one that came with it had a number of issues, mostly the fact the exterior had been heavily rusted in the past and now displayed some very ugly pitting as a result, but also curiously it was a very loose fit in the rifle it came with yet fitted my other SMLE just fine (whilst the other SMLE's magazine fits both rifles fine). The pitted magazine has had a very heavy serifed font letter "R" stamped over various inspection marks on the rib:

 

[Dave66]

On the subject of condemned/reduced marks, I thought it appropriate to post this on here to aid the discussion.

A new find today, first P1907 of the year…really dried up now. A Sanderson manufactured in Dec 1916, later inspected and probably refurbished in 1919, and unit marked to an OTC….pitted blade, but the reverse of the pommel is the main reason I brought it…see below😃😃.

Dave.

[navydoc16]

2 hours ago, Dave66 said:

On the subject of condemned/reduced marks, I thought it appropriate to post this on here to aid the discussion.

A new find today, first P1907 of the year…really dried up now. A Sanderson manufactured in Dec 1916, later inspected and probably refurbished in 1919, and unit marked to an OTC….pitted blade, but the reverse of the pommel is the main reason I brought it…see below😃😃.

Dave.

Lovely mate, can you identify why you think they have reduced it in service? 
 

kind regards

g

[Dave66]

Difficult to be sure definitely after over a century, but fairly sure it’s down to the steel, the bottom third of the blade Is quite pitted and there is a bend in the blade….ill let the pictures do the talking.

[navydoc16]

How curious, maybe the bend rendered it Reduced in Service- I would think the pitting occurred later

first time I’ve ever seen it (but not to say there’s not more out there) 

 

kind regards

g

[shippingsteel]

3 hours ago, Dave66 said:

A new find today, first P1907 of the year…really dried up now. A Sanderson manufactured in Dec 1916, later inspected and probably refurbished in 1919, and unit marked to an OTC….pitted blade, but the reverse of the pommel is the main reason I brought it…see below😃😃.

These markings on the pommel are interesting, and at the same time quite confusing.! Supposedly 2 going "out" of service stamps with the 1 Broad Arrow "in" service stamp ... makes you wonder in what order they were applied.? 

I have seen the Sale mark combined with the OTC or Cadet Corps markings before, when the Schools have actually purchased their own equipment. But I don't recall seeing an additional Broad Arrow having been added anywhere ... unless it was brought back into service for some reason. Strange markings indeed.

Cheers,  SS 

[navydoc16]

2 minutes ago, shippingsteel said:

These markings on the pommel are interesting, and at the same time quite confusing.! Supposedly 2 going "out" of service stamps with the 1 Broad Arrow "in" service stamp ... makes you wonder in what order they were applied.? 

I have seen the Sale mark combined with the OTC or Cadet Corps markings before, when the Schools have actually purchased their own equipment. But I don't recall seeing an additional Broad Arrow having been added anywhere ... unless it was brought back into service for some reason. Strange markings indeed.

Cheers,  SS 

I believe somewhere recently on one the threads someone posted the markings chat which has some odd “SOS” markings i hadent seen before- a 3 broad arrow marking that said something like “sold out of service to (para-military)

I’ll see if I can find it. 
 

Kind regards

g

[Dave66]

It may be the bend, but in the middle picture of the blade there is certainly some sort of inclusion where everything towards the tip after that is effected….perhaps that means that steel is a little softer.

Certainly an interesting one, I have seen the reverser R mark on P1888’s before, but don’t recall ever seeing one on a 1907….i was happy to buy this one on the markings alone.

Edit…..the OTC is Hereford Cathederal School….unusual.

Edited Sunday at 21:25 by Dave66

[shippingsteel]

Rejected due to the serious bend I would guess ... I don't think it has anything to do with the metal properties. To do that kind of damage to the blade it would need some substantial force and I think repeatedly.

Something like being thrust over and over again into a bag of sand by a bunch of enthusiastic young cadets.! And the resulting severe abrasion and chipping has then aided the further deterioration of the blade causing the visible pitting of the metalwork towards the tip.

Cheers,  SS 

[Dave66]

29 minutes ago, shippingsteel said:

Rejected due to the serious bend I would guess ... I don't think it has anything to do with the metal properties. To do that kind of damage to the blade it would need some substantial force and I think repeatedly.

Something like being thrust over and over again into a bag of sand by a bunch of enthusiastic young cadets.! And the resulting severe abrasion and chipping has then aided the further deterioration of the blade causing the visible pitting of the metalwork towards the tip.

Cheers,  SS 

Sounds logical, I was probably overthinking things👍👍