Jump to content
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

NZ P1907s


5thBatt

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Mattr82 said:

@5thBatt so do tell!

Hope to get a name, beyond me it's just a story but was apparently picked up off the beach at Gallipoli during the conflict 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, 5thBatt said:

Hope to get a name, beyond me it's just a story but was apparently picked up off the beach at Gallipoli during the conflict 

This one was picked up off the beach too… maybe a bit later than yours 

8CE495DD-A32E-4724-A72B-DF7ECA2E0EFA.jpeg

CD98177F-6E1F-4FA6-B0E5-A7350C9B8A0C.jpeg

CEE4799E-706E-4C8C-95A5-549D38EB8605.jpeg

Edited by navydoc16
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, 5thBatt said:

One of the Canadian MLEs marked C14 (Canada 1914)

20230709_182412.jpg.216edb362ec7647df379815dd081294a.jpg

I have one of the matching Patt.88 bayonets that originally went with this lot of MLE rifles to Canada. It is a 10 '96 dated Wilkinson also in very nice condition, stamped on the pommel with the Canadian regimental markings. Despite the "mint" condition it still has 3 deep notches carved into the grip, so perhaps a Boer War / Sth.African tourist.

Cheers,  SS 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, shippingsteel said:

I have one of the matching Patt.88 bayonets that originally went with this lot of MLE rifles to Canada. It is a 10 '96 dated Wilkinson also in very nice condition, stamped on the pommel with the Canadian regimental markings. Despite the "mint" condition it still has 3 deep notches carved into the grip, so perhaps a Boer War / Sth.African tourist.

Cheers,  SS 

Could you post a photo of the Canadian markings on your 1888 please, unsure of these so can't really tell if I have a ex Canadian 1888

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It took me many years to finally realise what I had was a Canadian marked bayonet.! This was one of the first I posted here way back in 2010 as it always raised plenty questions. I pulled up the photos from that thread so apologies for the quality and size - I think we were limited to 100kb per post back then.!

post-52604-1264117243.jpg.877468ec45fea71c953dbf4f0f27e4b4.jpg

The Canadian markings on the pommel are stamped in their fashion of Regiment number over Weapon number. So regiment 24 - Rifle number 99 ... and it came with a mismatched scabbard also dated '96 stamped on the mouth of the locket with 21 over 347. I have now seen other undoubtedly Canadian weapons that are marked in this way.

post-52604-1264118755.jpg.b745223629d9bc1fb71b119b4e860e3a.jpg

The main reason it took me so long to identify the markings in this case, was that this bayonet was never stamped with the SOS / Sale mark so I had no clue as to it not being anything other than British. Was glad to finally put it to bed after another example came to light. Was wondering if your MLE rifle is stamped with the SOS / Sale mark at all.?

Cheers,  SS 

post-52604-1263969816.jpg.626f746db81c5b983d89eef338619a2b.jpg

post-52604-1263969836.jpg.1123c34ce5a8e03ca051b24585261bbb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@shippingsteel how fascinating, yes I have too see that same underlined style on Canadian 88s and have seen them as well on Ross bayonets too. 

yes the lack of SOS mark is a bit different, but a transfer from Canadian to New Zealand may have not required them in the context of that time period

kind regards

g

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, navydoc16 said:

@shippingsteel
yes the lack of SOS mark is a bit different, but a transfer from Canadian to New Zealand may have not required them in the context of that time period

No I was meaning the original Sale from Britain to Canada of the 1896 weaponry. Theoretically it should have been marked with the SOS / Sale mark as per British regulations. Perhaps the rules changed or it was a different period issue, I don't really know why.

Cheers,  SS 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, shippingsteel said:

No I was meaning the original Sale from Britain to Canada of the 1896 weaponry. Theoretically it should have been marked with the SOS / Sale mark as per British regulations. Perhaps the rules changed or it was a different period issue, I don't really know why.

Cheers,  SS 

Apologies, I misunderstood

On a similar vein, I am not really tracking regular SOS marking on the 88s that were sold from the Uk to Australia either. 
 

yes in theory, I would suspect the requirement of the SOS, however I think there is a grey area between sale marking applied to pieces sold into private hands vs sale into the dominions. 
 

if my thought process is correct, I think with the heavy British influences in Canada and Australia the SOS marking may not have been applicable for the sale- as it was sale from the British Empire to the British Empire

naturally there is differences in the 07 patterns, but maybe the 20 years and governing of some of the dominions changed the application of the SOS marking.
 

anyways just a thought :)

kind regards

g

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Definitely a topic for further research. As ND mentioned, the sale mark is not consistent. Some do and some don’t. 
 

Which is odd in itself as Martini Henry’s and Long Lees of the period have a sale mark but P1888s are mixed. George Trotter makes note of bayonets not fully being included in returns of small arms 1903. These were colonial purchased bayonets as opposed to purchases by the Australian Government on behalf of the colonies. 

So perhaps these P1888s in Australia without a sale mark are these bayonets purchased through colonial means direct to manufacturers? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 01/11/2024 at 11:49, navydoc16 said:

@shippingsteel how fascinating, yes I have too see that same underlined style on Canadian 88s and have seen them as well on Ross bayonets too. 

yes the lack of SOS mark is a bit different, but a transfer from Canadian to New Zealand may have not required them in the context of that time period

kind regards

g

 

But wasn't the Sale Mark only applied to equipment that were drawn from stores (as in already delivered & accepted into British service) as opposed to a direct factory sale??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It appears on items also sold to the Dominions through government contracts etc. 

The majority of items with the sale mark would have been newly manufactured. However post-WW1 items to Australia and NZ are sometime refurbished items including bayonets and rifles. 
 

 

Edited by Mattr82
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 03/11/2024 at 10:36, 5thBatt said:

But wasn't the Sale Mark only applied to equipment that were drawn from stores (as in already delivered & accepted into British service) as opposed to a direct factory sale??

Yes and no, time and context. 

for the period of the 88, I am unsure, I am unaware of the specifics of wether these were ordered New or Used for NZ.

as for the period around the 1907, these were sold new with SOS markings to Australia and NZ 

kind regards

g

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...