G'day,
Seeking advice as to what the 'proper' bayonet to go with my 1918 Lithgow SMLE would be? Hoping to try to find one to complete the rifle.
Thanks in advance...
Chris :cheers:
Printable View
G'day,
Seeking advice as to what the 'proper' bayonet to go with my 1918 Lithgow SMLE would be? Hoping to try to find one to complete the rifle.
Thanks in advance...
Chris :cheers:
Chris, you will need an Australian manufactured Pattern 1907 Sword bayonet. These bayonets were made at Lithgow and will be stamped accordingly. It will have the year stamped in full e.g. 1918. Depending on when the rifle was issued it could have been issued with either a 1917 or 1918 dated bayonet. From your photo you have a very nice rifle so your selection of a bayonet should reflect the condition of your rifle. The bayonet scabbard should also reflect the that early period and not one with a large round frog stud which is usually indicative of the WW2 period.
Thanks for the info. I'll keep my eyes peeled for one. Have a look at the militaria section of usedguns.com.au There is a Pattern 1907 Hooked Quillion Bayonet going for $5000!
Any chance you could post a link to a photo of one? Might have to wait for the next militaria fair....
Any 1907 woudl have been issued with your rifle, the rifles and bayoents were not matched and were delivered and put together at the unit level, so what ever was in stores was what was issued. A 1918 rifle may not have been issued to a long time later so 20's ones woudl be just as good. In fact it may even have been provided with a WWII bayonet during its life. The same goes with the scabbard either the large or small stud woudl be right as both are WWI regulation. The Australians used the 1907 or MkI bayoent right through Korea as I ahve a Korean rework with the phopshate finish, and this uses a reworked double stitched scabbard from the 20's. Few countries kept up the rifle and bayonet being numbered together once the wars started
Australian bayonets were manufactured in quanties that matched the number of rifles manufactured in each year. In 1914 and 1915 many British contract manufactured bayonets were issued to Australians as the Lithgow factory could not manufacture sufficent quanties. From 1916 onwards after the expansion of Lithgow and the establishment feeder factories for various parts were established there was less reliance on British contract bayonets. To say that any bayonet would have been issued with your rifle is a long stretch. It is basically impossible for an Australian made rifle issued in 1918 to have a 1920 manufactured bayonet issued with it. As rifles were returned to store in later years and refurbished and/or reissued either in WW2 or for Korea then they wiould have an appropriate bayonet issued with it, whatever that may be. Without seeing the stampings on your rifle's knoxform or butt it is impossible to know its history. It was originally issued in 1918 and would have the appropiate 1918 or before bayonet. Lawrence Ordnace in Sydney has a website that details a 1916 dated bayonet. Bayonets up till 1920 are similar. If you cannot locate a 1917 or 1918 then let me know.
Lawrance Ordnance - Lithgow 1916 Pattern 1907 Bayonet
smith3006 - I posted in the Lee Enfield section a heap of photos of my SMLE markings.
My First Lee Enfield....
Hope they can shed some light. I have noticed that Cleaver Firearms in Queensland have Wilkinson bayo and a Remington 1915, also a 1940 Australian un-issued. I'm going to hold out for a 1918 Lithgow. The rifle is all matching so the Bayonet should match as close as possible.
Thanks
I see your SMLE was factory refurbished in 1946 which now allows for an additional selection of bayonets. In the early to mid 1940s Lithgow also refurbished many bayonets. These could bear any issue date but are often marked on the pommel opposite the release catch similar to 7/46/R which designates that the bayonet was refurbished and the date this was undertaken. You could also simply select a bayonet issued anywhere from say 1943 to 1946 (some of your woodwork is dated 1943). These bayonets were manufactured at the Orange feeder factory for Lithgow and will be marked "OA". There is a selection of these bayonets on Barrys Firearms webpage. Unfortunately a good 1918 will be twice the price of a 1943.
I agree with Old Smithy on this one. As the war ended in 1918, the rifle may have never seen service in WWI and thus not issued for many years remaining in storage. As it was, it did see service in WWII as refurbishment was required. I think I would prefer an Australian bayonet over a British one but either would work.
