bayonetman Posted December 15, 2015 Share #26 Posted December 15, 2015 A military test in the mid-1950s showed that the M4 bayonet was deficient in two major areas: 1. The stud and attachment method was weak and often broke when stressed in bayonet training. 2. The catches were too small and did not protrude far enough from the latch plate and releasing the bayonet was sometimes difficult. By the time of the test however, the carbine was on its way out, and it was really too late to provide a stronger stud on the carbine and enlarge the catches (although the catches could have been fairly easily modified if they had wanted to). Of the plastic handled M4s produced after WW2 only the TNM and Imperial contracts were for bayonets that were for actual US issue (and even some of the Imperial production went overseas under Military Aid Programs). The Conetta and Bren-Dan contracts were for issue under the MAP and few of those actually went into US military issue. These points were probably looked into and addressed in the M7 as the stud and attachment slots were enlarged for strength and the catches protruded much further from the latch plate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKIPH Posted December 19, 2015 Share #27 Posted December 19, 2015 This is a picture M.H. Cole has on pg 119, Book III., of the experimental M7 that was being designed for the M16 w/ Grenade Launcher (M203 I presume). Tried to post previously but my printer/copier was not updated to work with Windows 10 yet. My daughter came by and fixed for me. Note it was made from an M4 bayonet. SKIP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jw517 Posted December 19, 2015 Author Share #28 Posted December 19, 2015 Now that's neat! Looks like a m4 though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bayonetman Posted December 19, 2015 Share #29 Posted December 19, 2015 The bayonet that Skip shows is for the Springfield Type 2 SPIW (Special Purpose Individual Weapon) of 1966. There were a lot of different versions by Springfield and a number of commercial companies. The program finally died without any weapon being chosen. For more information you can see http://world.guns.ru/assault/usa/spiw-e.html. It was not connected to the M16 program. I have attached a photo of what I THINK is the version that was to use this specific bayonet. As mentioned there were several variations, but this is the one I feel this specific M4 bayonet was modified to fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKIPH Posted December 19, 2015 Share #30 Posted December 19, 2015 Gary, here's where my confusion comes from on the picture. The top of the picture has "Bayonet M7 (standard)" printed on it. Have never seen or heard of the SPIW before. WOW! This rifle looks like it fires .30 Carbine based on the size of the magazine. The grenade launcher magazine, if that is what I it is, sure looks too small for 40mm grenade rounds. Anyway, thanks for the info, very interesting. Gotta do some research on the SPIW rifles. SKIP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKIPH Posted December 19, 2015 Share #31 Posted December 19, 2015 Found out a little more info on the US SPIW. From what I gathered the program had started in the 50s. This is the 1966 version. This weapon is in 7.62 NATO. I'm getting sidetracked from the original M7 bayonet w/ M4 pommel. Sorry! SKIP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porterkids Posted December 19, 2015 Share #32 Posted December 19, 2015 I have a couple of SPIW bayonets pictured here: http://usmilitaryknives.com/porters_page_6.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKIPH Posted December 20, 2015 Share #33 Posted December 20, 2015 porterkids_ Thanks for the reference. Very interesting, and informative. Just checked out the M7 we started out with on this thread. Bidding is at $1050 w/ two days to go. This could get interesting. SKIP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porterkids Posted December 20, 2015 Share #34 Posted December 20, 2015 I've been wrong too many times in the past to count, but something just isn't right with that piece. Too many red flags waving for me to be comfortable with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jw517 Posted December 21, 2015 Author Share #35 Posted December 21, 2015 It scares me ! Hope the buyer knows more than we do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sactroop Posted December 21, 2015 Share #36 Posted December 21, 2015 IMHO, pieces like this are a bit too speculative to commit a lot of money to without more solid provenance. The bidding so far looks to be between two parties. Hopefully they have more reasons than just the story to commit so much to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jw517 Posted December 21, 2015 Author Share #37 Posted December 21, 2015 Ya have to ask yourself though,the blade looks good,the guard is good,the handle I think is good if it's plastic of some sort. What kind of a idiot would try to make a really rare bayonet look more important yet?