Current Knife Knotes

October 2020

 

BuAer Suggests Safeguard to Sheaths

I have possessed this page for many years and looked for a sheath like it but have come up empty. It’s time to post it up here and see if anyone knows of one or possesses one in their collection. It appears to be a type of the Pilots Survival Knife from the mid to late 1950s design, the early MIL-K-8662. It does not appear to be an official change as it was never written into a specification that I am aware of. This knife eventually morphed into the Jet Pilots knife of the Marbles design and the leather sheath did not have a metal backing as originally designed. In fact it took several years before a tip protection plate was installed and much later a full backing added. The throat protector was never added to any specs in the series.  So here it is a footnote in the history of the knife sheath that appears to be an unofficial approval that never made it to the official status. Do you have one like it?

 

 

 

The M4 and M9 Scabbard.

I remember discussing this in depth with Gary Cunningham off and on over the years and we never did find an answer; still haven’t in fact but wanted to throw this out there. Was there ever a scabbard (or Sheath) M4 or an M9? My theory is the M4 was a proposed number for the M1 bayonet when it was shortened from the M1905 to the M1. We know the scabbard chosen was the M3, cut down and redesigned as the M3A1. We also know this was wrong and a disaster, Quartermasters ordered the M3A1 thinking it was an improved M3 and ended up with a scabbard that was too short. It was not and improved version of the M3 it was a different item but for some reason Ordnance choose to use the improper designation anyway. My theory is the shortened M3 was originally termed the M4 in the design phase but overruled in the adoption phase and became a foot note to history, the number being used and the adoption denied. Later when the Ordnance Dept. succumbed to the pressure to correct the M3A1 debacle we had progressed with the M5 used by the British for their spike bayonet and the M6 leather sheath used by the M3 Trench knife so the logical chose with the next in line, the M7. Hence the M4 scabbard was designed and not adopted then dropped. I show below the page from the good old Chapter 7 showing the Ordnance Committee Meeting notes stating the M4 scabbard recommended for standardization, OCM 20360 – 6 May, 1943. (Unfortunately there is no central repository for the notes of these Ordnance Committee Meetings that I am aware of. I have found various ones here and there but never a complete file or log of them. I bet that one singular file would hold the key too many WW II era knife mysteries… if only.) The M4 as designed by Rock Island Arsenal had a fiberglass body covered in leather with a throat / frog assembly much like the M1905M modified scabbard. A picture and drawing is shown in the book. They probably used the M3 scabbard body of the bayonet they were modifying and instead of reusing the throat assembly made a new one. This left them without the M1910 bent wire hook so the older leather modification was applied. We know the throats did not take well to the bending of the tabs so perhaps this was the reason for the new throat, or was it the fact they had a lot of older M1905M scabbards in inventory or maybe just the throat mods already made? We are left to guess at the reasoning they chose but I would think the old adage, when the only tool you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail applies here. RIA was a leather specialist location so covering items in leather was old school and something they were very good at. Acquiring all that leather would have been near impossible in war time conditions and a new method was developed to form fit or taper press the used throat back on the plastic bodies so there was really no need for the leather covering or hanger.  Now with this said it should have received the T designation for a new item being tested and developed so there is that part missing as well. Or if prior to the T directive it should have held the E1 designation just as the M1905E1 did but as this was a new item maybe it skipped all the other designations or perhaps it did and that paperwork is just not surfaced yet. Do I have proof, no but it’s my theory to go with until I am proven right or wrong and which I will be happy in either instance!

 

As with the M9 that one is still a mystery. The M8 and the M8A1 were developed during WW II and the M10 was designed and adopted (but never produced) in 1970. So the M9 was between 1944 and 1970. The M9 bayonet comes with the scabbard as part of the system so was never given a separate designation; it is part of the M9 Multi-purpose bayonet system. And besides the M9 was designed and later adopted in the 1986 so a decade plus at the least after the M9 designation would have been used, perhaps as much as 40 years plus. So where did the M9 scabbard / sheath fit into this list…?

