Authentic WWII Kukri of not?

[Sapper740]

I purchased a lot of 3 kukris from a seller at a local Flea market for $35.00. Of the three I was only interested in one which has all the attributes of an issued kukri including being stamped with a crow's foot and 'India'. The other two were stamped Pakistan and were quite fancy so I believe they were made for the tourist market.
The kukri in question has the correct scabbard with leather attached to a wood former and has the Chakmak and Karda still in the scabbard. The plain wooden handle resembles the pictures I've seen of issued kukris and the fullers are present on both sides of the blade. Any thoughts?

[Aragorn243]

For $35, it doesn't really matter, that's a great price, I would have bought them. I'm no expert but I don't like the look of the stamps. If the stamps weren't on it, I'd say it's legit because not all were marked and it looks legit. The marks just look off, the broad arrow is too light and I don't recall India being stamped on military issue Kukri's.

I've been looking for a military (British) issue one off and on for years and they don't seem to be very common. I have a big one from WWI with Nepalese markings. It came from the Nepal arsenal and IMA.

[browningautorifle]

I say they're tourist knives because the real ones have a rack number stamped on them from the units. Mine came from a Gurkha unit and was lost in the field here, another was found with a rack number two digits away. Mine has a horn handle and no chrome. I had no scabbard so I made one. I've had it since about 1976.

[Sapper740]

Thank you for your input gentlemen, it is greatly appreciated. I'm going to hold on to the possibility my kukri is legit for a little while longer. I found a picture of an Indian soldier who was a member of the 4th Indian Division which was part of the British 8th Army in Africa wielding a kukri. If Indian soldiers were issued kukris then the possibility of them stamping "India" on them remains. That, and the scabbard being of the correct type and it's condition which suggests it is decades old lends credence to my thoughts it is an issued kukri.

[browningautorifle]

There IS the long told story of the "British issue Kukri" with the wood handle and broad arrow. Thing is here...they weren't Gurkhas so to me that's a copy. I can make a Kukri from a truck spring. What do I have then...

[Aragorn243]

Here's some good information on the five military issue types. While none mention being marked "India", it does say I believe in the MKIII section that those marked "Made in India" would be post India independence which would be 1949. WWII marks would be similar to bayonets, RFI, MWR, etc. So whether India would be still using the broad arrow after independence, I do no know.

I'm pretty sure mine is an MKII with no British markings.

1. The MK 1 (Pre-WW1) | Heritage Knives

[Sapper740]

There IS the long told story of the "British issue Kukri" with the wood handle and broad arrow. Thing is here...they weren't Gurkhas so to me that's a copy. I can make a Kukri from a truck spring. What do I have then...

Understood, and I'd love to have a true Gurkha issued and carried kukri but the question at hand is was the kukri I have in my possession issued by any legitimate military body. The picture I posted showed an Indian soldier holding a kukri in 1943 as stated in the caption. In my humble opinion there is a hierarchy of collectability which is WWII Gurkha kukri > WWII Indian kukri > tourist trade kukri but it begs the question, where did the Indian soldier in the picture in 1943 get his kukri and if he got it from stores how would it have been marked?

[Sapper740]

Here's some good information on the five military issue types. While none mention being marked "India", it does say I believe in the MKIII section that those marked "Made in India" would be post India independence which would be 1949. WWII marks would be similar to bayonets, RFI, MWR, etc. So whether India would be still using the broad arrow after independence, I do no know.

I'm pretty sure mine is an MKII with no British markings.

1. The MK 1 (Pre-WW1) | Heritage Knives

The picture I posted shows an Indian soldier holding a kukri in 1943 long before Indian independence so it wouldn't be unexpected if it still had the British stamp. Further, it wasn't just Gurkha and Indian troops that carried kukris, British and Australian troops that served in India and the Pacific theaters.

[browningautorifle]

the question at hand is was the kukri I have in my possession issued by any legitimate military body.

And of course I can't say. That may be lost to time.

it wasn't just Gurkha and Indian troops that carried kukris, British and Australian troops that served in India and the Pacific theaters.

That one I HAVE seen footage of.

[Aragorn243]

You didn't read the article I posted. India did not stamp bayonets "India", they stamped them with a minimum of the arsenal mark, RFI, MWR, JU, MIL and the RFI ones being the primary arsenal also had a crown and GRI on them.

WWII examples of the Kukri's in the article are marked with these arsenals, not "India". They did issue them, no ones disputing that, but "India" marked is very likely post independence. The broad arrow could have been added at any time, as I said, it doesn't look right to me.

I can't say that it isn't WWII, I'm saying I personally do not believe it is WWII for the reasons stated. You did ask for opinions, that's what I offered.

I can't say that mine is military issue, not officially to the UK for sure as it has no broad arrow. It is Nepalese, came from the Nepalese arsenal and appears to be an MKII which would be mid war on to the postwar period.

The British made their own also, these have British arsenal marks.