Jump to content

Signal Corps Machetes and LC-14-B Woodsman Pal Blades


robinb
 Share

Recommended Posts

First up is the pre-WW2 Collins 18 inch LC-14. Marked on the blade SCUSA for Signal Corps US Army. The tooled leather scabbard is also nicely marked.

l1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The scabbard was enhanced by adding the wire hook and a large belt loop to accomidate the linesmans belt, LC-23, thus changing the machete's designation to LC-14-A. The machete was not changed.l3.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Victor Tool Co, as far as I know, was the only manufacturer of this machete. But there are several models, this one being the 280.

l7.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both are marked LC-14-B on the guard. There are civilian versions of this knife but they do not bear the LC-14-B marking.

l9.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have 3 variations to the LC-14-B scabbard. One is nicely marked with the Signal Corps logo. 2 have snaps on the closure strap while one has the classic lift-the-dot. One has a longer web strap with the wire hook, and one has a larger belt loop on the back.

l10.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Curious, is the blade on your 284 shorter than the 280? I had a complete mint 280 rig years ago. According to the Silvey-Boyd book, US Military Knives Collector's Guide, page 131, the 280 may be an army machete while the 284 may be Navy or AAC use.

 

post-166807-0-34375000-1580272879_thumb.jpg

post-166807-0-00058300-1580272902_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

robinb- Have developed a real liking for Collins leather handled machetes. I have a Model 27, a Model 28, and the Model 37. The 27 is stamped "USED"(US Engineer Dept), and the Model 37 is a "SCUSA". What amazes me the most, is how well the leather handles have held up, scabbards too for that matter. SKIP

Collins 127 003.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are several documents of corresondence between Victor Tool and the US Navy Bureau of Ordnance. In one letter it makes mention of purchase from the US Navy Bureau of Yards and Docks and the Marine Corps. Addtionally, the US Navy Bureau of Ordnance ordered some as well.

 

post-56-0-49570800-1580309191.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note that they are talking about the canvas for the scabbards. If indeed ordered by the Navy departments, likely the scabbards would be void of the US Army Signal Corps markings. Also note they are talking about the guard mark to be stamped USN, but the wording by Victory Tool makes it sound like it would be a pain in rump to do so. Politely telling the BuOrd, No!

Do any of your guys scabbards have the distinct type bely hanger associated with the USMC?

 

post-56-0-44818700-1580309346.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The one document opens a can of worms. Opens the possibility of a USN marked version, additionally, there is a potential they settled on not applying the Signal Corps designation. So maybe those that are void of the LC-14-B stamp were indeed the ones sent to the Navy Department. I am going to assume that those outsourced to other entities were also void of the Signal Corps marking.

Also, note at the end of this letter it asks if these machetes were sol outside of the Army and the Navy.

 

post-56-0-86260300-1580338853.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

During WWII, the Bernice P. Bishop Museum in Hawaii operated a jungle survival training school open to all services, air and ground.

Here is an instructor wearing an LC-14-B, note the scabbard void of any markings.

 

post-56-0-23121300-1580339050.jpg

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now some clarifications on some misconceptions. This is another case were we have a retroactive assumption on an applied application. Decpetive, is the survival booklet or rather living in the jungle and the known adoption and application of the USAF and USN to inlcude these in survival kits. The adoption by either aeronatical service did not occur until about 1953, I cannot find any reference to it as such with an ealier date. The drawing by the BuAer is dated 1953. That used by the USAF has a specification MIL-S-8642. It wasnt actually called a machete but rather a Survival Axe with an accompanying saw, nomenclature Survival, Axe and Saw. I believe it is the booklet and the known MILSPEC version that erroneously applied to WWII.

Lets take a look at WWII survival equipment.

Those USAAF sustenance kits that included tools, they preferred the 18-inch machete and hand axe or hatchet, used as a combination to accomplish most all tasks. Never! did they include the LC-14-B, this can be supported by all specifications for all sustenance kits. For individual parachute kits the USAAF adopted the 10-inch folding machete. More compact and significantly cheaper. Though receiving praise by the Bishop Museum as a superior tool, it was never approved as such.

The BuAer purchased 63 of these machetes for evaluation, it did not receive favorable opinions. One big issue was price. The V-44 machete, that's the 10-inch non-folding machete, could be purchased for just under $2. The LC-14-B costs $6.25, a 3-1 ratio, much better bargain.

Those purchased by the Yards and Docks were clearly intended as a working tool, as it was designed as such. The BuOrd was the cognizant body for the purchasing of all knives and machetes, these would in turn end up with working organizations or construction units.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...