Jump to content
Great War Forum

Remembered Today:

  • Announcements

    • GWF TEAM

      Minor changes to the Forum   12/12/17

      We have altered the structure of the Home Fronts and Uniforms, Arms, Insignia, Equipment & Medals boards. We have removed the sub-category headings and now each board is more visible and easier to find. We have also renamed "About this website" and "Using theTechnology" to make it clearer where to post questions about the GWF website. We have also put a link ot the forum Rules on the main menu at the top to make them easier to find - particularly the section regarding requesting look ups on subscription sites such as Ancestry. Finally, for those who visit Skindles, there is a pinned post there detailing some changes to it.   Regards The GWF Admin Team
Spear

I need information on a Ross Rifle Co bayonet please

Recommended Posts

Spear

Hello, resently was given what I think to believe is a Ross Rifle Co mkII bayonet and I was trying to find out as much info as possible about it and I though you guys would know best. If anyone know anything about the marks or anything it would be a grate help image.thumb.jpg.d8a1d343ebfb5d8efde08e5620a3f839.jpg

image.jpg

image.jpg

image.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
robins2

some info here on a previous thread

 

regards  Bob  R.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spear

Thanks for rob nothing about the numbers and what they mean 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RangeRover
55 minutes ago, Spear said:

Thanks for rob nothing about the numbers and what they mean 

 

The "11" on the steel indicates a Mk II Ross bayonet for the Mk III Ross rifle. The Mk II mark is also on your scabbard . The 6/16 indicates production date (and it looks like a 1916 date on the scabbard as well. The other markings on the bayonet are an inspection mark and the Canadian C-broad arrow acceptance stamp. As for the R over 16...I can't help there, sorry. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spear

Grate help thank you Range Rover 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shippingsteel
7 hours ago, RangeRover said:

The "11" on the steel indicates a Mk II Ross bayonet for the Mk III Ross rifle. 

 

The 11 actually indicates the year this particular Pattern of bayonet was first introduced. This type is technically a Pattern 1911.

It is often referred to as a Mk.II which I guess it is but technically its not correct. You will notice the first model is a Pattern 1908.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spear

SO this is 1911?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeyH

No, was produced in June 1916, is a PATTERN 1911.

 

Mike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spear

thank you mike 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
robins2

are there any stamps on the top of the handle?? may indicate what regiment it was issued to (see previous thread post #40)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trajan
On 06.12.2017 at 01:33, RangeRover said:

... The "11" on the steel indicates a Mk II Ross bayonet for the Mk III Ross rifle. ... 

 

On 06.12.2017 at 09:03, shippingsteel said:

... The 11 actually indicates the year this particular Pattern of bayonet was first introduced. This type is technically a Pattern 1911.

It is often referred to as a Mk.II which I guess it is but technically its not correct. You will notice the first model is a Pattern 1908.

 

One of the reasons for the confusion over this mark on the Ross type II seems to be that while some examples are clearly stamped with an "11", as with the one here, others are stamped 'II', i.e., serif-less, and so looking like a Roman numeral indicating a 'Mark II'. See. e.g., this one, reproduced for reference from: http://www.warrelics.eu/forum/ww1-allies-great-britain-france-usa-etc-1914-1918/ross-rifle-bayonet-328061/

 

Well, as I understand it - but I don't collect these and have never studied them - the Ross type II bayonet was introduced in 1910, not 1911, and so I think that the '11' is actually meant to be a 'II' for 'Mark 11'. Note, for example, http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/30003913 I don't have Skennerton and Richardson to hand, so perhaps someone can check to see what they say?

Canadian Bayonet Hilt Stamps wrf800.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
msdt

How about the fact that the previous model has 08 instead of 11?

Tony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trajan
7 hours ago, msdt said:

How about the fact that the previous model has 08 instead of 11?

Tony

 

Fair question Tony!  Like I said and I was careful to emphasis in post 11, these Ross ones are not one of my collecting or studying areas! But the controversy over the dating and so-called pattern numbers intrigues me... And of course it annoys me when people make statements based on essentially 'collector's gossip' with no supporting evidence! Reminds me of "FAKE NEWS,  SAD"!!! Now, somewhere in the UK I do/did have a Canadian booklet/book on Canadian markings but could not find it when last back... So, I have just checked S&R and that is not much help, but notes...

 

1) Canadian LOC 257, 1st May 1909 (no 1908 there!) seems to be the acceptance of what "is often referred to as the Pattern 1908 but after the introduction of the Mk II pattern in 1912 it became known as the Mark I Ross Bayonet" (S&R 300 - their stress). Their photograph does not show the marking... But note, it was not introduced until 1909, so what is that '08' mark doing there? No idea!

