Printable View
Here's some photos of the L1 range of Enfield bayonets in manufacturing process.
There is also a manufacturing tool used back in the arms factory's, I'm sure someone else can explain more about what it was used for..
Attachment 48521Attachment 48522Attachment 48523Attachment 48524Attachment 48525Attachment 48526Attachment 48527Attachment 48528Attachment 48529Attachment 48530Attachment 48531Attachment 48532Attachment 48533Attachment 48534
Off the subject slightly but it seems strange to the point of ludicrous that someone was still producing bayonets for L1A1's in 1989 and then, like this example, not even to the design spec, when large scale issues of the L85/86 were already in progress. Indeed, if my memory serves me well, the whole of the Regular and TA Infantry in NW Europe were fully equipped by late '89, slightly ahead of schedule.
And it's a little known fact that there were not even any (seriously) interested bidders for the L1A1's already in stock or being returned to Ordnance in bulk.
Oh yes, before I forget. the little pulley gadget thinggy was a whatsit to test the operating weight of the scabbard spring. A spring or several springs from a batch would be selected and the bayonet put into the scabbard. Bayonet slipped into scabbard and hook applied to pommell. Then the Xlb weight applied to string at other end of pulley. It would draw the bayonet OUT but only until the retainer forks of the spring stopped the blade at the end of the fuller. There were two different + or - weights that I forget. 1st, to start blade movement 2nd to pull bayonet clear.
Tankie will remember that the first weight test was a good indicator of a broken spring retainer fork. As we didn't batch test, we had a simple method to test the mouthpiece springs. Just hook a set weight onto the crosspiece and lift. If it pulled the bayonet out, it was too weak. But after a few weeks on the bench, you just got to know what was a good mouth piece spring and what was crap!
And yes, before you ask, there was even an EMER spring weight for the catch plunger too!
Peter, I'll bet the reason you still had bayonets being manufactured was similar to our contracts. They would sign contracts for staggering amounts of equipment over protracted timeframes and dollar values would be set...if someone backed out of the ridiculous contract, there would be vast sums of money owed to settle this joke. It was cheaper to take delivery of the stores as contracted. I can explain how this would happen too, but then I have to point fingers...we had thousands of pairs of boots in stock and more being produced after they had been proven to cause foot problems...a classic example. Are we far enough off topic yet?
By the way sidcass, thanks for the pics. I love to study manufacture process...
Not sure if your thinking these where produced in 1989. The manufacture stamp is 86 on my photos, or are you saying they were still making them and dating them dates beyond 86... And made to a different spec than this 86 model?
Interested to know what year they started to produce this specific model of the L1..
Yes....., got that. I just mistook the blurred date for 89 but can see (?) that it's 86. But even so, in 85/86 the first pre-production and series production L85's L86's and bayonets were coming off the line
The L1A3 and L1A4 models were were simply modified versions of the L1A1 and A2 respectively and the modification was dated in 1962 or 3 (KtK, confirm.....). There has been plenty written about the differences on this forum and elsewhere. Some good, some not so good/inaccurate and some reads like it was written by Hans Christian Andersen inbetween writing his fairy stories.
Outside contractors were TOLD the spec of the product and had to follow it rigidly - or else! They COULD and did request what was called a relaxation in spec or standard. But before a relaxation in standards was permitted and applied then the contractor had to submit samples of the proposed ...... Oh, it went on for ages and ages all at his expense too. The bayonet shown has no holes in the tang and that is not to the spec. Maybe there was a relaxation there but with each relaxation, there would usually be a notification in EMER's or somewhere else to the effect that '..........Armourers should be aware that certain manufacturers have supplied X with a longer X or an undercut at Y (and so on). These are an approved manufacturing alternatives of which the MAG's are aware. No reporting of these components is necessary as of this date'
Also, while were here, it is often confusing for collectors to find bayonet grips marked L1A1 on an obvious L1A3 bayonet - or any combination. This is because we just ordered a load of grips and you got a load of grips. The blanket stackers at Ordnance or the OFP's or OSD's didn't care and nor did we really. A needy bayonet got a new set of grips........., any set of grips!
What hole should be in the tang? Do you have a link to a photo to an L1A4 that is different to the one attached, would be interested to see
See photo 5. There should be 5 holes down the tang where yours has two holes. Can you put a photo up KtK or anyone. Let me ask another armourer whether he's ever seen one with just two. Tankie............
What about you Old Smithy?
The 2 holes are the holes for riveting the grip on..
Is this the thread we seek? A question for the Advanced Bayonet Collector regarding FAL Bayonts
Interesting....
So the 4 holes where the design of the L1A2.
