What makes an L1A4 an A4?

[Time Bandit]

Yeah, I know it seems a daft question but there's a reason for it.

Over on facebook on the International Bayonet Association page this page if anyone is on Facebook I'm having a bit of a discussion regarding the difference between an A3 and an A4 with an ex REME Armourer (I think) and we seem to be disagreeing what makes an A4 an A4.

So, what I'm saying is an A4 is one of the later bayonets from the '70s onwards, made by Hopkinson with the riveted pommels etc and what he is saying as far as he an the military are concerned an A4 is any L1 type bayonet with the straight crossguard and the pommel has no bearing on tjhe designation regardless of whether it's riveted or brazed on and there is also no such thing as a short fullered A3 with the straight crossguard it's an A4, even if it's a 1966 dated Enfield it's still an A4?

I know there are a few ex military armorers and the top man himself (Peter Laidler!!) on here so what is the military view point on what makes an A3 and an A4. Do I as a collector, and a load of authors and others need to alter their viewpoint on what is an A4 now?

The three below are a 1960 dated, Enfield made long fuller and waisted crossguard, a 1975 dated, Hopkinson made, straight crossguard, riveted pommel and finally a 1966 dated Enfield, short fuller and straight crossguard.
I would make these as L1A3 with long fullers, L1A4 and finally an L1A3 with short fullers whilst the other chap makes these to be an L1A3 and two L1A4's.

So, what are they??

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.

[Time Bandit]

Just been thinking this over a bit and I wonder if it's maybe us collectors that are categorizing things to suit us, ie we look at this bayo as an A3 and that one as an A4 as it's the easiest way to id them from a collectors view point whereas the military/MoD/Armorers see them from a totally different viewpoint and maybe it is as simple as straight crossguard = A4 to them regardless of any other details that to us collectors make it an A3 or A4, to the military these details are irrelevent?
What I can't suss out though is basically every collector, every book etc sees them as I do (or did maybe!!) but if the info is wrong why has nobody ever come out and said so, I've not seen anyone do so other than this chap I've been having a discussion with?

[Peter Laidler]

Please Time Bandit...... I ain't the top man nor, for the benefit of others, am I a Captain any more either. Resting now on the highest rank in the Army of either Mr, Peter or simply 'retired'. Anyway. The first thing I would like you to do is to contact the Armourer and ask him if he can quote you the exact EMER V class reference he is quoting from. The straight X-piece edges have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the designation. In short, and I'm going from my long memory here, the;
L1A1 bayonet was the original bayonet made at Enfield to the original sealed drawings upon which, because the fixture (the F/E) and bayonet were our own design, no royalties were due and no design change agreement was required
L1A2 bayonet was the bayonet that sub contractors such as BSA(?), and others later, could produce it under licence given certain conditions (the bleedin obvious, such as fully interchangeable parts, material, strength and fitting of course). This was in order that the specialist manufacturers or sub contractors could make the best use of the existing facilities available to them. After all, some of them were already making a similar, tried and trusted blade for the No5 bayonet! So why not? The change in designation was a paperwork exercise to take account of the variables that might be encountered. Nothing more or less. That's why some collectors just fall into 'the long fuller' trap
L1A3 was a modified L1A2. No need to elaborate here.
L1A4. Just a modified L1A3.

The straight edged X-piece, the cast pommell were simply manufacturers making best use of their facilities. Of course, before thay can make ANY changes, the changes have to undergo a rigerous testing and trials programme. If it is approved, it is slowly accepted into service. A good example is SA80 handguards... Sub contractor thinks he can make cheaper with a simple moulding design change (which was also stronger too.....) and they are accepted subject to a (very successful) trial.

Annanuvverfing too...... The L1A? marking on the grips have no bearing on the ACTUAL mark/type of the bayonet. Because unless you were a nerdy collecting fiend working in an Armourers shop - and I don't ever remember one so far - then the needy bayonet got the grips that were on the shelf.

While this short resume might not be biblically acurate down to the last cross or dot, I trawled this from the V EMER and the ITDU trials reports relating to the endurance, reliability/durability and interchangeability trials of the straight crosspiece.

Here's a low baller......... Ask your informant what the following L1 bayonet trial was in relation to. It's in the EMER...........

As to why the info is seemingly wrong and not corrected, just ask yourself why the Sten gun myths STILL prevail. The name STEN for example. It's simply because SOME weapon writing authors are idlers who just read 10 books to write number 11. Most Collector Grade authors excepted - but not all I hasten to add! You've got me going now!

So called Irish contract No4's next.............

[Time Bandit]

Thanks Peter.
I'm on my phone so can't really reply properly but I will do when I'm on the pc but in the meantime many thanks for the info.

[Time Bandit]

Whilst I'm on about A4's I'm curious as to why the NSN/Stores code type thingy changed at some point during the A4 production? Was it some sort of spec change or was it just an admin type change? Probably something like bloody Land Rover changing part numbers every couple of year (seemingly), pain in the arse trying to get parts!!

