Unknown bayonet?

Hi guys,
Hoping someone on here can assist with identifying this edged weapon.
I`ve had if for about 20 odd years and would like to know what it is.
It has a brass Hilt?, with a cast fish scale pattern and a recess cut out of one side of the pommel, a waisted blade with a fuller that is about 9" long, starting about 1" down from the cross piece.
there are no markings on the blade but there is a number "34" maybe, "54" stamped just below the pommel.
It`s about 26-1/2" long ( app.67cm), and the blade about 21-1/2" (55cm approx)
Any ideas from my description?
I`ll post a pic if I can work out how, or if you are interested or can help me out i`ll email them to you.
Thanks for your help.
Rog.mob. 0434359231

here`s a few pics of the bayonet

I don't believe it is a bayonet at all but some type of artillery officer's sword. I would also guess Civil War era.

I am no expert on swords however so don't hold me to that.

I believe it would require a second point of attachment to be a bayonet of that era but again, could be wrong.

Hi Aragorn 243, thanks for your comment,

I have just received a reply from a guy ( a Civil War Bayonet Collector) in the USA and he has confirmed that it is a "Sappers and Miners 1845 Bayonet" that has at some time been modified to use as a sword, and the barrel locating lug has been removed.
apparently this lug is part of the cross piece,
It`s a shame the mods were carried out especially as this bayonet is one of the first 200 bayonets made by the Ames Co. for consideration by the US board of ordinance, and it`s considerably scarce?
Looks like it goes back in the cupboard for another 10 or so years!
Thanks for your interest.

As you already know, someone cut the muzzle ring off the bayonet. In my opinion, as a bayonet collector, the piece has been destroyed. I'm sure there are others who will disagree with my assessment, but this piece is no longer a functional bayonet. As you also pointed out, it has the short central fuller on the blade making it one of the early manufactured pieces. Here's one of the later models complete with scabbard:
http://www.jjmilitaryantiques.com/Ho...p#.VkCrRstH-IU

I my opinion I would think that it would be well worth replacing the missing parts with newly made replica parts. While it is not great that it has been modified and it has been devalued it is not a total loss and the bayonet is still a valuable historic item. Vintage aircraft that are still airworthy will probably contain a significant percentage of new/modern parts but they are still classed as vintage aircraft. I believe that in the vintage car movement it is generally accepted that if a vehicle contains at least 30% of it's original parts then the vehicle is classed as being original and not a modern replica but I stand to be corrected on this point.

About the Ames Company http://www.ames.com/about/about-ames/
About Ames Plantation Ames Plantation
Quite a bit of detailed history of a company that is still around and a legacy left by one of the family members.

Yes, it is a shame the barrel lug was removed, but there`s not a lot i can do about that except machine a new lug and braze it on.
it would be worth the few dollars to refurb it just for its historic value, then put it back in the safe,or hang it over the mantelpiece as I don`t own a "Sappers and Miners" Musketoon, and it doesn`t suit my 3Band.
Thanks for all your input,
Rog

Flying10UK,
You`re quite right about the vintage movement, I still ride along with some others, a 1960 Featherbed Norton ES2, it has Chrysler valves, Billet made conrod and forged piston, stainless steel crankshaft,modern bearings throughout,all new machine cut gears in the gearbox, Barnett clutch and modern electrics, rims, spokes and of course tyres, and all new teflon lined bowden cables and a host of other smaller modern manufactured parts and still wins trophies at most rallies, judged as an original bike, without fitting all these parts the bike would be a pile of junk in the corner of some garage, or at a Simms -metal scrap yard so a lug on a bayonet shouldn`t pose a real problem,as long as it is done well,.. the cross piece, blade and handle are still in excellent condition, and after all it is almost 170 yrs old, and quite possibly had a hard life..
Thanks for your input,
Rog.

There is another point to this, the piece is a legitimate historical piece and shows the progression of the bayonet into a side arm, many of us have side arm variants of bayonets in our collections, or German WWI ersatz that took old blades and rehilted them and we would never consider stripping them down to take them back to original condition (or at least I would hope not). Keep it as it is, since it is a collection and not a need to add the bayonet to your rifle. just MHO

The following extracts from various contributions illustrate the dilemma we often face with "no longer as originally made items:

1) "... I still ride along with some others, a 1960 Featherbed Norton ES2 ... and still wins trophies at most rallies ..."

