5thBatt Posted 31 October Author Share Posted 31 October 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 More sharing options...
navydoc16 Posted 31 October Share Posted 31 October (edited) 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 Edited 31 October by navydoc16 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 31 October Share Posted 31 October 8 hours ago, 5thBatt said: One of the Canadian MLEs marked C14 (Canada 1914) 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 More sharing options...
5thBatt Posted 31 October Author Share Posted 31 October 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 More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 31 October Share Posted 31 October 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.! 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. 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
navydoc16 Posted 31 October Share Posted 31 October @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 More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 1 November Share Posted 1 November 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 More sharing options...
navydoc16 Posted 1 November Share Posted 1 November 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 More sharing options...
Mattr82 Posted 1 November Share Posted 1 November 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 More sharing options...
5thBatt Posted 3 November Author Share Posted 3 November 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 More sharing options...
5thBatt Posted 3 November Author Share Posted 3 November My 1888s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattr82 Posted 3 November Share Posted 3 November (edited) 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 3 November by Mattr82 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
navydoc16 Posted Tuesday at 07:10 Share Posted Tuesday at 07:10 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 More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now