Really old bayonet

[Merc]

image.jpgimage.jpgimage.jpgimage.jpg

I bought an old bayonet today at a flea market that really looks bad by today's standards but may be in fair shape considering its age. It appears to be from the 1700s.

image.jpg

It resembles a 1750 German bayonet. The socket is really big like it was made to accept a .75 cal barrel. It's surface is rusted with some loss but a lot remains.

[Merc]

image.jpgimage.jpg

A few more photos.

Update:

I consulted a military appraiser and museum curator about the origin of the bayonet and he confirmed that it's either an early German or British bayonet from the early to mid 1700s.

Update 2:

It's an British Brown Bess bayonet from the early 1700s. The overall length, size of socket and hole patterns are identical to the BBs for sale on eBay. Mine is badly rusted and the stampings and cartouches are long gone, but enough remains of the structure to identify it. Judging by its condition, I'd say it spent some time lost on some rev war battlefield. Far from perfect, but it probably has an interesting although lost story to tell.

[free1954]

yes, if only it could talk. it doesn't look in really bad shape.

[Dan Shapiro]

One thing about those bayonets........there was no doubt in your mind what they were used for. "Pretty" is not an adjective used to describe them.

When I make presentations on antique firearms to local high school ROTC units, nothing gets their attention quicker than when I fasten a bayonet to the muzzle of a musket.

[Merc]

yes, if only it could talk. it doesn't look in really bad shape.

Even in its present condition, it's still the most interesting bayonet I own. The flea market vendor said it was from the Civil War and immediately raised the price by $8 when I told him it was from the Revolutionary War or sooner. Too bad the provenance was lost.

[Merc]

One thing about those bayonets........there was no doubt in your mind what they were used for. "Pretty" is not an adjective used to describe them.

When I make presentations on antique firearms to local high school ROTC units, nothing gets their attention quicker than when I fasten a bayonet to the muzzle of a musket.

Agreed. "Pretty" isn't a term that I'd use, however I still admire the craftsmanship that went to building all of the old bayonets and rifles that I own. They don't make them like that anymore.

[Johnny P]

It transforms a projectile firing weapon into a Stone Age weapon.

[Merc]

Bayonets were an important weapon up through the Civil War. It takes 20 or 30 seconds to reload a musket and you had to standup to do it. You have two choices when being charged by the enemy and you're standing there with an empty musket with no time to reload - retreat or stand and fight with what you've got. Chances are the other guys muskets are also empty so it's probably a fair fight. The repeating rifles of the CW made bayonet charges risky and obsolete.

[70ish]

The repeating rifles of the CW made bayonet charges risky and obsolete.

Risky - for sure. Obsolete - hardly. Think Fredricksburg, Pickertt's charge, Cold Harbor or Franklin, Tennessee to name a few. There's the pity of it.

[Merc]

You're correct - they continued to use it, however the failures of this military tactic didn't go un-noticed. Lee lost much of his army at Gettysburg by charging a fortified position and the same is true with Burnside at Fredericksburg. The weapons were beginning to change and become more effective during the CW (i.e. rifled barrels, the repeating rifle and others). The tactics of war were forced to eventually change as well. Grant's siege of Petersburg is one example. You're also correct - the pity of it is that so many men died before the generals on both sides realized that their human resources were limited and asking his men to commit mass suicide in such a charge was proven futile time and again and a waste of human lives.

[free1954]

You're correct - they continued to use it, however the failures of this military tactic didn't go un-noticed. Lee lost much of his army at Gettysburg by charging a fortified position and the same is true with Burnside at Fredericksburg. The weapons were beginning to change and become more effective during the CW (i.e. rifled barrels, the repeating rifle and others). The tactics of war were forced to eventually change as well. Grant's siege of Petersburg is one example. You're also correct - the pity of it is that so many men died before the generals on both sides realized that their human resources were limited and asking his men to commit mass suicide in such a charge was proven futile time and again and a waste of human lives.

And yet they were still using frontal assaults during the Iran/iraq war.

[Merc]

Modern tactics that includes drone warfare means that wars can now be fought from an office. All that time kids spent playing computer war games wasn't wasted after all.

[JB White]

A drone with afixed bayonet...now that's something to think about

[free1954]

Modern tactics that includes drone warfare means that wars can now be fought from an office. All that time kids spent playing computer war games wasn't wasted after all.

and yet it will always come down to the guys on the ground to finish the job. I read once where it was thought before the first world war that advancing artillery barrages would put an end to the use of infantry.

[70ish]

and yet it will always come down to the guys on the ground to finish the job. I read once where it was thought before the first world war that advancing artillery barrages would put an end to the use of infantry.

It almost did just that…..until the British increased recruitment and we came over to join the fodder, uh, I mean fight.