NO. 5 bayonet?

[32ndgeorgia]

What was the thinking of the creators of the No. 5 bayonet? They abandoned the style of the No.4 and the handle is shorter than it should be for a good grip as needed on a fighting knife. I am perplexed.

I can see the need for a utility/fighting knife and having it also be a bayonet lightens the load of the soldier. What happened?

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.

[marysdad]

Seeing that the basic No. 5 design set the pattern for British bayonets for about 40 years, until adoption of the SA80 bayonet, suggests that it was rather well liked.

[Peter Laidler]

I was a bit perplexed by 32nd's judgement too! Of all the thousands and thousands of them that I've handled and spoken to users about in the past, I've never heard a bad word and especially about the handle/grip being too short. Any notion of it being a fighting knife as such was purely secondary. It was a bayonet for stabbing, hacking, slashing, gouging at faces, eyes and bodies........ and anything else more or less macabre that you could possibly do. It was well thought out too in my opinion because the tough blade remained so because it was not contaminated by welding. The cross piece was held in place with rivets and the pommell was rivetted on too.

I think that the designers (I think it was a Wilkinson design on contract....) obviously had an eye on the future too because their little £3 or so bayonet (it was approx £10 as an assembly - inc the scabbard in the 1969 VAOS list if my memory serves me correctly) surely must have taken the prize as an inflation busting investment

[Beerhunter]

What was the thinking of the creators of the No. 5 bayonet?

This is what I have picked up over the years:

The original research that produced the No.4 Mk.1 bayonet suggested that, as the Romans found out, thrusting something pointy just a couple inches intro ones torso was enough to ruin most people's day. However the Mk.II, lacking the Mk.I's cruciform, was the one that was actually deployed and the wounds that it caused were not considered to be nasty enough and so more research suggested a Bowie blade would be better, hence the No.5.

I have also heard that it was thought that the Japanese would be less "frightened by the Mk.II than by a bladed bayonet.

As Peter has said it was probably a good decision because the blade was used for the: No.4 Mk.VII and Mk.9. The bayonet was used unmodified on the L2 SMG and finally (modified) was used on the L1A1 SLR. In which guise it was last used in action by British Infantry in the Falklands War. (I bet that someone is going to contradict me here.)

[nzl1a1collector]

The British L1A1 and L1A2 and Australian L1A2 Bayonets were based directly on the Canadian designed Bayonet, which was approved as the finalised design for the Rifle Steering Committee (RSC).

[Peter Laidler]

Ah........, wasn't that just the design of the actual CATCH and mechanism though KtK? I seem to recall that while the new catch mechanism ( a catch, spring, plug and screw) was more complicated, it was more suited to the design of the new slim-line (?) fluted flash eliminator (designed at Shrivenham incidentally.....).

For the Canadians to have 'designed' that bayonet from the word go, and I know you're going to call me an old cynic here, but I wouldn't mind betting that they had a sneaky little peek at the No5 bayonet while we weren't looking. The L1A1 just looks like........, well...... you know...... and the blades.....well.... And they both fit into the same scabbard......... I bet they didn't design that as well did they? The rascalls!

[Beerhunter]

That's a lot more than I though Peter. Until today, I was under the impression that the only new bit of the "design" was the diameter of the ring to fit the SLR's barrel.

[32ndgeorgia]

I stand corrected.

[Peter Laidler]

No 32nd, not corrected. Everyone has an opinion and your is as valid as anyone elses and worth as much air time too

The original thinking for the L1A1 bayonet was that it was to have wood grips too. Mainly to keep the grips cool from the heat of the flash from the dissipating blast of gas from the 'new' eliminator. Good idea but in practice, the venting gas from the bottom of the flash eliminator just blew the grips off according to my old boss, Maurice Fogwell. To solve the problem they had to use the now standard steel grips. To prevent them heating up, you'll notice that the top/side surfaces are bevelled away in a direct line with the bottom flutes of the flash eliminator. The flash and therefore the heat are blasted to the sides of the grips. Clever eh?

Good question 32nd!

[nzl1a1collector]

The Canadian design of Bayonet AND Flash Eliminator was approved as the Standard by the RSC in Nov 1955 for the Commonwealth rifles. Their bayonet incorporated the redesigned Pommel (smaller), Catch (smaller), Cross-piece (Smaller) and metal grips (cheaper). The cross-piece and pommel were to be riveted to the blade. It was from about this time Canada started to produce No. 5, Mk. 1 Scabbards for their own use.

I'm sure the British proposal would of been to of used a modified No. 5, Mk. 1 Bayonet, like they did for the No. 6 Bayonet and just changed the cross-piece to suit the new Flash Eliminator for the C1/L1A1. This is probably were the reports of wood handled L1A1 bayonets originated from? They would of been the British samples of bayonet for the new rifles and as Peter has pointed out it was a very successful design.