jw517 Posted December 14, 2015 Share #1 Posted December 14, 2015 Anybody see this before? Could it be a fake? http://www.ebay.com/ulk/itm/121839054765 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jw517 Posted December 14, 2015 Author Share #2 Posted December 14, 2015 The seller says it was left to him by his uncle who got it from a friend who worked at Colt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorin6 Posted December 14, 2015 Share #3 Posted December 14, 2015 Could be possible, see Bill Hume's web page: http://www.usmilitaryknives.com/humes_m7_02.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jw517 Posted December 14, 2015 Author Share #4 Posted December 14, 2015 Looked at it. Don't see any mention of this latch plate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jw517 Posted December 14, 2015 Author Share #5 Posted December 14, 2015 pics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKIPH Posted December 14, 2015 Share #6 Posted December 14, 2015 I believe that very early M7s were based on the M4 bayonet. There were plenty of M4s around, why not use a proven piece of equipment. It's the same size bayonet with a larger barrel ring. You can place an M7 bayonet on an M1 Carbine, I don't doubt that the M4 would fit on an M16 if the flash suppressor where removed. The larger pommel was an improvement, giving the user larger retainers, easier to depress for release of bayonet. If the bayonet came out of COLT, it was probably a very early ( hate to say "prototype") version. SKIP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorin6 Posted December 14, 2015 Share #7 Posted December 14, 2015 Looked at it. Don't see any mention of this latch plate. On mixing the M4 and M7: "BACKGROUND: In the very early 1960's Colt purchased the rights to the AR-15 rifle from Armalite in the hopes they could secure a military contract for the controversial rifle. Military specifications required that the rifle be produced with bayonet mounting capabilities. The M4 bayonet was considered for adoption to fit the new rifle but was found to be unsuitable. There are rare examples of bayonets that were produced in very limited numbers that have features of the M4 and M7 bayonets when they were designing the bayonet for the AR-15....some examples had M7 pommels and cross guards mounted onto standard M4 bayonets." On the brown handles: "It should be noted here that some of the original handles for these new bayonets were brown molded plastic painted OD green while later ones were molded in OD green." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jw517 Posted December 14, 2015 Author Share #8 Posted December 14, 2015 So,it is possible to have it the other way also. M4 latch plate and m-7 blade. Reasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jw517 Posted December 14, 2015 Author Share #9 Posted December 14, 2015 Now the big question,what will someone pay for this bayonet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bayonetman Posted December 14, 2015 Share #10 Posted December 14, 2015 I have no real comment to make here as I do not have any of the earlier M7 bayonets until the Colt marked Imperial, However, just to be sure of a couple of points made here: If an M4 bayonet was used to create an experimental M7 by replacing the guard, the would have had to modify M4 latch plates cut to fit the M7 lug (unless the early lugs were smaller than the later versions). The slot in the M7 is wider (almost exactly 0.50 inch with the M4 being circa 0.365 inch) and higher (0.160 inch vs 0.140 inch) and the tang of the M7 (back of guard to front of latch plate) is about 0.15 inch longer, so the ISSUE versions are not truly interchangeable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKIPH Posted December 14, 2015 Share #11 Posted December 14, 2015 Gary, Interesting, always thought the M4s could fit on an M16 bayonet lug. Just went and "eyeballed" an M7 w/ an M4. Not doubt about the size difference in the slots, the M4 latch plate would have to be enlarged. Thanks for keeping me straight. SKIP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jw517 Posted December 14, 2015 Author Share #12 Posted December 14, 2015 Does one treat the bayonet in question as a real item or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bayonetman Posted December 14, 2015 Share #13 Posted December 14, 2015 Just my OPINION - I would want to see some proof or provenance before I would consider it correct. Not to say that it is not correct, but I have questions. One would be the marking, as I THINK this is a later mark that would not have been used on a prototype - however, I stand prepared to be corrected. The latch plate is of course the most questionable part. It is not out of reason that a very early prototype may have had a latch plate modeled after that used on the M4, so I would not say Impossible. Not that it has anything to do with this particular one, but the few Green handle (painted over brown I believe from the description) would be priced (or sold for) MUCH higher than this one. Of course it could be that the seller knows it is uncommon but is not familiar with the normal price for a normal green handled early Universal Industries specimen. The scabbard is of course much earlier (WW2) than the bayonet, and I am not sure that a prototype would have been directly associated with a scabbard anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jw517 Posted December 14, 2015 Author Share #14 Posted December 14, 2015 Looking at it from the pic,the slot is a m-7(wider than m4) The handle is brown under the green paint meaning it must be a early example cause they were molded out of green plastic later. I think its authentic!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jw517 Posted December 14, 2015 Author Share #15 Posted December 14, 2015 Came to him from his uncle,who got it from a friend who worked at Colt. He thinks it's worth 2000.00 he told me. He did some homework. I want to say I'm sorry for bringing it up. Made you guys a lot of work. I thought it would be a yes or no deal. I know one thing,I learned a lot in one day! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKIPH Posted December 14, 2015 Share #16 Posted December 14, 2015 Just to throw something in the mix. In Cole's Book III, pg 119, there is a photo of an M4 bayonet that was designed to fit an M16, w/ a grenade launcher. (Not sure if was an M203), you will note it has the M4 pommel, and leather handle. I just switched to Windows 10, and have lost "my" ability to copy and paste, so that I can post it here. So, if someone can do that, I'd appreciate it. Will try to get my computer whiz daughter to talk me thru getting printer back on line. SKIP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jw517 Posted December 14, 2015 Author Share #17 Posted December 14, 2015 The seller tells me he was old it was made before the Vietnam war and before Colt was awarded the contract. He also said the handle looks like wood or some kind of fiber. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jw517 Posted December 14, 2015 Author Share #18 Posted December 14, 2015 WELL! I asked how wide the slot is and he said 3/8 in. That's m-4. Hmmm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jw517 Posted December 14, 2015 Author Share #19 Posted December 14, 2015 In my mind it means nothing if it's 3/8 or 1/2 cause if it IS a prototype you have to start with something. Why not start with what worked before,the m-4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKIPH Posted December 14, 2015 Share #20 Posted December 14, 2015 Maybe the stud on the early M16s were smaller. Changes were made for years on that rifle. Enlarging the stud would be normal progression. SKIP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jw517 Posted December 15, 2015 Author Share #21 Posted December 15, 2015 I think all depends on if the blade is early or not. Gary seemed to think it was not the first type.Anybody know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sactroop Posted December 15, 2015 Share #22 Posted December 15, 2015 Looked at some pictures of an early Armalite AR, (serial # under 10). There was no provision on it for a bayonet lug. I can imagine that it's possible that starting out they might look into adapting existing items to the new platform. However speculative ideas are how rumors grow legs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jw517 Posted December 15, 2015 Author Share #23 Posted December 15, 2015 It's a fact that the m-4 was deemed unacceptable on the ar15. They had to come to that conclusion somehow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorin6 Posted December 15, 2015 Share #24 Posted December 15, 2015 A couple of things. Bill Hume, who studied these things far more than most of us, has put as much information as he could get on his web site. Secondly, the latch plate/pommel on the green handled M7s were welded when they were finally produced, and from the pictures this one looks peened, not welded. Finally the guard is certainly for the green handled M7 and not a later M7 and the handle (brown painted green) is correct so the only question is whether the latch plate is correct, and I don't think there is any definative answer available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jw517 Posted December 15, 2015 Author Share #25 Posted December 15, 2015 I'm thinking the last phrase there is the outcome here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now