I hope someone might be able to help me identify the maker of my No.5 Mk2 bayonet. I think it might be Poole. Any help gratefully received.
Thanks,
John.
Printable View
I hope someone might be able to help me identify the maker of my No.5 Mk2 bayonet. I think it might be Poole. Any help gratefully received.
Thanks,
John.
Definitely Poole, but it looks like they missed the blade when they stamped it.
Nice clean looking example...
Thanks Guys,
It's the fact that the date only shows 19 and not the full year that had me wondering if something was not right.
Regards,
John.
We can set your mind at rest and confirm that it's definately NOT a super rare Poole 1919 No5! That's exactly as they were in service too.
Thank you everyone for your comments. I have learnt a lot since joining this forum and it is much appreciated.
Regards,
John.
I wonder if the "19" is not actually a "19" but is in fact a "61"??? The reason that I think this is because there is only thin air where the missing letters would be. Perhaps if it is "61", could this be a refurbishment date?
I believe it is a standard Poole stamp that is the P in a circle followed by 1946.
Picture borrowed from Old Smithy
Attachment 80512
Does anyone know the when Poole stopped making the No5 bayonet?
If it was a 61 date would that indicate that it was intended for the Stirling SMG?
Let's nip that myth in the bud straight away......... Like the Lanchester v No1 rifle myth that surrounds the No1 bayonet amongst the naive. As far as the Army are concerned, the bayonet is for whatever it fits. In this case, the No5 rifle and the L2 Sterlings. It was made at Poole - or wherever - as a bayonet. The Arms storeman decides whether it is issued with a No5 or an SMG.
F-10, thread 7..............Nope......., it's bleedin' obvious what it is meant to be and IS
That's what I thought. Otherwise, what's a circle "P" for?Quote:
Originally Posted by porterkids
Well, if you follow the supposition above that it is 61 instead of 19, then you'd be looking at a "d" in a circle and I have no idea what that could represent. :confused:
If it's a "19" then the other half of the year stamping has been punched into thin air and I'm surprised that quality control at Poole let it out as such. The stamping isn't just slightly out of position, if it's a "19", it's out by a mile.
I did wonder if it was refurbished, not made, in 1961?
No, I'd bet that the blade was out of position or the die was not properly positioned in the press when this blade was struck. I've seen a number of bayonets with misaligned stamps. Yes, the 49 was out in thin air.
Well the main thing for me is that we have established that it is a genuine No5 Mk2 bayonet. And it goes well with my 12/45 Faz No5 Mk1 rifle.
Thanks everyone for your input.
Regards,
John.
Some of the Indian made No5 bayonets which I've seen for sale at shows I've needed to take a second glance at to confirm that they were indeed Indian and not U.K. made. This has been when the bayonet has become tarnished/patinated/knocked about a bit.
When you bring the words 'Indian No5 bayonets' into the mix, things are far from clear. That's because the standard RFI Indian Army type bayonets are pretty well exactly the same as the UK made No5's, even down to the material and manufacturing spec. Except that some of the workmanship is occasionally a bit, er......., wanting! Even some of those supposedly made for the tourist/collector market seem as 'good' as the RFI bayonets to the extent that unless you were in a position to test the metallurgy of the steel you'd be fooled. And, before you ask, I did get one of these collector No5 bayonets cheap and did test the blade material against a standard UK No5 and, yep..... it was at least as good material. But like some of the RFI's, the workmanship was a bit needy. But that said, the catch, bolt, grip screws and nuts and grips all interchanged with the UK No5 including the threads. In fact I used UK No5 grips, screws nuts etc to make it good after phosphating and painting. It really left me thinking whether these Indian tourist/collector No5 bayonets were really some cheapo back street make or just RFI over production stuff sold off to make a quick buck......
On the other hand, one tourist/collector No5 was clearly just a load of tat that wouldn't fool a blind man on a dark night!
Yes....... Indian No5 bayonets, 'real', 'real fake' and 'totally duff rubbish' really need a chapter in their own right
The only issue which I have with the newly made Indian No5 bayonets is when the occasional U.K. dealer attempts to pass them off as original vintage U.K. made No5s at a similar price tag to the original U.K. made examples. This may be easy for collectors with a little experience to spot but it is possibly not so easy for new and inexperienced collectors to notice. I have noticed several Indian No5 bayonets at shows for sale by dealers, from time to time, attempting to sell at inflated prices. It must be very disheartening for new collectors to be caught out like this.
Maybe one of the true experts here has good examples of the Indian RFI's, good fakes and tourist fakes could do a bit of a spiel with photos.......
I have a few photos that I posted either to this forum or another at some point. I'll start a new thread.