This is an M4 of Interest

[SKIPH]

Hey Gang! Found this on ebay this morning! It's a PAL Guard marked M4, with a PAL M3 blade-dated. Has a leather washer handle, great finish, and the pommel looks correct. Ebay # 162304366105. Buy now price $1295. I do not know the seller. At a glance this looks legit. This will be a nice one to study. Any input? Can someone please post the picture. Check it out! SKIP

[siclfde]

Here you go Skip. Good looking piece

[sactroop]

I'll play, although I only have two M4's.

First impression from the photo looks like a set that would be hard to upgrade.

The blade marking looks good, from here.

Can't see from the photo if there maybe signs of the bayonet having been assembled recently. Looking forward to input from others here regarding their impressions on the parkerizing, details regarding the handle. Do the two seem to match as regards wear and handling? From the photo, the blade looks like it hasn't been taken in and out of that M8A1 sheath much if at all. Since a piece like this may have been produced from different sources, likely in Japan (?), are there anomalies that would be expected from such a source?

[jw517]

It's on eBay and expensive per.Skip. Looks like a must have if you can pay for it!

[SKIPH]

When you look at all the pics on the ebay ad, it really looks legit. I looked hard at the pommel, pins not ground, top not ground down flat, looks good (but that would be my only questions so far). Finish looks original, and not scabbard worn, leather handle looks good , but everything else is new, why is leather so dark.. Guard is PAL stamped also. New mint scabbard! Just compared pommel stamp to my PAL M4, really close. I think it's a good one. Normally when you see the ones rebuilt in Japan, the blades have some grinding which slightly distorts shape, then refinished in a light gray parkerizing. Price, well, I just can't shell out $1300 for an M4, no matter how great it looks to me. Looking for more feedback on our study M4 today. SKIP

[remman]

There are two red flags that I can see. The first is that the sharpened edges appear to be parkerized over the normally bright line. The second is that, to my eyes anyway, the peening was done by individual strokes of a chisel. In my experience a rotating tool would have been used to peen the pommel. A similar piece with Case markings sold on Ebay recently for about $170.

[sactroop]

When it comes to PAL made M4's. Are there examples of handles without plastic spacers?

Also on the bayonet in the OP the spacing of the six grooves are not identical to a known NIB example I have for reference. Not making a claim here, just encouraging discussion for my own selfish education.

[SKIPH]

In response to remman's observation, all of the converted M3s to M4s were refinished, and I have yet to see one that had a line of white. I own two, Camillus , and RCC conversions. Good observation. As far as the peening, agree it would have been machine stamped, but if this was an early attempt by PAL, would they have had a proper machine to peen M4 pommels? Who knows? Sactroop has a good argument too, but it would more than likely have been based on a PAL M3, 6 groove leather washered handle. So I can see this. It's a great piece for speculation, that's for sure. Hoping we get Gary Cunningham's two cents. I do have a hard time believing that one would fabricate this piece, but you never know these days! SKIP

[SKIPH]

Checked one of my guard marked PAL 6 groove M3s. Pommel peening is about identical, to include the punch hole in the center. Getting interesting. SKIP

[bayonetman]

I hesitate to comment on any item that I don't have in my hand as some of the various fakes/etc. are so good that it is very hard to tell from photos. The PAL marking on the guard is not quite what I would expect, but not wildly off either. There were certainly more than one die used over the course of production and they may have, or probably did, vary somewhat.

 

Supposedly at least it would have had to have been a blade that was for whatever reason not assembled as a M3 and then turned up and used on the M4 - unusual in that the few that I feel did happen that way were the later non-dated blades that were still on hand at the time of the conversion from M3 to M4. But not impossible.

 

The conversions in Japan in the 1950s time period should not have marked guards - what information I have turned up says that the guards and latch plates were new made (although it is not impossible that Standard Products did make the latch plates) and it is likely that the guards were unmarked. I find it quite unlikely that a PAL guard would have been available to use on the conversion. It is my understanding that these converted M3s went to South Korea to help rearm their forces after the Korean War so they got hard use and are scarce today.

 

Here is a photo - top to bottom: standard style PAL marking, marking from the bayonet in question, and mark on a known Chinese commercial copy.

