It appears that you are you're enjoying our Military Surplus Collectors Forums, but haven't created an account yet. As an unregistered guest, your are unable to post and are limited to the amount of viewing time you will receive, so why not take a minute to Register for your own free account now? As a member you get free access to our forums and knowledge libraries, plus the ability to post your own messages and communicate directly with other members. So, if you'd like to join our community, please CLICK HERE to Register !
Already a member? Login at the top right corner of this page to stop seeing this message.
What is interesting about the S-African No9 is that at Warminster we had an UZI with the barrel machined to accept a No9 bayonet. Never seen -or heard of one - since. But clearly, it was a factory job and not a saw-and-file job. I just assumed that it was South African because I had seen SA No9 bayonets and realised that SA used the Uzi It also seemed like an obvious choice for SA too, being prolific users of No4 type bayonets too
My Poole No 9, has a brass throated scabbard these have crept up in price now.
Poole made 200,000 No.9's so not overly rare but still the type is not often seen in any great numbers.
Apparently I have a twin to bears original post. I've had this forever can't remember exactly how long. Picked it up where I purchased most of my web gear. I grabbed it for little more than pocket change not long after picking up my Maltby. I figured it was a good match not realizing it was 13 years newer. Seems to be in unissued condition. It looks like the mouth of the scabbard is made of copper and the scabbard is definitely directional. It's been on display with my other bayonets since.
Just noticed with the photo from underneath that there's still some cosmolene in it.
Edit: I'm on the other side of the US from him and yet we've found the exact same thing in virtually the same condition decades apart, strange.
Last edited by oldfoneguy; 09-26-2022 at 06:04 PM.
I never really understood why the No9 blade was attached to the socket by 2x rivets over a large area and always remained as tight as a drum, whereas;
The No7 bayonet blade was attached to the sleeve (to which the pommel was attached and rotated) was attached by 4x rivets over a relatively small area and were constantly loose. A real PITA
The No7 bayonet blade was attached to the sleeve (to which the pommel was attached and rotated) was attached by 4x rivets over a relatively small area and were constantly loose. A real PITA
That whole thing acted like a loose assembly. All of it. I can only imagine how the bayonet attack course would loosen things up.
PM
Originally Posted by 
