Fake British No4 MK1 cruciform Bayonet?

I thought I was doing good. Found a No 4 one piece bayonet at the flea market, one I had been missing, and later found a No 4 cruciform but bringing it home and checking it out not feeling so confident.

I compared the two at the flea market and the blade end looked great, no way it could have been formed out of an MKII. It was also marked No4 MKI.

On comparing to known examples, the marking is in the wrong place and it is missing any reference to Singer, something I did not know at the time.

I don't have a ton of money tied up in it but enough to not make me happy.

Enclosed are photos of the two side by side with the last photo being the top down view of the spike end.

In this photo I can see no evidence the MKI was made from MKII:

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSC_2974-1.jpg

Full bayonet:

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSC_2971-1.jpg

Side by side comparison:

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSC_2972-1.jpg

Side by side close up of spike tip:

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSC_2973-1.jpg

Side by side close up of spike tip from top:

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSC_2975-1.jpg

So is it fake or simply a different style marking?

Follow up: Investigating at Old Smithy's website (great by the way), it appears to be a reworked bayonet from the 50's and remarked.

I think you have a fake cruciform. I have two Singer Bayonets.

#1 an ordinary Spike bayonet. NO Stampings on muzzle ring at all ( Would expect to see No4 MKII). Stamping on release button is N67= Singer. Paid £10 last year.

#2 is a 1942 Cruciform . Actual length of the cruiciform ( not blade length)= 71/2" or 19cms exactlly. Weight with out scabbard is 8OZ/ 220grms exactly.
The stamping in very small capitals on the locking button is SM/42 (SM over 42).Cost me £100 a few years ago.

Just for interest, the rarest Cruciform No4 MKI bayonet is the trials version made by RSAF at Enfield Lock in the 1930s. Sadly I don't know the stampings.Less than 20,000 were made. I was shown one by Terry Abrams the gunsmith, who has one with his experimental No4 rifle with a mag cut off!

Kind regards, Lester

Lester,

I would have agreed with you prior to checking Old Smithys website. I went there to check his fakes to compare it and mine wasn't even close to any of them. Went back a second time after I posted the first post here and looked at his real ones. The second bayonet he has shown is what I have. He has four photos of it, the markings match exactly and while his looks brand new, mine has some paint on it is spots.

It says there and I quote from his page:

"No4 MkI reworked and renumber with Arabic rather than Roman numerals. This shows it to be a50's rework of an obsolete bayonet. This is reported in Graham Priests Spirit of the Pike, and is one of only 7 known at the moment. The original marks have been ground off and new ones added."

My bayonet is not short, it is full length and could not have been made from a MKII, the tip is shaped correctly, it is not narrow. The quality of the grooves is good, and it has the dimple on the elbow which is only present in a cruciform because of the way they were made. I learned all this last evening trying to verify it or confirm it as fake.

Now that doesn't mean this can't still be a fake, I'm hoping Old Smithy will weigh in on this as he has the source material to verify it.

I understand the odds of me walking into a US flea market and picking up a British Bayonet which only has 7 known examples for $65 is INCREDIBLY high. It did however come in an unissued, unmarked scabbard with an unissued canvas frog dated 1955 which would fit for a 50's rework.

So at this point, this has to be an original reworked singer bayonet remarked in 1955 or it is an extremely well made reproduction of a little known bayonet that hits all the check points for being legit.. Odds are pretty low for either one but as Sherlock Holmes once said:

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"

I believe I have comfortably removed that this bayonet was made from a No4 MKII. It is only speculation on my part that someone making a reproduction would have reproduced the known examples rather than one with markings only a few would recognize. I don't known when the book "Spirit of the Pike" was written or if several thousand of these turned up after its printing when they started selling them surplus. But then again, if it is a rarer example, the faker could perhaps get more out of it, justifying the extra work involved to make it "correct".

I for one am hoping it was a needle in a hay stack find. Then you not only have a rare bayonet but an excellent story as to how you found it. Good Eye!
Nothing at flea markets here but chickens and chinese t-shirts.

I have an excellent story on how I found it that involves a long morning of terrible yard sales, little cash, the wife, her stash, a Swiss K11, a canvas bag for a No 4 MKI rifle, "Standard Catalog of Military Firearms 5th Edition" and a trip to the King of Prussia Mall to get a Mother of the Bride dress but before I embarrass myself with that, let's see what Old Smithy says about it.

