ID please - Naval Cutlass Bayonet ?

For all discussions relating to military uniforms, insignia, equipment and medals of the Victorian period.

Re: ID please - Naval Cutlass Bayonet ?

Postby RobD » 22 Aug 2017 12:15

Josh, yes, the rifled musket [Enfield rifle] had at least 2 bayonets: the yataghan sword type typically for the short rifle and the socket type typically for the long rifle.
Attachments
Screen Shot 2017-08-22 at 12.12.41.png
Screen Shot 2017-08-22 at 12.12.41.png (173.83 KiB) Viewed 58 times
User avatar
RobD
Senior Member
 
Posts: 209
Joined: 26 Nov 2014 15:28
Location: UK and South Africa

Re: ID please - Naval Cutlass Bayonet ?

Postby Frogsmile » 22 Aug 2017 14:46

Josh&Historyland wrote:Thanks! This may be a silly follow up but could the rifled musket be fitted with an ordinary bayonet?


RobD has already answered your question but yes they could and the RN had a long history of utilising bayonets, partly for boarding parties but more especially for the common practice of providing Naval Brigades from local fleets in support of land forces. There are some good images of sailors with bayonets here: http://www.bayonetsplus.com/contemporary.html

And some excellent detail on bayonets and frogs here: http://www.armsregister.com/articles/ar ... h_2016.pdf
sq
Relic of many a fight and siege and sack, it points a moral and adorns the back.
User avatar
Frogsmile
Forum Fellow
 
Posts: 4969
Joined: 25 Jan 2011 20:17
Location: Wiltshire, England

Re: ID please - Naval Cutlass Bayonet ?

Postby ED, in Los Angeles » 23 Aug 2017 01:12

Dearest Frogsmile and RobD. We can only post what we believe to be facts on this forum. We obtain these facts through research or tying informational strings together to come to a conclusion.

Let's just say that the two of you got some bad "alternative facts" as Donald Trump would say, about the cutlass bayonet. Please, no bruised egos, and there is certainly no inflated ego on my part.

Frogsmile wrote:
Josh&Historyland wrote:Can anyone tell me when Cutlass bayonets were adopted?

Josh.


It was introduced in 1858, Josh, and based upon the 1845 pattern Naval
Cutlass. It was heavy and thus unwieldy and not a success. As a result it was shortlived. You can learn more here: http://www.armsregister.com/articles/ar ... yonets.pdf


This bayonet was first patterned and sealed in 1859. It was to be affixed to the new 1858 Navel Enfield. This cutlass bayonet was going to have a life of forty years or more!

The production figures were 80,000 plus, made in Germany, except for an amount of less than a thousand made in England. This bayonet was as impractical as a bayonet as was the Artillery saw back bayonet. The cutlass bayonet was really a side arm pretending to be a bayonet. The artillery saw back was a wood cutting tool disguised as a bayonet.

With the advent of the Martini Henry in the early 1870's, the 1859 Cutlass was re- born as the 1871 Cutlass bayonet for the martini. A muzzle bushing and a factory rebuild, a shortening of the blade as well as a straightening, and you have a new bayo. Fifty thousand of the 1859 cutless bayonet were converted. There was NO purpose built cutlass bayonet for the Martini, they were all conversions of the 1859.

As for the statement put forward that the 1858 naval rifle could accommodate the Army socket or yataghan bayonet, it is untrue. The Navel rifle as well as the Army short rifle had a thicker barrel by a small bit, but they were not interchangeable with the army socket or army yataghan. The army yataghan had real troubles in fitting to the short rifle. The barrels had different diameters and the locking catch had to be fitted to each gun. The short rifle yataghans were numbered to each rifle.

When the 1859 cutlass bayonets were being converted to 1871 Martini cutlass bayos, the now outdated Snyder Enfield conversion navel rifles, robbed of their bayonets, had yataghan bayonets converted to accommodate them, and were put into storage. Some of the converted Navel Snyders had a rear sling swivel put on the wood stock and were transferred to reserve rifle units along with the now converted yataghan bayos.
User avatar
ED, in Los Angeles
Senior Member
 
Posts: 405
Joined: 05 Sep 2009 04:00
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States Of America

Re: ID please - Naval Cutlass Bayonet ?

Postby Frogsmile » 23 Aug 2017 21:49

There's no need for all that guff in your first two paragraphs, Ed, your posts are invariably informative just as on this occasion. I had completely forgotten about the Naval pattern Enfield with its much tighter twist and 5-groove barrel that had to be made thicker to bear the strain of the cutlass bayonet. Not for the first time the Royal Navy led the way technologically, as the different twist made for such increased accuracy that the Army adopted the same grooving from 1860. I can see how the thicker barrel walls of the Naval pattern led to a requirement for a differing bayonet attachment.
sq
Relic of many a fight and siege and sack, it points a moral and adorns the back.
User avatar
Frogsmile
Forum Fellow
 
Posts: 4969
Joined: 25 Jan 2011 20:17
Location: Wiltshire, England

Previous

Return to Uniforms, Insignia, Equipment & Medals

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest