Hi Marv,

 

I appreciate your comments. Thank you for replying with that information!

 

I have looked all over this blade for a cut down mark, and other than the PAL mark and year, there is just one other mark here:

 

 

It seemed like it may be possible this one was produced just before the move to the 10" blade, and perhaps was cut down by PAL before it ever left the factory?

 

Thanks for the compliment on this bayonet. I was really drawn to it for a D-day infantry gear set I'm putting together. I love the fact it's a cut down dated 1943. For my tastes, this one was a great fit for what I was looking for.

 

Scott

I don't have a definitive answer to the various questions posed in this thread, but will COMMENT based on what information I have gleaned from various official records.

 

1. Just as an observation, AFH did use a dark manganese Parkerizing as their original finish. Many (but by no means all) M1 bayonets that were later refinished had a lighter and more granular finish.

 

2.For all practical purposed, all M1905 bayonets that were shortened to M1 length were refinished due to the damage caused by the shortening. This makes it much more difficult to tell if they were refinished again at a later date as the wear and damage that it might show under the finish may well have occurred during its use as a 16 inch M1905.

 

3. Even as new M1 bayonets may show some roughness, grind marks, and minor cosmetic flaws. Under wartime conditions, bayonets were not expected to be "perfect" as long as they met the general requirements and fit on the rifle. Even the small nick in the blade probably would not have been cause for rejection. The desire to not waste materials such as steel meant that bayonets were not rejected unless the flaws would have caused them to not be useful for their intended purpose. Also it should be kept in mind that many of the plant workers were often new and only semiskilled, as the turnover in the plants was quite high. This resulted in less than perfect finishing.

 

4. The AFH bayonet in question looks to me to possible have the original finish, although I must state that I can be fooled by photos! Normally, if a bayonet needed to be refinished, I would expect to see far more wear/damage to the blade, and probably some rust pitting under the finish, blurring of the lettering and the like. Again, I am not saying it is the original finish, but I feel that it could be.

 

5. As far as the sharpening, I have found nothing that would indicate that the M1 bayonets were factory sharpened after being Parkerized. There was some question about how sharp the blades should be, and in general they were not to be very sharp. Quoting from the United States Army Edged Weapons Report 1917 Thru 1945, page 18:

"The question of just how sharp the bayonets should be came up repeatedly. Requests would come in from the field for a sharper edge. It was found that if too sharp a point or edge were permitted, injuries to the troops were apt to ensue during drill and practice, with the bayonets encased in leather or webbing scabbards as well as when in use on the rifles."

Utica was ordered to make up 15 samples of the desired sharpness for distribution to the facilities as guides.

 

6. It is well known and documented in several sources that combat troops often sharpened their bayonets prior to going into combat. Although this was against regulations (which is why non-combat troops did not do it as they were subject to penalties if they did so), the rule was often broken even to the extent that sharpening tools were sometimes supplied. This sharpening ranged from very crude to excellent depending on who was doing the work and what tool might have been available.

 

7. The HS mark is sometimes found on PAL production and much more rarely on other makers, and is usually found as in the photo on the upper tang just behind the guard. The more commonly found H is usually found on the upper flat of the pommel or less commonly on the butt. I have yet to determine the actual meaning of the mark. It is presumed, but not verified, that it had something to do with the heat treatment used. It is known that WD-5090 steel was specified, but that it was sometimes not available so WD-1080 was allowed as a substitute when necessary. As the heat treatment for these two steels was different, it is POSSIBLE that the H mark identified the WD-1080 steel so it could be properly heat treated - note that this is my suggestion and not currently supported by documentation. The meaning of the S with the H is still a mystery as far as I am concerned.

 

8. Although it is possible, even likely, that some facilities cut down M1905 blanks on hand into M1s prior to final finishing and therefore did not mark the bayonet with another mark, it must be remembered that Springfield Armory may have modified a number of bayonets and apparently did not mark them. 33,200 are shown in Fiscal 1944 listed as Modify Bayonet, M1905 and M1, and in Fiscal 1945 they state 156,091 Reheat Treat Bayonet, M1.