Nothing ventured nothing gained. Sounds like you earned it even if it turns out to be a mesuem piece.

Old Smithy confirmed over a PM that it's a good one. Didn't say if they are still rare or not, just that not many know about the re-worked ones.

So the story:

I gave up on yard sales about two years ago. They simply weren't worth the effort anymore because most people started having them on Fridays, and now even some on Thursdays. I work for a living so those two days are out. By Saturday, the good stuff is gone. So I'm sitting at the computer doing nothing when my wife suggests we head out. I figure it would be more exercise than I'm getting at home so why not. Went to two different community sales, I found not one single item of actual military goodies and aside from a hammock stand, nothing of interest.

We happened to pass by one of the outdoor antique/flea markets and saw it was extravaganza weekend and opted to go in. Second table had bayonets so I was happy. Very expensive bayonets but I at least got to see what they looked and felt like. Was finding a few more here and there but my thoughts were geared toward the "Gun Guy". I'll call him that because I don't know what else to call him. He usually has a dozen or so beat up old rifles and I was kind of hoping for a cheap Carcano.

Got to the gun guy and low and behold, a Carcano and it was in one piece, hadn't been butchered up but the stock had been varnished and the numbers didn't match and it had a cracked hand guard. I just put it down and four guns away was a K11. I'm like Whooaaaaaaaah, picked it up, looked at it, looked at the price and thought crud, $395.00. I have fallen in love with my K31 I got a few months ago and had been thinking the K11 would be a nice bookend for it. My local gun auction from hell has listed one in May's auction and they've been getting the $395 or more for them there. The gun guy notices my interest, comes over and says he'll knock $100.00 off the price. Again, inside I'm going Whooaaaaaaaaaah but my wife is standing there saying "You don't NEED any more guns" and I'm honestly thinking I shouldn't as I've bought several already this year.

So I reluctently put the gun down and turn away from the stand. Right there are about a thousand bayonets, (slight exageration) but I said that to my wife and why didn't she tell me they were there. Looked around, didn't see much that I didn't already have one of already but spotted a spike bayonet in a pile toward the back. Checked it out, it was the all one piece spike which I didn't have so asked how much? $10.00.........deal. I was happy, got a bayonet. Not a rare one, but still a bayonet.

Walked around the rest of the flea market with my wife trailing along behind. She comes up to me and says "If you really want that rifle, I'll let you get it IF you take me to King of Prussia to buy a dress AND you don't fuss about the price. MAJOR dilemma here. Rifle has value, can be resold, dress, not so much. "How much are the dresses" I asked. "Oh one I looked at was $170.00". No, no rifle is worth that kind of aggravation. So we keep walking.

Found a few more military items but nothing interesting. In the last row I spot more milsurps, mostly Arisaka's. So I look at a few of them, talk to the guy about them and just chit chat a bit. I spot a few bayonets in a case at the other end of his stand and he has the cruciform half out of it's scabbard to show what it is. I turn to my wife and say, "There it is, the last one I need". She isn't real impressed but came over and I explained about what I thought were the four main types of spike bayonets.

He had $95 on it and I was still in K11 mode so I wasn't really thinking of buying it but asked if I could see it and if he could explain the differences between a real one and a fake one. He said sure, started explaining about the tip, etc and I recalled I had one in my pocket so we just compared the two and it was obvious his was the real deal, at least to me. While we are talking another Whooaaaaaaaaaaaah moment as there is a canvas No4 MKI bag laying on the table, amazed that I missed it I asked if it was what I thought it was and he said it was. Price was either $65 or $85, I couldn't tell which but I'm still in K11 mode. I look at my wife and say, this is the bag I need. It was 1942 which is my rifles year of production. I mentioned that to the guy and we chit chatted a bit more. I told him I was looking at a rifle and couldn't buy anything until I had made my decision.

We left, I went back to the car to check my Military Firearms book which has price guides. It's also two years old so a little behind. I figure the rifle based on condition is probably in the $325 range so $295 wasn't a bad deal. I only had $140 on me. My wife asks if I wanted it (She really wanted me to take her to King of Prussia) and says she has her birthday stash in her purse. Enough to finish out the rifle deal at least.

