Unusual Pakistani No. 9 Mk. I Bayonet

I picked this up a month or so back and believe it to be the first known 1950-dated Pakistani No. 9 Mk. I socket bayonet.

This example was made at Metal Industries Ltd. in Lahore, prior to establishment of the Pakistan Ordnance Factory in Wah Cantonment. M.I.L. had produced No. I Mk. II and Mk. III bayonets during the Second World War, when Lahore was still under Indian jurisdiction. The blade profile is more rounded and the edge more crude than the British or P.O.F. No. 9 bayonets. The blade is both pinned and (rather sloppily) brazed to the socket. Prior to discovery of this example in 2016, all known M.I.L. examples were dated 1951. Discovery of this 1950-dated example demonstrates that the shipment of production equipment from R.O.F. Poole to Pakistan took place earlier than may have been believed. Only a small quantity of 1951-dated examples have surfaced, so production must have been low before manufacturing ceased and the factory was relocated to Wah, away from the border with India.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...edk4wlwu-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...fzpwmzrr-1.jpg

Mines a 51 :-(

It's very rare to see a Pakistani No9 bayonet advertised for sale here in the U.K.. I did see a P.O.F. example advertised for sale earlier this year without a scabbard which I purchased.

It looks like the groove was cut using a two stage cutter or grinder which is quite unusual. Not that I'm into bayonets at all. Just that single 3/8" or so cut is simpler that 2x 3/16" cuts to my way of thinking. Brazing like that is what we call '.....snotty joints'! You can occasionally feel the blades loose in the socket. We were told to ignore what we saw as 'oil squeeze' type movement and only take notice if you could actually feel movement. Not that they ever really gave us any trouble - because they were rarely used! Unlike the troublesome No7 types!

Nice find Marysdad.

I did wonder if the braze was a repair to a loose/damaged bayonet rather than it being made with a pinned and brazed joint?

I'm not sure that it'll be a brazed repair as such because there'd be no penetration into the loose rivetted joint. Just old oil - no flux, no adhesion = no use as they say!

Here are some pictures of my later Pakistani P.O.F. No9 bayonet which I referred to earlier in this thread.

Definately a more angularly cut lower/cutting edge and groove - and finish generally. I wonder just how many variables there'll be of these No9 bayonets.......

The later examples produced at the P.O.F. in Wah, are more comparable to British Government production. The M.I. Ltd. bayonets are crude by comparison. These are more comparable to the examples I have that were made by Byfords Ltd., which are also crudely made.

The British No. 9 Bayonet and Foreign Copies

That's a very interesting little thread relating to the No9 variants Mary's dad. Thanks. But I don't think that there'd be a need to re-weld and re-finish the front grip-screw hole if a UZI bayonet blade was to be utilised in a SA No9 bayonet. The hole would just remain hidden and redundant - as are the 'spare' holes in a No5 and L1A1 blade.

Who'd have thought that there was so much written about the humble No9 bayonet!

I knew about the SA bayonets but was unaware the blades were re-purposed Uzi bayonets...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

I knew about the SA bayonets but was unaware the blades were re-purposed Uzi bayonets...

---

There's an even more interesting one that the Italians made using blades from their Model 1891 Carcano bayonets.

I did wonder as an alternative to the Uzi blade if the South Africans may/could/as well as used as a donor bayonet blade the FN FAL type similar to the example which I have photographed next to my South African No9 bayonet. I realise that the FAL bayonet is longer but that could have been cut back and the shaped parts of the blades line up and look the same. The scabbards look identical and the bayonets do fit in each other's scabbards. I have not yet discovered the country of origin of the FAL bayonet and there appear to be no markings on it. I think that this alternative is entirely possible from an engineering point of view but I don't know if it actually happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying10uk

may/could/as well as used as a donor bayonet blade the FN FAL type

---

That's where I would have been looking...not Uzi bayonets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by porterkids

Model 1891 Carcano bayonets.

---

Never have seen one like that.

There doesn't seem to be much in the way of hard facts actually known about the South African No9 bayonet. What we need is a Forum member who worked in the South African Armscor factory in the 1960s when the bayonet was made and who is willing to tell us more about it's production.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

Never have seen one like that.

---

Here are a couple of photos of the Italian No9

Attachment 78393 Attachment 78392

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by porterkids

the Italian No9

---

Very, very ugly looking example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

Very, very ugly looking example.

---

I quite agree! But.....I would very much like one for my own collection! Anybody got one up for grabs?...;)

The question really is what MORE do we really need to know about South African type No9 bayonets? They are locally made. Whether they are using old/used UK made No9 sockets is simplicity itself to ascertain using simple metallurgy or a micrometer! Whether they are using Israeli blades is also simple to ascertain too. But I would think not simply because a flat blade like that, ground to shape on a horizontal grinder, made by the thousands(?) would be a simple process too. I can't see SA using old blades simply because in my limited experience, it's the blades that get damaged and not the socket! It's academic whether you make them long or short too.

