Thoughts on UK made No9 bayonets

[Peter Laidler]

Some thoughts about UK production of the No9 bayonet. This was brought about over several years and comments in the previous thread about those bayonets said to have been made by:
M48/Buggins & Co, Redditch,
M49/Francis Barnett motor cycle makers, Coventry and
M50/Byfords Ltd, West Bromwich.

Here’s the thing……… None of these manufacturers appear to have NEVER been involved in bayonet or sword or indeed, any other even similar manufacturing process during the war period. But they were(?) seemingly chosen post war to make….. bayonets of all things! They weren’t even making parts such as catches, springs or plungers for the zillions of No4 bayonets made locally. Butts and sears for Sten guns was as close as it gets…… And while we’re here, why would these 3x manufacturers selected over the several LOCAL manufacturers who were engaged in the manufacture of the mechanically similar No4 ‘spike’ socket part?

Is it just me - or has anyone else wondered about the IDENTICAL format of the M-48, 49 and 50 marking/impressed stamp of these bayonets? That simple fact and the fact that this was a post war design from 1949, long after the need for the secrecy of code letters. Forget the Enfield DE logo for the moment as it’s been there since pre-war and up until it closed!

And here’s another thing……. Can you think of any reason why the Nation would give these small orders to THREE relatively small engineering firms instead of its own government Ordnance factories that were desperately looking for post war work to keep them occupied and busy. Or give this knife work to any of those known for this type of work, such as Wilkinson or Sanderson locally….. or those that had and were already geared up to make the sockets.…… Nope, nor can I

So who did make these enigmatic M-48, 49, & 50 bayonets? I don’t even profess to know but if I was a betting man – or a guessing man – I’d say that those M-48, 49 and 50 marks are NOT manufacturers marks as such but a coincidental red-herring. The pragmatic part of me yells out ‘……it’s bleedin obvious…..’. What they are is a factory mark followed by the year mark. How does MALTBY 1948 sound? If it sounds far fetched I would argue that this small bayonet contract was handed to Maltby (?) in late 1948, when manufacture commenced there and hence the scarcity of M48 marked bayonets. Series production followed into ’49 and “50 at which point the old ROF Maltby factory closed for good after several years struggling to survive against the demand for its skilled mining workforce to return to the pits where coal was a strategic and vitally important commodity. Thereafter, No9 bayonet production went to Enfield.

And THAT is the very reason why the logo format is IDENTICAL except for the year change.
It’s also the probable reason why ’48 is scarce.
The reason why the consecutive numbers don’t or are HIGHLY unlikely to indicate three totally unlikely manufacturers
The reason why you can find No9 bayonets with two M- codes (M49 and 50 seen…..)

Just an afterthought now. The cost of the No9 bayonet (if you lost one…..) in 1965 was £2:20p. plus 90p for the scabbard. After that, it dropped off the Army VAOS list. (Mind you, the No5 turned in at £2:80p !)

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.

[browningautorifle]

A company not having experience isn't unusual, it's a low bidder thing isn't it? If they have metal work experience then the powers that be figure it's just one more thing for them to make...I expect the replacement price will reflect the exact cost to the crown also. The crown never charged "Times two" that I'm aware...

[Flying10uk]

I would say you are correct in saying the "M" probably stands for Maltby, Peter, and then followed by an abbreviated year. The reason that I say this is because I've noticed, especially on Bren mag components, that before the dispersal code system got up and running the first letter of the company who made the part is often seen stamped on the part, normally within a circle on WW2 produced items. First of all this started off as a suspicion/theory until I came across parts that had both the letter in the circle and the dispersal code stamped on them and this must have been done during the change-over period. I then checked that the letter matched the dispersal code which I thought it related to which it did.

Also the several Poole manufactured No9 bayonets which I have are marked with a "P" (within a circle if I remember correctly and without getting them out to check).

Is the "M" stamped on the No9 bayonet within a circle by any chance, not that this proves the point one way or the other?

[Peter Laidler]

I'\m not saying that it IS Maltby - it could be anything. But The M logo followed by 48, 49 or 50 is a manufacturer as opposed to a wartime manufacturers code. And NO - the M on these bayonets is just as shown in the earlier thread and the thread that we're directed to.

[Flying10uk]

We know that the "P" stands for Poole so it would seem logical that "M" stands for Maltby on the No9 bayonet which is really all I'm saying in Post 3.

[tankhunter]

And if anyone can turn up No.5 bayonets for the original cost of £2.80p. I will take the LOT Please!..........

[Flying10uk]

It's rare to see an original U.K. produced No5 bayonet for sale in any condition; I paid about £125 for mine several years ago.

[Peter Laidler]

Jeeeeees...... to think that with the tanks, where everyone was equipped with an SMG, we were knee deep in No5's......

[Flying10uk]

I have often wondered why the U.K. was apparently slow, post WW2, to switch from a bolt action rifle, standard issue service rifle, to a semi automatic rifle which other countries such as the USSR and USA had started to do during WW2. I have guessed/concluded that it must have been due to the financial costs involved in making the switch but there could have been other factors involved such as people in authority don't like change?

[Flying10uk]

Here are some pictures of my Enfield No9 bayonet and it is an excellent example, in my opinion, of the good/top quality workmanship being produced in the Enfield factory of the 1950s. The markings are neatly set out and deeply struck and the socket is finished to a much higher standard than is actually needed for practical purposes. There are a couple of small traces of blue paint on the socket of this example which I guess could indicate ex RAF service?