Bayonet meantime lists between $75 and $200 so that checked out ok too. I tell her I'm going to try to make a better deal for the rifle. I get back and the "Gun Guy" isn't there, some younger dude is and he doesn't look like a dude you can deal with. So frustrated, I just mill around there for 10 minutes until the gun guy gets back. He spots me and says "You must really want that" I told him I'm interested but the price is still holding me back. He knocks another $15 off it for an even $280.00. I hesitated, took a chance and ask if there is any way he can get to $250. He thinks about it and counters with $260.00. Deal.

So I'm heading away and my wife asks if I want the bayonet. I told her I thought it was a lot of money (not that it wasn't worth it, just that for me at that moment, it was a lot of money). She said she still had money left and if I wanted it, she had enough. I figured I'd go take a chance and see if he'd take $75 for it. He saw me coming and saw the rifle and we talked a bit about it. I asked him straight out what the best he could do on the bayonet and he said $65 and there we are.

I was happy, the wife was happy I was going to take her to King of Prussia and I'm still not thinking too seriously about what this deal was actually going to cost me.

I get home, check the rifle over real well, like what I see and begin the investigation of the bayonet. Almost immediately the red flags went up. There is only ONE manufacturer, Singer, and they are all marked one of two ways. And mine doesn't have the marks. My guide didn't tell me that, only to watch out for fakes which I thought I had done a pretty good job of. Site after site is the same thing. I then decide to check out the fakes and think if Old Smithys site. My bayonet looks way too good to be a fake so I'm major confused.

As a last resort, and I say that because it's tough being embarrassed by those that know better that you've been had, I posted my first post here, hoping that I missed something. I then went back to Old Smithys to see what the real ones look like and found one just like mine.

So that's the story. King of Prussia indeed made me earn that deal. 15 or 16 black dresses that all looked the same later, a crying wife, a bride to be on the phone, a half mile dash back from Penneys to Bloomingdales to buy dress number 12 with 15 minutes before the mall closed and we were done. Turned out the dress was on sale, cost much less than expected so I was happy about that too which helped balance out the anxiety about buying a fake bayonet with the wife's blessing.

Enough to make a man drink...

After just having had a browse through Graham Priests 'bible', here's a couple of questions from someone who's totally clueless about bayonets.
Have you actually clecked the width of the socket to see/confirm whether the original markings have been ground off and re-marked. A micrometer should make it clearly obvious.

Can anyone identify that LX mark or is it a bit of corrosion/flaking? This looks like a manufacturers logo to me - and it ain't Singer!

Having refurbished several thousand bayonets and many other sorts of weaponry, it would be MOST unusual and to my knowledge/experience, totally unheard of, to actually REMOVE the old designation and then, after having invisibly done so, even leaving steel cast 'scabbing', RE-engrave the same designation.

The new designation looks pantograph engraved as opposed to being roll pressed on or stamped with the usual factory foot-press

Just my comments, but it definately doesn't look like the usual fake straight tapered point

Peter,

It isn't LX it's 38 K under an "umbrella" or possibly 38TK. I've looked around for it but haven't found it. It does indeed look like a manufacturers logo. The "T" also resembles the government acceptance mark but doubt that is what it is with the 38 and K under it.

I don't think there is steel cast scabbing on it, that's black paint. It dos show evidence of being "ground" as there are parallel marks. I don't own a micrometer so can't help there.

The designation looks engraved but the logo looks stamped.

Great story although I can only relate to the having to rationalize a purchase to myself. The spouse to convince is a steep hill to climb. Glad it payed off.

I've been in contact with a few experts on these bayonets including Graham Priest, the author of the book, and all have stated that it is definitely a real cruciform bayonet. They are not well known and are likely more rare than the Singer marked bayonets. This is one of the original 75,000 Singer bayonets that was reworked in the 50's with the old markings removed. Graham did tell me that since he wrote the book in 2003 he's come across a dozen more of them. He also mentioned that the standard spike bayonets have also been reworked and remarked and are considered rare if found with the new markings. The emblem if I understand him right is the Enfield's "viewers code". Ralph Cobb from worldbayonets.com says the mark includes the broad arrow acceptance mark. He also explains that a viewers code is what we in the US would call an inspector's mark.

