Owen Bayonet

Hi Guys,

I have been given a bayonet complete with scabbard and frog by a friend who was cleaning out his fathers stuff. The bayonet is a Lithgow 1907 with a short roughly cut blade to 10 inches, The scabbard is Orange marked the frog is Australian marked 1939.
His father like mine was diverted from the middle east to New Guinea and was issued an Owen and this bayonet.

The marks on the blade are one side:
MA
1907
1
6 42

other side:
Arrow
Proof Mark MA

On the hilt below the release catch:
C
42778

So I think I will have in my hot little hands one of the few genuine cut down war expedient Owen bayonets. Apparently the blade has been ground down in a not very professional way. Will get some pictures up as soon as I have it in my hot little hands for you to critique.

Dick

Looking forward, the one I had was a bit rough ground too. Sort of a Bowie point to it too...

According to Skennerton the cut downs are all dated 10 44. If I remember correctly, they also have an 8" blade, not 10" like the purpose made shorter bayonets.

Makes sense, mine was shorter than 10".

I wondered about it being an Indian cut-down 1907 bayo but at 10" it seems too short for this.

There was no bayonet for the Owen Gun when it was adopted in 1941. An experimental bayonet was made by the manufacturers of the Owen Gun (Lysaghts) when they were developing the Mark II Owen, although it was never adopted. A bayonet was not adopted for the Owen Gun until 1944. This bayonet was a shortened version of the standard Pattern 1907, or No. 1 Mark I bayonet. Originally designed for use with the trials Shortened and Lightened rifles, the bayonet was approved on the 31st July 1944, sealed on the 16th August 1944 and was designated Bayonet Sub-Machine Gun (Aust.) No.1 Mk.I.

This is what I have, either his father did it himself or the local Light Aid Detachment before he was shipped to New Guinea

Dick

https://www.milsurps.com/vbpicgaller...do=view&g=1106

It appears to have a short fuller; so how can it be a shortened 1907 bayonet? If it was shortened surely the fuller would run through to the point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying10uk

It appears to have a short fuller

---

No, that one is clearly a shortened 1907...upswept point...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

No, that one is clearly a shortened 1907...upswept point...

---

Jim, could you explain why the fuller doesn't go to the end of the blade if it is, as you say, a shortened 1907 blade, please?

I have the gravest doubts as to the practicality of a bayonet with the fuller running right through to the point being a service issue. It defeats the point - if you'll excuse the pun. Chopped down short to prove size, fit and usefulness is one thing. But for issue is total lunacy in my opinion so far as the mechanics and strength are concerned. With a fuller running through to the point, the frontal cross section is immediately (virtually/probably) halved. And not only that, it's halved longitudinally at the very point at which its strength and toughness is needed most. It's a bayonet......, at the point.......!

Nope. I say that bayonets, especially of the No1 type, that are clearly cut down/cut short other bayonets are the work of those with a spare damaged bayonet and a bit of time on their hands. Unless someone can show me in official paperwork words to the contrary

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying10uk

why the fuller doesn't go to the end of the blade

---

It does though, it goes right through the end...look at it. That last part is just the edge. Here's one that doesn't for instance.

Yes, the ones like this that had been shortened were found to be weaker at the point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

I have the gravest doubts as to the practicality of a bayonet with the fuller running right through to the point being a service issue. It defeats the point - if you'll excuse the pun. Chopped down short to prove size, fit and usefulness is one thing. But for issue is total lunacy in my opinion so far as the mechanics and strength are concerned. With a fuller running through to the point, the frontal cross section is immediately (virtually/probably) halved. And not only that, it's halved longitudinally at the very point at which its strength and toughness is needed most. It's a bayonet......, at the point.......!

Nope. I say that bayonets, especially of the No1 type, that are clearly cut down/cut short other bayonets are the work of those with a spare damaged bayonet and a bit of time on their hands. Unless someone can show me in official paperwork words to the contrary

---

Indian Army must have thought the shortening was worth while. They converted large numbers as No1 Mk1**.

I stand to be corrected as always of course. But where is this officially recorded? They were big on the waste not, want not philosophy I agree. My opinion is only based on nothing more than the bleedin' obvious - and simple mechanics of course

" British and Commonwealth Bayonets" Skennerton pg 347 list sealed pattern from Pakistan, one of the descendants of the Indian Army, approval date 1941 MkI* and MkI** converted by shortening MkI bt to 12.2", II** having double edge at point. 1941 was also approval date for short IP MkII bt series.
One in my personal collection is a Wilkinson MkI convtd to I** and bearing Indian FR 56 stamp.

The U.S. also converted tons of the M1905 Springfield bayonet from 16" to 10" during WWII for reissue with the '03, '03A3 and M1 Rifle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

It does though, it goes right through the end...look at it. That last part is just the edge. Here's one that doesn't for instance.