! agree with Old Smithy and Aragorm in threads 4 and 8 on this one. They're dead right. I was a unit Armourer for hundreds of years and contrary to what you might read elsewhere, rifles were NOT issued with a bayonet. I know you see those No4 blades serially numbered but there's a commercial 'reason' for that called 'added desirability and sales pitch'. The bayonets came separately as a big pile. You went into the Armoury and the Arms storeman gave you a rifle and a bayonet. I never, ever, ever saw, in my 50 years since 1963, an Arms storeman select a special year bayonet for a special year rifle. Enfield L1A1's got whatever bayonet was in the tray, as did BSA No4's and so on.
And to take that analogy back to the big Ordnance Depots who issued the bayonets and rifles to the units, I would bet that they didn't select matches either....... but I could be wrong!
And to add to Peters statement on Markings: If you send me any bayonet of your choice.
I, will put ANY unit markings or serial numbers you desire upon them!.............
You could have a VERY rare British Parachute Regiment marked 1890 issue Lee Metford if you wanted one!.......:lol:
You mean my 1888 issued to Lieberstrand Adolf Hitler with the SS runes and AH carved into the hilt may not be real :-(Quote:
Originally Posted by tankhunter
---------- Post added at 06:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:38 AM ----------
Peter
I did wonder if the Australians worked differently, as I coudl see all sorts of problems, reworks, lost blades etc. messignup the distribution, but then I do have a reworked Australian Twin seam that was kept together during Korean refurbishment and all the parts phosphated and put back together which woudl take a bit of care. I also Have Norwegian rework where the original matchign numbers still together with matchign Norwegian Airf force numbers - way too much time on peoples hands.
Keep in mind that the rifle has been reworked. It is highly unlikely that there can ever be a specific date and maker bayonet that it was issued with, any date or maker would be fine, especially with the WW2 re-work date. It is also a fact that Australian rifles were issued to British, Canadian and Indian troops and Australian troops were issued British and Indian-made rifles and bayonets depending what was in the supply system where they were. As Peter clearly and accurately stated, the date and maker is of little to no importance; a 1918 dated Lithgow with WW2 rework date could have last been issued to a British unit serving in India and may have had a 1912 dated Enfield-made P07 bayonet handed to the individual soldier, you will never know. As a collector, you can have whatever you want and that is what counts. 1918 dated Lithgow bayonets in nearly indentical condition can be found and the search can add to the enjoyment of the hobby.
I was in the Australian Army between 1967 and 70 and went to NZ several times between then, working up the soon-to-be-introduced L7A1. The Australian and NZ Army worked in exactly the same way as the British the same way as we did. Bayonets were bayonets and were doled out and collected in in the same casual manner. Losses and damage were just another feature of the days work. In a similar way, whether they were NZ, UK or Australian with a scattering of LB's thrown in for good measure or whatever bayonets or even rifles come to that, they were all just rifles and bayonets and as I said, while there are some that now appear to be mysteriously numbered and matched to rifles, it certainly didn't happen in my time or according to the bible that we all stuck to.
As I have said many times. The only bayonets that I can recall that weren't fully interchangeable were some No5 bayonets that had been around for ages. Some didn't fit some No5's and Sterling SMG's so instructions were issued in EMER V150 or something like that, that they were to be slightly modified to conform to a gauge limit.
A bit of useless information. When my Dad sailed for South Africa in 1941.From the UK .He was issued with a brand new and unissued Lithgow SMLE made at the end of WW1. The Australians had a 100,000 or so spare as a war reserve apparently! In his RASC work shop. He was the only one issued with an Australian made SMLE. He preferred it's lighter coloured woodwork. ( Dad is 91 and still tells tails of the Western Desert).
A little bit of trivia perhaps where Australia differs to British issue of rifles and bayonets. Rifles were issued in transport cases. Whilst this may not always be the case transport cases have 8 rifles and 8 bayonets. Anyway can the most learned people advise why the majority of Lithgow bayonets are serial numbered to their rifles when issued. This seems to be from 1913 to 1943. Some later manufactured P1907s in 1944 do not bear serial numbers with majority of collecters here in Australia believing they were never issued but sold off as surplus equipment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
Peter you are wrong on this. Before your time.
lithgow rifles were issued with a numbered matching bayonet. then the storemen stamped the military district (STATE) number on both with a matching inventory number. This was the case until the states were disbanded. Then only the rifle number till about 43. The rifles came in a box of 8 with their bayonet. Those boxes seem to be quite rare now and command serious $$
Ah, yes, hear what you're saying Bindi but as you say, that was a tad before my time and we didn't see too many No1's and bayonets in the 60's and the comment was in relation to the different working practices. The only No1's we used to see came in from the School Cadets and I don't think that they had bayonets. The Orderly Sergeant in 8 RAR had one on his black web belt as a sort of ceremonial item but that was that and it wasn't marked. We had Australian Navy Lanchesters in our Base Workshop in Singapore that came if from an Aust Navy (ex pom) submarine (I seem to think that it was the ex HMS Aurochs as we all went for a trip on it for a day and evenings jolly up the East coast of the S-China Sea but no bayonets with them. By coincidence, I have a Sanderson one that is marked RAN across the hilt for Royal Aust Navy.