These are the numbers I have marked up on the grips...

960 0011 L1A1
960 0257 L1A3
960 0259 L1A4
960 2379 L1A4

It seems to be a natural progression as it changes from A1 to A3 onto A4 and then it changes again and the A4 gets another code. I'm presuming, and I could be wrong, that 960 2379 is a later number? Maybe it ran concurrently with 960 0259, just a slight different spec or something?

Anyone know?

[tankhunter]

Please Time Bandit...... I ain't the top man nor, for the benefit of others, am I a Captain any more either. Resting now on the highest rank in the Army of either Mr, Peter or simply 'retired'. Anyway. The first thing I would like you to do is to contact the Armourer and ask him if he can quote you the exact EMER V class reference he is quoting from. The straight X-piece edges have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the designation. In short, and I'm going from my long memory here, the;
L1A1 bayonet was the original bayonet made at Enfield to the original sealed drawings upon which, because the fixture (the F/E) and bayonet were our own design, no royalties were due and no design change agreement was required
L1A2 bayonet was the bayonet that sub contractors such as BSA(?), and others later, could produce it under licence given certain conditions (the bleedin obvious, such as fully interchangeable parts, material, strength and fitting of course). This was in order that the specialist manufacturers or sub contractors could make the best use of the existing facilities available to them. After all, some of them were already making a similar, tried and trusted blade for the No5 bayonet! So why not? The change in designation was a paperwork exercise to take account of the variables that might be encountered. Nothing more or less. That's why some collectors just fall into 'the long fuller' trap
L1A3 was a modified L1A2. No need to elaborate here.
L1A4. Just a modified L1A3.

The straight edged X-piece, the cast pommell were simply manufacturers making best use of their facilities. Of course, before thay can make ANY changes, the changes have to undergo a rigerous testing and trials programme. If it is approved, it is slowly accepted into service. A good example is SA80 handguards... Sub contractor thinks he can make cheaper with a simple moulding design change (which was also stronger too.....) and they are accepted subject to a (very successful) trial.

Annanuvverfing too...... The L1A? marking on the grips have no bearing on the ACTUAL mark/type of the bayonet. Because unless you were a nerdy collecting fiend working in an Armourers shop - and I don't ever remember one so far - then the needy bayonet got the grips that were on the shelf.

While this short resume might not be biblically acurate down to the last cross or dot, I trawled this from the V EMER and the ITDU trials reports relating to the endurance, reliability/durability and interchangeability trials of the straight crosspiece.

Here's a low baller......... Ask your informant what the following L1 bayonet trial was in relation to. It's in the EMER...........

As to why the info is seemingly wrong and not corrected, just ask yourself why the Sten gun myths STILL prevail. The name STEN for example. It's simply because SOME weapon writing authors are idlers who just read 10 books to write number 11. Most Collector Grade authors excepted - but not all I hasten to add! You've got me going now!

So called Irish contract No4's next.............

Pete, I, am the Armourer in question!
I have already explained to TB on another forum about the L1 series of Bayonets.
To recap:
THE Bayonets we encountered in General service were: the L1A3 & the L1A4.

As we both KNOW. L1A3's were manufactured as such. And ALSO converted from earlier marks by removing the long catch. And machining out the depression for your thumb. Fitting a Shorter catch & stamping the END of the Pommel with the new L1A3 designation. Those manufactured bayonets, and also the converted variants. HAD WAISTED CROSSGUARDS. As we are also both aware, those nicely waisted crossguards were the weak point. And frequently fractured the muzzle ring!

Hence the introduction of the L1A4 with STRAIGHT (& STRONGER) Crossguards. I also informed him that any nomenclature was NOT to be relied on. Stamped into the grip scales. Because we fitted ANY variant of grip scales as replacements for a repair.
The MAIN identifying feature between A3 & A4 was the Crossguards, yes

I also informed him that the short & long fullers were only encountered on the A4 variants. I have never seen a short fuller A3!......
The A3 & A4's I recall, are both shown in the I.S.P.L for the L1a1 Rifle.
If you look at TB's photos of the long & short Fullers. You will observe that BOTH types have STRAIGHT crossguards! IE: L1A4'S !!!!!!!

Pete, that particular Forum is just like our Bren Gun section here. Where (& I DONT wish to be rude. but you will know EXACTLY what I mean!) information has become clouded in the Civvy collecting World. & there Is the stamp collector mentality of : It MUST have this part on it. And so on. They were only ever 'complete' so to speak, when they left the factory. And they changed 'somewhat' when parts were replaced/ were modified in service. Yes?.......

Bloody Hell! Im tired of reiterating this Topic!!...........

---------- Post added at 07:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:41 PM ----------

What I can't suss out though is basically every collector, every book etc sees them as I do (or did maybe!!) but if the info is wrong why has nobody ever come out and said so, I've not seen anyone do so other than this chap I've been having a discussion with?

Mike: Probably, because those Bayonet Books were NOT written by an R.E.M.E Armourer. Who has worked on, handled. & inspected. hundreds of thousands of L1 series of bayonets. During their Service Time !....

[Peter Laidler]

We aren't disagreeing about anything Mike........! I answered the Q that was asked, using the info I had in the V EMER section and the short resume taken from the endurance trial paperwork of the straight edged crosspiece (the SEC) that I had on an old ITDU microfische. The only 'disagreement' is that I say, and the ITDU trials papers say is that the crosspiece was changed PRIMARILY because in 1978(?) a sub contractor wished to make it from a one-hit pressing instead of a multi machining operation! The trial was nothing to do with any inherent weakness although to be fair the SEC would be stronger but that is a coincidence to the request to alter the spec.

If the waisted X-piece was THE problem, why didn't we modify, say, No5 bayonets that definately WERE prone to bending and breaking - even MORE so than L1's.

Maybe this multi forum approach is the 'problem' so to speak, by being a servant to two masters - or being shot at from both sides!

PS, the trials officer was Capt Peter Quick. Not REME or SASC so was probably 'called-in' to conduct the short trial as often happened. But any bayonet collector can be absolutely rest assured that no changes to any what we call 'in-bound' equipment would take place without a trial to ascertain lots of relevant features. As a matter of interest, (totally crap knowledge and useless info of course) the trials even included a small test called 'due diligence' where the/any financial cost wouldn't exceed the bounds of reason.

[Time Bandit]

Hi Mike & Peter.

Thanks both for replying and all that.

First of all the easy bit, I notice you both mentioned it being on multi forums (facebook & here?), it wasn't intended for it to be like that. I don't really think much of facebook as a discussion forum so it's better on here which is why I asked the question on Milsurps as I thought it would be more suitable and lead to a better discussion/understanding about the A4, maybe more people expressing their opinions. I was going to send a link to the thread to Facebook for you so see Mike but Peter told me who you were and said you'd see it anyhow - it wasn't a going behind your back thing, once again apologies if it came across that way.

Right, back to bayonets..

What you've got to remember is that I'm not ex military etc just a collector and so I'm not in a position to have a lot of the info you and Peter etc would have as armorers and from working and dealing with these day in and day out etc. When I started collecting you had to get info about your chosen subject from whatever source was available, be it books or nowadays internet, and you have to presume since the same info was cropping up in different books and websites and the likes that it was correct, nobody seem to come out and say... "no, wait a minute that's a load of crap..." hence these things became set in stone for us 'civvy collector types' which is why I was disagreeing with your idea of what made an A4, you were the one lone voice against all these (so called??) experts who'd wrote the books/webpages and seemed convinced they were right and being that they were probably advanced collectors who'd been at it for years who was i to disagree? So there you have my, as a civvy collector, reasoning as to why I thought an A4 was an A4.

The reason I started the thread on here rather than keep it going on facebook was that I knew that there were a few ex military armorer types on here and I figured that some extra opinions would do no harm if I was to change my mind, I knew Peter might know or have an opinion and strangely enough I knew that you were an armorer from previous posts though at the time I didn't realise it was actually you i was in discussion with until Peter told me!

What I have noticed in this thread is how it can be quite a confusing situation to a collector though, there are two highly respected and well thought of armorers in yourself and Peter, both were in the trade for a long time and worked with these bayonets and had access to the documentation yet even so you are both expressing a slight difference in opinion as to what makes an A4?

I've enjoyed the discussion I must admit, I've probably learnt a lot more that I did from the books and websites so that's got to be a bonus. I think though I'll just call my bayonets L1A 'thingys' from now on...much easier and less confusing!!

All the best and all that!

Mike

[skiprat]

Just to throw another side to the discussion... I have had a few conversations with bayonet collectors about the SA80 bayonet... They tell me we are up to the A6 version!!!!!!! With all the small changes in production ( change of shape to the rope cutter, loss of serial number, loss of bottle opener, infantry/all arms scabbard, casting plug on the handle, Change of catch profile. )

I think its still the A1 version ( even fitted to the A2 rifle) I'm not too sure. But its not A6 as long as it serviceable and the right length I really don't care....
I do think collectors make some stuff up!!!!!!!! To justify their collection. But if they're buying.... " smile and wave boys...smile and wave"

[Peter Laidler]

Skippy, your choice of statement is a true classic example of exactly what we're talking about. Sellers just make it up as they go along and the collectors take it all in and it gets perpetuated until it mysteriously becomes fact.

The little SA80 bayonet is a good example of continued product improvement - or in some cases you'll be familiar with, not such great improvements. We still had pre-numbered examples with the remains of the bottle opener ground off AND numbered examples, certainly until 2001 or so to my knowledge. I inherited a dozen or so in my desk drawer.