Bayonet Mounting

samuel orris

Sergeant
Joined
Mar 6, 2010
Location
Elizabethtown, PA
I almost feel dumb for asking this, but why were bayonets mounted at the side of the barrel and not underneath the barrel? Also, in the movie Glory, as the troops are training they are shown giving their rifles a twist before recovering from the jab. Was this to cause a bigger and perhaps a more fatal wound?
Go ahead, call me doopid.
 
There is no such thing as a bad question, just one that is not asked. Angular bayonets mounted to the side and sword bayonets fit there also. You twisted the bayonet then and now to help get it unstuck from your target. Percentage wise, the bayonet was more effective as a terror weapon than an actual weapon and another problem was that the additional weight on the front of the weapon tended to throw it's balance off.
 
Last edited:
I almost feel dumb for asking this, but why were bayonets mounted at the side of the barrel and not underneath the barrel?

There may be a more specific technical answer, but all were placed to the side of the barrel....both triangular and sword bayonet types... since ramrod was always underneath... secondly depending on which manual of arms loading procedure is being used... its off to the side and out of the way when loading a musket with a fixed bayonet....

Also, in the movie Glory, as the troops are training they are shown giving their rifles a twist before recovering from the jab. Was this to cause a bigger and perhaps a more fatal wound

Several of the thrusting moves in most period bayonet drills provide motion of rotating the weapon a quarter turn to the left... (lunge, lunge-out)... one reason is to provide additional stability of the weapon during the move by it placing the flat of the stock under the forearm... bayonet blade is up.... secondly... same motion is used defensively to lock/block your opponents bayonet thrusts at you... the twist/turn motion engages locks/blocks the two... One instinctive motion that serves multiple purposes...
 
Last edited:
I remember reading that after one horrible battle the surgeons were surprised that in examining the wounded there were very few bayonet wounds. In close combat, bayonets were discarded. It is much easier to load w/o a pointed piece of steel in the way. Less chance of sticking yourself in hurry to load and fire. Then when upon the enemy and musket not loaded it was much easier and more effective to use as a club by grabbing by the muzzle end and swinging at your foe.
 
I remember reading that after one horrible battle the surgeons were surprised that in examining the wounded there were very few bayonet wounds. In close combat, bayonets were discarded. It is much easier to load w/o a pointed piece of steel in the way. Less chance of sticking yourself in hurry to load and fire. Then when upon the enemy and musket not loaded it was much easier and more effective to use as a club by grabbing by the muzzle end and swinging at your foe.
I was reading an account of the actions at the Mule Shoe that stated that the Confederates used their weapons as clubs since very few of them still had their bayonets.
 
I remember reading that after one horrible battle the surgeons were surprised that in examining the wounded there were very few bayonet wounds

Not unusual... Most times one line or the other gave way or broke before either gaining close proximity for the use of the bayonet..... Second.... Bayonet related penetrating trauma to the chest, abdomen, etc. habitually tended to be a mortal wound... depending on exactly where, and which vital organs may have been involved.... If not immediately fatal... typically one may only linger 15-20 minutes or so before the internal hemorrhage begins shutting everything down.... Third... Surgeons only recorded what came to their table... if they did not survive to come off the field... it was not documented nor counted.... Many Surgeons on both sides wrote it was rare for them to get a bayonet wound... not that they were all that rare.. just that few survived them long enough to get to the surgeon....
 
If I'm not mistaken, and someone please let me know if this is an error, but the twisting did present a much nastier wound that was not easy to close. And I believe that are banned for battlefield.
 
If I'm not mistaken, and someone please let me know if this is an error, but the twisting did present a much nastier wound that was not easy to close. And I believe that are banned for battlefield.
The triangular shape of the bayonet was designed to cause a wound that was difficult to close.
 
A bayonet on the end of the barrel will definitely throw off your bullet's point of impact, from the point of aim!

I tried this at the range one time, at 50 yards, I was dead on in the heart area of a life sized silhouette of a human body. When I placed the bayonet on the barrel, the bullets were hitting in the extreme upper right shoulder. Any farther distance to the target, I would have completely missed.

I always laugh at Hollywood depicting soldiers shooting long distance with the bayonet ON the rifle.

Kevin Dally
 
The advent of the Triangular/Spike Bayonet go's back to at least the early 1700's.. The issue with wounds inflicted therewith, and their noted difficulty in some occasions to heal properly... typically being compared in context, between such and same as result of a sword/knife bayonet.. was an after the fact observation... not an intentional design intention or purpose.

The twisting idea is mostly an echoed tall tale... with a sword/knife bayonet tends to inflict a slightly higher degree of soft tissue trauma... but with a triangular bayonet... not so much... In most cases it was thought to enable the respective blade to break suction or muscle grip to allow easier withdrawal... most times... not necessary...
 
A bayonet on the end of the barrel will definitely throw off your bullet's point of impact, from the point of aim!

I tried this at the range one time, at 50 yards, I was dead on in the heart area of a life sized silhouette of a human body. When I placed the bayonet on the barrel, the bullets were hitting in the extreme upper right shoulder. Any farther distance to the target, I would have completely missed.

I always laugh at Hollywood depicting soldiers shooting long distance with the bayonet ON the rifle.

Kevin Dally

Interesting... I also tried this years ago... wanted to see how different it was trying to load and fire one with the bayonet attached... smacked the knuckles a few times at first ramming the cartridges... Then when noted when holding it in the proper position for loading per the period manuals it didnt.... On the firing range with and without the bayonet attached... With it... took a few minutes to adjust to the weight balance difference and aiming points with the bayonet socket attached.... In my experience I didn't find any difference in accuracy.... but did get a sufficient black powder residue on the bayonet blade....
 
Last edited:
Triangular bayonets weren't sharpened, either. So using them was like punching a long nail through your target. I think the other reason they weren't sharpened is that would make loading dangerous. Try doing bayonet drill sometime with a short musket (rifle) and a sword bayonet. That'll bulk you up!
 
Not unusual... Most times one line or the other gave way or broke before either gaining close proximity for the use of the bayonet..... Second.... Bayonet related penetrating trauma to the chest, abdomen, etc. habitually tended to be a mortal wound... depending on exactly where, and which vital organs may have been involved.... If not immediately fatal... typically one may only linger 15-20 minutes or so before the internal hemorrhage begins shutting everything down.... Third... Surgeons only recorded what came to their table... if they did not survive to come off the field... it was not documented nor counted.... Many Surgeons on both sides wrote it was rare for them to get a bayonet wound... not that they were all that rare.. just that few survived them long enough to get to the surgeon....

I question the theory that bayonet wounds were more often fatal than bullet wounds. How and why would a bayonet inflict a more serious wound to internal organs than a one-ounce lead slug that also shatters bone while traveling through the body?

Furthermore, why didn't surgeons record more bayonet injuries to the extremities? We know that most projectile wounds were to the arms and legs (rather than to the core organs), so we would expect that many bayonet wounds would likewise be to nonfatal areas (not every bayonet strike will be lethal).
 
Back
Top