What bayonet would be correct with my 1918 Lithgow SMLE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smith3006

So much for the New Year, I was beginning to think I enjoyed this thread but now I am not so sure. I can understand people's different points of view but banging heads against the wall makes no sense. Perhaps I will get banned from the site - lets hope

---

No, members don't get banned for expressing diverging opinions in a healthy manner. There's an old expression that goes .. "We're distinguished in our character by how we handle adversity"... ;)

Unless I missed something myself in reading through this thread quickly, I think everyone from experts to novices have had a fair chance to express controversial opinions in a "fair, firm and friendly" manner.

I'm not sure there's much else can be added to the thread, but thanks to everyone for your input and adding to the research content of the site, which is the point of our existence. :cheers:

Regards,
Doug

BigDuke the second picture could it be people showing Dunkirk Pick ups rather than issue?

Smith3006, I think Peter is just taking it one step further, from your own reasoning there are several options (not the 1918 you originally stated, but more like my original answer) if you are going by your final answer which covers all the variations then which one you choose would be related to the reason you are collecting the firearm, many people collect to very specific terms, and someone trying to fix up an Australian as in WWI with that rifle would want an 18 blade, a hanger on the wall anything will do. It is more the case that as you get into the detail a simple question can get very complicated and depend on the level of detail you require. I know little of the rifles my bayonets fit, I have a couple of old Martini Henry's and am using resin replicas to sort which bayonets fit which rifles- allows me to easily sort WWI ersatzes and the infamous Turked blades. Don't know if they ban on here, people just leave, and if i find them a real pain i just ignore them and follow the rest with interest, it id a great place to discuss things, especially when we get people in with other views or areas of collecting, stick with us it can be fun/frustrating/annoying and probably bankrupting but hey its only fun

That is possible its just the two pics are of Luftwaffe and the top one I,m more than sure these are issued rifles, dont know the source of the photos, they were posted by KevG on the Enfield forum on a long thread reagrding a faked German stamped SMLE.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smith3006

Sorry Peter but I think you did miss the point entirely (and gew8085; must be a clone somehow). Chris asked what was the right bayonet for his SMLE and once we saw from his photos in the lee Enfield Knowledge forum we had had a pretty good understanding what he was about and not was his collecting theme may or may not be. Looking at hise further posts he collects SMLEs. Don't understand why you need to go off on different tangents. These are Australian P1907 bayonets not the run of the mill, millon made bayonets of the British Empire. I have already as Bindi2 says given the scenarios for what we Australians think is right for his Australian made rifle. Let Chris decide what he wants without WW3.

---

If my opinion based on experience collecting bayonets has offended you or reflected badly on Peter, then I apologize and will withdraw from the discussion. However, please do consider the fact that the rifle being discussed probably never saw front line service in the 1914 - 1918 War and likely went into storage shortly after manufacture, being issued during the interwar period or at least at the beginning of the Second World War. It may indeed have had originally a 1918 dated Australian bayonet paired with it, I can say that comfortably and not contradict anything I said earlier. Do keep in mind that this is a rebuilt/re-arsenaled rifle and should likely be displayed with a bayonet dated anytime from the beginning of manufacture on the pattern until the date of the rifle's rework, it is not necessarily proper to say that it has to have a 1918 bayonet. It could also have had a bayonet made by any of the makers of the P07 pattern - Australian, British or Indian - as they would have been in use or storage in Australia. Australian rifles were issued to and used not only by Australia but British and Commonwealth nations as well, just as Australian troops were issued British and Indian rifles and bayonets. They were all made to the same standards.

Again, my apologies and I step out of this discussion though I will read further posts and opinions (that's all they really are) with interest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigduke6

That is possible its just the two pics are of Luftwaffe and the top one I,m more than sure these are issued rifles, dont know the source of the photos, they were posted by KevG on the Enfield forum on a long thread reagrding a faked German stamped SMLE.

---

the 1st picutre does look like they are issued weapons however the second looks like one of those after dinner lets show what we got pictures, except that they usually all have helmets, adn knives etc. - basedon allied pictures, maybe the germans are not as big at taking souveniers?

