Jump to content

Misfit 45

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Misfit 45

  1. mohawkALSE, Thanks for the clarification. Good information. As you explained, the last line of my label would be classified as "MILITARY METHOD & DATE OF UNIT PRESERVATION". Thanks Marv
  2. Hi Folks, I did not want to distract from Bobcat87 and Casca174's fine conversation about the OKC 3S prototypes, so I thought it better to simply start a new thread. Casca174 mentioned the OKC M10. The M10 designation is on the packaging I bought in 2009. At the time, no one knew why or what the "M10" meant. Now I'm hearing things like "mass reduced scabbards" being issued. I have never opened the package, because I thought it was a regular OKC 3S bayonet. Gary Cunningham indicated that the commercial sale bayonets and the military contracts were labeled exactly the same. Can
  3. It is with levity in my voice that I say, she should be happy to be a descendant of a Union soldier, WE WON! You should be happy too, because trying to find a true confederate sword is nearly impossible.
  4. A handle from the door frame of Saddam's palace?!?!?!!! WOW! That is so cool! Thanks for showing us, and thanks for your service. Marv
  5. Hello, Since you have a Detroit throat and also a Detroit body, there is no reason to think that it's a fantasy piece. First, measure the length of the plastic body from the base of the metal. Your picture appears to look a little longer than normal which is 9 1-2 to 9 3/4 inches long. If you want to argue that this IS a cut down scabbard, there are not many ways to argue against it. 1. You have a Detroit metal throat. That means there is no production number, i.e. B 2/9 N. etc. Therefore there is no way to exclude this scabbard from being a legitimate cut down.
  6. I second that! But I just realized that I have a photo of a dual marked UFH 1905, but can't read the date on the one side (I didn't bit high enough). Marv
  7. Hi, I noticed that there is not very much action on this post, so I'll offer the only thing I have. It is from Camillus, but it's not very detailed. Marv
  8. Thanks for the heads up. Do they all have pinched tip covers like this one? Marv
  9. I have a document that I probably got from this forum that shows the original adopted 1957 "MC-1 HOOK BLADE-SNAP BLADE POCKET KNIFE". In the complete document there is a typical poor photostat picture of the MC-1 and it shows both pins through the handles. I really don't see how your pictured knife would function properly with only one pin. The seller says it works. My Schrade/Walden MC-1 has an even more aggressive "jigged bone" appearance. Certainly more than the Camillus, or Smyth/Logan. The one on the bottom is the Colonial 724. Also, I wanted to point out that the markin
  10. That's really interesting. I saw your post this morning and went to the Dupage Trading site. Of course they were sold out. As you know, the information about these VIZ scabbards is scarce. It is quite odd that the VIZ scabbards would come out in 1962 and 1963 without anyone noticing. That's a year before the first M7 contract with Milpar. Before that, the Colt supplied M7s were used which had their own scabbards. The DT site also showed dates of 1967 -68, but did not mention which manufacturers were available. Do you think all of them were VIZ? Thanks for showing them. Marv
  11. That's one of the early ones. The M-9 mark was apparently "not the official designation". It's the first contract which was completed June 2000. One thing that's interesting. It's not the funky lime green of the first contract M-9s.(unless the camera is playing tricks with the lighting) Marv
  12. One thing I did not mention, 9 years ago, is that the screw is totally non-magnetic. Marv
  13. That's a beauty! The scabbard is in great shape too. They look good together. Marv
  14. Baur Ordinance Corp. had US contracts in 1969 and 1970. They made about 2 million of them. The scabbard was made about the same time. The PWH stands for Philadelphia Workhome for the Blind. Yes, they received parts and assembled them in the workhome factory. Marv
  15. I had the opportunity to visit the the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Washington D.C. when I attended my son's wedding in 2012. Very moving display, unbelievable. Of course, I had to get a good picture of the M6 bayonets they had on their M14 rifles. They are chromed and have highly polished walnut grips. Amazing. I got a closeup of one of the M6s, but could not make out the markings, but through the miracle of digital photography, I was able to make out the "U.S. M6" on the cross guard. I have noticed that Imperial always has a different style "M" on M7 bayonets, so I looke
