What makes an L1A4 an A4?

[Peter Laidler]

Please Time Bandit...... I ain't the top man nor, for the benefit of others, am I a Captain any more either. Resting now on the highest rank in the Army of either Mr, Peter or simply 'retired'. Anyway. The first thing I would like you to do is to contact the Armourer and ask him if he can quote you the exact EMER V class reference he is quoting from. The straight X-piece edges have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the designation. In short, and I'm going from my long memory here, the;
L1A1 bayonet was the original bayonet made at Enfield to the original sealed drawings upon which, because the fixture (the F/E) and bayonet were our own design, no royalties were due and no design change agreement was required
L1A2 bayonet was the bayonet that sub contractors such as BSA(?), and others later, could produce it under licence given certain conditions (the bleedin obvious, such as fully interchangeable parts, material, strength and fitting of course). This was in order that the specialist manufacturers or sub contractors could make the best use of the existing facilities available to them. After all, some of them were already making a similar, tried and trusted blade for the No5 bayonet! So why not? The change in designation was a paperwork exercise to take account of the variables that might be encountered. Nothing more or less. That's why some collectors just fall into 'the long fuller' trap
L1A3 was a modified L1A2. No need to elaborate here.
L1A4. Just a modified L1A3.

The straight edged X-piece, the cast pommell were simply manufacturers making best use of their facilities. Of course, before thay can make ANY changes, the changes have to undergo a rigerous testing and trials programme. If it is approved, it is slowly accepted into service. A good example is SA80 handguards... Sub contractor thinks he can make cheaper with a simple moulding design change (which was also stronger too.....) and they are accepted subject to a (very successful) trial.

Annanuvverfing too...... The L1A? marking on the grips have no bearing on the ACTUAL mark/type of the bayonet. Because unless you were a nerdy collecting fiend working in an Armourers shop - and I don't ever remember one so far - then the needy bayonet got the grips that were on the shelf.

While this short resume might not be biblically acurate down to the last cross or dot, I trawled this from the V EMER and the ITDU trials reports relating to the endurance, reliability/durability and interchangeability trials of the straight crosspiece.

Here's a low baller......... Ask your informant what the following L1 bayonet trial was in relation to. It's in the EMER...........

As to why the info is seemingly wrong and not corrected, just ask yourself why the Sten gun myths STILL prevail. The name STEN for example. It's simply because SOME weapon writing authors are idlers who just read 10 books to write number 11. Most Collector Grade authors excepted - but not all I hasten to add! You've got me going now!

So called Irish contract No4's next.............

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.

[Time Bandit]

Thanks Peter.
I'm on my phone so can't really reply properly but I will do when I'm on the pc but in the meantime many thanks for the info.

[tankhunter]

Please Time Bandit...... I ain't the top man nor, for the benefit of others, am I a Captain any more either. Resting now on the highest rank in the Army of either Mr, Peter or simply 'retired'. Anyway. The first thing I would like you to do is to contact the Armourer and ask him if he can quote you the exact EMER V class reference he is quoting from. The straight X-piece edges have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the designation. In short, and I'm going from my long memory here, the;
L1A1 bayonet was the original bayonet made at Enfield to the original sealed drawings upon which, because the fixture (the F/E) and bayonet were our own design, no royalties were due and no design change agreement was required
L1A2 bayonet was the bayonet that sub contractors such as BSA(?), and others later, could produce it under licence given certain conditions (the bleedin obvious, such as fully interchangeable parts, material, strength and fitting of course). This was in order that the specialist manufacturers or sub contractors could make the best use of the existing facilities available to them. After all, some of them were already making a similar, tried and trusted blade for the No5 bayonet! So why not? The change in designation was a paperwork exercise to take account of the variables that might be encountered. Nothing more or less. That's why some collectors just fall into 'the long fuller' trap
L1A3 was a modified L1A2. No need to elaborate here.
L1A4. Just a modified L1A3.

The straight edged X-piece, the cast pommell were simply manufacturers making best use of their facilities. Of course, before thay can make ANY changes, the changes have to undergo a rigerous testing and trials programme. If it is approved, it is slowly accepted into service. A good example is SA80 handguards... Sub contractor thinks he can make cheaper with a simple moulding design change (which was also stronger too.....) and they are accepted subject to a (very successful) trial.

Annanuvverfing too...... The L1A? marking on the grips have no bearing on the ACTUAL mark/type of the bayonet. Because unless you were a nerdy collecting fiend working in an Armourers shop - and I don't ever remember one so far - then the needy bayonet got the grips that were on the shelf.

While this short resume might not be biblically acurate down to the last cross or dot, I trawled this from the V EMER and the ITDU trials reports relating to the endurance, reliability/durability and interchangeability trials of the straight crosspiece.

Here's a low baller......... Ask your informant what the following L1 bayonet trial was in relation to. It's in the EMER...........

As to why the info is seemingly wrong and not corrected, just ask yourself why the Sten gun myths STILL prevail. The name STEN for example. It's simply because SOME weapon writing authors are idlers who just read 10 books to write number 11. Most Collector Grade authors excepted - but not all I hasten to add! You've got me going now!

So called Irish contract No4's next.............

Pete, I, am the Armourer in question!
I have already explained to TB on another forum about the L1 series of Bayonets.
To recap:
THE Bayonets we encountered in General service were: the L1A3 & the L1A4.

As we both KNOW. L1A3's were manufactured as such. And ALSO converted from earlier marks by removing the long catch. And machining out the depression for your thumb. Fitting a Shorter catch & stamping the END of the Pommel with the new L1A3 designation. Those manufactured bayonets, and also the converted variants. HAD WAISTED CROSSGUARDS. As we are also both aware, those nicely waisted crossguards were the weak point. And frequently fractured the muzzle ring!

Hence the introduction of the L1A4 with STRAIGHT (& STRONGER) Crossguards. I also informed him that any nomenclature was NOT to be relied on. Stamped into the grip scales. Because we fitted ANY variant of grip scales as replacements for a repair.
The MAIN identifying feature between A3 & A4 was the Crossguards, yes

I also informed him that the short & long fullers were only encountered on the A4 variants. I have never seen a short fuller A3!......
The A3 & A4's I recall, are both shown in the I.S.P.L for the L1a1 Rifle.
If you look at TB's photos of the long & short Fullers. You will observe that BOTH types have STRAIGHT crossguards! IE: L1A4'S !!!!!!!

Pete, that particular Forum is just like our Bren Gun section here. Where (& I DONT wish to be rude. but you will know EXACTLY what I mean!) information has become clouded in the Civvy collecting World. & there Is the stamp collector mentality of : It MUST have this part on it. And so on. They were only ever 'complete' so to speak, when they left the factory. And they changed 'somewhat' when parts were replaced/ were modified in service. Yes?.......

Bloody Hell! Im tired of reiterating this Topic!!...........

---------- Post added at 07:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:41 PM ----------

What I can't suss out though is basically every collector, every book etc sees them as I do (or did maybe!!) but if the info is wrong why has nobody ever come out and said so, I've not seen anyone do so other than this chap I've been having a discussion with?

Mike: Probably, because those Bayonet Books were NOT written by an R.E.M.E Armourer. Who has worked on, handled. & inspected. hundreds of thousands of L1 series of bayonets. During their Service Time !....