What else is there to know?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tankhunter

I quite agree! But.....I would very much like one for my own collection! Anybody got one up for grabs?...;)

---

Other than the one in my collection, I've only seen one other change hands in the past 5-6 years. One showed up at the show in Baltimore and quickly sold for $1200.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tankhunter

I would very much like one

---

In the past, me too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

They are locally made

---

Like many others that are needed and have been through the past. We've seen many here from all countries, I just find them interesting is all...I don't need to forensically examine them though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

I don't need to forensically examine them though.

---

I agree :thup:

I note that the Indians or Pakistanis did a similar long No9 variant, made from a damaged(?) No1 Mk2 type short fullered and unfullered blade. Not that I am suggesting it, but something like that would be simplicity itself to reproduce given the ample supply of No9's and Indian Mk2's

Further to F-10's thread 10, that said, the notion that we - or Armourers hops in the world generally - would seriously consider faffing about changing blades or making new crosspieces or anything beyond basic fix-it type repairs is really a no-no as alluded to by Tankie and Skippy in the past. If it was for our own benefit it might happen but as they were ten-a-penny-useful-currency anything beyond a quick fix was unlikely.

Anyone aware that there was also a S.A. locally produced UZI barrel that had a No4 muzzle/bayonet profile (less the foresight band blocks of course...). This would also take the short No9 type bayonet but NOT the standard bayonet made for the UZI because the muzzle dia was reduced slightly and the X-piece ring was too loose on the barrel.

Point taken BAR and Porterkids (thread 21 and 22). But a simple micrometer will soon tell whether original marks have been machined or linished off

Did Hopkinson Ltd not make it part of their business, in latter years, to make up complete No9 bayonets from the blades salvaged from broken SLR bayonets and some newly made blades welded/fitted to No4 pig sticker sockets? It was suggested to me recently that these items were mainly sold to Third World countries.

Hopkinson were the archetypal example of a time expired Company that hasn't progressed while trying to keep flogging a dead horse. A bit like the later days of MG-Rover and their over priced out of date cars. If the Sterling company were struggling to sell new and refurbished Sterling SMG's to these third world nations awash with cheap and cheerful AK's then I have severe doubts as to the notion that you can sell 1950's No4/9 hybrid bayonets to the same nations. Just my view of course.

Here is one of Hopkinson's newly made blades for the benefit of anyone who may be interested. When I purchased this from the vendor a couple of years ago he had several which he had bought from Hopkinson when they closed. When I saw the vendor recently at a fair they had all now gone

I saw these blade blanks for sale originally. there was a BARREL FULL of 'em up for grabs!

I think these are No.5 Blanks though, not socket bayonet blades originally.

The 'Vendor' was attempting to sell them on the 'Well known Auction site', Piecemeal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

Point taken BAR and Porterkids (thread 21 and 22).

---

Not quite the way I meant it Peter, just meant that "I" didn't need much info. I just like to see the different blades. Looking at where they come from originally is a whole different thing and does interest me to know lineage...

That blade in thread 26 is a distinct L1 rifle type blade. It COULD be made into a No5 type but only with some hard work, grinding, filing and drilling. This is the reason why they were forced to make the 'fake' NO5 bayonets by using these blades with L1A1 type grip sides but No5 x-pieces and modified No5 pommel to suit.

This thread does show and highlight how Forum members interest differ and also how they may look at things such as military equipment differently from one another. For me coming from an engineering background, not military, when I see a piece of equipment I am very interested in it's design and how it has been made. It is also interesting to see how well or how badly an item has been made. If I add an item to my collection that has been poorly made and it was originally made in that way, then I am perfectly happy to preserve it in the condition in which it was produced. It is not for me to take it upon myself to try to improve the appearance of an item on how it was originally made. There is nothing worse, in my opinion, to see a piece of military kit that has been "tarted up" by an over enthusiastic civilian owner who doesn't really know what he is doing.

I did recently see a similar blade blank to the one in Post 26 that the owner said was ex Hopkinson which was in a "Black" state as if it had just come out of the hardening or forging process. Is the length of the blade blank @ about 280mm long enough to be a replacement blade for the L1A1 bayonet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

That blade in thread 26 is a distinct L1 rifle type blade. It COULD be made into a No5 type but only with some hard work, grinding, filing and drilling. This is the reason why they were forced to make the 'fake' NO5 bayonets by using these blades with L1A1 type grip sides but No5 x-pieces and modified No5 pommel to suit.

---

Yes I can see that Now Pete. Obv's an L1 'Series' Blank. A No.5 would have a row of holes down the central spine of course! ;)

The central spine is narrower and the shape at the front and rear of said spine is different too. Made to take the steel grips. Early trials with this type of bayonet used wood grips that didn't last long as they were shredded by the blast through the flash eliminator flutes