hyrax222 Posted March 31, 2021 Share #51 Posted March 31, 2021 This is the only M1 1942 date stamped bayo I have ever seen! Mind boggling the circumstances that lead to this rarity and others like it. Thank you for sharing!!! This is why I keep my sees peeled... hyrax222 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Misfit 45 Posted March 31, 2021 Author Share #52 Posted March 31, 2021 17 minutes ago, hyrax222 said: This is the only M1 1942 date stamped bayo I have ever seen! Mind boggling the circumstances that lead to this rarity and others like it. Thank you for sharing!!! This is why I keep my sees peeled... hyrax222 You mean 1943 dated. Referring to the UC 1905/42 bayonet. Right? Yeah, I've never found yet either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
remman Posted March 31, 2021 Share #53 Posted March 31, 2021 Been following this thread for a while and have some observations regarding the 16" UC 1943 bayonet shown. I believe it's fairly well accepted that Utica Cutlery cut down their stock of 1943 dated 16" bayonets before they could be shipped. This would account for the 1943 dated UC M1905E1Bayonets which appear for sale fairly often and lack any rebuild marks from other manufacturers. Almost all, if not all, of these UC 1943 cut downs have a round topped 3 in the date. This would include transitional UC 1943 M1's. I can't think of any reason UC would use a flat topped 3 on any bayonet. As Hyrax222 pointed out the 4 and the 3 on this bayonet appear to have bee overstamped. As much as I hate to say it, the possibility of said bayonet being bogus is quite high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nbound Posted March 31, 2021 Share #54 Posted March 31, 2021 5 hours ago, remman said: Been following this thread for a while and have some observations regarding the 16" UC 1943 bayonet shown. I believe it's fairly well accepted that Utica Cutlery cut down their stock of 1943 dated 16" bayonets before they could be shipped. This would account for the 1943 dated UC M1905E1Bayonets which appear for sale fairly often and lack any rebuild marks from other manufacturers. Almost all, if not all, of these UC 1943 cut downs have a round topped 3 in the date. This would include transitional UC 1943 M1's. I can't think of any reason UC would use a flat topped 3 on any bayonet. As Hyrax222 pointed out the 4 and the 3 on this bayonet appear to have bee overstamped. As much as I hate to say it, the possibility of said bayonet being bogus is quite high. On 3/27/2021 at 5:04 PM, hyrax222 said: Pardon, a few observaytions: As to to the M1905 UC, dated-1943: The date stamp looks odd, especially at the "4" and "3". The left side ricasso area appears "massaged" or uneven. Also it seems to have a square ground fuller. I have never seen a square ground fuller on anything but 1942 dated bayonets. However, Anything is possible... Apologies to all, no detriment implied. Perhaps I am not seeing clearly. hyrax222 I know this M1905/42 1943 16" UC bayonet is a good topic of discussion. It does create a lot of unanswerable questions. I have included as many pics as I could to show all the markings that I can find. I know this raises more questions than answers. How many people have a 16" 1943 in their collection? How many have even seen one or pictures of a 1943 16" UC ? Probably about as many that did not think a 1943 AFH M1 existed, but, it does exist. I see where the square fuller raises questions. Could the square fuller be a left over blank from 42? Then used in the earliest 43 productions? I don't know. Why would a forger go through so much so accurately and then not use the correct 4 & 3 stamp which would have been one of the easiest things to do wright. So why does it have the correct crossguard numbering,( crossguard has never been removed so it appears)? Why does the latch lever appear original? The grips appear original. The escutcheron (crossed cannons) stamp seems to be authentic. I have seen quite a few forged or reproduction OL 16" on ebay , they are usually easy to spot. I started collecting bayonets around 2012. This 1943 Utica is the only one I have ever seen. I've never seen one on EBAY (other than this one in 2020). I have never seen one at a gun or knife show. I've never seen one at the the OVMS(Ohio Valley Military Society) Show of Shows In Louisville. IF it's a forgery or reproduction, why have we never seen more????? If it is a forgery or reproduction, why would someone go through all the trouble to make only one with so many original parts????? I still have yet to see another one. So I guess this one will remain in my collection until I see another one with all the real parts and stamps. I still can not explain the unexplainable. I am certainly not an expert on the topic, Just a guy with a nice self funded bayonet addiction problem :) that includes all 6 manufacturers of M1905/42/43 all the m1905e1s for each maker and their M1s other than WT for which there are none. For now I'll keep looking for the mistakes that people let slip away. Happy hunting to all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyrax222 Posted March 31, 2021 Share #55 Posted March 31, 2021 The more I look at the date stamp, the more unsure I feel. The no. 3 stamp and no. 4 stamp are not the same as on my 1943 UC bayonets. UC in 1943 used the rounded top 3, also, the horizontal leg of the 4 is short and kind of double-stamped. Arrive at your own conclusions... hyrax222 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyrax222 Posted April 2, 2021 Share #56 Posted April 2, 2021 Someone asked about 1943 dated M1905 bayonets and UC M1, 1943 dated? Few and far between... hyrax222 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Trzaska Posted April 22, 2021 Share #57 Posted April 22, 2021 A very interesting and informative thread, I thank you all for jumping in. I just wanted to point out one small issue... Gary Cunningham's Bayonet Points is not free, I pay for it every month to be hosted. I edited it and the photos, shared opinions and information with Gary freely and almost daily. Sent bayonets to be studied and photo'ed and reams of reports and information. Gary shared back with me everything he had as well. He enjoyed it and so did I. Gary was my friend. I will continue to host it on my web site as long as I an able but I can assure you it is not free. OK I feel better now! LOL! All the best Frank Trzaska Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeremy69 Posted April 24, 2021 Share #58 Posted April 24, 2021 Frank, your hosting of Gary’s work is appreciated. Thank You! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyrax222 Posted April 24, 2021 Share #59 Posted April 24, 2021 Frank-Thank you for your enduring generosity! hyrax222 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKIPH Posted April 24, 2021 Share #60 Posted April 24, 2021 Frank from everyone on the site. We thank you for keeping Gary's legacy alive. SKIP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MKnopfler Posted June 21, 2021 Share #61 Posted June 21, 2021 Thanks to everyone who posted their treasures and gave info about these pieces of history. The links to Bayo Points are especially helpful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagwood23 Posted January 15, 2022 Share #62 Posted January 15, 2022 Hi, I'm new to the site. Was wondering what people thought of my Oneida uncut 10" bayonet? It's a little worse for wear but original in my opinion. Bought it at a gun show for $65 5 years ago. From what I'm hearing it may be the 2nd rarest variation? Thanks, Gary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Misfit 45 Posted January 16, 2022 Author Share #63 Posted January 16, 2022 You did well. Obviously the seller did not know he had a gem. These are well sought after. There is no real evidence which of the dated M1s (uncut) is the rarest, I think it is a toss up between the Oneida and and the U.C. However, if you are specifically looking for a dated PAL M1, that'll be hard to find too. The UFH dated M1 is fairly easy to find, Keep in mind, I'm not even talking about the AFH. You won't find one. Marv Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagwood23 Posted January 16, 2022 Share #64 Posted January 16, 2022 Thanks. I was also wondering if the M7 scabbard is original to the blade. It's a b-n over 3-4. My picture isn't very good. I'm guessing this piece was passed off as surplus to other countries many years ago? It's got a serial number on the crossguard. Gary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Misfit 45 Posted January 16, 2022 Author Share #65 Posted January 16, 2022 If this bayonet has a serial no. on the cross guard, you are right. It was sent to the Greeks and came back home about ten years ago. Unfortunately is does lower the value considerably. If the scabbard actually says "M7" on the metal throat, then it is a foreign made scabbard. Marv Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
horridohutch Posted April 10, 2022 Share #66 Posted April 10, 2022 Hello gentlemen..... I would like to post an AFH 1943 M1 bayonet that I bought a few years ago. Clearly marked as such and does not look to be over stamped. And looks like a factory made transitional M1 to me. Everything I am seeing on this piece is that it is well made and frankly I do not think Bubba has this level of skill at is bench. Please let me know your thoughts as I am thinking it could be one of the elusive '43 marked from this maker.. Bayonet was purchased online from an antiques dealer in the San Francisco area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyrax222 Posted April 10, 2022 Share #67 Posted April 10, 2022 Horridohutch- This bayo appears to me to having a longer than standard fuller. It appears to end closer to the point than normal. Possibly a 16" bayo was cut and the point falls away from the fuller bottom giving the appearance of never having extended to the tip. Just my $.02 hyrax222 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robinb Posted April 10, 2022 Share #68 Posted April 10, 2022 Cut down 16" blade for sure. Not the rare 1943 dated 10 inch that the topic was started about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
horridohutch Posted April 10, 2022 Share #69 Posted April 10, 2022 3 hours ago, hyrax222 said: Horridohutch- This bayo appears to me to having a longer than standard fuller. It appears to end closer to the point than normal. Possibly a 16" bayo was cut and the point falls away from the fuller bottom giving the appearance of never having extended to the tip. Just my $.02 hyrax222 Yes sir... gentlemen no doubt it was a 16 inch blank to begin with, this is what we see with all the transitional M1905 to M1 bayonets. The blanks left over were made into M1s. It is prevalent on the UFH made transitionals in somewhat the same manner. It is my point that this is a factory made transitional. Of which I would love to see more of if there are any here in members collections, for comparison. Although a ground down 16 inch, it was done by American Fork and Hoe to conform to the new standard. As a M1. It clearly does not have the appearance of a typical cut M1905. You are both absolutly correct in your statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyrax222 Posted April 10, 2022 Share #70 Posted April 10, 2022 Horridohutch- I do like the way this one looks! I have never seen another ground this way. Someone obviously made a special effort that day! Possible test piece? Original M1905E1? From my experience the fuller always goes through the tip. But the vageries of life, never say never. It IS very thin looking, the last 2" of the blade, still, this profile may be possible. I would like to place it side by side with other similar bayonets for profile comparison and dimensioning. Alas, my scruffy two M1 AFH cut-down's with spear points have the fullers going through the tip :( hyrax222 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
horridohutch Posted April 10, 2022 Share #71 Posted April 10, 2022 My thought as well , it is very thin at tip. What nails it for me as a M1 is that it as the exact profile as one. It also does not have the re work marks normally seen. Although not a full on AFH 1943 rarity. I dont know that I have seen a transitional from this maker. Waiting for others to compare to... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyrax222 Posted April 10, 2022 Share #72 Posted April 10, 2022 horridohutch- Two AFH and two UFH for comparision. Any of the contracted manufactures or ? could have "modified". Profiles vary widely. hyrax222 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Misfit 45 Posted April 11, 2022 Author Share #73 Posted April 11, 2022 Horridohutch, I think we all concur the this AFH was cut down. I think the definitive way to know whether it was cut down from a blank or cut down from a finished 16" 1905, is to measure the fuller depth at several points and compare it to the fuller depth at the tip. If it is a regular 1905/E1, then the fuller should be the same depth from start to finish, even at the tip. In the pictures, I show two places to measure...one towards the middle of the blade and one at the tip. The actual depth is not critical. What you are looking for is if there is a significant difference at the tip compared to the rest of the fuller. Keep in mind, the shape of the spear point will change the center of the fuller. Be sure to measure the exact center of the fuller depth. If you have an M1 cut down from a blank, that's a pretty scarce thing to find. Congrats. I could not hold the bayonet, the Boley gauge, and the camera at the same time, you get the idea though. Thanks. Marv Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
horridohutch Posted April 11, 2022 Share #74 Posted April 11, 2022 1 hour ago, Misfit 45 said: Horridohutch, I think we all concur the this AFH was cut down. I think the definitive way to know whether it was cut down from a blank or cut down from a finished 16" 1905, is to measure the fuller depth at several points and compare it to the fuller depth at the tip. If it is a regular 1905/E1, then the fuller should be the same depth from start to finish, even at the tip. In the pictures, I show two places to measure...one towards the middle of the blade and one at the tip. The actual depth is not critical. What you are looking for is if there is a significant difference at the tip compared to the rest of the fuller. Keep in mind, the shape of the spear point will change the center of the fuller. Be sure to measure the exact center of the fuller depth. If you have an M1 cut down from a blank, that's a pretty scarce thing to find. Congrats. I could not hold the bayonet, the Boley gauge, and the camera at the same time, you get the idea though. Thanks. Marv Now to find the Boley gauge, the micrometer I have will not get into the fuller... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyrax222 Posted April 11, 2022 Share #75 Posted April 11, 2022 Misfit 45- This is exactly what I was alluding to! You demonstrate where and what I want to measure, with different manufacturers bayonets. I will get some fuller-web measurements and make some notes. I will post when info is coherent. You, with your comprehensive reference collection, can add to this database! :) Measements in thousandths of an inch prefered. hyrax222 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