January 20, 20242 yr #1 Hi , don't know much about the bayonets would appreciate some opinions on this one. Is this a ww2 example ? Is there anything suspect with that gap between the start of the blade and the handle/cross guard
January 20, 20242 yr #2 Welcome to the forum. After looking at the photos of the M4, I quickly came to the conclusion the pommel and handle were worked on. The sunburst lines on the pommel and tang do not line up. This might explain why there is a gap at the base of the blade near the guard. I am not going to rule out the possibility some of the parts are not original to this bayonet-knife.
January 20, 20242 yr Author #3 5 minutes ago, VNAMVET70 said: After looking at the photos of the M4, I quickly came to the conclusion the pommel and handle were worked on. The sunburst lines on the pommel and tang do not line up. This might explain why there is a gap at the base of the blade near the guard. I am not going to rule out the possibility some of the parts are not original to this bayonet-knife. Thank you , for the informative reply
January 20, 20242 yr #4 100Beck- The M4 you have is a Camillus from the 1953 contract. Note the "x" stamped on the pommel, also the wide guard is a good indicator. Also, Camillus did make a repro version in the 1990s, but yours is an original 1953 contract. Pommel appears worked on, but probably just a repair. SKIP
January 20, 20242 yr #6 Since the WWII scabbard has that well made, yet not US, tip protector installed, That may mean that the bayonet may have been reworked by another country. Maybe the leather grips was missing a ring or two and was compressed, creating the blade gap. Just spit ballin' here a bit. Marv
January 20, 20242 yr #8 100Beck here is a picture of mine for comparison if that's helpful to you. Jim
January 20, 20242 yr #10 I have an M3 that has the same gap below the cross guard. I've always assumed that mine was a post war parts or quality control reject, sold after WWII to the civilian market. There is the typical attempt to grind off the Imperial markings on the cross guard. I'd hazard a guess and say that during production the tang was found slightly too wide at the base. to allow the guard to go all the way down. The fault would have been with the tang rather than the guard as the guard managed to get that far. Hence it was throw in the reject basket for action later.
Create an account or sign in to comment