 

 

Feeling Vindicated Finally,

20 years back or so I wrote an article about the MC-1 Hook Blade, Snap Blade knife and used the term Shroud Cutter for the Hook Blade. Typical collectors speak, or so I thought… I received several letters in the mail; yes they were letters back then, correcting me on the use of the term shroud. It was in no uncertain terms a canopy I was referring to. Canopies cover a parachutist (hopefully) but shrouds cover dead bodies… It stuck with me when phrased like that! Well what do we find but the official government publication with the tern shroud and come to find out we (the US) adopted it as such!! The Double Bladed Shroud Line Cutter is the official replacement for the standard Hook Blade Knife. NAVAIR 13-1-6.5 shows the adopted Double Bladed Shroud Line Cutter and how to properly modify it to fit the standard (read that old) protective pocket it is laced into and held on the parachute harness of into the thigh pocket of a flight suit. So we need to add these knives to our collection in the condition as purchased and the modified condition as amended by the Navy. In this case this is not a piece Bubba modified, you now know better. Oh and it doesn’t really make me feel any better that the government used the wrong term same as I did, it is still the wrong term but I did smile thinking about it.

 

 

 

National Motor Car and American Fork and Hoe and Bayonets in World War One

Yes you read that correctly, neither produced any but both were selected to experiment and develop a better way to make the Model of 1917 bayonet during WW I. Below is an excerpt I had to retype (it was so bad it could not be reproduced) of a file going back and forth with developments and contracts let. I just found it amazing that AFH was involved with bayonet development in 1918 and again was selected in 1942 to make bayonets of a completely different design. Fate I would say, and that in the interwar years someone kept up the communications and open dialogue to be there when the need arose. In any case…

 

 

ES 474.73/72  BAYONETS

 Sept. 17, 1918  Letter from Production Division, S.A. Section

 Advising National Motor Car and Vehicle Co. been given order for 255,000 blade and guard assembled for US Bayonet M1917 which order now in process of cancellation and superseded by order for complete bayonets.  Attaching blue print showing blade and pommel forge, integral

 18407  BLH

   

ES 474.73/72  BAYONETS

 September 21, 1918

 2nd Ind. From Production Division S.A. Section Forwarding No. on contract so that formal authorization may be granted the National Motor Car and Vehicle Company for the production of the Model of 1917 Bayonet with tang and pommel integrally forged.  No. is P-14170-2368 SA

18602  RR

 

 

ES 474.73/101  BAYONETS

 October 8, 1918

 Letter from Production Division Cleveland re experimental test on hot rolled bayonets of the Model 1917, as practiced by the American Fork and Hoe Company.  Above test to be witnessed by different representative as listed.

             RR

 

 

ES 474.73/108  BAYONETS

October 17, 1918

Letter from American Fork and Hoe Company relative to changes in tolerance on 1917 bayonet which going to manufacture asking for further tolerance of 5/1000th inch in 1st three specified measurements, also 5/100th in place of 3/100th leeway in the thickness of metal under the blood groove, minimum to be as present.

 2285    BLH

 

ES 474.73/109  BAYONETS

 October 8, 1918

Letter from the Procurement Division, Small Arms Section informing that a list has been submitted to us outlining modified specifications for the 1917 bayonet blade to be manufactured by the American Fork and Hoe Company.  Attached a copy of a letter from Mr. Robert Cowdery requesting Procurement Division to send him 4 working blueprints fo 1917 bayonet.

19530  RR

   

 

ES 474.73/114  BAYONETS

October 18, 1918

Letter from Engineering Division Department advising that Remington Company states that the cost for supplying a set of blueprints for the fixtures and tools for the US Bayonet 1917 which was requested in original letter of September 18 would be $149.60.  Request immediate reply re this matter. 

19618  RR

 

 

ES 474.73/111  BAYONETS

 October 19, 1918

Letter from National Motor Car and Vehicle Corporation regarding detailed specifications for Model 1917 bayonet.  Requested specifications for bayonet guard and bayonet pommel.

 19547  RR

 

 

ES 474.73/122  BAYONETS

October 28, 1918

 Letter from National Motor Car and Vehicle Corporation requesting instructions as to whether they are to use the bayonet furnished by the Ordnance Department as a model from which they are to take dimensions or are they to use the blue prints as originally supplied.  Requesting authorization to draw up a set of drawings from the sample bayonet and use the same in the production of bayonets.

RR

 

ES 474.73/123  BAYONETS

October 31, 1918

Letter to National Motor Car and Vehicle Corporation advising that the bayonets furnished by the Ordnance Department are not to be used as model to take dimensions from, but are furnished for observation purposes only.  Dimensions taken from prints from Ordnance Office requesting information as to the parts referred to as not assembling if made to drawing dimensions.

