Socket Bayonet use on Enfield 2 Band Rifles

[scottdr2]

Some time ago I read somewhere that saber bayonet usage was pretty much limited to the early war period. By the late part of the war, most 2 band rifles, including Enfields, were modified to accept the socket style bayonet. Is this true? I have seen period photos of soldiers with rifles and socket bayonets. I've also seen a photo of a Fayetteville rifle with a socket bayonet. I know that some m1841 rifles were arsenal fitted with socket bayonets, but what about Enfields?

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

"By the late part of the war, most 2 band rifles, including Enfields, were modified to accept the socket style bayonet. Is this true?"

In brief and to over-generalize.... no.

NUG, the bayonet for rifles was a sword/sabre bayonet.
The exception was the M1841 Rifle, which was originally made with no provisions for a bayonet. However, after 1854ish, the decision was made to "modernize" the old M1841 to be be on par with the new M1855 Rifle so it was common for the (various arsenal and contractor) altered M1841's to be modified with a long (or short) range rear sight and bayonet lug for a sword/sabre bayonet (if not also rebored to .58 from .54).
Not all were sabre bayonet modified, as some used M1842 bayonets or were lathe-turned to accomodate M1855 socket bayonets.

Fayetteville rifles were made with Harpers Ferry machinery so the earlyproduction used a sabre bayonet. After about 1862, that was switched to socket bayonets.
Richmond seemed to avoided the bayonet issue by not using them on their "musketoons" (short rifle-muskets)- as their high front sight would not accomodate a socket bayonet as did their rifle-muskets.
CS M1841 clones often had sabre bayonets.


Off the top of my head, I can recall no Enfield rifles modified to accept socket bayonets, but it is growing late.

Curt

[David Fox]

As I understand it, Richmond two-band rifles were designed primarily to use-up damaged parts and for use by horsemen and thus were not manufactured w/ a provision of any sort of bayonet. In the Confederacy, a decision was made to abolish sabre bayonet production beginning in 1864. One suspects the reason for this was more to do with conservation of resourses than field usage questions. Undeniably the sabre bayonet is cumbersome, whether shipped on the rifle muzzle or suspended from the belt. Fayetteville manufactured a long triangular bayonet in '64 or '65 which is all-but identical to a pre-war model used on some M.1841 Mississippi rifles. The bayonets will interchange t'wixt some M.1841s and '64 Fayetteville rifles. Its quality suggests it was made on captured Harper's Ferry machinery.To my knowledge no significant effort was expended on either side otherwise to convert 2-banders to take a triangular bayonet during the war. The North pretty-much abandoned acquisition or issue of two-banders during 1863 and was withdrawing 2-banders from front line issue. The South had more important things to worry about. Many 2-banders today evidence removal of the sabre bayonet stud. This usually was done in civilian hands after the war. One rarely needs to bayonet Bambi.

[scottdr2]

Thanks for the replies, that clears up the issue for me.

[Lee Ragan]

Several years ago, I met a guy at a central Texas event that had an original 2 band Enfield that he said was an "India" pattern rifle and he said it took a socket type bayonet. He didn't have a bayonet to fit the rifle and he also said the rifle had been brought over from the UK only a short time before. I saw the rifle and it didn't have any lug for a sword bayonet.
Can anyone add too, or confirm this?

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

Not much to go on...

Kinda, sorta, maybe-

It sounds like the the Sergeant's Fusil, Rifled, Pattern 1856 made for the India service. It took a socket bayonet.

Curt

[Sheikh Al Stranghi]

If a rifle has no bayonet lug at all, would it be possible to weld one on or something?