Yes cadets we had rifles, owens, brens, mortars and vickers but no bayonets to bloody dangerous those things.
I have found it easier to find 1913 lithgow rifles than their bayonets (dont have one yet) werent many made. Also some states didnt have many rifles so they are some what hard to find (5MD , 6MD & 7MD) the others are like flies.
Thanks Bindi2, I think I should be a little more direct like you next time instead of shirting around more senior members particularly as I do have 35 years knowledge of collecting British and Australian bayonets with the number of them pushing well over the 1,000 mark. Need to learn a lot more about the longarms that they were attached to though. Whilst I have 1914 and 1915 Lithgow Hooks sadly my 1913 has the quillon removed. Never did cadets and wish I had taken more notice of the weapons during my National Service particularly the time spent in the armoury but difinitely no SMLE's in there.
smith3006 don't be afraid to about senior members, just mean we have been on here longer not that we necessarily know more, or that we are more willing to post than others. I found your information interesting, I have Aussie blades with serials but only remember them with MD marks etc. and thought that like most countries serializing blades to rifles stopped with the war periods. This then of course means that there is th possibility of more than one blade with the same serial number as a lost blade would need replacing. My question then is how did they replace them if every rifle had its own blade? did they issue spares for such circumstances? if so where did they come from if the made exactly the same number of blades as rifles? I am not trying to be awkward but if you look at things like this you will see where Peter and I got our comments from. Logistically this would be a nightmare during wartime with equipment losses etc.
Point taken Old-smithy. You ask an axtremely good question. Where Australia manufactured bayonets in the number as per their rifles this was brought about through Government factories unlike the British who put bayonet production out to commmercial ventures such as Wilkinson, Sanderson and the like. Australian production was either at the small arms factory of Lithgow or its main feeder factory for bayonets after 1941 and that being Orange.
Australia did produce "Reserve" supplies of bayonets in the early years and these were usually marked during WW1 on the crossguard with a numeral of 1 to 6 representing the States eg 1 = Queensland, 5 = Western Australia representing as to where they were being held. When reserve supplies were used a stamping of D^D was added above the number and the particular rifle number added to the bayonet at the pommel.
Many Australian bayonets have one or more serial numbers and I have in my possession a 5MD bayonet with three numbers and because of its chemical parkerisation its final refurbishment was during the 1950s (Korean War). Their is also the odd ones like a British manufacture with South Afican issue markings and finally the refurbished markings of Lithgow in WW2.
Irrespective of the original manufacturing date, bayonets were refurbished in the 1940s and are marked as such either on the pommel or ricasso. No new rifle numbers were appended. P1907 bayonets ceased production in 1945 at Lithgow however many were subsequently refurbished and the finish is a dark black chemical parkerisation (dull matt black) and the relevent date appears on the the top of the tang usually in the format of R - Date eg R-56. Again no additional rifle numbers are appended. Rifle numbers around WW2 were only added at production. In trying to match bayonets to rifles there is always more than one approach but deciding on the appropriate one (or more) is always facinating especially for us Aussies.
They went out with a bayonet and came back with one. May not be the same one but the storemen did not ask Qs. The war upset the book keepers.Quote:
Originally Posted by old-smithy
What were the convicts mostly that were sent to Australia. Even if it is bolted down it is not safe, so watch your shadow it could go missing.
They wernt all scousers thats for sure, as the Aussie accent does have twangs of cockney.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bindi2
Smith3006 thanks for adding a bit more to the story, it is amazing what is ut there but so often restricted to a few people in a particualar group (I admit to havign my own bits tucked away and not for release till I get my example cheap ;-) ) That is what makes these forums so great and occasionally shows up us "seniors" workign within our own knowledge base. By my understanding then there is only 1 bayonet that will go with his rifle and that shoudl make the hunt very frustrating LOL
Now i need to review my Aussi 07's and identify th emarkings further, jsut what i need another task :-(
If you have a 5MD rifle fitting a 5MD bayonet will be about as close as you are likely to come if the years match buy a lotto ticket if the numbers match you have just won lotto.