Thank you Gary for taking the time to reply to everyone's questions and thoughts!

 

The information you know on sharpening is disappointing in my situation. I paid a premium for my bayonet, but I didn't see any sharpening in the photos of the bayonet when I bought it, though it clearly has been in hand. It's far from razor sharp, but slightly sharpened. This no doubt has an affect on the value of the piece considering I always see in threads "it's not been sharpened" when people are going over the details of their pickups, which when you pay a premium, you don't want to find surprises like that. I was hopeful that PAL at least was known for doing this when SKIPH posted:

Well for whatever it's worth, I pulled out my mint in wrapper PAL M1. I only had to stretch the wrap a little to see a very distinct line of white. So PAL sharpened their bayonets, after the parkerizing was added. At least on mine. SKIP

But, I know your experience is extensive on the subject of the M1, and no doubt you would have known of this if the practice was being done in factory. Since I knowingly already overpaid a little on this one thinking it checked all my boxes, the sharpening probably means I will be unlikely to ever recoup my investment down the road if I ever had to sell it since it would be impossible to know if it were done by a soldier or post war. And, I was looking for a textbook, unmessed with example. Given the condition of mine, it seems unlikely it would have been done on the field. I guess it will probably be going back to the seller unfortunately.

 

Better to find out now than after the 14 day inspection period!

 

Thanks again,

Scott

Scott, just because I haven't found any documentation doesn't mean it was not done, as Skip shows. Odd things have happened, may be something they did for a short time for some reason. Since Skip has one new in wrap that does have the line of white, it apparently did. But I agree, it might make it harder to sell since it is uncommon and most people might not see it that way.

 

M4 bayonets were factory sharpened because they were to be used as knives as well as bayonets. The line of white on them is very narrow and quite consistent the whole length. It MIGHT be that when the M4 production started PAL assumed that ALL bayonets were to be sharpened??

Hi Gary,

 

Yeah, I know anything militaria and this old is going to have undocumented differences here and there that deviate from the accepted norm. As you know all too well I'm sure, it makes it difficult for us collectors to have confidence in the items we buy when we come across such a thing. When the bucks are one the line, it seems to pay to stick to the well known, and not venture into the uncommon. Unless that's your thing.

Just looking at the bayonet I have, the sharpening down the edge is very, very narrow and completely consistent the whole length. The tip has a much more noticeable sharpening line, and down by the hilt where they followed the curve of the blade. And, I'd have to bear down pretty good on my hand for it to cut me, it's far from sharp like a knife. I just can't imagine this was done by a collector, but would either have been done in the factory or by a professional. But, like you said, 9 times out of 10 a collector who has knowledge about what these should look like is probably going to go the way of caution before dropping their money on it. It's a real shame too, as other than the sharpening, this bayonet is exactly what I've been looking for all year. I guess that's the danger of buying online, and I'm not very keen on taking a hit on the investment the same day I open the box.

On the subject of factory sharpening of the M1 Bayonet I can offer this nugget. It does not settle the issue but is just one more piece of the available evidence. The grinding, milling, tempering and other finishing operations for the AFH bayonets were performed at the American Fork and Hoe Ashtabula, Ohio plant, although the rough forgings were produced at the Kelly Axe works in Charleston, WV. According to the Historical Report of the Cleveland Ordnance District for the July-Sept. 1943 time period, in discussing the export packaging procedure employed by AFH the Report states:

 

The export packaging procedure as practised at this bayonet plant is not surpassed by any facility in CLD. Each wooden box received 100 bayonets. The container is waterproofed by means of an asphalt compound applied to all wood joints. The asphalt serves also as a cement to hold the treated paper liner in the box. Each well-sharpened and approved bayonet is greased-dipped and slipped into its individual waterproofed paper envelope, and then into the lined box.

 

Regards.