 

2) Then Canadian LOC 707, 1st December 1911 refers to "Mark I and Mark II bayonets" (S&R 301)

 

3) But, "A sealed pattern of the Mark II Ross bayonet ... was approved on 14th May and 6th June 1912S&R 301, their stress except mine on the '2'!).

 

I honestly don't know what is going on here, but my own feeling based on what there is about and what S&R say, is that there was simply no official pattern designation until the LOC 707 of 1st December 1911, which talks of a "Mk I" and a "Mk II" only - not a 'Pattern 1908' or 'Pattern 1911'. I have simply no idea why Mk I bayonets are marked '08' - if that is the case (I don't have one - show me one!!) - given how the relevant LOC for this is 1st May 1909. However, what does seem clear is that after the LOC of 1911, bayonets produced according to the new "Mk II" specification - although there was no sealed pattern until 6th June 1912! - were designated and so marked as 'II' or '11' to indicate they were Mk II versions, and that the '11' or 'II' is not some inferred pattern number!

 

I am, as always, very happy to be corrected - if references can be supplied, as this furthers our understanding of these things! I don't have a large library and have never studied this particular class of bayonet and do could have missed something. There again, as JMB and I found when looking at P.1907 bayonets (see: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/yaaa20), what the official documents say and what is actual practice are not always directly in harmony with each other...

 

Best regards,

 

Julian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shippingsteel

List of Changes references (both British and other countries) are often dated post-fact. They were often official notifications of items that were already introduced and in some cases even already in service. As I mentioned previously these bayonets were first introduced in years 1908 and 1911 respectively. The meaning of these numbers stamped in that particular position on the pommel has nothing to do with what they were later referred to, as Mk.I and Mk.II bayonets.

 

The first model was certainly initially known as a Pattern 1908 based on the year of introduction, and with the 2nd model first introduced in 1911, I see no reason why it didn't follow suit as a Pattern 1911. The fact that it later came to be known as a Mk.I or Mk.II has no relevance to its original adoption. In both cases there were also later modifications to the original design which also required LoC's to be issued. These were obviously also dated later than the initial adoption. However they do tend to muddy the waters somewhat.

 

Linked here is a photo of a Pattern 1908 Ross that Tony (msdt) posted on an earlier thread. (Good photo of a nice bayonet.!) 

and

Linked here is a photo of an early manufacture Pattern 1911 Ross made in 1912. Note the definitive use of the 11 numerals.!

Edited by shippingsteel
Add photo links

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trajan
15 minutes ago, shippingsteel said:

List of Changes references (both British and other countries) are often dated post-fact. ... The first model was certainly initially known as a Pattern 1908 based on the year of introduction, and with the 2nd model first introduced in 1911, I see no reason why it didn't follow suit as a Pattern 1911.

 

Thanks SS for your reply. I am, of course, well aware that some LOC are issued and printed after the fact, as it were, but my real point in detailing what S&R say (and they could be wrong!), is that while there is an official mention in Canadian LOC 707 of a Mk I and a Mk II, they don't provide any reference to an official 'Pattern 1908' or 'Pattern 1911' designation... 

 

You write that "The first model was certainly initially known as a Pattern 1908", which may well be the case, but was it ever officially referred to as such? As I noted, S&R simply say that the Mk I "is often referred to as the Pattern 1908" and their phrasing suggests that this was not an official designation.:unsure: All I am after is quite simply evidence, with a printed official source, that these really were known as P.1908 or P.1911 bayonets, or whatever, as opposed to a Mk I or Mk II - or are these collector's terms, as with the Turkish 'M.1935'!;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spear

No marking on the pommel or there could ebb it dirty and been toled not to clean it as will devalue it another question what is it worth I won't be selling just intrested 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
msdt

Hi Julian,

I wouldn't call them collectors' terms, whatever other names the particular patterns were called the fact remains that throughout their production the blokes (or gals!) at Ross stamped 08 or 11 on the pommels to refer to the model.

Cheers,

Tony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trajan
4 hours ago, Spear said:

No marking on the pommel or there could ebb it dirty and been toled not to clean it as will devalue it another question what is it worth I won't be selling just intrested 

 

Not so much a matter of devaluing the piece - although some people like to collect the shiny ones, and even those shiny ones that never saw action!:o - but you will be destroying the 'ageing' of the piece, patina that has built up over the decades... So, yes, leave as is! As for value, depends on where you are - but always useful to check local auction sites.