I do not understand why these bayonets were reworked in the 1950's. The No9 bayonet was being made in UK up to about 1954 and was in plentyful supply. No need to rework a worthless spike bayonet!
From my own enquiries. RSAF Enfield and Singer were the manufacturers of the No4 Cruiciform bayonet. Any other maker or reworker I would not touch with a barge pole! Why pay hundreds of pounds for a remachined spike bayonet worth about £10 with a scabbard?
Any one who has reworked a round spike bayonet into a cruciform and then tries to sell it on for more than £10 is attempting to defraud a customer. We see quite a few of these fake cruiciform bayonets in the UK Militaria markets. RSAF inspection stampings are usually ED, F,S,B or (P) depending on the factory or subcontractor.

Lester,

This isn't a reworked round spike bayonet into a cruciform, it is a SINGER cruciform bayonet reworked and remarked. Dimensions on this bayonet are correct for a cruciform, it is an original cruciform. I have no idea why they would decide to rework them but someone did. Possibly because they had old stocks that were dirty/damaged/rusty and they decided to rework them for export rather than toss them out.

As for the marking, I was just taking photos of some of my other bayonets and discovered my No9 Enfield bayonet has the same type mark only it is 98(broad arrow)C so it is evidently a correct Enfield inspectors mark.

These are real bayonets and very scarce. there are a lot of weird reworks out there, I have a dual seam 1907 scabbard that was reworked by Australia for Korena issue with both the locket and chape being phosphated and then put back with the original dual seam leather, since the parts are differnet this has been carfully done not to mix up the parts. Why when the double stithcd was out of service in the mid 20's ? I also have 1888 scabbards made in 1942 39 years after trhey were replaced with the 1903 and 1907 bayonets.

India made a short version of the SMLE 1907 bayonet. Usually one of their railway factories and I have seen the 1888 scabbards on them.

Aragorn243. I have several N09 bayonets put away and I will make a detailed examination of them for stampings. It is thought some of the Poole RSAF machinery was sold on to BSA and other subcontrators. Might be some unfamiliar stampings to discuss.

On my Poole No9 bayonet (P)1949. Inspectors stamping is GS B,

On my Enfield 1954 No9. Inspectors stamping is ED over 137 Crows foot ( Pussers arrow shape).

No additional stampings on the South African No9 (Uzi bayonet blade).

Hope this is of help. Kind regards, Lester

To answer the question of whether it has been refurbished or rebuilt at a workshop or not, we just need a simple answer to a simple question.
Have the original marks been machined off and hese new marks re-engraved? A simple check with a micrometer will answer yes or no!
If yes, then it's simply been refurbished. Although why anyone would even dream of machining off and re-engraving the same marking on is a more difficult question to answer.
Simple metallurgy will tell whether the steel spec is what it should be. Those two cheap and simple tests will be all that's needed

Now I know nothing about No. 4 bayonets but what I can tel you is the making 38|K (Broadarrow with '38' under one leg and 'K' under the other) is commonly found on non ordnance factory accessories relating to L1A1 production (1957 onwards). It is some form of inspection or acceptance marking. I would love to really know what they mean but I have seen them on IWS mounts and Magazines off the top of my head.

Other combinations seen:
8|K

3|N

26|GE

34|E

32|GE

I would love to get confirmation on what these markings actually mean, if anyone knows.

Good idea KtK but what we want to know is a simple answer to a simple question. Has that bayonet been skimmed off and remarked?

Those codes beneath the WD arrow are inspection markings that come after the 'stage-inspection' markings that follow the item through its various processes in the factory

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

Good idea KtK but what we want to know is a simple answer to a simple question. Has that bayonet been skimmed off and remarked?

Those codes beneath the WD arrow are inspection markings that come after the 'stage-inspection' markings that follow the item through its various processes in the factory

---

Peter,

Not sure where you are going with this. The answer to your question has been answered. It has been skimmed and remarked. This bayonet has been authenticated by three individuals now, one of them being the "expert" on the type. If you need further answers as to why, I suggest contacting Graham Priest as he is the individual who discovered the variation and published his findings on them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nzl1a1collector

Now I know nothing about No. 4 bayonets but what I can tel you is the making 38|K (Broadarrow with '38' under one leg and 'K' under the other) is commonly found on non ordnance factory accessories relating to L1A1 production (1957 onwards). It is some form of inspection or acceptance marking. I would love to really know what they mean but I have seen them on IWS mounts and Magazines off the top of my head.