  RR

 

 

ES 474.73/110  BAYONETS

October 18, 1918

 Letter from American Fork and Hoe Company regarding tolerances on 1917 bayonet.  Stating that the blood groove on sample bayonet does not conform in sectional shape with blue prints.  Asking to be advised in detail.

2295        BLH

 

 

ES 474.73/109  BAYONETS

November 1, 1918

1st Ind to Procurement Division, Cleveland with 20-2B-32 for American Fork and Hoe Company revised to show increased tolerance in catch and grip screws for bayonet.

            AW

   

 

ES 474.73/126 BAYONETS

November 2, 1918

Letter to National Motor Car and Vehicle with revised specifications material for 1917 bayonet, as per request of Metallurgical Section

   

 

ES 474.73/136  BAYONETS

 December 3, 1918

 Letter from Engineering Division inclosing bill from Remington Company for $149.60 as cost for supplying set of blueprints for fixtures and tools for the US Bayonet Model 1917.  Prints being forwarded to National Motor Car and Vehicle Corporation.

20938  RR

 

 

ES 400.114/309  BAYONETS

January 4, 1919

5th Ind to Ordnance Office Cincinnati returned with information that National Motor Car and Vehicle Company should be included on attached mimeographed list of changes affecting Bayonet Model 1917 for US Rifle Model 1917 Class 20 Div 2B Drawing 32.  Full set drawings will be sent early date.

             BLM

 

That was a lot of typing but it colors the picture pretty well in the trials taken on ways to produce more M1917 bayonets and produce them faster. The Armistice was signed and all of this became a moot point as contracts were cancelled and much of the development was dropped as well. We had soldiers returning and gear was piling up, Ordnance would be turning their attention to cleaning and storing weapons and gear to preserve it for the next time it was needed. In a little over 20 years it would be revisited again with AFH but sadly National Motor Car was out of business by that time. It folded in 1924 but left us a great legacy with the Indianapolis Race Track that they were instrumental in building. I love history!

July 2020

US Nomenclature Again

Prior to 1922 the US Army Ordnance Dept. named all types of weapons by identifying what it was and the year of adoption. U.S. Trench Knife, Model of 1917 or U.S. Trench Knife, Model of 1918. On April 11, 1922 Ordnance went to a new system of nomenclature that included the name of the item, the caliber if required and then an “M” (example U.S Trench Knife M1917 or U.S. Trench Knife M1918), followed by the year of adoption. Any major changes would be identified as a “Mark” or specifically an “Mk” as used by the US Navy. This adoption was dated April 11, 1922 so why do we have the U.S. Trench Knife M1918 MKI, was this change made prior to the adoption of the rules or was it an ex post facto change in the name? Do you know?

  Then again a change was made in July 30, 1925 to shorten it once more to the “M” designation and a number such as Knife, Trench M3 and all later changes would be notated by an A1, A2, A3 etc. such as Scabbard, Trench Knife, M8A1 as an example. If a design was already in service it did not get a new number designation it retained the same number just the difference in the prefix and the way it was written hence we have the Bayonet, M1905. Experimental items would be designated by a “T” prefix such as the T2 bayonets for a new item and an “E” suffix for a product improvement item such as the M1905E1 bayonet when shortened to the 10” blade length. On May 8, 1958 this experimental designation was changed to “XM” and when and if the item was adopted it would just have the “X” dropped and become a standard “M” series item.

 

 

 

25th Infantry DI

A fun fact. On February 17, 1926 by General Order No. 16 the Regimental Colors were changed for the 25th Infantry. The heraldic bearings are as follows:

The shield is emblazoned with the stone fort of El Caney and the royal palm of Cuba to commemorate the gallant part the regiment took in the battle of El Caney, Cuba July 1st 1898. The crest, by means of the bolo, symbolizes the participation of the regiment in the Philippine Insurrection; the arrow the Indian Wars in Texas and the Dakotas. The Bolo item stuck out to me as a knife collector and amateur historian. I know of the V-42 being used in many DI’s and in the Special Forces items but was not aware of a bolo ever being used, just an item I thought I would record.

 

 

 

What Is It?

I have had this photo for several years and cannot ID exactly what it is. I know it is a machete but what for and why? Designation? How many were made and by whom? Lots of questions but all I have is the lone photo and the caption information on the back of it. So we know it is a machete and sheath belonging to the Combat Development HQ US ARmy Alaska at Fort Richardson, we know it was taken in Alaska and dated 13 February 1958. We know who took the photo and it was unclassified on 4 Dec 1958. Who can tell me more about this item, any test info available?