[QUOTE=old-smithy;247734] By my understanding then there is only 1 bayonet that will go with his rifle and that shoudl make the hunt very frustrating LOL
Actually after reviewing further photos of the rifle, mfzr01 (Chris) does have some alternatives:
1. A 1918 dated Lithgow
2. A 1918 dated Lithgow marked to 3MD (Victoria) as his SMLE is
3. A 1943 undated/ unissued Lithgow - Orange (OA), these are still around and will match the condition of the SMLE
4. Any dated Lithgow showing the refurbished year 1946 as per his rifle
5. If dates mean nothing and Chris is just looking for an example then any P1907 will do.
Where does my RAN marked but totally unnumbered bayonet fit in then? Or weren't the Aust Navy in on the numbering scheme? I got it in NZ when we collected and scrapped the last Lanchesters from HMNZS Royalist (or was it HMNZS Blackpool?)
That Q is best answered by Smith3006 i reckon. My guess it is a WW1 replacement for the stores given to England at the beginning of hostilities ,went into store and issued to the RAN at some time later when the MDs had been removed. Most of the MDs did not have a navy componet that was Commonwealth territory. I will be corrected no doubt if out of order.:D
You got it in NZ those thieving BUGGARS.:lol:
Well this is a first I didn't know we had a Navy and I will have to check that fact. I have bayonets marked to the airforce but not the navy. To have a British P1907 without the Australian contract acceptance mark probaly means that we in the first place didn't order it and somehow obtained it through devious means and then had a guilty conscience and thats why NZ ended up with it. You have to remember that Aussie only numbered their own manufactured bayonets (for each rifle); those ordered and supplied by the motherland had the contract acceptance mark of the arrow instead the upper case D imprinted on it. NZ was always our dumping ground because they can't play cricket or manufacture good edge weapons :lol:, probably in a lot of trouble now!!. On second thoughts that is not quite true as I spent several hours this year in the NZ National Army museum's armoury rummaging through some magnificant bayonets (all made by other countries!! :)) and discovered a fighting knife/ bayonet that appeared to be of Australian manufacture and what's more of later vintage and better than anything in the Lithgow museum or my own collection and I do need to go back again next year for further research because it is not recorded in any book. Bindi2 has it about right, I think.
What is it with the crowd from W.A that they have to pick on the rest of Australasia?
While we are on the subject, I bought this from a fellow forum member, a Lithgow 1918, with 1942 scabbard, question is why the the two numbers, the one on the pommel I would say is the oldest due to the style of the numbers.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSCF5463-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...SCF54591-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSCF5462-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSCF5461-1.jpg
The number on the pommel is the rifle serial number the bayonet was originally matched too, while the number stamped on the guard is the Military District 'ownership' mark, indicating issue in the Australian state of Victoria.
Because we can and you deserve it. MUFF
Shippingsteel is on the money
Shippingsteel and Bindi, understand the District marking, but the question was why the two serial numbers, wouldn't one of these be barred out ?
The serial number was never touched. The inventory numbers did get barred out or changed on the rifles at times ( trade,repair,disbandment of MDs etc ) Two number systems for two reasons, one for Lithgow one for the MD.
WE have not mentioned the state police yet which is another lot of stamps, WOW this thread could just explode. If anybody has a Lithgow Hooky have a look at the stamps a good chance it may be ex police.
Everyone is on the money. In conjunction with what Bindi2 is referring too, the easily recognised police marked hooks are the Queensland Police marked ones. These are of British manufacture and are usually just marked on the pommel Q^P over a three digit number. Skennterton and Richardson's book, British & Commonwealth Bayonets details the British manufacturer "Mole" as the supplier, however, in recent years other suppliers have been noted but that will need to be the subject of another thread.
Getting back to the question by Bigduke6 as to why serial numbers and markings were never removed or cancelled out. Bindi is right but for some unknown reason during refurbishment of bayonets old markings were again never removed. If you look closely at Bigduke6's photos his 1918 Lithgow in a 1942 scabbard is indeed correct as it appears to me to have been factory refurbished at some time and guessing before 1945 and probably at Orange. The finish is dark and reminicent of the early years of WW2 refubishing and not like that deep rich blue of the 1918 period at Lithgow. Also you need to study the proof marks on the ricasso "A inside Star" then on the other side; the shield, Lithgow and the date all show signs that they have been sanded back as they are not that sharp as they once would have been when first issued. Cleaned back but not removed.