Other combinations seen:
8|K

3|N

26|GE

34|E

32|GE

I would love to get confirmation on what these markings actually mean, if anyone knows.

---

I have a 1951 No 9 Enfield made bayonet marked 96IJ, thought it was a "c" but it's apparently a "J" with a very long hook so they were in use prior to 1957. The frog with the cruciform bayonet is dated 1955 which only means something if they were paired together and stayed together after the refurbishment.

............... just a minute Aragorn!
In Q10 I asked if you'd checked it for thickness with a micrometer to see if it'd been ground and re-engraved.
In Q11 you answered that you hadn't checked because you didn't have a micrometer.
In Q18 I mention AGAIN that the (interesting) answer might be found in the thickness - and again in:
In Q20 I ask the same question again as I'd like to know, just out of interest.

Then in Q 21 you finally answer that it has indeed been skimmed! How am I meant to know unless you tell me! That's all I asked........ I have to say that mind reading and guesswork isn't one of my finest attributes

At least we all know that it's been skimmed off and re-engraved

Peter,

I asked a simple question, is the bayonet fake or simply a different style marking. Three experts on bayonets including Graham Priest, the author of the volume you claim to have examined, have authenticated this bayonet as REAL and simply being remarked. You admit you are not an expert in your first post. Your exact words were "from someone who's totally clueless about bayonets". Graham Priest answered your question in his book before you even asked it here. That answer has also been referenced several times in this discussion including Q4 which seems to have caused you to ask your initial question in Q10. So it has been answered. It has been reworked and remarked, part of the rework involved the removal of the old markings.

Old Smithy is the first of the bayonet experts I was in contact with, he has posted his confirmation here. The second was Ralph Cobb from worldbayonets.com with whom I exchanged a series of e-mails. The final expert was Graham Priest himself who requested detailed photos before he would comment on it. He examined the photos and confirmed it as one of the reworked bayonets he discussed in his book.

You have been provided with this information yet still ask for a micrometer measurement and now metallugy test to prove the specs of the metal.

To get an accurate micrometer measurement, I would have to strip all the paint off of it first which I have no plans to do at this time. Doing so removes the "history" of the bayonet or so I've been told by many on this forum. I would also have to get a micrometer which I have no need for, especially since the work has already been done for me by an accepted expert in his field.

So again, where exactly are you going with this? Do you doubt the work of Graham Priest? Do you doubt this is a genuine bayonet? Do you really think that someone would go to his much effort to make a bayonet that few would recognize as being authentic and do such a good job of it they will fool people who have devoted years of their lives to research these things?

I asked a question, it has been answered to my satisfaction. This is a genuine bayonet, I did not waste my $65 in purchasing it and it is now a valued addition to my collection.

If you need to take this further, contact Graham Priest. I found him to be very friendly and informative.

Has the No9 bayonet got a rifle number stamped on it? This may help with the history of it. Can't find the stamping 96IJ. Nearest I can find is S96 which is the stamping for Plant Machinery & Acc. Who are noted as a gun barrel manufacturer.

Lester,

Bayonet was brand new in the wax paper so no rifle number. It is marked NO9Mk1, then ED (overlayed) - 51 It has the acceptance arrow on the blade, the base and the push button. The 96|J is under a normal acceptance arrow. The "|" represents the broad arrow. I used an "I" earlier because I couldn't figure out how to duplicate the other posters symbol. Forgot about cut and paste. On closer inspection, hadn't seen this one before, there is another ED (overlayed) over 166 on the face of the base where the blade attaches. As far as I can see, that's all the markings. One possible marking is a slanted "X" on the face where the barrel would protrude. Could just be a machining mark.

Aragorn, please..... you are insinuating things that are just not correct and I cannot let you imply otherwise. I wasn't interested in anything else, never asked anything else, didn't imply anything else, accepted that the bayonet is the real McCoy from the very beginning but just for interest, asked if it had been skimmed. Only later after you didn't answer several times, did I suggest that if there was any douby, a metallurgy test would answer it.

