1913 bayonet scabbard. Info please?

REMINGTON WWI 1917 BAYONET W/SCABBARD P-14 1913 : Bayonets at GunBroker.com


This is the bayonet I bought for my P14 rifle. It is a P13 bayonet with the date "11 16" made by Remington and has other marks. You can see it at the link above. The odd thing is that the scabbard has the metal hanger to fit the grommets in the US M1910 belts instead of the teardrop stud to fit in the web frog on the British belts. Though I assumed it would be intended for the British to use; but the british P1908 web belts used in WWI don't have grommets. I did find on greatwar.com an "odd" P1908 belt web belt that did have 7 grommets on the right side. I looked at karkeeweb.com and their research didn't cover any british web belts like that one. Does anyone know why this bayonet would have this scabbard?

By the way, this is the bayonet that I was talking about on "to do or not to do (removing rust)?" that plan to restore. I'm going to try the electrolysis method first.

You already have the answer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MeatMarket

to fit the grommets in the US M1910 belts

---

When the M1917 (I must remember not to call it P17 around these parts:eek:) was introduced, Remington and Winchester used up any leftover stocks of bayonets made for the P14. These were stamped US/USA and any British markings were lined out. If the item was in a bin in the factory, i.e. not yet with any British markings, then they simply grabbed it, stamped US or USA, and put it together with a scabbard for the M1917 - with the metal hanger.
The bayonet for the M1917 is effectively the same as for the P14, i.e a Pattern 13 bayonet. So what you have appears to be an "end of production run" Pattern 13 bayonet that was utlized in this fashion. A close up of the markings on both sides of the ricasso would settle the matter.

Another simple example of sensible factory economics.

:wave:
Patrick

From the pictures it looks like yours is a P-14 bayonet. The pics are dark so it is hard to tell if the bayonet was refinished. The original finish was a matt/sand blasted blade except near the hilt where it a heat treated/blue section. The british purchased over a million 1917 enfields from the U.S. in WWII. Your bayonet and scabbard could have been mated up at that time. A lot of the U.S. scabbards had the bales removed from them so they would fit in the frogs.
john

OK, this is a case where one has to be a bit careful with the nomenclature. As far as I know, there is no such thing as a P-14 bayonet. There was a Pattern13 (P-13) bayonet that was used with the P-14 rifle. Then there were P-13 bayonets as surplus stock at Remngton and Winchester when the P-14 rifle production had finished, and these were used for the M1917 rifle. The identical P-13 bayonet, just remarked and put in a scabbard with the US-style fixing instead of the British button.

The bayonet in question shows something I overlooked in my first post, which I must therefore correct: The two deep grooves across the handgrips were the usual way of marking P-13 bayonets so that they were not confused with the Pattern 1907 bayonet used for the SMLE. The two are so simílar that they could easily be confused in the dark. At least that is the story, but how many soldiers would have carried both types in order to be in a position to make such a mixup? None, I suspect.

Anyway, the grooves show that it was originally intended for a P-14 rifle, and later mated up with the scabbard for the M1917. So jamie5070 may well be correct. Or this is simply a mixmaster case. There is probably no way now to tell who put the two together and when. Unless the ricasso markings reveal something. So we still need those pics!

:wave:
Patrick

P.S: looking at the ricasso markings, the bayonet has been marked "USA", indicating that Remington "officially" remarked it for M1917 use. But the marking does not match up with that shown by Stratton, which was simply US, not USA. And I am unable to see any lined-out British acceptance marks. I am not quite happy about this.

Unless someone else has a bayonet with the same "USA" markings (and the British ones NOT lined out) it could be a strange one off (say a battlefield recovery team pickup) or, more likely a counterfeit by someone who did not know what he was doing. It could just be a mixup, of two different country's gear, as already stated. The vertical USA mark is odd, however. And other P13/14 (depends on where you are from) bayonets, including one I own, had more british markings than just what appears to be the "X" and Broad arrow on this one. Patina seems consistent, but it could be an old refinish, too.

But if any other, similar marked bayonets exist, (anybody got one?) then it would theoretically be possible that Remington started out marking with a vertical "USA" on the excess/unfinished British blades in the beginning, then was told that having both countries marks intact were unacceptable on a piece of US equipment by some inspector, and started lining out the British markings. And US was perhaps preferred over USA, as USA could stand for US Army - and the weapon might be issued to other branches of Service - like the Marines inside the US, which it was. In other words, this, particularly considering the date of the blade, could be a rare "first run" - if we could find say, 3-4 marked just like it with the same die. Or a mistake or a counterfeit! Either very rare and valuable - or worth less than a regular one!

Patrick, the US continued to use the two grooved grips in all of our M1917 production, as far as I know or have read about.

Just my .02. CC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Col. Colt

Patrick, the US continued to use the two grooved grips in all of our M1917 production, as far as I know or have read about.

---

Never change a winning team - or a smoothly running production line.

I get the sense that you also feel that the markings are a bit "iffy". Not clearly a fake, not clearly genuine, so let's regard it as "not proven" until some more evidence turns up.

:wave:
Patrick

Agreed, Patrick. "Not Proven" seems the logical verdict here. I've seen too many things in collecting that were "certain" and "known" that changed when new info was discovered, sometimes years later. CC

I got the bayonet in the mail today and was relieved. The vertical "usa" doesn't say "usa", but I don't know what it means. It is 3 characters. The top is a box with a vertical line down the middle extending out the top, the middle is the number 9 and the bottom is the letter A. Here are better pictures I took of it to show you guys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MeatMarket

The vertical "USA" doesn't say "usa", but I don't know what it means.

---

Now we finally have good photos! No, of course it doesn't say USA. It's a crown over 9 over A, and is a perfectly normal British acceptance mark.
After the necessary cautious comments by Col. Colt and myself, it is a relief to say that you have a good P13 type bayonet, made for the P14 rifle, which has become paired with a P13 scabbard as made for the M1917. Needless to say, it is now impossible to say how they came together. But as there is NO factory overstamping with US and cancellation of the British marks, we may assume that it did NOT happen at the factory.

The moral of this thread: First get good pics, and then ask the questions!

:wave:
Patrick

this scabbord is the 'second type' M1917 scabbord of four types made for US use , first had a leather hanger attached to the back with wire hanger - both of WWI vintage , third was a fiberglass version of the M3 with a longer collar marked M1917 from WWII and the last a viet nam version of the third with different markings ,

if im seeing correctly , and i think i am , what i refer to is a similar looking scabbord foreign made with a hanger over weld to the throat of a P13 style throat ,