No9 bayonet M/49

Hi there,

last week I stumbled across this socket bayonet. As it was supposed to be from M/49, I really wanted to have it. Examining it at home, I found this "M" mark, and my first thought was: what would the "Maltby-M" do here?? This "M" reminded me very much of the Maltby-M as a Maltby-made No 4 was the first gun I owned. Then I did some further research and discovered, that Peter Laidler brought up the question some years ago, if those M/48, M/49 and M/50 marked bayos were really from some little metal working shops or from ROF Maltby in 1948 - 1950. I don't know what the community says know, so I wanted to share my new find with you all and learn something about its history.
Bayo didn't see much service for sure and was refurbished at some time.


Attachment 123246Attachment 123247Attachment 123248Attachment 123249

Many greetings

T

May not have seen any service. A lot of these have been sold recently still in the paper. This was probably one of them.

Ah, I see. Not many around here, if any.

What about the Maltby connection??

thanx

T

In the US they were all over the place about 5-10 years ago, pretty common. Not sure the M stands for Maltby. They used M prefixes on a lot of wartime bayonets. for different manufacturers. I was not able to find any or yours however. The primary makers were ROF Poole and RSAF Enfield. Three private makers also produced small quantities. This might explain your three numbers.

According to Skennertons Broad Arrow MkII the designation M-49 is Francis & Barness Ltd Coventry.

Yes, this is what I found out, too.

I am referring to questions Peter Laidler brought up ca. 5 years ago in this forum:
-why would the government choose 3 makers who had never had anything to do with the bayo business?
-why would they use wartime codes when the war was over for some years?
-that they have the (consecutive code) numbers 48, 49 and 50 is remarkable, but may be incidential. Hey suggests that those could also be manufactoring years.
-ROF Maltby was struggling for work back then

Quite convincing, if you ask me, although nobody knows, of course.

And then I found this "M", that on the lateral flat side of the bayo, which is very very much like the "M" on Maltby guns.

If there's somebody out there with one of those bayos, maybe he could have a look and report back here.

greetings

T

I do not believe that the M 49 on these No9 bayonets is a dispersal code but I do believe that the "49" part denotes the year of manufacture. I came to this conclusion some time ago because of how the Poole manufactured No9 bayonets are marked, with a "P" followed by a number. Fortunately there were no dispersal codes starting with a "P" otherwise people would probably be saying that all the Poole made No9 bayonets had a dispersal code on them as well. I do not know that the "M" part of the marking denotes "Maltby" but I do believe that it is reasonable to assume that the "M" denotes the location of manufacture. Again this is based on the fact that we know that the "P" on the Poole made examples denotes that location. I would expect contractors, for a government contract, to mark their work in the same or similar manner and not in a totally different manner.

Note also the gap between the "M" and "49".

That is my personal view on these markings.

There are at least 10 known manufacturers with an M prefix number. followed by several numbers. Maltby isn't one of them.

M 1 Accles & Pollack
M 44 J.B. Brooks & Co. Ltd.
M 47 A Birmingham Small Arms (B.S.A.), Small Heath; maker
M 53 Camelinat Ltd.
M 58 Jabez, Cliff & Co. Ltd.
M 78 Elkington; maker
M 121 W.J. Hill Ltd.
M 158 J. Lucas Ltd.
M 166 M.C.L. & Repetition Co. Ltd.
M 198 Morris Springs

Thank you for this insight.

In my opinion the question is, whether this M/49 (/48 and /50 as well) is a dispersal code at all an not rather place of manufacturing + year.
I think that there are some good reasons why the latter is or could be the case.

T

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aragorn243

There are at least 10 known manufacturers with an M prefix number. followed by several numbers. Maltby isn't one of them.

---

I don't think that anyone is saying that it should have.

Thank you!

We should keep an eye on this!

Greetings

T

Here is one of the Poole made bayonets:
Attachment 123430
With this the question is easy to answer:
M = Maltby
49 = year of production

If we all accepted that the "M 49" was a "Dispersal Code", for a moment, then one would expect the Poole made example to also have a "Dispersal Code". If we all continue to accept that the markings are all "Dispersal Codes" for a moment longer, is it not a huge coincidence that the numeric part of all of the alleged "Dispersal Codes" match exactly when the No9 bayonet was in production?

Not a coincidence at all. The codes were assigned, and the numbers provided by the website fit in the missing known list perfectly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aragorn243

Not a coincidence at all. The codes were assigned,

---

I would beg to differ. I am fully aware of how the dispersal code system operated and how the codes were assigned which, incidentally, was introduced during WW2 and intended to disguise the maker and help protect the factory from bombing.

The source of the (possible) "dispersal code" on No9 bayonets originally only came from one person, Mr Graham Priest, and so I thought that I would ask him what he thought on the matter, after making him aware of this thread. This is what Graham said which he kindly gave me permission to reproduce here and I quote:

"As you know I am the source of the 'dispersal code' ID on No.9s. Pre 2003 I could find the No.9 drawings from Enfield, descriptions from Poole (plus markings) but nothing on bayonet making at Maltby. Not having access to many rifles I had not associated the 'M' with them. Nothing has turned up, especially as many museums were closed. (I have not been to the Weapons Collection for two years!) If I am incorrect I will have to eat humble pie as numerous collectors are chasing the variants."

