A question for the Advanced Bayonet Collector regarding FAL Bayonts

[nzl1a1collector]

During my research and study into all things FAL/L1A1 I have come to the realisation, like with most fields of collecting that some terminology, designations or models can be fanciful especially when it comes time to have things written down in book form.
In FN literature their bayonets are simply referred to as TYPE A, TYPE B, TYPE C Bayonets. Each is a totally separate style of bayonet, with a number of variations within the TYPE.

Basically I'm not a “Bayonet collector”, my interests only deal with the L1A1/FAL rifles and their accessories, accruements and support items therefore I have limited bayonet book references to check through (Skennerton, Janzen's Notebook 1997 and Kiesling 2009). But since I have such a narrow field I can study, examine and compare the hell out of it to come up with these perplexing questions.

My puzzle relates to the designation that has now become the 'Standard' for the following FN made FAL Bayonets in books and on the WWW, which are:-
M1953
M1963
M1965

Can anyone tell me which book/Author has the earliest use of these terms?

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.

[Peter Laidler]

We have a sort of strange L1A1 bayonet at work that I'd like identifying KtK. Maybe this is a good opportunity to ask you and the real expoerts out there in forumland..............

[Peter Laidler]

We have got an L1A1 bayonet at work without grips and the old full length protruding catch The rear end is marked D-arrow-D with a small figure 8 and the same figure 8 is marked on the left side of the handle under the grip (no grips so number is visible) What is different is that there is a clearance hole all the way through the pommell exactly as per the No1 bayonet. This hole hasn't been done after final assembly because the end of the handle intrudes into the first 1/3rd of the hole. That is to say that the REAR 2/3rds of the hole is clear, right through and would let dust and dirt out but the front third is blocked at the centre by the handle part of the blade.

The blade is the Australian/Canadian form, rounded instead of square cut fuller and the D-D is the Australian type WD mark.

Unless you were actually looking, it looks just the same as any other bog standard Pom, Can or Aust L1A1 bayonet.

Anyone got any ideas. It can't be some 'get rid of the dust/dirt that stopping it fixing to the flash eliminator trial' can it? I ask, because we did a series of similar trials on the SA80 rifle to stop the build-up of crud behind the trigger. Apparently some soldiers found that being unable to squeeze the trigger because of a build up of mud and snow behind it was a bit of a hindrance on operations.............

Any of your papers refer to this KtK? Seen anything like it you bayontee forumers out there?

[nzl1a1collector]

Its possible the bayonet is an Australian Trials No. 6 Bayonet for their lightened rifle or maybe one of their commando daggers?. It all depends on what it looks like, how long the blade is, the internal Muzzle Ring Diameter, how many holes are in the tang etc. I look forward to seeing the photos

[Peter Laidler]

I took all that info KtK. Blade length, MRD and holes in tang identical to bog standard. In fact it's absolutely bog standard* to the usual L1A1/2 except for the hole across the pommell. It fits an L1A1 rifle.

*Bog Standard. British Army technical term. Similar to 'NATO please' when asked for preference. Indicates '.......just give me what's on the bloody shelf and get a move on. I haven't got all day to stand here faffing around.......'

[Peter Laidler]

Note the first pic just shows the figure 8 on the tang, in front of the pommel. The same figure 8 is stamped onto the rear of the pommel with the letters DD. There are no other markings.

Could this be some idea to create a clearance hole?

[gew8805]

The "D /|\ D" mark is an Australian property mark isn't it?

[Peter Laidler]

Yes it is. The DD was definately used in my time there but is it still in use? But any ideas why it's be in England, preesumably at the Small Arms School via the trials wing at some time.

I mentioned this at work and someone said that we purchased a lot (?) of 2nd hand/used Lithgow rifles towards the end of its life here to supplement our dwindling stockpiles of L1A1's pending the arrival of the SA80/L85 (Yes, we did too.....). These rifles could have come with bayonets. While some bayonets were pulled from Ordnance for some sort of trial, some Australian ones were among those used. Not my idea of a plausable reason but that's another scenario

[nzl1a1collector]

Thanks for the photos Peter, they help a lot. Here's my observations of the piece.

The blade and layout is Australian L1A2 bayonet as you said.

The D/|\D is VERY unusual and not normally found on any Australian made L1A2 bayonet in general service. There are lots with serial number/rack number/unit details, but NO Ownership markings.

I would surmise the '8' is a serial number and that this bayonet is an example/specimen/evaluation item. This would account for the D/|\D marking and s/n number so that its assessment could be linked to the supporting report of its evaluation.

I've lightened up the pic and can see there is no assembly slot on the underside of the Pommel. This is another feature that was omitted from Australian production, it seems at the same time the bayonet was fully phosphated from 1962 onwards.

First off I've had a look though the Rifle Steering Committee (RSC) minutes of 1960 (9th) and there's no mention of any sort of modification of this sort proposed by Australia. It dose however detail the acceptance of Australia's wishes to be allowed to change the shape of the end of the Fullers to the distinct 'rounded' shape. This better suited their milling procedures at the time.

I would hazard a guess this bayonet dates from circa 1961, and is probably an evaluation example sent to Britain as part of the RSC procedures. The most likely reason for evaluation is a proposal to change/remove the assembly slot or in this case use a traverse hole through the Pommel to aid in the assembly of the Pommel to the Tang of the Blade to speed up production of the bayonet.

Its hard to tell from the photo, but in your opinion Peter, is the Pommel brazed or riveted to the Tang?

Version 2 and Version 3 Australian L1A2 Bayonets (Top to Bottom)
Australian L1A2 Bayonet Version 2, circa 1960/61 (rounded fullers, 1st inch of blade phosphated, assembly slot on underside of Pommel)
Australian L1A2 Bayonet Version 3, circa 1962 (rounded fullers, all phosphated finish, no assembly slot)
Australian L1A2 Bayonet Version 3 onwards, circa 1993 (this uncompleted bayonet was part of the 11 tons of 'scrap' sold off from Lithgow to a US based group in the 1990's.)

[tankhunter]

Note the first pic just shows the figure 8 on the tang, in front of the pommel. The same figure 8 is stamped onto the rear of the pommel with the letters DD. There are no other markings.

Could this be some idea to create a clearance hole?

Peter, It's ONLY a theory, But. Do you THINK there MAY be a Possibility that this could be a Rivit hole that was drilled in the Incorrect position & utilised? It obviously would not be to Spec, BUT, COULD have been used as it does not affect the assembly as you can see! Just a thought......................
I know from my Own Post Service Expierience, that some manufacturers are reluctant to cast incorrectly manufactured componants IF, they can be reworked. There is also the fact that manufacturers CAN get concessions in Manufacturing contracts. I have acually seen this done, many times! Again, just my own thoughts/ expiriences.............