Dumbest Bayonet Ever

I have a lot of bayonets, some which are works of art, some which aren't but today I received what I am nominating as the dumbest bayonet ever. Anyone else who would like to nominate a bayonet for this award is welcome and then perhaps we can vote on it.

1903 Springfield rifle rod bayonet - Who could possibly think this is a good idea. A quarter inch round rod about 12 inches long (effective length when deployed) with a point on it. Realizing this is just an extension of the earlier trapdoor rod bayonet, that one by default is also nominated.

My daughter thought it was a screwdriver and my wife even more impressively called it a cleaning rod.

I think the British No 7 Mk1 Land Bayonet picks up a guernsey as well... Trying to be all things to all people and ends up being not so good at anything...

I was thinking about the Johnson Rifle bayonet, sitting on a recoiling barrel...but these are all about the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

I was thinking about the Johnson Rifle bayonet, sitting on a recoiling barrel...but these are all about the same.

---

Automatic stabbing action. Nifty!

Claim by inventor was that the recoiling action assisted the user in the use of the bayonet. I was infantry, I also owned one so I had a look...all one can say is, "Not hardly"...to quote John Wayne.

Not to get too far off-topic but real quick, there's a gushing love letter mixed with a few conspiracy theories on the Johnson M1941 in the most recent issue of Firearms News.
Sorta negates itself by talking about how life-threatening the Garand "ping" is. Amusing nevertheless. Still haven't quite decided if the entire article was a joke or not.

The Johnson bayonet in and of itself does not look bad. Perhaps simply the concept of putting it on a recoiling barrel.

Cutlass bayonets used by the RN on P1858, Snider and MH arms. Heavy ,awkward and clumsy when fixed.

The rod bayonet concept was pretty stupid, but I will also give a nomination to the Carcano M91 TS bayonet with the sideways locking system. At least the Rod bayonet system had some attempts at merit (such as not requiring the manufacture of both a cleaning rod and bayonet), well the M91 TS bayonet was just expensive, weak, and the reason for its adoption dumb.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aragorn243

the concept of putting it on a recoiling barrel.

---

I agree with all of that.

My photo shows a Springfield 1903 rod bayoneyt and the Model 1905 bayonet.

The rod bayonet was also used on some late Springfield trap door rifle in 45-70 too

The Johnson rifle barrel could not support any type of "normal" bayonet and had to
use something that keep the rifle in operationAttachment 90528

Never imagined this thread would go in this direction but I felt compelled to learn about the Johnson rifle because of it. Now unfortunately, I want one and can't afford one. As for the bayonet, it is said to be an afterthought and is so light because the added weight could prevent the barrel from having enough oomph to cycle the next round.

the trowel bayonet for the 1873 trapdoor

Ok not a bayonet but seems dumb. Can anyone identify the problem with this one.

Just guessing looks like a No.7 or 9 blade modified BWAG

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aragorn243

Now unfortunately, I want one and can't afford one.

---

When I had one, it was about $175 and I bought a second for spares at $125 CDN. That was in about 1986... No other bayonet could have been used, the 1905 was attempted but caused problems. I was happy to have had one and then passed it on, wish it had been worth $4000-6000CDN when I sold mine though...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CINDERS

Just guessing looks like a No.7 or 9 blade modified BWAG

---

Actually it is a German Red Cross Hewer presumably modified from the "screwdriver" point it was made with to the "bowie" point by an enterprising GI.
Which unfortunately ruined the value.
The dumb part is why a blunt tipped saw back dress dagger?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aragorn243

The Johnson bayonet in and of itself does not look bad. Perhaps simply the concept of putting it on a recoiling barrel.

---

Unfortunately the US Ordnance Department has a military specification for a bayonet on its combat rifles. It does not have to look pretty but it must work. Having started my military career in the twilight age of the wood and steel rifle. It was practical to have a bayonet on a rifle especially in hand to hand combat where you can also butt stroke your opponent. Today try that with an M16 rifle you will have a one shot two piece rifle.

Now days the general use of bayonets is handling prisoners and CQB. Your rifle only packs it in when you're really, really close...trust me Then you don't care about smashing the butt off and the bayonet is close enough to be practical. Besides there'll probably be another close by at that point.

Don't forget alternative uses such as wire prodding, land mine searching, etc. Bayonets are useful for more than just stabbing others.

As to the recoiling barrel of the Johnson it only moves back about 3/8" and is very solid thereafter. The user would have to prod a little farther.
In Canfield's book it is mentioned that MMJ saw a No4 bt on a promo trip to the UK and took the idea of the simple light "dagger bayonet" from that.
A previous Johnson bt design was fixed to the fore end and supported by a dovetail at the muzzle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by green

A previous Johnson bt design was fixed to the fore end and supported by a dovetail at the muzzle.

---

And reciprocate within that bayonet? That’s a clever idea. It’s the simple ideas that are the hardest to come up with!

Nope....... it's got to be DMan69, page 1. The No7 bayonet. Supposed to be a jack of all trades but was the master of none. Total expensive crap

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rcathey

there's a gushing love letter mixed with a few conspiracy theories on the Johnson M1941 in t

---

Read it, the result was that I then re-read Hatcher's Book of the Garand. Reinforced my opinion that the article was either a joke, or the author is terminally stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by us019255

Read it, the result was that I then re-read Hatcher's Book of the Garand. Reinforced my opinion that the article was either a joke, or the author is terminally stupid.

---

Hahaha! Glad someone felt the same way I did.
As I was reading it I kept thinking, “what’s going on here???”