Correct Bayonet

[hireddutchcutthroat]

I am looking for the correct bayonet for my 1838 dated Springfield "Belgian" conversion. The bayonet I currently have for it came out of a trash pit in Benicia CA. and is not exactly armory bright, and it is also for a much earlier pattern Springfield. What should I look for stamps etc? (I am looking for an original.)

[Dbackfed]

Re: Correct Bayonet

Talk to College Hill Armory. He'll set you up well.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Correct Bayonet

Hallo!

Hmmmmm. That's a hard one as a very long post or even a monograph might be required. :)

In brief and to over-generalize...

After much "confusion" between 1795 and 1816, in 1816 "Regulations for the National Armories" was published. But yeah, they still would take a handful of years to get the M1822. And remember we are still in the hand-made, non interchangeable parts era. Anyways, bayonets were initialy to have been made in batches of 2400 with an alphabet/numeric system of c0ombinbations of letters and numbers being stamped on the socket. For example, "A" would be sued for bayonets "1 through 100," then "B" fo the next hundred, etc., until 24 letters of 100 each ranout the batch of 2400.

Well, on paper. There are surviving bayonets that are so marked and others that are not. Overall, the "M1816" bayonet was the first to be subject to stricter inspection, and physically they are fairly close but as with trying to get the "M1816" where they wanted it to be the M1822, there are minor differecnes.

The vast majority are finished bright, except for the so-called M1816 Type II variants that were browned socketed. But, rust patina makes many formerly bright blades brown.

Still being brief...

The NUG two initials of the inspector "should be" next to the "US" on the face of the shank. Say JA, TA, BB, EB, HB, C, EC, NC, SC, JE, EH, RJ, SK, JL, WL, M, JM, MM, SM, SM/Co, SN, JR, NS, HT.
Often, the initials are above or below the "US."
Sometimes they carry the additional stampings of Civil War arms dealers or companies such as "W. HAHN/NY"

They made the M1822 musket at Springfield until 1840 and 1844 at Harpers Ferry. So somebody was makng bayonets from 1816/17 through 1844. Becasue of the time span, they are found with minor variations. Some one, some where, was tinkering with T slot mortise shape or size, no blade flute, no bridge, the taper of the blade, unmarked blade, shank variation, different proportions, modified shanks and T mortise, sdditional of a locking ring, longer sockets, slotted bridge possibly for a rifle front sight's height, etc., etc.

It would appear that there ar emore mior variation in the "M1816" bayonet than in the three general types of musket.

Curt

[rpierson]

Re: Correct Bayonet

My 1833 produced "Wickham" marked conversion musket came with this bayonet. The musket and bayonet have likely been together since the musket was converted to percussion as all metal parts are stamped with a very small "4", including the bayonet. Different gun, but one example to use as reference.




-Randall Pierson

[hireddutchcutthroat]

Re: Correct Bayonet

If it helps my musket is a Springfield with the bayonet lug on the top of the barrel.

[GarrettG1993]

Re: Correct Bayonet

All Springfield muskets prior to the M1835/M1840 had a top mounted lug. There were also several runs of replacement bayonets made in the 1850s for muskets that had lost their bayonets while in storage. They have a more tapered mortise like say an M1855 or M1861 bayonet. I believe many of these replacement bayonets were used with the Remington-Maynard conversions. Tom Pince, the College Hill Arsenal, can hook you up with a nice example. I've purchased both a M1809 Prussian bayonet and a P1853 Enfield from him and they fit like a glove.
It appears that the photo of the bayonet Mr. Pierson posted is one of the 1850s replacements. Note the tapered area at the bottom of the blade.
Regards,
Garrett Glover

[hireddutchcutthroat]

Re: Correct Bayonet

Well my musket has a 38' dated barrel and lock. Why would it have a top lug?

[GarrettG1993]

Re: Correct Bayonet

The small bayonet lug on the top of the barrel was standard for the M1795 to M1828 series(aka M1816 type III). They switched to a larger undermounted bayonet lug on the M1835/M1840 seiers to accomidate the locking band that the new bayonets had. The M1835 series had their bayonet studs mounted on the bottom of the barrel. I would presume this was to prevent the lug and locking ring to obscure the sight. The M1835 series bayonets also have the lug slide on the opposite side. If you attempt to put one on an M1816 the bayonet blade will be on the left rather than the right side.

Regards,
Garrett Glover

[GarrettG1993]

Re: Correct Bayonet

I can't seem to get photos to post, but I have an earlier M1816 bayonet that was with my M1815 when I bought it. It has US (over) JA on the blade, and P (over) 39 70 on the socket. I could email you some photos if you like.

Regards,
Garrett

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Correct Bayonet

Hallo!

A quick way to tell the later alteration bayonets from the "M1816's" is that the special type bayonets have an 18 inch blade rather than the M1816's 16, and have the 1855ish tapered shoulders rather than the M1816's squared shoulders at the elbow.

Curt

[GarrettG1993]

Re: Correct Bayonet

The reason yours is dated 1838, but has the top mounted bayonet lug is because yous is a M1828, aka M1816 type III. The M1835/1840 was adopted in 1835 but not actually procuced until 1840. Production concluded in 1848, although the M1842 had already been manufactured for almost 6 years. Essentially the M1835/1840 is a flintlock version of the M1842. There aren't any other real differences in them aside from ignition system. Springfield and Harpers Ferry were done with producing the M1835 by 1843. The continued manufacturing is due to outstanding government contracts for them. Most of the post 1844 dated contracts were converted before ever being issued. Aside from the bayonet lug, the easiest way to tell a 1816 series musket from an M1835 is the sideplate. The M1816s have a large sideplate whereas the M1835s have a thin plate like that on the M1842.
Being that yours is a cone-in-barrel conversion I would stay away from one of the replacement bayonets. Most of those are encountered on muskets with "bolster", or pattent breech type conversions. A nice M1816 series bayonet should be avaliable for around $150 or so.

Regards,
Garrett Glover