1907 Bayonet refurb programme?

[Flying10uk]

A recent addition to my collection is a 1907 bayonet by Sanderson, dated 1916. This example together with my 1918 by Sanderson both have shiny polished blades which I had thought was an indication of them not going through the refurb programme of the 1920s. I have a few U.K. made WW1 examples and most have a dull grey shot blasted blade and the bluing of the cross guard extending a half inch or so onto the blade/ricasso which I had thought was an indication of the bayonet having gone through the refurb programme. I have also noticed Enfield inspector marks on the rears of some of the grips and I had thought it was Enfield who had been responsible for doing the work in the 1920s. I had thought that another reason for leaving the blades a matt finish was that, in WW1, it was found that the shiny blade glistened in in moonlight when attached to the rifle. It kind of indicated the exact position of a British or allied soldier to an enemy sniper

After reading some previous posts on this site I'm not so sure on any of the above as some seem to suggest the opposite. Can any-one please clarify the matter and please correct if needed.

Thank-you

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[old-smithy]

the blade finish changed many times during the wars. the original bright finishes were replaced by shot blasted to dull the blade, later they were blued or phosphate for protection. I covered all these in my CD on the 1907 which is still available on my web site. and you can see examples of the various conditions on my web site on the dedicated page, but without the textural detail of th eCD

[Peter Laidler]

I never really understood the 'glinting blades' theory. Simply because I think that the one thing you WOULD definately want the enemy to see is a line of glinting bayonets. Because if you have bayonets fixed, even today, it means a) you are going to close up or b) you are ready if THEY decide to close up. And a line of glinting blades would put the fear of god into anyone..........

[old-smithy]

Must agree with you Peter, the idea of seeing a line of troops rapidly advancing with shining bayonets proving they mean to get in close would have a severe pucker factor. It may be the dulling was so that the troops did not have to spend time polishing them???

[Eaglelord17]

Shiny things give away your position as well. Personally I don't want to be carrying anything shiny when people are shooting in my direction.

[browningautorifle]

Well, our FN bayonets had bright blades and the C7 bayonet was specifically designed with a bright blade...the #4 spikes had bright blades from inception until refurb...so did #5 blades, #7 blades and #9 blades come to think of it...

[Eaglelord17]

Well, our FN bayonets had bright blades and the C7 bayonet was specifically designed with a bright blade...the #4 spikes had bright blades from inception until refurb...so did #5 blades, #7 blades and #9 blades come to think of it...

But the most recent edition of the C7 bayonet is now dark, not shiny. Took a war where people were dying for us to change some of the stupid things we used to do.

[browningautorifle]

Yes, the newest one came from Germany in original form. I was one of those waiting for change, but that would be a thread by it's self.

[Flying10uk]

It is my theory that the blades were shot blasted as part of the refurb programme simply to clean the blades up, remove any corrosion etc and to give them a uniform appearance. I would guess that a significant number of the 1907 bayonets that had seen WW1 service were in a somewhat tired state in 1918. After shot blasting the blades would automatically have a dull grey finish and leaving them in this state would save an additional process in the refurb programme i.e. polishing. Whether or not it was also felt that it was desirable to have the blades dull so as to stop them glistening in moonlight I don't know; it has certainly been suggested by others and this may be a bonus reason for shot blasting them.

One of my 1907s by Sanderson is dated December 1918. Does any-one own a newer, U.K. produced, 1907 by Sanderson or by one of the less common makers such as Mole, Vickers or Chapman. I realise that Wilkinson made them into WW2.

[bigduke6]

It is my theory that the blades were shot blasted as part of the refurb programme simply to clean the blades up, remove any corrosion etc and to give them a uniform appearance. I would guess that a significant number of the 1907 bayonets that had seen WW1 service were in a somewhat tired state in 1918. After shot blasting the blades would automatically have a dull grey finish and leaving them in this state would save an additional process in the refurb programme i.e. polishing. Whether or not it was also felt that it was desirable to have the blades dull so as to stop them glistening in moonlight I don't know; it has certainly been suggested by others and this may be a bonus reason for shot blasting them.

One of my 1907s by Sanderson is dated December 1918. Does any-one own a newer, U.K. produced, 1907 by Sanderson or by one of the less common makers such as Mole, Vickers or Chapman. I realise that Wilkinson made them into WW2.

Going off memory Vickers only started production in 1917 so they would be a blasted finish, will dig out my Vickers and check the the date on the Mole .... I,m guessing it was easier maintenance on a rough finish and manufacture, just dip in oil or wipe oil over, I,ve a few 1907's and would say all are a rough finish apart from the two hookies I have.... looking at the other pre 1907 bayonets they all had shiny blades, 1903, 1888, Martini Henry.....