Please don''t pass the parcel, implying that I might doubt Graham (a good friend of mine incidentally) or Old Smithy.... or anyone... Nothing of the sort and it's below the belt to suggest so

Neat story. The bayonet and the gun sounds like a good deal. Such an understanding wife the better deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

Aragorn, please..... you are insinuating things that are just not correct and I cannot let you imply otherwise. I wasn't interested in anything else, never asked anything else, didn't imply anything else, accepted that the bayonet is the real McCoy from the very beginning but just for interest, asked if it had been skimmed. Only later after you didn't answer several times, did I suggest that if there was any douby, a metallurgy test would answer it.

Please don''t pass the parcel, implying that I might doubt Graham (a good friend of mine incidentally) or Old Smithy.... or anyone... Nothing of the sort and it's below the belt to suggest so

---

Peter,

We can go round and round on this but I insinuated nothing, I asked very direct questions of you and now you try to "pass the parcel" onto me.

That I won't accept. But I will let it go.

---------- Post added at 07:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:31 PM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tlitt

Neat story. The bayonet and the gun sounds like a good deal. Such an understanding wife the better deal.

---

That she is.

And so will I

Aragorn243 If you have an ED51 stamping. The other stampings will be RSAF Enfield Lock inspection stamps. Just for interest I was at the open day at Enfield Island Village last summer
( that is what the Enfield Lock factory site is called now). The bayonet factory is now apartments.

X was the old flex test stamping, but I have never seen it on a No9. I thought the last use was on the 1907 and P13 bayonets. If you have two Crows feet , heel to heel ><. This was the old strike off charge stamp.

I have just cleaned the grease of my mint ED-54 No9 Mk1. Stampings on the side are ED/137 (ED over 137) followed by a broad arrow/crows foot. Blade is broad arrow. Where the blade joins the socket ,stamping is 89 or 68 depends which way you hold it! Stamping on push button is Small crows foot,ED 87. I got this bayonet from Arundle, who had some unissued No4 rifles re imported from the USA. It might be from the cancelled Irish Army contract.

Kind regards, Lester

Lester,

I'll get a photo of the X and post it later. Could simply be a machining mark. I wouldn't think a blade that short would be given a flex test.

Here's the side view with the same style marking as the cruciform bayonet on it's side.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSC_3084-1.jpg

The top down view:

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSC_3086-1.jpg

And the "X":

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSC_3088-1.jpg

Sorry for the fuzz and cat hair, that stuff really shows up under magnification.

Any marking such as
D
166

or

D
54

etc are inspection stamps, the presents of a marking indicates a critical dimension/tolerance that has been checked and passed by that inspector. In some cases some parts could end up having 2, 3 or 4 D-over-XXX markings.

Just some useless information for you.

Thank you for the photographs. The stampings are in the style of my Enfield No9 bayonet. I am fairly sure they are RSAF Enfield inpection stamps.

No information is useless, some one some where needs it! Education is wealth. Not every one has room for reference books and other old toot.

I still think the RSAF Poole (P)1949 , No9 bayonets are the best!!!

Kind regards, Lester

NZL1A1 coll. These are/were called 'stage inspection' marks. You'll occasionally see where a part has been inspected by a stage inspector and during a subsequent operation, half or part of the previous mark has been skimmed away by the next or or later machining op.

Our book of marks just names these as stage inspectors marks but I'll ask the old Apprentices if theycan identify any as these are the skilled blokes who all went up the ladder to these jobs and beyond............. ever onwards and upwards!

i bought a no4 mk1 bayonet with the same markings as this one today for 50p at a flea market
i will try and post some photos

exactly the same mark as the bayonet that started the thread

A few more have turned up since I found mine but they remain pretty rare.

I'm envious of your purchases!:thup:

Though I do have a No.4 MK.I in my collection, I paid about £150 for it a couple of years ago, and I was pleased with that!
I have about 20 odd spikes in my small collection and am always hoping to pick up a SMC marked MK.I, but the chances of that are about 1:67. Still I did find a couple of Korean War Canadian MK.II's with the CA mark, and these are actually much rarer 1.1000 chance of finding one, so anything is possible.
It just shows, it pays to be on the lookout!:)

Nice finds gents!:thup:

I also have a NO.9 with a number and letter K under the broad arrow mark. This is on an Enfield 1950 dated bayonet. I haven't as yet gotten round to asking Graham the meaning of it. The whole mark is itself under another broad arrow (WD) stamp.