Bigduke6 you have an excellent bayonet in fantastic condition and one that would suit Chris's rifle perfectly. I would be surprised if he doesn't make contact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by smith3006
smith3006, Am sure it would suit Chris,s rife, but these lot below tend be a tight nit group and stick together plus goes well with my 1926 Lithgow SMLE.
(as I was putting this together I was forgetting Australia is the first to bring in the New Year, so all the best everyone )
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...fb82abf2-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...0c07a13d-1.jpg
Thankyou Bigduke6, a very nice tight group and they should stay together.
Thanks for your best wishes and at this very time we still have just under 2 and half hours to the New Year whilst the east coast is 3 hours ahead (only in time - nothing else! :) ) and are already enjoying the New Year.
As a relative newbie I must say I am loving Milsurps and in particular the Edge Weapons Forum, so from downunder the very best wishes to all members for a very prosperous collecting 2013 year.
But back to the original question, even with all the variables that have been tossed around, it still hasn't been answered has it? We SHOULD have thrown another question back at the originator by asking '.....what era do you want the rifle to represent.........?' For example, if he has a a diorama of anything post 1930's, such as with a collection of Korea memorabilia or a slit trench in North Africa or Korea or the Kings Colour Guard for the 1937 Royal State Visit or even the Australian Army contingent at the 1952 Coronation or....... then any bayonet will be correct with his rifle surely. But even that isn't the final answer because while the rifle is a known age/date there are so many OTHER variables of bayonet, even BEFORE the 1930's we'd need to know in what context he's asking about
Or am I missing something?
It's a bit like asking 'what bayonet should I have on my Lithgow L1A1'? If it was Malaya or Borneo or South Vietnam, all within my era/realm it could be a Lithgow, BSA or an Enfield one just so long as it was dated pre 1972....... No?
Exactly Peter.
I would have thought post #26 did answer the Q but Peter L. has put in another good varation which on reflection i think #26 still covers.
Bigduke great collection. Would you please enlighten me on the 8th scabard from the left top picture and the last 3 pieces same picture on the right
The scabbard is an Indian brass mounted one, the bayonet is a Admiralty contract , the last three on the right, RFI Mk11, an Owen SMG, and a cut down 1907 but same profile as a SLR etc, in a converted P14 scabbard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bindi2
Big duke, must be nice to have that much clear floor, i have trouble finding the room to photograph one blade never mind such an impressive group. see none of the foreign made 07 blades, Italian, Indonesian, which coudl all have fitted an 18 lithgow lol
Thanks Bigduke sure is a great collection::clap:
Carl, It wasnt that clear before the pics, had to make the space, there was a few other straglers but didnt quite fit in the line up. Would Be nice to get some of the examples you mention.
Bit off topic but regarding the foreign examples does anyone here remember a picture posted by KevG (usually on the Bren forum) it was a group German Lufftwafe armed with SMLE,s but cant remember the bayonets they had ?think the pic was on the Enfield forum.
Bigduke, know the feeling well. I have jsut read an interesting article in one of the French collecotrs clubs magazines wihich showed th erare converted belgian Ersatz made in WWI by the Germans fit the SMLE, also some of the Ersoc bayonets fit the SMLE, and of course they re issued 07's including a Steel scabbard that is only seen in the Belgian Military museum
Carl the pics I mentioned but no bayonets in view,
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...1/luft21-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...1/luft12-1.jpg
For anyone interested, the Tunic is the Flying Blouse (Fliegerbluse) and dated around 1940, think this is the first issue as the second issue had pockets and a national emblem.
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 his 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
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"... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by smith3006
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by smith3006
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
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by gew8805
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.....Quote:
Originally Posted by peregrinvs
Especially th eOTC ones as it may be possible to go back and fidn out the original owner. I have one from a school that said that the cadet was presented with his blade when he left and they were intersted in havign mine as they had no example in their library, with the number they coudl have tracked who it was issued to and you coudl then possibly track down service records and flesh out the history of the blade at least till he parted with it. Unfortunatley i moved before I coudl visit th eschool, who the company I was workign with was workign for (2 losses as it was now a girls school! lol)