Here is a perfect example of what NOT to buy when it comes to cruciform bayonets. It is so obvious a fake with the screwdriver tip.
British WWII No. 4 Mark 1 Spike Cruciform Bayonet W/ Scabbard | eBay
Printable View
Here is a perfect example of what NOT to buy when it comes to cruciform bayonets. It is so obvious a fake with the screwdriver tip.
British WWII No. 4 Mark 1 Spike Cruciform Bayonet W/ Scabbard | eBay
Excellent, excellent example of a fabrication. One pic saves hundreds of dollars...
The blade is a funny shape as well. Unless its just an optical delusion.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No fair. It was too easy for you to spot having the actual item at hand. I hope no one takes the bait.
I sent the seller a note, see if he pulls it.
I've looked at it too and........................ Apart from the obvious, it looks very short too. Could it have been an original Mk1 with the blade snapped off and then just doctored at the front end to become the abortion we're now seeing
Anything's possible. It does appear to be very short but he claims the blade is 8" long which is what it's supposed to be. Doesn't account for the length of the scabbard being so disproportional in comparison.
It has the dimple on the end which most fakers don't include and the grooves don't look bad other than looking crooked like others pointed out.
I got a reply this morning thanking me and that he would look into it but the listing is still up.
Here's a thing............. Has anyone ever wondered how Singer ground the blades of the cruciform Mk1? After all, if you grind the blade with single or gang grinders, you MUST support the tip and in any case, you're grinding a shaft that narrows in both the horizontal and vertical plane longitudinally! It gets worse, because when you do the reverse side, there's minimal support.
I have often pondered this and thought that it'd be a great student discussion during your production engineering phase. Just think of the jig fixtures for such a project. Any engineers out there have any ideas. What about you JMooore or Big Duke. No magnetic chucks then of course. It still baffles me.............................
I should think Singer used a milling cutter to do the shafts of the cruciform bayonets. One flute at a time, working rotationally and done before hardening. It wouldn't be as hard to do as all that. I don't think the jigs would be all that astounding. Lots of this was done by men who simply understood what had to be done. And a milling machine...run by overhead belts...
I'd thought of the rotating scenario too BAR but the format/cross section of the cruciform seems to negate that. I see what you mean about being done before hardening but the material is still tough and needs support. Interesting in a nerdy sort of way
Simple. They did it the same way the French did for the loooong M1886 bayonet.... just differently. :)
I agree with Peter Laidler, I do think it was an original No.4 MkI that was somehow snapped off. The seller is full of it when he states the length. I'll bet he has a "No Returns" policy as well.
Agreed. This is a fabrication and an excellent example of it...I'd never seen one before.
did singer use savage release ? isnt that a savage squared "S" in a square ?
It is and I'm sure they didn't use them. Mine didn't have that.Quote:
Originally Posted by A square 10
Nothing unusual. The MkI was the first and longest serving of the "spike" bayonets. Many went through re-builds or had parts from other bayonets substituted when they were damaged on a local level. It is not at all uncommon to see a so-called "non-matching" part used in repair or replacement.
The Savage release probably is not much of an issue although it would be better to have a Singer.
I'm leaning toward this being a broken bayonet that was re-tipped rather than a fake from scratch after looking at it closely but it is still a misleading sell and not worth anywhere near the asking price.
Sorry I disagree. I'm certain it's a fake. I wouldn't go near it. Maybe you should buy it and let us know.
Jim,
It is "fake" and I wouldn't touch it with a 10 ft pole but it does have the markings of an original cruciform bayonet. It has the dimple which few would know about. The grooves look correct. What does not look correct is obviously the tip and the length. A true fake made from a standard spike bayonet would be full length. I don't care what the seller says, that spike is not 8 inches long. It's closer to 6 inches long based on the scabbard that sits beside it. To make a fake, why shorten the spike and still put the screwdriver tip on it?
The whole blade doesn't look right to me. I agree the marks are there. The dimple is evident when examining a real one. One would want a real one on hand before making any. The S marked button doesn't matter, it can be changed. I'm sorry, I just can't be convinced that it's been or is real. Markings and all.
The spike looks bent in two places which would reinforce the broken tip. I don't know. It isn't very important to me one way or the other, it isn't what he says it is of that I'm positive.
Having gone through this investigative process recently with my own cruciform, if that bayonet were photoed with the end cropped off, it's the real deal all the way (less the savage release).
From Carl's bayonet page: BAyonet Collection Presentation Go to fakes then UK No4 MKI You can see the fakes grooves are not done well, they didn't have the equipment. The grooves on this one are the way they are supposed to be.