2) "... Vintage aircraft that are still airworthy will probably contain a significant percentage of new/modern parts but they are still classed as vintage aircraft ..."

3) "... I'm sure there are others who will disagree with my assessment, but this piece is no longer a functional bayonet ..."

4) "... There is another point to this, the piece is a legitimate historical piece and shows the progression of the bayonet into a side arm, many of us have side arm variants of bayonets in our collections, or Germanhttps://www.milsurps.com/autolinker/images/link6.gif WWI ersatz that took old blades and rehilted them and we would never consider stripping them down to take them back to original condition (or at least I would hope not). Keep it as it is, since it is a collection and not a need to add the bayonet to your rifle. just MHO ..."

5) "... it would be worth the few dollars to refurb it just for its historic value ..."

1) and 2) point out that it is unavoidable that vintage aircraft and vehicles are fitted with modern replacement or replica components in order that they may still be used - to fly or drive! This is not falsification or faking, but necessary maintenance with the materials available at present. Original parts are generally non-existent, or unsafe even if to be found - would you want to drive around on century-old tyres?

People such as myself, who actually shoot old rifles, instead of just collecting them, face the same problem. And my standpoint on this must by now be well-known - do what an armorer would have done to keep it working safely, but do not undertake functionally unnecessary "improvements" that all to easily slide into falsification.

There is general agreement that the bayonet is now is condition 3) and unable to be fitted to a rifle. The alteration, made way back in the past, puts it in the condition 4).

Now there is one simple fact that some people do not like to face up to: A piece is original when it comes out of the arsenal or factory where it was made. Later, after use and wear it may or may not still be in the original configuration, but if it has been altered, you cannot make it original again. All you can do it to make it appear to be original, whereby one enters on the slippery slope leading through falsification down to faking and forgery.

And so we come to 5). I mean no offence to the original contributor, but such formulations are often self-delusionary. As suggested by 4), such an alteration its present state would not improve its historical value to a knowledgeable person, but would make it look like the much more valuable original shown in the link. In other words, it would be a falsification. And it is not functionally necessary, as there is no rifle to which it needs to be fitted.

So leave it as it is.

I understand your point Patrick, better left as it is, I don`t want to undertake any repairs mods to fool any prospective buyer into thinking it is an original piece, I thought maybe if I did the reconstruction it would urge me to look for a musketoon to fit the bayonet to...
I too shoot only vintage firearms, not really a collector by any means, everything I own and regularly shoot dates from between 1854 right up until 1942, and i consider that modern.
I`ll take the advice on board, and start looking for an 1845 Musketoon..
Thanks again for your input..everyone.
Rog

Mmmmmm. I see both sides of the argument, having an oldish Mini Cooper and Norton! But a friend of mine with a smallish bayonet collection has a couple of hooked No1 bayonets PLUS several early ones that he's collected in the past where the hook part has been removed and it's clearly visible where it has been sawn off as per the instructions of the era and on a couple, rather poorly too!!!!! He could quite easily and simply restore one or more to hook configuration if he really wanted to as a form of 'retro modification'. Don't grimace at this idea..... we did it to a Mk2 Sten to remove the cocking handle safety modification for display/instruction purposes. And the RAF did it to their flying Lancaster to install a top turret when it was never built with one.

What to do....... I'd leave it be. It is what it is and it's still a rare beast........... Enjoyable thread

When restoring an item I feel that it is important if replacing items, as far as possible, to only use materials/parts/methods which were available when the thing which is under restoration was first made. A good example of this is screws; a few years ago at a car show I saw a vintage car which was in the process of having a new ash body frame made for it. The person doing the work was making a lovely job of the woodwork except for the wood screws which he was using as they were modern pozi-drive and these were certainly not available in the 1930s. He should have been using slotted screws. My view is that it's fine to restore an item provide it is not done with the intention of cheating any-one. Provided that the work is done in a sympathetic manner and in a style in keeping with when it was made in a hundred years time the owner is not going to know or care that the item has been restored/repaired years ago.

My personal view on firearms and bayonets is that I want it to be in the condition it would have used by the soldiers. I remove rust, dirt, replace broken parts, etc, will use repro slings if that's all I have. And I don't really care what anyone else thinks about it. Dirt and rust isn't history, it's neglect and all I can imagine the entire time I'm looking at something like that is some crusty old NCO screaming at me for not taking care of my weapon. If I had a rifle that your bayonet fit on and that bayonet is what I had, I'd probably make an attempt to put a muzzle ring on it. Otherwise, I'd probably leave it alone. I have three or four bayonets that are missing significant parts that would require welding, etc. I'm making one into a knife and the rest will probably just be used for parts if I need them.

