Bayonet Identity?

[PackinPelican]

Pards, I have an original bayonet that I need some help with. It appears in all respects to be a pattern 53 Enfield bayonet except that the inner and outer diameter of the socket is a bit larger. Even the markings are the same as my original P53 bayonet. It fits the barrel on my 1816 perfectly except that the bayonet lug is situated too far down the barrel to want to latch. This does not appear to have been an after-manufacture resizing. Like I said, even the outer diameter is a bit larger and the inside of the socket doesn't appear to have been reamed out. Any help out there, Mr. Schmidt?

[Tim Prince]

It could be for the British Pattern 1839 musket. I don't have Rhodes's book here at work, but I think that was the last major musket model prior to the Pattern 1853. The 1839 was approximately .70 if memory serves, so that would be very similar to the size of an 1816/22 barrel. Curt, please correct me if I'm wrong.

They also had a P1842 model that was percussion. I too don't have my book handy or I'd give the details.

Hey Ed,

Interestingly enough some of the OR's I have dug up here in Florida suggests that the antiquated British muskets were actually being imported as mentioned in the above posts (however these may be even older).

"On the 15th of January, I inspected the company of heavy artillery commanded by Captain Campbell, acting as a garrison to the battery of Saint Mark's, Fla.; 125 men; armed with British muskets, caliber .75, in good order; accouterments of leather and in good of ammunition for arms."

"There were very few ordnance stores in depot at Lake City, Fla. Some 300 smooth-bore Tower muskets and 150 Mississippi rifles, which Lieutenant Buckman, ordnance officer, informs me can soon be put in good repair..."

from XXXV OR’s p 582-600 (excerpts from these pages)

So, if you ever find a musket to go with the bayonet you're in luck here in Florida.

[Tim Prince]

Ethan,

The .75 caliber British muskets were likely Brown Bess's that were antiques then! It's amazing what was pressed into service at the beggining of the war.

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo Kameraden!

I don't have a whole lot more to add- as it can be a wee bit hard to say, sight and dimensions unseen, for any/many of the British pre P1853 nominal .75 muskets

Yes, it could be for the Pattern 1838, Patern 1839, Pattern 1842 models as well as possibly earlier.
And, it could be for the P1853/P1858 " India" .656 bore varieties that seem to be popping up lately at shows.

And, "India Pattern" and "New Land Pattern" muskets were floating aorund the world market for years before the ACW- such as those in Mexican hands at the Alamo, and the various US/CA references to "British Tower" flint or conversion muskets.

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

Mr. Prince,

Actually that OR is from winter 63/64! While on this topic went looking through the new "Shotgun News" today I saw that one of the dealers was selling British P1842 muskets that were .75. I was suprised to see that they were being made to that calibre at that late date.

[Niels_Kaas]

The source to consult on this matter is Ian Skennerton's British & Commonwealth Bayonets.

Except for the general contours of the blade, the line issue bayonets for the pre-1853 muskets--the P38, P39, P42, and P51--look very little like P53 bayonets. The sockets are completely different. None of these bayonets employs locking rings; they were fastened either by the Hannoverian (P38s and P39s/42s made before 1844) or the Lovell catches (post-1844 production P39s and P42s, plus the P51s), and hence they have large rims at the bridge to function with the bayonet catch.

The P38, P39, and P42 muskets retained the nominal .753 bore diameter; the bore diameter was reduced for the P51 "minnie musket" to .702. If the bayonet in question does indeed come close to fitting the muzzle of a '16, then I seriously doubt that it's a P38, P39, or P42 bayonet. Just to be sure, I tried my P39 bayonet on all three of my '16s--and the socket was far too large.

Have any pics?

Hope this helps.

Paul Lockhart

[PackinPelican]

I will take some pics tomorrow, but I am not very good at posting them here. If one of you fine gentlemen would do it for me, I will e-mail you some pics.

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo Kameraden!

Thanks for sharing.

Still sight unseen, I am leaning strongly toward the nominal .656 of the Pattern of 1858 or the Pattern of 1859 smooth bore musket for the "native infantry."
It outwardly closely resembles the P1853 save for the rear sight and barrel.
How many of the P1858's were made is unknown as the barrel was found to be weak and the pattern became obsolete.
The Pattern of 1859 for native infantry in India was similar except it had a triangular front sight and the weight of barrel was increased.

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt