Enfield number 5 Mk 1 Bayonet help

I did a lot of work on my repro to make it look like an original, short of stamping any markings on it. Drilled the clean out hole in it and polished most of the blade. I did have to do some fitting of the muzzle ring. Quality isn't bad but it's not as good as an original and side by side, not too hard to tell them apart. I made new wood grips for it also. Then about two weeks after I was finally happy with it, I found one in my price range on ebay. Kept the repro, usually let it sit on the rifle in storage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seaspriter

1) diameter of the round part: .370"
2) length of the round part: .500"
3) distance BETWEEN BOTTOM OF BARREL to the bottom of Lug: .777"

Be sure to consult a picture closely -- there is a curved bevel at the rear and a incise cut on the front that will need to be duplicated. I'm imagining you have a Sporterized #5 that had its bayonet lug cut off but still has the base of the flash hider.

Good Luck

---

Oops i forgot to ask one dimension, the width of the flat section above the round. I'm guessing .25" that one is probably a lot less critical. My project is more along the lines of, " my rifle didn't come with a bayonet lug, so I'm adding the coolest bayonet i can find. the no 5's bayonet, is for sure the coolest, and the L1A1 bayonet's ring is too small.

Surely, you need to measure the gap that is applicable to the No5 bayonet that you have. Anyway, the flat part is .216" wide, .17 high* and the whole thing is .5" long

* that is the height of the .216" part - from the actual block to the underside of the .365" dia boss.

On a Radcliffe number 5 Bayonet why would there be a letter A on the Pommel? What is the best way to tell if one is legit?

Generally speaking these little stamp markings are stage inspector marks. That's when the parts are inspected and gauged then stamped before they're passed on to another machining or assembly stage. Best way to tell if it's real is see if it fits a No5 rifle. Even if it's an Indian made one it could be the real McCoy (?) because they made 60,000 for their Sterling SMG's. So is it a fake? The ones made for the tourist or repop trade are made from lesser steel...... so said! Mind you, the grips sometimes look like they've been finished with a machette

Hi Guys

Could you kindly shed some expert opinion in identifying this Sterling bayonet with a S294 marked scabbard that I recently purchased for $156.00. The "Sterling" mark is very faint and I have super imposed the "STERLING" word at the spot where it appears on the blade. Thank you

I would say that what you have is a 'real' bayonet but faked later, based on this: The poor/pitted condition would seem to date it to PRE STERLING marked days. I would venture to suggest that it is an Indian Army 60's or so bayonet with the STERLING logo etched on to enhance its status. Alas, the etching using a pantograph held scratchy pen is poor. Even the S-294 looks like it has been engraved on a pantograph instead of being stamped in.

But does it fit a No5 rifle and a Sterling SMG? That's just my 2c's worth to start the ball rolling. Someone earlier said that you could write a book about the fakes that'd be longer than a similar book on the real McCoys!

Thanks for the information Peter. I found a similar bayonet with the STERLING etch in the same place as mine on Gun Auctions. I have also come across Sterling bayonets with the etched name just below the fluted area on the blade. Just to point out where the original Sterling logo was , I found a logo and Photoshopped it over the area to see if it matched in size and it did. What intrigues me are the wooden handles. The bayonet fits perfectly on my No5 Mk1 "Jungle Carbine". No filing or adjustments were done to make it fit.

Four years and a lot of grey hairs later I fianally found a No 5 Mk 1 bayonet for less than what I paid for the rifle. W.S.C marked & nice overall condition.
I will post some photos this PM.

Wooo Hooooo, the thread that will not die has a happy mid life conclusion.