You can differ all you want but odds are they are manufacturers codes as they fit right in line with known examples, and another has actually identified them as such. What's the point of this continued argument at this point? They aren't produced by Maltby, they aren't year of manufacture. Poole did things their own way and assuming others are going to follow Poole's lead rather than traditional British marking systems is a stretch. Priest is the foremost expert on British Socket bayonets and he states, he has no knowledge of bayonet making at Maltby and the M is not associated with them. The M is associated with a dozen dispersal codes.

I only ever disagree with Aragorn after a great deal of thought and consideration. So I have put my steel helmet tightly on........

The distinctive style of the letter M, with its extended middle leg is the distinct mark of MALTBY in much the same way as joined letters RTL are Theale, DE is Enfield and F or FY is Fazakerley.

And the year letters are undisputedly just that..

Boxes of these new, still wrapped in the green sided and sometimes sealed in tight fitting green rubbery bags and grease-proof paper x10 bear the assorted Ministry of Supply codes and B1 ordnance type numbers. The hieroglyphics that formed part of the labels also shows the packing code plus the "not to be opened until required for use' and the ROF code - Maltby Incidentally, M49 is misspelled. It is actually FRANCIS BARNET,T also known to all 50's young motor cyclists as 'Franny-Barnett', the motor cycle makers from Dudley. And to be really honest, Franny Barnett, while good little motor bike makers (and well collected by collectors today) are not known for making bayonets.........

It is inconceivable that they'd make them elsewhere and send them to ROF21 - Maltby (? correct me if the number is wrong) to be wrapped and packed
They were keen to keep the rifle factory at Maltby open and some rifles were FTR'd there.

There's a pi showing one with M49 and 50...... It's a year change stamping surely? No one would make some, stamp them and then send them over to a competitor to mark up.

Nope, the distinct extended middle leg in the M is the MALTBY logo seen on every rifle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aragorn243

You can differ all you want but odds are they are manufacturers codes as they fit right in line with known examples, and another has actually identified them as such. What's the point of this continued argument at this point? They aren't produced by Maltby, they aren't year of manufacture. Poole did things their own way and assuming others are going to follow Poole's lead rather than traditional British marking systems is a stretch. Priest is the foremost expert on British Socket bayonets and he states, he has no knowledge of bayonet making at Maltby and the M is not associated with them. The M is associated with a dozen dispersal codes.

---

You are entitled to your opinion and views of which I don't share. I do have a list of more than 200 "M" dispersal codes as well as lists the other 2 codes and I am quite capable of working things out for myself.

---------- Post added at 08:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:04 PM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

I only ever disagree with Aragorn after a great deal of thought and consideration. So I have put my steel helmet tightly on........

The distinctive style of the letter M, with its extended middle leg is the distinct mark of MALTBY in much the same way as joined letters RTL are Theale, DE is Enfield and F or FY is Fazakerley.

And the year letters are undisputedly just that..

Boxes of these new, still wrapped in the green sided and sometimes sealed in tight fitting green rubbery bags and grease-proof paper x10 bear the assorted Ministry of Supply codes and B1 ordnance type numbers. The hieroglyphics that formed part of the labels also shows the packing code plus the "not to be opened until required for use' and the ROF code - Maltby Incidentally, M49 is misspelled. It is actually FRANCIS BARNET,T also known to all 50's young motor cyclists as 'Franny-Barnett', the motor cycle makers from Dudley. And to be really honest, Franny Barnett, while good little motor bike makers (and well collected by collectors today) are not known for making bayonets.........

It is inconceivable that they'd make them elsewhere and send them to ROF21 - Maltby (? correct me if the number is wrong) to be wrapped and packed
They were keen to keep the rifle factory at Maltby open and some rifles were FTR'd there.

There's a pi showing one with M49 and 50...... It's a year change stamping surely? No one would make some, stamp them and then send them over to a competitor to mark up.

Nope, the distinct extended middle leg in the M is the MALTBY logo seen on every rifle.

---

Thank-you for your contribution, Peter, and it is good to see/have you back here.

Thank you, Gentlemen, for you insight! I think we can begin to re-write this chapter of the No9 history now!

many greetings!

T

Might I politely suggest that before you or anyone starts to re-write the No9 story that that they take into account a saying that I learned many years ago. If it LOOKS like a duck and WALKS like a duck and QUACKS like a duck, then guess what....... it IS a duck. Same as the stylised letter M and the factory ROF code on the wrapping. But as I always say, and my wife tells me often enough, I could be wrong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

FRANCIS BARNET,T also known to all 50's young motor cyclists as 'Franny-Barnett', the motor cycle makers from Dudley.

---

While looking through my archive (attic) recently I discovered that I had their 1962 sales catalogue.

That's interesting, thank you!