Edged Wpns Possible Confederate bayonet??

[nunzio747]

Hello members

I'm hoping someone with a bit more knowledge can help me

I purchased this bayonet as a "colonial" bayonet. However, I doubt that and I believe it to be a Confederate modified M1855 bayonet. Here are my thoughts...

The biggest give away is the shank. That shape did not come into being until M1855. It can't be colonial. I think the socket was modified to accept a .69 cal. musket. It doesn't quite fit my M1795 musket. But remember standardization wasn't set until M1816. This was made to fit a .69 cal. individual musket. Also, no US marking.. The Union would have no need to modify this bayo and a civilian would have no need for one..
It's currently listed for sale on eBay..

Socket length 2 3/8"
Blade length 15 1/4"
Overall 17 1/4"

Thoughts??

Regards

Walt

Also..
I have new repro Confederate carbines (Cook and Bros. and JP Murray) for sale on Gunbroker. Almost half what Dixie is asking.. user name - nunzio747

 

[James N.]

It resembles bayonets made for the U.S.M.1816/1822 musket, and does have a somewhat rough, irregular finish and lacks the usual US markings; I'm not sure, but welcome to the forums from the host of the Stonewall Jackson Forum. Hopefully, @ucvrelics or @Package4 have more information!

 

[plymouthairrifle]

Afghanistan?

 

[JOHN42768]

Welcome, enjoy. Is that a crack at bend?

 

[nunzio747]

Welcome, enjoy. Is that a crack at bend?

Hi

Yeah, a slight crack..

 

[nunzio747]

It resembles bayonets made for the U.S.M.1816/1822 musket, and does have a somewhat rough, irregular finish and lacks the usual US markings; I'm not sure, but welcome to the forums from the host of the Stonewall Jackson Forum. Hopefully, @ucvrelics or @Package4 have more information!

Hi
I see the resemblance. I own over a dozen 1795, 1808, 1812 and 1816's. It is similar to the 1812's and earlier in that it doesn't have a bridge. The shank is definitely M1855. Quite the conundrum...

 

[nunzio747]

Afghanistan?

Hmmm.. I would think they would resemble British bayo's but, who knows??

 

[OldSarge79]

The blade itself appears to be irregular, but patterned after the Model 1855. Can't say it looks like a professional job.
I'm thinking maybe early CW or late CW Confederate and locally made. But waiting for those more knowledgeable to give an opinion.

 

[zburkett]

Let me just throw out, local forge equipping a militia unit or a Confederate unit early in the war?

 

[UCVRelics]

Welcome From THE Heart Of Dixie. I don't know what it is, but something just doesn't look right about this one.

 

[tbuckley]

Welcome from eastern Ohio.

 

[Story]

Welcome From THE Heart Of Dixie. I don't know what it is, but something just doesn't look right about this one.

The texture of the surface?

 

[Larryh86GT]

Welcome from WNY

 

[nunzio747]

It's very odd. Definitely not arsenal work.. The shank has been slightly thinned down. The socket is thick..

 

[7thWisconsin]

Is there any possibility that this bayonet started out as an 1855, then was modified 50 Years ago to fit a repro Charleville musket? There used to be a lot of modified bayonets floating around the Revolutionary War reenacting world.

 

[Package4]

Hello members

I'm hoping someone with a bit more knowledge can help me

I purchased this bayonet as a "colonial" bayonet. However, I doubt that and I believe it to be a Confederate modified M1855 bayonet. Here are my thoughts...

The biggest give away is the shank. That shape did not come into being until M1855. It can't be colonial. I think the socket was modified to accept a .69 cal. musket. It doesn't quite fit my M1795 musket. But remember standardization wasn't set until M1816. This was made to fit a .69 cal. individual musket. Also, no US marking.. The Union would have no need to modify this bayo and a civilian would have no need for one..
It's currently listed for sale on eBay..

Socket length 2 3/8"
Blade length 15 1/4"
Overall 17 1/4"

Thoughts??

Regards

Walt

Also..
I have new repro Confederate carbines (Cook and Bros. and JP Murray) for sale on Gunbroker. Almost half what Dixie is asking.. user name - nunzio747

View attachment 330594

View attachment 330595

View attachment 330596

View attachment 330597

View attachment 330598

View attachment 330599

View attachment 330600

View attachment 330601

View attachment 330602

View attachment 330603

View attachment 330604

View attachment 330605

Paging resident Confederate bayonet expert @Lanyard Puller for his thoughts, if he hasn't already contacted you via IM. The conversion could have been done anytime from 1855 to 1960...…..

 

[nunzio747]

The texture of the surface?

The texture is fairly smooth...

 

[Package4]

The texture is fairly smooth...

Looking down the length, does it appear straight or is there a wave like pattern, also does the last third of the piece look different in texture and material?

 

[Package4]

Confederate made socket bayonets particularly post 1862 were a composite of iron around the socket with the tip made of steel. The weld seam was one of the weak points both at the socket and the blade where the steel was attached. There were quite a few contractors who made these, in addition to the Richmond Arsenal. Not saying yours is one of these, but those are things to look for when evaluating what one thinks of as a common M1855. Yours does appear to have a weak area around the weld seam and a mottled look down the blade, but without holding it, too difficult to say. The crude cutting of the socket speaks to post war amateur hour. Even a local blacksmith/gunsmith would smooth the rough edges.

 

[nunzio747]

Looking down the length, does it appear straight or is there a wave like pattern, also does the last third of the piece look different in texture and material?

Hi
You are right. The blade is slightly wavy pretty much the whole length, a little more pronounced at the last third. The texture is the same throughout...