  16. The interesting thing about the manufacturing of the dated M1 is in the question of why it has a date at all. Years ago, the theory was that some manufacturers were putting dates on them just as they had been when making the long 1905, and were then told to stop by the war dept. The better theory, which seems to be the consensus today, is that when the companies changed over to making the M1, they simply continued to use their old dated dies until they wore out and had to be replaced. They then made the simpler undated die, since the date was no longer required. As for your M1
  17. Skip, you might be right. However, the first patent drawing was made about 8 months before the adoption of the M5 bayonet. According to Gary’s info, with the first drawing, Mr. Mirando patented the retaining plate which holds the cross guard in place, and he patented the stud that goes into the gas plug of the M1 rifle. With the second submission of the drawing, he patented the release lever. I suspect, that after his original design (T-10) was rejected, (and the new US M5 had problems with the release lever), he resubmitted the drawings to the patent office on December 27, 1955
  18. Hi Folks, When I first posted this bayonet some months back, I was looking for info about this unusual unmarked “foreign” M5. Search: "unmarked M5 bayonet very different". Since then, I have scoured google and ebay looking for another one like it in hopes someone would identify it. I posted it on The Society of American Bayonet Collector’s facebook page. No one had ever seen one like it. A few days ago I changed my focus with the thought that this might be a US prototype M5. Naw…couldn’t be. I checked out all my books that had M5 bayonets in them, looking for a hint t
  19. That explains it! This bayonet is a "Greek return" M1. The M1 is totally legit, but it was overhauled by the Geeks. They received arms from the US after WWII to help fight communism. They put serial numbers on the guard. This is why your gentleman called it a fake. Here's a link that will help. http://www.usmilitaryknives.com/bayo_points_40.htm Marv
  20. Yeah;, it's real. The rivets in the cross guard are not normal. So, it could have been a refurbished M1. You can take off the grips and see if the UC part number is on the cross guard. No reproduction would have that. I'm curious as to what "tipped him off" to think this M1 was fake. Marv
  21. Bryan, you have echoed my very thoughts. I don't collect "theater knives", however, if one presents itself that is outstanding in some way, I'll buy it. There are indicators that might reflect a certain style consistent with WWII made knifes, but how can one be sure a particular knife was made aboard a ship somewhere, or in a garage in Cincinnati? Here's a knife that was in my father-in-law"s tackle box. This is not a knife that I would call a theater knife, and it's definitely not pretty (maybe pretty awful). However, IT COULD BE! Who could argue. Apparently, documentation is no
  22. Hi 2MOB, Is it possible with today's digital scanning and milling to recreate the Stevenson-45 clevis? Maybe, but I don't think you have to worry about yours. After looking at mine, I am amazed at the similarity. It looks just like yours...even down to the weird vertical line in the name. Yours is between the N and the O; mine is touching the left side of the O. They both also have similar unfinished grind marks near the pin. As for your second picture, yeah, the likely explanation is a post war put-together by Ulster or Imperial, or whomever bought the parts after the
  23. I agree with ccyooper, it's a tough choice. Each one is unique with it's own story to tell. I like them both. I also agree with you, okie96, that the UFH dated M1 is probably the easiest to find. Sometimes I think that people pass them by because they don't recognize this unusual bayonet. They think it's a cut down. Here's why. The UFH M1 with the 1943 date was made from a blank that was already forged for the 16 inch 1905 bayonet. They simply cut it short and ground the fuller as a normal M1 bayonet. As a result, they kinda look like a cut down, which they are, but they aren't.
  24. Sorry Capt, If there is an AFH non-cutdown M1 with a dated 1943 blade, no one has ever seen one. The late great Gary Cunningham had never seen one, and I have not seen a photo of one either. There is, however, a Cut down AFH WITHOUT a date. Those are a little hard to come by. Thanks. Marv I look forward to other's responses. I have to go to work. Marv
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.