 

[thorin6]

Looking this over and comparing it to my PAL M4 and my PAL Blade Marked M3, I find pluses and minuses. I don't like the stamping on the guard, and the peen does not look right. As for the peen, both the peen on my M3 and my M4 has a symmetry in the strikes that the M4 under discussion does not have. The peen looks hand made, and certainly the machinery for putting on the peen existed from the M3 production.

On the other hand, the blade markings look spot-on, the faint Ordnance mark on the bottom of the guard is consistent, and the markings on the pommel appear correct. I don't have any problems with the leather washers and spacers either.

I am somewhat skeptical that a dated Blade would be used in the M4 production. There is evidence of both guard marked and blade marked/dated M3s existing; but I would think, in general, that all dated blades would have been used up by the time of M4 production, although as Gary states, not impossible.

[Misfit 45]

Hi,

To say that I am skeptical is an understatement. I cant' get over that fact that a perfect blade dated M3 blade just happened to survive the rest of the M3 production. Was PAL afraid to use this blade due to the suspicion of the date weakening the blade, yet later decided to use it anyway? When was this made? If it was made in the very early M4 production using left over M3 blades, then why does it NOT have the "thin line" cross guard marking that PAL seems to have used on the earliest M4s? If it was made later in production, why all of a sudden did they come up with an M3 blade dated blade to throw into the mix of M4 blades, or, if made later, why not use the plastic spacers? If it was made post war for the Korean conflict (or after) how did they come up with a pristine blade dated M3 blade? Just doesn't make sense.

Marv

[sactroop]

Having spent sometime in my youth on various production assembly lines, I can see where it would be quite possible for an early blade to miss final assemble well after they changed from the earlier blade. Very often a final assembly station is resupplied with parts through out the day. In an ideal situation the assembler should not have to wait for more parts to arrive. It could be possible that a bin holding the blades for final assembly didn't actually run out of all the blades it contained.

 

SKIPH, the two examples I was referring to were both PAL M4's. One is on page 181 of Bill Walters book on the M3/M4's. The spacing on the grooves is different than the knife in the OP. I'm not saying that the spacers and different groove pattern don't make it a PAL made M4 I'm just noting the difference.

[SKIPH]

Great comments all ! I'm split on a lot of the same items. I just don't know. If it's fake it's sure been done well, if it's a legit PAL factory made version, I can see some of the things we've noted being possible. Keep in mind there was a transition period between M3-M4, and we know they would use stock on hand while tooling up. Excellent subject to debate. SKIP

[Misfit 45]

ARE THOSE SPACERS? Still can't quite confirm. The little gouge in the "spacer" at the cross guard, might be evidence of a leather washer, it's hard to tell. If it is leather, it seems to be a different finish or color than the rest of the grips. That might change things.

 

Also, here is a cross guard that has what I consider Pal's coarse stamping. Similar to the example in question. The M has a little off set where the left vertical line slightly crowds the angled line. You can see it more prominently on the M4 in question. This guard seams to have been used on later assemblies of M4s, however, as with the two styles on AERIAL M4s, I haven't seen enough PALs with staked pins to confirm.

Marv

[remman]

I was looking a little closer at the photo of the blade under discussion and, to my eyes, the distance between the true edge termination and the face of the crossguard seems a little narrow, which leads me to believe the blade may have been shortened. Since I only collect bayonets I can't say what is normal for an M3 but the Pal M4 in my collection measures 3/16". The thickness of the crossguard is 1/8". Production tolerances may account for this, so I look forward to further opinions from fellow collectors and enthusiasts.

[SKIPH]

For what ever it's worth? Found this M4 bayonet on ebay, with a US M3 UTICA blade. Ebay # 252672365004. The seller has a "buy now" price of $100. (Do not know seller) You'll note how the blade was re-ground, and refinished. It's not a bad price for this M4. I have no interest in buying this one, but I wanted to make anyone who might be, aware it's on ebay. Check it out! SKIP

[bobcat87]

It looks to me to be dirty maroon colored spacers. I have a M4 bayonet with a blade marked M3 Utica blade. It was discussed in an earlier M3/M4 Conversions thread. I believe it to be one of the 1950's Japan builds for the US. Mine also has Maroon colored spacers and that beautiful "white line" edge referred to above. Mine is not quite as nice as the one above as it has a few leather spacer impressions, but no cracked leather. I will post some pics. Mine can be had with scabbard for $750 or trade for a nice 1918 MK1 and scabbard.