1907 Hook Quillon Bayonet find

I don't really collect bayonets but thought I'd better grab this one. It is in honest unmolested condition Sanderson 1907 model made in October 1910 and the scabbard also made in 1910. I had to ring a friend to check what I should be looking for so Roger Payne obliged (thanks Rog.). No unit markings that I can see but looks like Naval issue because there is a large N on the blade and also on the scabbard. Does this make it rarer? Would Royal Marine bayonets be marked differently? There seems to be a rifle number of an A over 5037 near the catch.

Any other comments about it would be welcome as it is not my area of expertise.Attachment 73811Attachment 73812Attachment 73813Attachment 73814

I know...... I know ......... I know absolutely sod all about bayonets......... I know exactly what you're all going to say BUT. It's has been said that if something looks too good to be true, like this absolutely superb almost mintish hooked bayonet, then it usually is. I stand to be corrected by the really knowledgeable of course......

Steel helmet on and awaiting incoming.......

Markings are for the 54Th Foot Dorsetshire Regiment 2nd Battalion scabbard is AC '11https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../2pshefc-1.jpg

Well I don't profess to know a lot about bayonets either Nige, but I would reiterate what I said to you earlier when I was wandering round Asda doing the shopping & looking at the photo's of it you emailed me; it looks alright to me.

We'd better let the bayonet experts tell us what they think.....!

Looks ok Nige, any unit marking would normally be on the Pommel on a sword bayonet, RM is usually the norm for Royal Marines , can't remember if I have a RM marked 1907 but do have a 1888 marked RM.

None (that I know of) where marked with a rifle number, "normally" marked in the following order, Battalion, Regiment, Company and weapon number (weapon number being the bayonet itself)
Reserve or Volunteer Battalions were marked slightly different, Type, (Volunteer/ Reserve etc) Regiment and company.

HGR = Hepburn,Gale & Ross Ltd, leather manufacture and supplier to the Government.



I picked up a Lincolnshire Regiment (LIN) marked quillion last week at the International,
thought I'd struck lucky as it was a faint marking and noticed the LL = The Kings (Liverpool Regiment)...... maybe one day.

Nice bayonet Nigel, All correct in my opinion. With the right N mark for Navy, Royal Marines would be RM. I don't think you would have any problem moving it on.

Thread 3, RCS. According to the Equipment Regulations of the Army, amended in 1932 and 1942, in respect or unit marking for weapons and accoutrements, the code for The Dorsetshire Regiment from 1900 until the practice ceased officially in 1944 (although it had been generally abandoned since 1939 or so) was DORS or Dors. There was no other mark listed.

Thread 5, the Kings Regiment was always KINGS or Kings.

There might have been another Equipment Regulations that Quartermasters used of course - but I never found one in the WO Library ........

Peter think we agreed to disagree a few years ago regarding the DT...... but regarding the Kings Regiment, I have never seen a bayonet marked Kings as yet...... but have seen a frog marked Kings.

I have only had a basic list but there is the,

Small Arms Unit Marks : Instructions For Armourers (with amendments 1916) : APPENDIX IX - Marking of Arms - List III

which I gather lists the Kings (Liverpool) Regiment as LL, (must state I don't have a copy and looked for one on and off)

I have had this Wilkinson 5 '09 dated bayonet for quite awhile and really not certain about the D.T. over R. 389 markingsAttachment 73840Attachment 73841Attachment 73842

I take everyones point with good grace but generally speaking, these old time, long serving quartermasters generally went by what the regulations decreed. After all, that's how they became long serving and old-time Quartermasters. Additionally, they were usually Quartermasters having risen all the way through the ranks to Warrant Officer Class 1 quartermasters, knew a bit about rules and regulations in relation to stuff - and were then Commissioned. And if you think about it, the old Instructions for Armourers were part of the Equipment Regulations. Indeed, the EMER's are just a continuance of them.......

As I say, I only quote from the 1944 regulations that were updates of the 1942 regs which were updates of the 1932 version which dates from 1900.