Milpar Colt M7

[Misfit 45]

Hi Folks,

This is my first Colt M7 made by Milpar. If I may, I’d like to document this very scarce bayonet for forum members, since the available information, whether on line or in bayonet books is sadly lacking. I’m not claiming to be an expert by any means, but I’m a fairly good observer. The information on this bayonet is only found in bits and pieces. I do not know of any source that delves into this subject in any more than a cursory way.

This forum is the best chance for collectors to learn about their hobby and in particular, this Milpar/Colt M7 bayonet.

Feel free to add to, and/or correct any information or any assumptions I may make.

Marv

 

 

[Misfit 45]

As you might expect, the Colt roll mark on the blade and the name on the cross guard are key to identifying the Milpar/Colt M7. In this case, the latch plate has the typical “V” shaped chevron which is found on most, if not all, “first contract” Milpar M7s (with or without the Colt roll mark). The chevron was dropped with later contracts.

 

 

[Misfit 45]

Many of you have heard of and have seen the Imperial/Colt M7. There is always at least one on ebay at any given time.

If you visit William Humes’ web page: http://www.usmilitaryknives.com/humes_m7_03.htm , you’ll see a good report on the subject. On the site, you will find that he has a photo that shows the Imperial/Colt and the Milpar/Colt side by side. They both have identical blades.

Gary Cunningham consulted with William Humes when writing about the M7 bayonet. In Gary’s book, the photo he used to show the blade of the Imperial/Colt M7, is exactly the same photo shown for the Mil[par/Colt M7; right down to the small pits in the blade.

I had wondered if Bill Humes may have made a mistake by showing two of the same bayonet. That thought did not last too long.

William Humes is the foremost M7 collector in the country. He knows his stuff. If he says the two blades are identical, then they are. Gary may have used the same photo because he knew that the blades were essentially the same anyway.

In the picture below, I show a Milpar/Colt on top and an Imperial/Colt on the bottom. Obviously they are different. That suggests that there are two versions of the Milpar/Colt M7 bayonet.

Since we know that one of the Milpar/Colt versions is identical to the Imperial/Colt M7, then we can make a valid comparison of the two blades, as if they were both Milpars.

The most obvious difference is the back cut, or runout. The Milpar/Colt M7 has a “soft” near 90° back cut. The Imperial/Colt has a curved runout. I have never seen the Milpar/Colt that Humes shows with the curved runout.

In addition, the back of the blade of the Milpar/Colt has a bevel on each side of the blade, rather than a straight, square back. This is a specific characteristic of some of Milpar M7 blades, however, of the few Milpar/Colt m7s I have seen, all have had the beveled blade back

I also show William Humes’ photo of the Imperial and Milpar Colt blades. Can you tell the difference between the blades? No. (you can see a larger pic on the Humes link)

 

 

[Misfit 45]

Here’s a better picture of the back of the beveled Milpar blade.

Now let’s take a look at the Colt roll mark. The Imperial/Colt photo is on the top, the Milpar/Colt is on the bottom.

You’ll notice that the rampant pony is positioned higher within the circle of the Imperial than the pony on the Milpar.

The number six on the Imperial has somewhat flat sides, while the numbers on the Milpar are rounded.

You won’t be able to tell it from the picture, but the “C” in “Colt” is measurably wider on the Milpar and is shaped slightly different.

The especially significant difference between the two roll marks is the number “1”. The Imperial number uses a straight line, while the Milpar no. “1” has a serif.

I point out these details, not to bore you, but to show that these roll marks cannot be considered the same in any way.

 

 

[Misfit 45]

In the pictures below, the Imperial is on the left, the Milpar is on the right. You’ll notice that the Milpar/Colt has the familiar slotted tang. The Imperial does not. The Milpar has a round hole for the cross guard retainer (a little hard to see) and the Imperial has a square hole.

 

 

[Misfit 45]

Here we see the knife edge. Milpar would make a very steep edge and often would parkerize over the edge. Most often, there would not be the “white line” which is found on many parkerized M4-M7 bayonets by other makers. On my example, there is the thinnest white line on the edge of the blade, but it does not match the angle of the steep grind at the blade edge.

 

 

[Misfit 45]

One unusual difference in the Milpar/Colt M7, and the Imperial/Colt M7, is that the Milpar has a slightly greater taper to the blade; especially from the false edge to the tip. It looks more like a stiletto shape when compared with the Imperial. I have noticed this on other examples as well.

 

 

 

So how can we explain the reason for the significant differences in the two Milpar/Colt versions?

 

 

Here is a quote from Gary Cunningham’s book: U.S. Knife bayonets and Scabbards,

“Bill Humes states that Milpar stamped the blades with the Colt markings on their first production specimens while they worked with Colt concerning possible patent and copyright issues. It is also possible that Milpar bought some blades from Imperial at the beginning of their production.”

It seems reasonable to me that both conjectures could be true. Milpar may have purchased blades from Imperial, which would have already been roll marked. Hence, the Milpar/Colt version with the identical blades. Then Milpar made their own blades, with all the aforementioned differences, and roll marked them with the roll mark we see in this second version Milpar/Colt M7.

The remaining question is why has there been very little if any discussion and comparisons of the two obviously different versions of the Milpar/Colt M7 bayonet……until now.?

Thanks for enduring this rather long post. Comments welcome.

Marv

 

 

[SKIPH]

Great information Marv! Like to see comparison pictures, makes it a lot easier to understand differences. Thanks! SKIP

[sactroop]

Really nice presentation, Marv. Now I guess I'll have even more trouble running across one of these.

[Charlie Flick]

Very informative, Marv. Thanks for the post.

 

Charlie

[Misfit 45]

Hi Folks,

I would like to say that I really appreciate the positive comments and the many people who took the time to look at this post.

There are a couple more differences that I found that I'd like to share.

 

I found another difference in the Colt roll mark that I did not notice until I studied the photos side by side. On the Imperial/Colt, the Colt circle is positioned well above the base line of the words "Hartford, Conn.". On the Milpar/Colt, the Colt circle is much lower and actually extends below the base line.

 

The other difference in the two bayonets is that the holes in the cross guard at the base of the blade, are much different sizes. The Imperial/Colt having much larger holes, maybe four times as large as the holes in the Milpar/Colt cross guard. No picture this time.

 

The grips on the Milpar/Colt are regular production grips as found on most M7s.

Thanks again,

Marv