It may also have been altered at the beginning of the civil war for use as an artillery short sword or similar.

Yes Peter,
it has turned into an interesting thread, I`ve had this bayonet for years, and only recently re-discovered it and thought I would pose a simple question to folk more knowledgeable than myself in this area, not expecting the flood of ideas and views.
The item in question will go back into hiding until someone is looking for one for display maybe or to make up a collection of artifacts from that era.
It`s not the sort of "knife" i`d carry whilst out shooting, or use around the campsite for cutting firewood, it`s quite heavy, weighing in at just under 1kg, and totally the wrong shape for a "Pig-sticker"!!
Again, thanks for the interest, at least now I know what I have, and learned alot more about the makers.
Cheers.
Rog

A few years ago a dealer who was trying to sell me a Lee-Metford bayonet with the button/attachment-catch missing explained that this was because it was used for "Training Purposes" and so wouldn't stay attached to the rifle. Is there any truth in this statement??? And no I didn't purchase it.

No truth in that at all. A bayonet that won't stay on the rifle would be no use for training - or anything else! We did have DP versions with slightly rounded tips for training! The dealer was the same one that told me that a large ZF on a No4 stood for Zimbabwe Forces!

[QUOTE=Peter Laidler;348134]No truth in that at all. A bayonet that won't stay on the rifle would be no use for training - or anything else! We did have DP versions with slightly rounded tips for training! The dealer was the same one that told me that a large ZF on a No4 stood for Zimbabwe Forces![/QUOTE]

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl: Hahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! Tears rolling down my Face on that one Pete! ;) For those who do not know what ZF means as an Army Classification. It means the weapon is beyond 1st Line (Unit) & 2nd Line (Field Workshops) repair facilities. & is UNFIT (& UNSAFE to fire) & needs to be sent back to Base Workshops (Or Factory) for Repair/Replacement.

I would LOVE to meet this 'Dealer' Pete. As I am not as blessed with Ambassidorial Skills as you are. I would pull him apart verbally for his Bullshit!!!.....

Yes, it's almost comical what some dealers come out with sometimes.-Perhaps they think that collectors are all stupid. Another dealer quote which I liked and saw on an advert for what I believed to be a repro Sten bayonet a while ago went along the lines of: "Original Sten Bayonet but made post war". I thought to myself probably about 6 months ago. I don't think that there were any "official" Sten bayonets made for any army post war, was there???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying10uk

I don't think that there were any "official" Sten bayonets made for any army post war, was there???

---

No. Not according to my research anyway but if you look online, there are a lot of places advertising them as such. Post war originals.

Flying10uk, Perhaps it's an 'Original' copy?..........................:madsmile:

Regarding the original thread. RE: The bayonet ring having been removed.
If it were Me personaly, I would manufacture & replace the damaged component. As this item is so scarce, it would then be a very good 'space filler' in a collection.
Until a totally original piece could/might be sourced perhaps?.............Just my thoughts on this. ;)

It MUST be borne in mind that there is a fine line. between restoration, & faking! If you have a flintlock pistol & a screw is missing. You then make a screw, age it up to match the
condition astheticly of that Pistol. THAT is restoration.

conversely, If you have screw. & manufacture a pistol around it. THAT is faking it!................;)

Tankhunter,
I would agree with you on this...I could and most possibly would fabricate the missing part, " If " I owned a 1847 Sappers and Miners Musketoon, maybe even if i had a bayonet collection and wanted it for display, but since I have neither , musketoon nor bayonet collection, there isn`t a lot of use spending a day or so at the milling machine fabricating the missing part, to then stick the bayonet back in a cupboard and let it gather dust..
and the chance of me procuring a correct vintage Sappers and Miners Musketoon (1847) to fit this bayonet to is understandably very scarce.
But if any of you guys happen across a collector /shooter/re-enactor whilst at the range who happens to own one of these firearms..by all means get him to give me a call...I`m sure we could work something out to his benefit.. there`s one out there somewhere, 200 Muskets of the correct vintage were manufactured in 1847, and this bayonet is one of the first 200...
Thanks for your reply Tankhunter, and thanks to all the other members who added to this thread