Have just read this thread for the first time and have found it hugely educational. Also thinking it's just scratched the surface.

Photos of Peter Laidler's bayonet brought up mid-thread would be welcomed.

The problem with this question is that there is no absolutely "correct" answer - it will always depend on the individual collector and the "period" of the rifles history they want to reflect.
If the collector wants it to be fitted as "new" and straight out of the box, than it is true that there IS only the 1 bayonet that will be absolutely correct for it, and that is the matching serial.

This is true for the Lithgow production as that was how they made them. Other manufacturers and other countries in other periods did things in different ways, but that is another story.
But as stated this rifle served through many periods and would have seen many different bayonets attached to it, so basically ANY P1907 would work depending on the period in question.

Many of the Australian rifles that were used in WW1 got fitted with British made P1907s in France. It didn't make any difference back then and they just used whatever supply was available.
Some of these were stamped with the Australian Defence Dept mark of the D^ when they went back through the system for repair, refurbishment, storage. The mark indicated ownership.

And during WW2 plenty of earlier rifles came out of storage and would have been issued with brand new Lithgow bayonets stamped with the OA. So really a complex question with different answers.

EDIT. Having now had a look at the rifle it has to be the latest serial from 1918 that I have seen, so from very late year production. Which means no WW1 service and most likely spent plenty of time in storage. Most likely came out for WW2 but with the amount of replacement timber (dated 44/46) it is essentially now a post-war rifle needing an OA bayonet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gew8805

If my opinion based on experience collecting bayonets has offended you or reflected badly on Peter, then I apologize and will withdraw from the discussion. However, please do consider the fact that the rifle being discussed probably never saw front line service in the 1914 - 1918 War and likely went into storage shortly after manufacture, being issued during the interwar period or at least at the beginning of the Second World War. It may indeed have had originally a 1918 dated Australian bayonet paired with it, I can say that comfortably and not contradict anything I said earlier. Do keep in mind that this is a rebuilt/re-arsenaled rifle and should likely be displayed with a bayonet dated anytime from the beginning of manufacture on the pattern until the date of the rifle's rework, it is not necessarily proper to say that it has to have a 1918 bayonet. It could also have had a bayonet made by any of the makers of the P07 pattern - Australian, British or Indian - as they would have been in use or storage in Australia. Australian rifles were issued to and used not only by Australia but British and Commonwealth nations as well, just as Australian troops were issued British and Indian rifles and bayonets. They were all made to the same standards.

Again, my apologies and I step out of this discussion though I will read further posts and opinions (that's all they really are) with interest.

---

No please continue it is me that should be apologising to you, gew8805, and to Peter. I guess I was taking people's comments to personally instead of seeing them for what they actually are - comments and opinions. If we all had the same opinions then there would be no need for Milsurps and life would be boring. Thanks to those that sent messages and hopefully I will learn.

A mildly ironic thread for me as I recently swapped a 1950's Australian refurbished P1907 (originally made by Wilkinson in WWI) for a 1913 dated Enfield made P1907 to 'match' my 1913 Enfield MkIII SMLE. I don't recall the former bayonet having anything on it that looked like a serial number, although interestingly it was marked to the Brighton Officer Training College. The friend I swapped it with wanted it for his 1920's dated Lithgow SMLE.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peregrinvs

A mildly ironic thread for me as I recently swapped a 1950's Australian refurbished P1907 (originally made by Wilkinson in WWI) for a 1913 dated Enfield made P1907 to 'match' my 1913 Enfield MkIII SMLE. I don't recall the former bayonet having anything on it that looked like a serial number, although interestingly it was marked to the Brighton Officer Training College. The friend I swapped it with wanted it for his 1920's dated Lithgow SMLE.

---

Think you got the best part of the deal, myself I wouldnt part with a Unit marked one or OTC as I tend go for marked ones now (1888,s, 1903,s and 1907,s) unless the price is in my favour.....