 

 

 

Differences in Cole III

I know I discussed it before but did you know there was a change made to a page in M.H. Coles US Military Knives, Bayonets and Machetes Book III between printings 2 and 3? If you have the earlier version you are missing some info and if you have the later version you too are missing some drawings. The following pages are different:

Page 106 has an added scabbard (SBL M6) in the later edition

Page 114 the pommels or Latch Plates to be more specific are drawn differently in each

Page 184 the early edition shows two knives while the later edition shows Howard with a knife.

Page 214 the early edition shows knife company logos and the later edition has the cover of Newsweek 1942.

 

There may be other differences but these are the ones I am aware of. You need both!

 

 

Model of 1905 Bayonet Browning

In a letter from Colonel Stanhope E Blunt, Commanding Rock Island Arsenal to the Chief of Ordnance he acknowledges the revisions requiring certain bright surfaces to the bayonet guard and pommel to be “browned” for purposes of invisibility while in the scabbard. The blades were to be left bright. I always wondered why the exposed parts were browned (blued) and not others, it was for camouflage purposes!

 

 

 

 

Hickman Pocket Knife

Here is a scan of the Hickman Pocket Knife Patents Letter. Often associated with a Nazi knife and always a fake at that, this design was submitted to the USMC during WW II for procurement by the inventor but was never adopted. A unique and novel design it has gained a bad reputation among collectors through the years and as I stated above always a fake. Just a mention to add to my notes.

 

 

 

 

Fairnault Sidearm or Trench Knife

Another what is it but this time without a drawing or photo to even know what it looks like. In the NARA archives Record Group 165 / Office of the Chief of Staff, Correspondence, 1918 to 1921 / 1453-1457 / Box 195 a single letter date June 27, 1918 was found from Henry Jervey, Acting Asst. Chief of Staff asking that the letters and papers be returned to Mr. Edwin Fairfax Naulty of Philadelphia in regards to his new weapon, the Fairnault Sidearm or Trench Knife. His request for adoption of the weapon was denied. Mr. Naulty states 10 are in use by the Marine Corps in testing and the Secretary advised him to approach those Marines for a letter to help his position. Never found any more info on it so wonder what exactly it looks like and if I ever seen one? There was a blueprint and it is cataloged as a “work of art” in a copyright entry. Still can’t find it. Anyone?

 

 

 

 

Nine Million Bayonets

In a post war production page from the Ordnance Dept that list

Bayonets M1905 and M1 – 4,490,000 procured

Bayonets M4 and Trench Knife M3 – 4,851,000 procured

 

That would be 9,341,000 bayonets procured in 1942, 1943, 1944 and 1945. Makes one think why are they so hard to find and why are they so expensive when we do??? And someone was asleep on the job, they skipped the M3 and M6 scabbards.

 

 

 

The Invader Knife

So after a few years of owning the flyer I listed last month I seem to have found and answer within 3 weeks of the post. I just picked up a copy of “The Sporting Goods Dealer” for 1946 and found it. Another ad but this one is from The EGW Knife Co. and they are advertising their knife as the Invader Knife. This is a direct ad from EGW not like the flyer listed last month from a reseller. So I guess that ends the mystery and pretty quickly as well.

 

 

 

Adolph Blaich Inc.

A page later in the “The Sporting Goods Dealer” catalog I see an ad for Adolph Blaich Inc. (pronounced Blake) asking for manufacturers to contact them about handling their lines. The name is important to early WW II knife purchases, especially Western Cutlery to the US Marines. This is  the Western Cutlery Distributor that supplied the L76 and L77 knives along with the Western Boy Scout type utility knives to the Marines. This is the Western / USMC connection.

 

 

 

Factoid

The govt. gave servicemen in WW2 $10,000 life insurance policies. If they were killed their families often used the proceeds to pay off their mortgages. This was why a soldier who was killed in action was said to have “bought the farm”.  

 

 

If you wish to be placed on the mailing list to be notified when the Website is updated, drop us a line. E-mail us here ftrzaska@gmail.com  

Check out our books and knives for sale, some good ones, new and used have just arrived! 

 

Knife and Book Sales

Return to Home Page

Return to Index Page

Frank Trzaska trz123@comcast.net