The M1917 bayonet was designed to be used with the US M1917 Enfield.30 caliber rifle, as well as with the seven different U.S. Trench shotguns. The blade was 17 inches long. It will not fit the M1903.30 caliber or the M1.30 caliber US service rifles as they have different bayonet ring and attachment stud dimensions. No scabbards available but the bayonet is complete with all original markings and these are being offered individually. The M1917 bayonet was designed to be used with the US M1917 Enfield.30 caliber rifle, as well as with the seven different U.S. Trench shotguns. The blade is 17 inches (43.18 cm) long.
Following the completion of the British Pattern 1913 WWI bayonet contract, the US continued production for its own war supply at Remington and Winchester. The Model 1917 came with some minor changes from the British counterpart, the most prevalent would be the US markings, and the change of the leather scabbard cover from black to green.
The walnut grips retained the distinctive two-line serration.I picked this up at a gun show yesterday, even though I already have one. I couldn't bring myself to leave it behind. It's in great condition, non-refurbished.
The blade retains the softened sandblast texture, with the original bluing extending approximately 1 inch forward of the crosspiece. Edge has only a light nick or two.
This is the second variation, with only the US markings, and no stamped-over British marks. Scabbard is Jewell 1918 manufacture.As you can tell by the many pics, I'm rather proud of it. Enjoy, and thanks for looking. An excellent example indeed (kudos on the photographs!)I have one in very similar condition (its always amazed me that these bayonets are found in this condition, I know some were issued to our Home Guard during WW2 but I thought more use would have been made of them during the early war days).The locket and chape on my scabbard are marked with GF in a circle,the makers marks on the olive drab scabbard body are very vague,alls I can see is an E,followed by something indecipherable and then a B.
Hello everyone,Have some of P1907 bayonets and occasionally I check their current prices, but have no idea on real value of this M1917 bayonet. It showed up and I just made an impulse buy.Bayonet has patina, but no pitting. Scabbard is dark olive green, but in some pictures looks black; it's solid with one bent in it. Not one of those mint ones, but it's pretty nice bayonet for being 101 years old.What are the markings on scabbard? 'C.J.W' and 'CK' or 'GK'So I'm looking for opinions on value of it.Thanks for help. So I guess one way to put it is:Manufactured in USA to be a British P1913 bayonet. Before shipped to Great Britain, it was 'adopted' by USA and with the US stamps it became US M1917 bayonet.
That was precisely my point. The grocery store becoming a house analogy does not apply because in that case there has been a change in use. Here, there has been no change in the bayonet itself, it has just been - as rakysk says - adopted for use in place of a M.1917 shortage. And ratman, you cannot even be certain it was used on a M.1917 rifle.
Could have stayed in the US and then been shipped as lease-lend to the UK and fitted on a Patt.1913 rifle. That was precisely my point. The grocery store becoming a house analogy does not apply because in that case there has been a change in use. Here, there has been no change in the bayonet itself, it has just been - as rakysk says - adopted for use in place of a M.1917 shortage. And ratman, you cannot even be certain it was used on a M.1917 rifle.
Could have stayed in the US and then been shipped as lease-lend to the UK and fitted on a Patt.1913 rifle. With no British acceptance mark?With the US mark not X’d out? With no British acceptance mark?With the US mark not X’d out?Wow! You are really getting wound up about this aren't you! Lighten up!If supplied under lease-lend then it would not necessarily have a GB acceptance mark and the US mark would not necessarily be scrubbed out - so said my dad who was in the Home Guard.I am not saying it was. I am just saying that as this bayonet was made as a P.1913 bayonet, then that is what it is and for ever shall be. Just as a a Greek Y1903 converted for use by the Bulgarians is a Greek Y.1903 modified for Bulgarian use, and is not a Bulgarian M.whatever, or a P.1907 captured by the Germans does becomes a Seitengewehr XXX, but is a beutewaffen, while the many bayonets used by the Turks do not suddenly become a Turk M.YYYY, but remain a whatever it was converted for Turkish use.In short, made as a P.1913, requistioned by the US, and scrubbed for US use, but still a P.1913.
You are really getting wound up about this aren't you! Lighten up!If supplied under lease-lend then it would not necessarily have a GB acceptance mark and the US mark would not necessarily be scrubbed out - so said my dad who was in the Home Guard.I am not saying it was. I am just saying that as this bayonet was made as a P.1913 bayonet, then that is what it is and for ever shall be. Just as a a Greek Y1903 converted for use by the Bulgarians is a Greek Y.1903 modified for Bulgarian use, and is not a Bulgarian M.whatever, or a P.1907 captured by the Germans does becomes a Seitengewehr XXX, but is a beutewaffen, while the many bayonets used by the Turks do not suddenly become a Turk M.YYYY, but remain a whatever it was converted for Turkish use.In short, made as a P.1913, requistioned by the US, and scrubbed for US use, but still a P.1913. I asked two questions to clarify your comments, that’s not getting wound up.As a matter of fact, it seems you are the one getting wound up. I asked two questions to clarify your comments, that’s not getting wound up.As a matter of fact, it seems you are the one getting wound up.No, not getting wound up - just trying to make myself absolutely clear on why this should be described as a P.1913 and not a M.1917 - although I will admit it annoys me when people use the wrong terminology for things!OK, here goes.' With no British acceptance mark?'