---

Has the thickness of the blade been reduced at the point by grinding an angle on each side of the blade? We don't have a picture looking directly from above, to see if this has been done, but, speaking as a metalworker and engineer, I think that it would produce the appearance of the fuller not running to the end of the blade.

Here is a link to an Indian shortened 1907 on World Bayonets Website: India - No. I Mk. I** (Pattern 1907) Bayonet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying10uk

I think

---

It's a cut down 1907 blade. You're going to have to believe what you want, I won't argue. I've tried to educate you with reality. It's not happening. Good night now...

I am asking Jim, not arguing. This is what the U.S. 1905 bayonet looked like when cut down: USA - M1 Bayonet

See how the fullers run right through to the point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying10uk

the fullers run right through to the point

---

Yes, this is a thicker blade at that point. So the edge is contoured and shows that flat surface...all the way up. They didn't make any that looked like that. The 1907 and that short Owen that look like a mini 1907 are the way they were done. Look in a search engine for Owen cut down bayonets and all these different cut downs appear, all a bit different looking. Peter is adamant that it's a local mod not MOD authorized or ordered...thus the differences. I wouldn't know but it makes sense. Thus the vast differences. I've cut a couple of scrappers to make them sell on today's market too...made a couple of "Original" fighting knives too... This one looks perfect, considering the weapons shop might be less apt to be cosmetic...

Here's an example of a 1907 blade that's been shortened, at some time or other. Because the fullers have the appearance of running right the way through to the end of the shortened blade, the sides of the shortened blade clearly have not been ground off at an angle to reduce the blade thickness.

SMLE No.6 KNIFE BAYONET | Spandau Militaria Shop

The other's also a shortened blade. It's just thicker and sharpened so it looks different. This one's a bit crudely done...mine was cut completely differently from both of these.

They also have this shortened 1907 bayonet for sale.

WILKINSON 1942 SMLE No.6 KNIFE BAYONET | Spandau Militaria Shop

I have no idea what style of point this one is supposed to be fashioned to ???

Where do they get 'em from.........? The authors of such total guff I mean.....

Perhaps the "armourer" doing the conversion had some sort of accident or mishap with the angle grinder :yikes: during the conversion process resulting in the rare specimen that we have here? :clap: :cheers:

I've been studying and collecting bayonets for 49 years. I've learned a few things along the way, one of the most important being that just because I haven't seen something before it doesn't mean it's incorrect. Don't be so quick to dismiss or put down something that you don't have any knowledge of.

The cut down P1907 with the funky tip is not one of a kind. There have been a number of these floating around over the years. Kiesling shows an example in his book and he identifies it as South African, but many question the validity of that identification. But the fact of the matter is that these exist, they are all very similar in design, and they are not something that someone made when they had a mishap with a grinder. Please educate yourself or ask for advise from others before making statements that others might take as factual.

I only ever argue or disagree with porter kids after a great deal of thought and trepidation and I'm sure he knows, agrees and appreciates that. So I most and sincerely and respectfully respond with my answer answer. But the fact is that for the No1 types that have been chopped and ground, there's absolutely no way that a buyer or owner can know whether it's a 'real' chop-and-grind or not - beyond the fact that once it was a 'real No1 bayonet! And furthermore, there's EVERY reason for dodgy dealer who owns a broken No1 bayonet (the easiest way is to use it as a poker, harden it and then snap an inch from the tip!!!) to lie like a cheap watch and tell you that it's an official Indian conversion - or worse, an Australian Owen. That should be a clue...... '.....it's an Indian conversion...' where no records are available to see. ONLY HEARSAY OR PLAGIARISM repeated time after time after time.

I admit that I am not a metallurgist but my metallurgy knowledge and knowledge of bayonets generally PLUS a good dose of what my mum used to call 'the bleedin obvious....' and experience tells me that when you reduce the end elevation of the tip of a bayonet - the pointy end that is the principal working edge of the blade in this instance, it's doomed to failure. It could NEVER pass the first day of the trials that they're subject to. How do I know about this. I saw the killing trials our 'new' AR15 bayonets (and rifles of course) were subject to against sheep and goat carcasses. Where are you when I need you to confirm these trials the Late Major Maurice F.......?

Nope. You can be lulled into buying a chop-and-grind No1 if you want to by some smoooooooth talking glib oil tongued salesman with everything to gain - especially your hard earned dosh. But you're being sold a pup. Just my opinion of course, based on nothing more than the bleedin obvious, experience and nuffink else!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by porterkids

Don't be so quick to dismiss or put down something that you don't have any knowledge of.

---

Post 24 was intended to be taken in jest, this should be obvious, and was in response to Peter's post 23.

You claim that I have no knowledge of something without knowing anything about me. If something is made from metal then I probably have a least some knowledge of it. This is because I have worked in the metalworking industry, full time and at the coal face, since the age of 16.

Have you not noticed that the blades appear to have recently had some sort of heavy (abrasive?) cleaning done to them?