Sid................. We realise that (thread 8) but the SLR bayonets usually have 5 holes in the tang (one part hidden by the pommell if I remember correctly) which are presumably a reminder of its old No5 rifle/Sterling SMG bayonet ancestry although the geometric spacing is different. And yes, these holes were a part of the design spec. And a manufacturer CANNOT change the design spec without prior testing and approval. Even the change from machined return spring caps and backsight beds to cast return spring caps and backsight beds on the L2A3 had to be trialled and tested. One day I'll tell about a design change that 'changed' that wasn't thought out and eventually caused some head scratching.
Pete, I have never seen a an L1 Series Bayonet with only Two holes in the tang. Like yourself, only the five hole variants. These were 'Lightening' holes to make the weapon lighter. Peter will understand what I am saying. But some of you chaps might understandably think. 'What? a few holes drilled in a bayonet tang. What difference would that make'? This is an understandable conclusion to make. BUT, you MAY have seen some No.4 Enfield Rifle bolt handles with a hole drilled in the base of the 'Ball' of the bolt? This is for exactly the same reason. The Military thinking behind this is simple. If you can lighten as many components as possible, wherever possible. It ALL adds up. If you are a P.B.I (Poor Bloody Infantryman) in the Field. & you have to hump all your own equipment, ammo, water, food, Weapon, Etc, Etc. You WOULD appreciate a lack of extra weight to carry, no matter how small. Some infanteer's march for MANY miles. Which is fatiguing indeed! So although it might seem a small saving in weight reduction. It was done where possible. Bren guns also went through 'Shaving' of edges & lightning cuts to the receiver. For the same purpose.
Also, Peter will concur on this. After you have inspected many thousands of bayonets. You get a 'feel' for spring pressure when withdrawing a bayonet from it's scabbard. During inspection period's when at task on the bench. It soon becomes a skill that you CAN feel if a spring is weak when pulling a blade!
I think there is a simple answer to the question of the number of holes in the tang. Officially and shown on the plans is 5 holes. I think the contractor (AW, whoever they are?) decided to simplify production, which would make it slightly cheaper but quicker to produce and only drilled 2 holes for the grip rivets.
As Peter pointed out this as a no-no for contractors to change the official design without approval first. BUT i some cases during production of parts something can go wrong or a step is missed out, or it doesn't quite conform to the specs. In these cases the parts were checked to see that they conformed functionally and then a CONCESSION was granted and this concession was marked on the component. This was done to inform the Armourers that although the part didn't conform to the specs in the regulations it was approved for use. An example would be the British Laminated handguards. There is a batch of these that have a concession mark because they don't conform to the correct shape. They are allowed, but must be used in matching concession pairs. On larger components the concession number is stamped eg, C20640 stamped on some newly produced Enfield barrels which have pitting on the plated area of the chamber.
Anyway back to the bayonet......... I think due to a number of factors these AM86 bayonets are official, for the MOD, its possible the manufacturer decided that by the time anyone ever took the grips off an assembled bayonet to would be too late to do anything about it. Or if they had been inspected as components that the MOD was still to sort out the paperwork and issue a Concession and an armourers instruction about the missing holes which didn't affect functionality of L1A4 Bayonet.
But as it was pointed out the L85/L86 were being issued and the fate of the L1A1's was sealed, it was to be relegated to war reserve or scrap. I don't think the pencil pushers were in too much of a rush to get it sorted. The paperwork is probably still sitting somewhere waiting to be officially implemented.
Never had a SLR bayonet totally stripped but thought this may help, a pic of a stripped No5 bayonet (jungle carbine) to show the holes (only four on these, plus the four rivet holes)
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSCF5206-1.jpg
Here's the pic from the thread I posted... Attachment 48779
The design of having only 2 holes in the tang is not new. I was just looking at a Blade production component I got from eBay many moons ago and realised it ONLY has two holes in it as well. Unfortunately there are no markings on the blade so I can't date it but it’s a No. 5 type Blade..... So it could be for the No. 8? or maybe a late Stirling? or ? I don't know. The profile at the rear of the blade is No. 5, not L1 Series and the holes don't line up with the L1 rivet positions. There is an official looking tag attached to it and on one side is marked VPN 652 in pencil and 618 in pen on the other side.
The No. 5 blade originally came out of England.
Top: Partly complete Australian L1A2 Bayonet.
Bottom: British No. 5 Type Blade.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...cc5db610-1.jpg
I just KNEW that I'd counted 5 holes in the drawing...... I remember having all the individual parts and drawings from Enfield while at Warminster and mounting them on a small display board titled 'THE ANATOMY OF A BAYONET---- not as simple as it looks is it'? Some visitors might remember it, next to my office
Here are the blueprints
I can't see anything...Quote:
Originally Posted by sexyfishsticks
Interesting little thread to read again. Brings back some old names. Where are you Big Duke and Kevin the Kiwi?