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKIPH Posted December 21, 2015 Share #38 Posted December 21, 2015 I still think it's legit! Based on the first few sentences of Bill Humes M7 site. it just seems like a whole lot of work to put on, and make an M4 pommel fit an early M7. I'm sure it could be done, I know later M7 pommels could be used to replace a missing one. It just doesn't look rebuilt to me. Only issue I can see is no line of white on the blade. I'd like to think it's a rare early one. SKIP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jw517 Posted December 22, 2015 Author Share #39 Posted December 22, 2015 I can't see that portion of the blade cause of the lighting in the pic. It may not be sharpened at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKIPH Posted December 22, 2015 Share #40 Posted December 22, 2015 Curious to see what final outcome is on bidding, 22 hours left. SKIP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Misfit 45 Posted December 22, 2015 Share #41 Posted December 22, 2015 I'm not a player in this auction so I'm just watching the circus just like everyone else. Just from observation, I would think that everything about this bayonet is correct except for the latch plate. Maybe Bill would disagree. If it is correct in every way, but somewhere along the line, the latch plate went missing, then why would anyone put the wrong latch plate on the bayonet especially with what seems to be great care and skill? This unlikely possibility is so stark and so strains credulity, it descends to the point of being absurd. Which leaves us with at least the POSSIBILITY that this is indeed a prototype. Maybe it is a one-of-a-kind failure, as with so many others, that get discarded when proven unsatisfactory. That said, I'm not betting that much money just to be proven wrong later. It is fun to watch though. Marv Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jw517 Posted December 22, 2015 Author Share #42 Posted December 22, 2015 Ya only live once! No guts no glory! Nothing ventured,nothing gained! I might just drop a couple grand on it. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKIPH Posted December 22, 2015 Share #43 Posted December 22, 2015 I fully concur with Marv. Fun to watch! SKIP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jw517 Posted December 22, 2015 Author Share #44 Posted December 22, 2015 I was just kidding. I've never even bought a lottery ticket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bayonetman Posted December 22, 2015 Share #45 Posted December 22, 2015 My personal opinion is that there is a problem. The blade (although it might be the photo) looks worn - the markings and edges do not appear sharp. If it is correct with that latchplate, it would have to be a prototype as I have never seen it on a production version. Why would a prototype blade show wear? Maybe I just don't know enough about it. Also wonder about the blade marking, I would have thought that a true "first model" or prototype would not have been marked with the full marking like this, which in my OPINION would not have been used on a very early blade - I would look for just the one line Colt marking if it was marked at all. Agreed, it would take quite a bit of work to "fake" something like this, and I may be totally wrong, I certainly don't know much about the early Colt bayonets and stand perfectly ready to be proven incorrect. But I would also like more provenance before I would spend that kind of money. I have never been all that interested in Test - Prototype - Experimental bayonets. Sure, I would like to have them, and if I saw one I could afford I would probably buy it, but I am personally more attracted to the "issue" items. About the only Test model I would really like to have (but will never be able to afford) would be the 1944 T2 experimental. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccyooper Posted December 22, 2015 Share #46 Posted December 22, 2015 As the price goes up you can see why someone would create a knife/bayonet like this. If you recall one of our forum members restored a green handled bayo not to long ago (missing latch?) and I believe it looked very good. Just saying. Maybe a few demiled bayos leaked out of an old collection and are working their way to the market. There I go again with the negative vibes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jw517 Posted December 22, 2015 Author Share #47 Posted December 22, 2015 Are you bidding on it?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jw517 Posted December 22, 2015 Author Share #48 Posted December 22, 2015 We can all pitch in and buy it . Then we can dissect it and find it the truth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccyooper Posted December 22, 2015 Share #49 Posted December 22, 2015 If you are referring to me, I have no interest in purchasing it. Good luck to whoever does though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EDDY78 Posted December 22, 2015 Share #50 Posted December 22, 2015 Just wanted to post some possible info for you guys on this. I have seen this bayonet ( I believe based on the unusual m4 pommel) floating around the internet for the last few years. A guy had posted about it on ar15.com not to long ago trying to get info about it. Also I seen it for sale about 2-3 years ago on www.bayonet.com I am sure somebody could email him and confirm because he had pictures that showed the nick in the handle in line with the slot of the pommel. Pretty distinct identification mark my opinion. If that is the cause the story of getting it from a guy who worked at colt is not true. My opinion is if the brown handle riveted bayonet is thought to be the prototype and had the M7 pommel on it then way go backwards unless somebody can produce a Colt prototype rifle with an m4 latch. 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