yellow Posted 16 November , 2007 Share Posted 16 November , 2007 Can any of the forum bayonet experts tell me anything about the impressions on the handle of this SMLE bayo? To save forum members time I have tried Howard Williamsons book, a well known forum members web site on the subject and Ian Skennerton's book. Many thanks, Steve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
findabetterole Posted 16 November , 2007 Share Posted 16 November , 2007 Hello Steve, The two topmost letters are rather hard to decipher, but they look like 'A' in each case. The only numonic that I have listedin my files that comes anywhere near matching is: ASAOC = Army Section, Army Ordnance Corps. I've tried searching for the SD.. or SO on its own, with the 'SO' matching = Sligo, but nothing relatedly similar matches the 'SD'. The 'AA' alone matches = Ardrossen Acadamy. However, I'm certain that in the configuration the letters are set out on the pommel, its the total of '4' or '5' with the addition of the 5th as possibly a very faintly stamped letter. My records are quite extensive but not that complete. Maybe another Forum member could come up with something completely different and more closely matching? At least you now have a reference to work from. Good Luck! Seph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the saint Posted 16 November , 2007 Share Posted 16 November , 2007 SD : Supply Depot ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellow Posted 16 November , 2007 Author Share Posted 16 November , 2007 Many thanks for the reply chaps. This bayo does not belong to me, it belongs to a collector on another forum who no one could help out. I had a guess: I 1st S South D Downs I must say that 1 Supply Depot sounds more likely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auchonvillerssomme Posted 16 November , 2007 Share Posted 16 November , 2007 Why would Supply Depot mark a bayonet with its own designation? would it be an item for retention and use by its own men? Mick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellow Posted 16 November , 2007 Author Share Posted 16 November , 2007 I am just guessing but I think it is a bayo used by Army Service Corps men of the 1st Supply Depot. I`d like to rule out the 11th Battalion Sussex Regiment, anyone know how the South Downs Battalions marked their bayonets up? Steve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auchonvillerssomme Posted 16 November , 2007 Share Posted 16 November , 2007 It wasn't issued to them until January 1921 wasn't the 11th Bn Sussex disbanded in 1919? Mick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellow Posted 16 November , 2007 Author Share Posted 16 November , 2007 yep, all three South Downs Battalions were for the duration of the war only. Theres something else interesting about this bayonet. The impressions are on the wrong side. Most of the WW1 examples I have seen have the impressions on the other side. Maybe its nothing, just something I noticed. Please pardon my ignorance Mick but how do you know that ASC Supply Depo men were not issued bayo's? Thanks, Steve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auchonvillerssomme Posted 16 November , 2007 Share Posted 16 November , 2007 I don't and I'm sure they were. Was my fault, they were 2 seperate questions doh! Mick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellow Posted 16 November , 2007 Author Share Posted 16 November , 2007 No worries my fault. Are we all happy with Supply Depot before I shoot off to the other forum? Steve, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 16 November , 2007 Share Posted 16 November , 2007 No worries my fault. Are we all happy with Supply Depot before I shoot off to the other forum? Steve, It looks to me like A I S D with the AI rather more faint (perhaps partially erased?) I(?) . 21 So is it possible we are looking at 2 different ownership markings? A I and then a 1921 reissue? to SD? are there any reissue dates on the blade? This is outside my expertise but I have usually seen reissue dates there, not on the pommel. Just one more spanner for the works - are we certain these are British Unit markings as opposed to Australian/Indian etc. SD as Supply Depot seems reasonable to me - the only other might be "Southern District?" - I know Australia was divided into military districts (I have a 07 marked 2nd MD for example)..was India?....but this would be pure guesswork on my part. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
findabetterole Posted 17 November , 2007 Share Posted 17 November , 2007 Chris, The pommel or crossguard marking of '2 MD' = 2nd military district, Australia, which is New South Wales. Also, British and Commonwealth '07' re-issue dates are always placed upon blades ricasso's. Seph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 17 November , 2007 Share Posted 17 November , 2007 Chris, The pommel or crossguard marking of '2 MD' = 2nd military district, Australia, which is New South Wales. Also, British and Commonwealth '07' re-issue dates are always placed upon blades ricasso's. Seph Hi Seph Yes I knew the AUS 2MD thing... I was simply using that as an example of not brit marking. On the date see post no.7 (from Mick) above, seems to be interpreting the ,21 on the pommel as an reissue date... unless I have the wrong end of the stick - which is quite possible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
findabetterole Posted 17 November , 2007 Share Posted 17 November , 2007 No.. your right Chris. Will you tell Mike hes wrong or shall I? I've actually been trying to search within my Canadian markings records for a comparrison listing to the original markings, but at present, I've come up blank. Contrary to my initial post, this I believe is not a British marking. After enlarging the pic as large as I dare, its definately 'A1 SD'.. definatelly not British origin. Seph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auchonvillerssomme Posted 17 November , 2007 Share Posted 17 November , 2007 So you don't think 1.21 is a reissue date? Mick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
findabetterole Posted 17 November , 2007 Share Posted 17 November , 2007 Hello Mike, I've been collecting the '07' now for just over 40.years, and the sandard practice for placing a re-issue date on British bayonets is on either ricasso. The earliest bayonet that I have observed which confirms this practise is a Mk.1 Lee-Metford Pattern 1888 made by 'Mole'. I have several '07's' within my collection that have multiple re-issue dates upon them, but these are, in every case, placed upon both ricasso's. As I mention, my records of '07' pommel markings are quite extensive, being put together over a number of years. The configuration upon the bayonets pommel I personaly have never encountered, nor do I have a reference to the 'A1' or 'SD'. However, that is not to say they are not of a bonafide unit. The question as I see it should be.. 'Are these markings upon the left pommel of a British or Commonwealth unit or not?' It certainly has me scratching my head in bewilderment! The position of the stamping has also been commented upon as being unusual. I'll agree there, for the standard positioning is upon the left pommel side. This none standard pommel stamping however is not unique. I've attached a pic of a pommel stamping from my collection. Its an Enfield '07' : EFD -12/14, and through experiance and my personel knowledge of the subgect, I would state that this particular stamping of '699' is the armoury rack number. I would also suggest (due to not knowing the full particulars of this particular '121' stamping) that it to is the unit or company rack number. As a point of confirmation to the above, I've also attached a pic of a Vickers '07' (11/18) with a full pommel stamping in standard pattern: LDN. O.T.C. 709 = London Officer Training Corps, rack number: 709. Any alternate suggestions for '121'? Seph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auchonvillerssomme Posted 17 November , 2007 Share Posted 17 November , 2007 Sorry i don't agree, the gap between the 1 and the 21 (1. 21) follows the same design as the date numbers on the ricasso's. I will concede that it may be number 1 in rack 21 or number 21 in rack 1 but what is the precedence for that? Mick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
findabetterole Posted 17 November , 2007 Share Posted 17 November , 2007 As I mentioned Mike, I don't have the full particulars of this individual bayonets liniage, nor do I have any previous reference to the pommel stampings or their configuration, so I'm learning along with everyone else. All we can do at this moment in time is make suggestions as to the correct meaning of the stampings, made as the sum of our present knowledge. Until, through dedicated research, we find reference to these pommel stampings, all we can logicaly do is make an assumption. Seph 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