I have put mine on ebay
jameslee2388
i could not put bayonet in the listing as ebay said there could be no international sales as it was a restricted item!!!!
I put pig sticker instead

Is anyone able to tell me what the dimension across the socket width would have been when the bayonets were new before leaving the factory and before any refurbishment has taken place. Careful measurement with a micrometer on a number of No4 spike bayonets in my collection which I don't believe have been refurbished would seem to suggest a size of .875'' with a tolerance of perhaps +/- .005''. Would the tolerance have been tighter or more open than this? Does anyone happen to have an original factory engineering drawing by any chance, please? I thank-you in anticipation.

I think the No4 spike bayonet book will have that info.

Thanks Peter. I wasn't aware that there was a No4 spike bayonet book available. Do you happen to know the author, please, as I can't see it on amazon. Also I have a Savage made spike bayonet but with a singer made release button. Would this be the result of a refurb would you think or did Singer supply Savage with parts to begin with? Thanks

I presume Peter will be referring to 'The Spirit of the Pike' by Graham Priest. It's a great book for anyone who is a collector of No.4 Spikes (and various others are covered). It's out of print and can be hard to get hold of nowadays.

The Singer release catch will probably of come about because of a refurb, originally it'll of had a Savage release catch on it. I think Singer did supply release catches to some of the UK based makers of MKII* spikes though.

900 No4 Mk2 and 2* bayonets go into workshops prior to being returned to Ordnance from unit being re-equipped with L1A1's. All stripped, rebuilt and all go back together. As I say every few hours. We put back what was in the tray and not according to makers marks

As an example of that, my MkI bayonet has an SM43 marked catch.

Thanks very-much to every-one for all this useful information, most interesting. It would seem that the No4 spike bayonet was refurbished more often than I thought. I do have several examples of this bayonet with serial numbers stamped on the bayonet but I don't have any with it on the scabbard. None of the stampings look professionally done more like Saturday morning in the garden shed done. The only other bayonet which I have seen with what appears to be rifle serial numbers stamped on the bayonet is the Mosin Nagent bayonet. I believe that this bayonet was not always able to fit every combination of model of the rifle that it was intended for?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying10uk

Thanks very-much to every-one for all this useful information, most interesting. It would seem that the No4 spike bayonet was refurbished more often than I thought. I do have several examples of this bayonet with serial numbers stamped on the bayonet but I don't have any with it on the scabbard. None of the stampings look professionally done more like Saturday morning in the garden shed done. The only other bayonet which I have seen with what appears to be rifle serial numbers stamped on the bayonet is the Mosin Nagent bayonet. I believe that this bayonet was not always able to fit every combination of model of the rifle that it was intended for?

---

If by the last part of your quote, the "...I believe that this bayonet was not always able to fit every combination of model of the rifle that it was intended for?"... is aimed at the No.4 bayonets/rifle rather than the Mosin bayonets/rifle, then I'm not sure this is correct? As far as I know all No.4 bayonets regardless of them being MK1, MKII, MKII* or MKIII should fit all No.4 rifle types?

I believe he was referring to the Nagant cruciform. They were a bit crude and had to be fitted (in some cases). Then they put them on the rifle and left it there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

I believe he was referring to the Nagant cruciform. They were a bit crude and had to be fitted (in some cases). Then they put them on the rifle and left it there.

---

Ahh right, that would explain it then, thought it was unusual for someone to think a No. 4 bayo wouldn't fit all No.4 rifles.

I've never met one that hadn't been damaged that wouldn't just snap on...

We always had a yellow painted (or visibly identifiable) No4 spike and/or No9 bayonet on the in-inspectors bench that was the control sample to test for FULL interchangeability of bayonets on rifle muzzles. When the big workshop at Warminster closed there was even a length of No4 muzzle welded to a steel plate that used to overhand the edge of the examiners bench and used to test every bayonet against a rifle. Unbelieveable to recall just how thorough all of our work was