 

50 minutes ago, msdt said:

... I wouldn't call them collectors' terms, whatever other names the particular patterns were called the fact remains that throughout their production the blokes (or gals!) at Ross stamped 08 or 11 on the pommels to refer to the model.

 

Well, its certainly true that some have pommel stamps reading '08', and some have an '11', and some have an 'II' - unless it is a poorly stamped and/or part-scrubbed '11'! - all marks that evidently mean something, and year of production fits best. No problem there, Tony - just me wearing my POF badge with pride(!), and that strictly speaking, as the evidence goes, then its either a Mk I or a Mk II - nothing more nothing less!!! - and so they will remain that to me!

 

Juliab 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
msdt

Year (and month) of production is under the 08 or 11, so 08 and 11 are not year of production.

Cheers,

Tony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trajan
7 minutes ago, msdt said:

Year (and month) of production is under the 08 or 11, so 08 and 11 are not year of production.

 

Teach me to write something quick w/o thinking while being rushed by SWMBO who had dinner on the table:( (green lentils, if you must know...)! Of course, not year of production - but year of type introduction???!!! I honestly have no idea - and this whole discussion has been an education for me. But insofar as terminology is concerned, then - even though I don't have any of these - I will still stick with the verified and so official 'Mk I' and 'Mk II' designations rather than an assumed 'P.1908' and 'P.1911' - well, until firm evidence for the latter is forthcoming! :rolleyes:

 

Best wishes,

 

Julian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shippingsteel
14 hours ago, shippingsteel said:

The first model was certainly initially known as a Pattern 1908 based on the year of introduction, and with the 2nd model first introduced in 1911, I see no reason why it didn't follow suit as a Pattern 1911.

 

There are always two sides to every story. The Ross Rifle Company used their technical design and manufacturing designation when they made these bayonets.

But Canada's department of Militia & Defence can call them whatever they want in Army terms. To avoid confusion they later chose the Mk.I and II nomenclature.

However this doesn't change the meaning of the numerals stamped as a Pattern designation on the bayonets. No Mark numbers were ever stamped on bayonets.

 

Regarding references is Anthony Carter considered to be a credible and generally well-researched resource.? Amongst bayonet circles many would say yes & yes. 

Anthony Carter once stated ... in a book long ago .... "The first Ross bayonet was designated the Pattern 1908, a term later changed to the Bayonet, Ross Mk.I." 

[Stress in text, as quoted from the book "The Bayonet" by Anthony Carter and John Walter, 1974, page 35]  So I believe the system has been well established. :)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trajan
14 hours ago, shippingsteel said:

 

... The Ross Rifle Company used their technical design and manufacturing designation when they made these bayonets. ... Canada's department of Militia & Defence can call them whatever they want ... To avoid confusion they later chose the Mk.I and II nomenclature. ... this doesn't change the meaning of the numerals stamped as a Pattern designation on the bayonets. No Mark numbers were ever stamped on bayonets.

 

... Anthony Carter once stated .... "The first Ross bayonet was designated the Pattern 1908, a term later changed to the Bayonet, Ross Mk.I." ... 

 

Many thanks SS!


It just seems very odd to me that there is no absolute agreement  in how these ones were designated in officialidese... Or even when they became an official 'regular' issue! After all, the Ross Company happily stamped them all - I think! - with "Ross Rifle Co. Quebec, Patented 1907"! I take your point and Tony's that they are marked '08' or '11', and so these are clearly not 'Mark' numbers...

 

Now, to Carter... The quote you give is ambiguous - "The first Ross bayonet was designated the Pattern 1908, a term later changed to the Bayonet, Ross Mk.I." (your stress)... Shades of what S&R say (repeat?) - what "is often referred to as the Pattern 1908 but after the introduction of the Mk II pattern in 1912 it became known as the Mark I Ross Bayonet" (S&R 300 - their stress). Well, I have found errors in Carter with regard to references to German bayonets... So, I don't have that book but  - you know me! - do Carter and Walter give a reference to this claim? Or is it a term they coined?  

 

To make it quite clear what my beef here is, simply that - as GW bayonets are now being slowly recognised not just as collectable items but as artefacts in their own right, with information to pass on re: tactics etc., in the GW, - then we collectors in the broadest sense have an obligation to be accurate when it comes to terminology (I still blush when I recollect how once referred to a P.1917 bayonet!). So, until somebody can show me something official that talks of a Canadian Ross bayonet as a "Pattern 1908" or "Pattern 1911", then I will stick with - if I collected the things! - "Mk.I" and Mk.II"!

 

Trajan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×