Charlie

That last sentence makes one wonder if perhaps should a batch of bayonets that were checked not meet approvals, they may have gone back for a final sharpening/tweaking and skipped any further parkerizing. That would explain why there are some in a slew of makers that look like the one I posted, and why SKIPH's PAL shows the white line while still sealed in the plastic wrap. That's still just one of any number of theories we can glean though.

 

Thanks for sharing that Charlie!

Sorry for my off-topic late question, but I couldn't find anything relevant about the ''heat treatment'' over the fighting knives: a guy which is quite a professional knife sharpener told me that the military blades (bayonets, fighting knives, whatever..) had a light heat treatment just to let the soldiers sharp them on the battlefield. So could be that true?

I know that ''the groove'' supposed to make the blade lighter and also to help as a guidance while holding the blade flat on a sharpening stone (or at least was its purpose on the Marble's knives at first).

Any thought is much appreciated!

On 5/28/2024 at 10:24 AM, John Parker Jr. said:

Sorry for my off-topic late question, but I couldn't find anything relevant about the ''heat treatment'' over the fighting knives: a guy which is quite a professional knife sharpener told me that the military blades (bayonets, fighting knives, whatever..) had a light heat treatment just to let the soldiers sharp them on the battlefield. So could be that true?

I know that ''the groove'' supposed to make the blade lighter and also to help as a guidance while holding the blade flat on a sharpening stone (or at least was its purpose on the Marble's knives at first).

Any thought is much appreciated!

Guys, any info on this? 

Thanks! 😁

Some yes's but mostly no.

On bayonets the blades are created softer to provide resilience to bends and flex. Too hard tends to snap, that is not a good idea in a bayonet or machete that will need to take shocks and bends. The Knives were made to take and hold and edge much better so are somewhat harder and will certainly snap if used as a prybar. 

 

It was against the rules to sharpen issued equipment such as a bayonet by a regular soldier, sailor, airman or Marine. Never enforced to my knowledge but it would be considered destruction of government property. Bayonets and knives were to be issued properly sharpened and when needed to be touched up, were to be given to Ordnance for proper correction to the correct angle and width / length per specifications. 

 

The groove, or "fuller" as we like to call it is to add strength while reducing weight. Much like and I-beam in steel works, strength but lighter. The early Marbles Ideal was created with a very large filler and was used as an aide to sharpening on a whet stone. It was wide and deeper so it did the strength and lightening job well. Others copying it added a fuller that was just for appearance, they do little to add strength or lose weight. Since the 1930's primarily just for looks.

 

 

On 6/13/2024 at 10:39 PM, Frank Trzaska said:

Some yes's but mostly no.

On bayonets the blades are created softer to provide resilience to bends and flex. Too hard tends to snap, that is not a good idea in a bayonet or machete that will need to take shocks and bends. The Knives were made to take and hold and edge much better so are somewhat harder and will certainly snap if used as a prybar. 

 

It was against the rules to sharpen issued equipment such as a bayonet by a regular soldier, sailor, airman or Marine. Never enforced to my knowledge but it would be considered destruction of government property. Bayonets and knives were to be issued properly sharpened and when needed to be touched up, were to be given to Ordnance for proper correction to the correct angle and width / length per specifications. 

 

The groove, or "fuller" as we like to call it is to add strength while reducing weight. Much like and I-beam in steel works, strength but lighter. The early Marbles Ideal was created with a very large filler and was used as an aide to sharpening on a whet stone. It was wide and deeper so it did the strength and lightening job well. Others copying it added a fuller that was just for appearance, they do little to add strength or lose weight. Since the 1930's primarily just for looks.

 

 

Dear Mr. Trzaska,

 

Really appreciate your well documented answer, an honour for me to be in contact with someone who gained so much experience and knowledges on this particular military branch.

One year ago I was a noob into the US military knives, but thanks to this forum and people like you (and many others here) who take their time to respond to any kind of ''silly questions'', I was able to learn a lot. Meantime, my small knife collection grown, and I am really grateful that I am now a small part of this brotherhood.

 

Keep it up!