L1A4 bayonet manufacturing process

[sidcass]

Here's some photos of the L1 range of Enfield bayonets in manufacturing process.

There is also a manufacturing tool used back in the arms factory's, I'm sure someone else can explain more about what it was used for..

Attachment 48521Attachment 48522Attachment 48523Attachment 48524Attachment 48525Attachment 48526Attachment 48527Attachment 48528Attachment 48529Attachment 48530Attachment 48531Attachment 48532Attachment 48533Attachment 48534

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[Peter Laidler]

Off the subject slightly but it seems strange to the point of ludicrous that someone was still producing bayonets for L1A1's in 1989 and then, like this example, not even to the design spec, when large scale issues of the L85/86 were already in progress. Indeed, if my memory serves me well, the whole of the Regular and TA Infantry in NW Europe were fully equipped by late '89, slightly ahead of schedule.

And it's a little known fact that there were not even any (seriously) interested bidders for the L1A1's already in stock or being returned to Ordnance in bulk.

Oh yes, before I forget. the little pulley gadget thinggy was a whatsit to test the operating weight of the scabbard spring. A spring or several springs from a batch would be selected and the bayonet put into the scabbard. Bayonet slipped into scabbard and hook applied to pommell. Then the Xlb weight applied to string at other end of pulley. It would draw the bayonet OUT but only until the retainer forks of the spring stopped the blade at the end of the fuller. There were two different + or - weights that I forget. 1st, to start blade movement 2nd to pull bayonet clear.

Tankie will remember that the first weight test was a good indicator of a broken spring retainer fork. As we didn't batch test, we had a simple method to test the mouthpiece springs. Just hook a set weight onto the crosspiece and lift. If it pulled the bayonet out, it was too weak. But after a few weeks on the bench, you just got to know what was a good mouth piece spring and what was crap!

And yes, before you ask, there was even an EMER spring weight for the catch plunger too!

[browningautorifle]

Peter, I'll bet the reason you still had bayonets being manufactured was similar to our contracts. They would sign contracts for staggering amounts of equipment over protracted timeframes and dollar values would be set...if someone backed out of the ridiculous contract, there would be vast sums of money owed to settle this joke. It was cheaper to take delivery of the stores as contracted. I can explain how this would happen too, but then I have to point fingers...we had thousands of pairs of boots in stock and more being produced after they had been proven to cause foot problems...a classic example. Are we far enough off topic yet?

By the way sidcass, thanks for the pics. I love to study manufacture process...

[sidcass]

Not sure if your thinking these where produced in 1989. The manufacture stamp is 86 on my photos, or are you saying they were still making them and dating them dates beyond 86... And made to a different spec than this 86 model?

Interested to know what year they started to produce this specific model of the L1..

[Peter Laidler]

Yes....., got that. I just mistook the blurred date for 89 but can see (?) that it's 86. But even so, in 85/86 the first pre-production and series production L85's L86's and bayonets were coming off the line

The L1A3 and L1A4 models were were simply modified versions of the L1A1 and A2 respectively and the modification was dated in 1962 or 3 (KtK, confirm.....). There has been plenty written about the differences on this forum and elsewhere. Some good, some not so good/inaccurate and some reads like it was written by Hans Christian Andersen inbetween writing his fairy stories.

Outside contractors were TOLD the spec of the product and had to follow it rigidly - or else! They COULD and did request what was called a relaxation in spec or standard. But before a relaxation in standards was permitted and applied then the contractor had to submit samples of the proposed ...... Oh, it went on for ages and ages all at his expense too. The bayonet shown has no holes in the tang and that is not to the spec. Maybe there was a relaxation there but with each relaxation, there would usually be a notification in EMER's or somewhere else to the effect that '..........Armourers should be aware that certain manufacturers have supplied X with a longer X or an undercut at Y (and so on). These are an approved manufacturing alternatives of which the MAG's are aware. No reporting of these components is necessary as of this date'

Also, while were here, it is often confusing for collectors to find bayonet grips marked L1A1 on an obvious L1A3 bayonet - or any combination. This is because we just ordered a load of grips and you got a load of grips. The blanket stackers at Ordnance or the OFP's or OSD's didn't care and nor did we really. A needy bayonet got a new set of grips........., any set of grips!

[sidcass]

What hole should be in the tang? Do you have a link to a photo to an L1A4 that is different to the one attached, would be interested to see

[Peter Laidler]

See photo 5. There should be 5 holes down the tang where yours has two holes. Can you put a photo up KtK or anyone. Let me ask another armourer whether he's ever seen one with just two. Tankie............

What about you Old Smithy?

[sidcass]

The 2 holes are the holes for riveting the grip on..

[browningautorifle]

Is this the thread we seek? A question for the Advanced Bayonet Collector regarding FAL Bayonts

[sidcass]

Interesting....

So the 4 holes where the design of the L1A2.