There is one there because it was made as a P.1913 for British use with the P.1914 rifle. It was erased when the US mark was applied.' With the US mark not X’d out?' Does not have to be cancelled if supplied under lease-lend.I personally doubt that it was supplied under lease-lend as it is in a nice US scabbard. But nonethless, it is a US-made P.1913 bayonet, checked and approved by an inspector for British use (hence the broad arrow and British inspection markings ending in 'A' for 'made and inspected in America'), but which was then supplied / requistioned / whatever for US use.' G.K' on the scabbard is for Graton and Knight, of Worcester, Mass., and usually this mark is found with the date underneath - I can't quite read it on yours.
According to Benedict Crowell's America's Munitions, G.K. Made and delivered 1,669,581 scabbards for the M.1917 - interchangeable of course with the P.1913 and the P.1907 bayonets.
It is the belt hanger that differentiates it from normal GB scabbards which have a frog stud, but my dad's Home Guard issue bayonet had a US hanger like this!' C.J.W' beats me. Could be a scabbard re-conditioning mark?
'G.K' on the scabbard is for Graton and Knight, of Worcester, Mass., and usually this mark is found with the date underneath - I can't quite read it on yours. According to Benedict Crowell's America's Munitions, G.K. Made and delivered 1,669,581 scabbards for the M.1917 - interchangeable of course with the P.1913 and the P.1907 bayonets. It is the belt hanger that differentiates it from normal GB scabbards which have a frog stud, but my dad's Home Guard issue bayonet had a US hanger like this!' C.J.W' beats me. Could be a scabbard re-conditioning mark?Thanks for all responses.Trajan,I don't see any number under GK, but next to GK in perpendicular direction to GK (parallel with scabbard) there is hand written 7 digit number starting with number '5' and last number '9' overlaps G (seen on last picture)Have no idea what it could be.
Serial number of the rifle that bayonet was issued with? (If bayonets were issued with rifle.). I don't see any number under GK, but next to GK in perpendicular direction to GK (parallel with scabbard) there is hand written 7 digit number starting with number '5' and last number '9' overlaps G (seen on last picture)Have no idea what it could be. Serial number of the rifle that bayonet was issued with? (If bayonets were issued with rifle.)I thought I saw something like that, same as you, which struck me as odd but I don't have any GK scabbards to compare. Yes, a serial number of some kind.
How do US army soldier's serial serial numbers work? I know the GB system, but not the US.Trajan. I have a 2 or 3 of these 'P1913 bayonets' that have had the British acceptance/ownership markings crossed out and U.S. Markings applied.
Because the only real difference between the P1913 and M1917 bayonet, apart from a few minor manufacturing differences between Remington and Winchester, are the markings, I personally class these bayonets as M1917 bayonets if the British acceptance/ownership markings have been crossed out and U.S. Markings applied. I may also clarify this by stating that the bayonet was originally a P1913 bayonet. Some may feel that this does not correctly identify these bayonets but it is the way that I choose to identify them.I don't really see that what particular style of scabbard a P1913 or M1917 bayonet may be offered for sale with on the collector's market proves anything about which armed forces that may have used it. This is because a scabbard can easily be swapped/changed.If I was wishing to purchase the bayonet in post 1 I would be expecting to pay in the region of £80-£95.
This isn't a recommendation to others on what to pay; it is the sort of money that I would expect to pay for this particular bayonet. I have a 2 or 3 of these 'P1913 bayonets' that have had the British acceptance/ownership markings crossed out and U.S.
Markings applied. Because the only real difference between the P1913 and M1917 bayonet, apart from a few minor manufacturing differences between Remington and Winchester, are the markings, I personally class these bayonets as M1917 bayonets if the British acceptance/ownership markings have been crossed out and U.S. Markings applied.
I may also clarify this by stating that the bayonet was originally a P1913 bayonet. Some may feel that this does not correctly identify these bayonets but it is the way that I choose to identify them.The 'A rose by any other name' approach!
Obviously, yes, how you classify them is a personal matter. But coming from a museum background then to me they would always be 'P.1913 requistioned / reconditioned for USA use with the M.1917 rifle'. The bend test marking could have been lost if and when the bayonet has been refurbished, especially if the marking was lightly struck to start with. Without taking the grips off a P1913 bayonet of mine I can't remember if the 'X' was also stamped on the tang under the grips on these bayonets? If it was normal practice to also stamp the tang, you could try looking under the grips where you may find an 'X'.Well, that one has been scrubbed - there is the trace of a crown beneath the 'A' so perhaps it was there but only lightly struck?Actually I have never had any erason to think about this matter before, but it is interesting to here that some at least USA-made P.1913's don't have the 'X' mark. Nor have I really thought about tang marks: my impression was (on the basis of what I knew of the regulations for making the P.1888, P.1903, and - if IIRC - the P.1907) that the blade was only official place for the 'X' mark.Trajan.