Lets Test your knowledge

[Gary Cain]

Any body know what this is? Blade length is 17.75 inches.


Gary

[Gary Cain]

#2 It has all matching serial numbers. This is a closeup of the scabbard assembly.

Any body know what this is?


Gary

[Terry K.]

FG-42 bayonet?

[Gary Cain]

Nope, this predates that by a good margin.


Gary

FG-42 bayonet?

[Frogprince]

The bayonet is for the FN Mauser Model 1935/36(?). The scabbard with the fork is to mount a machine gun(?). A very rare combination. FP

[Gary Cain]

Much closer but not quite there, though you are correct it is a vvvveeeeerrrrryyy rare bayonet.




Gary

The bayonet is for the FN Mauser Model 1935/36(?). The scabbard with the fork is to mount a machine gun(?). A very rare combination. FP

[martin guerre]

Looks like French .Am i right ?

[Gary Cain]

Nope! It is European though.

Looks like French .Am i right ?

[John Allen]

Test your knowledge

The bayonet is Belgian and was supposedly made for their Air Force.

John Allen

[Gary Cain]

Close enough! FN Mod 30 BAR bayonet with scabbard. Used by the observer in the rear cockpit of the two seater aircraft. The yoke assembly fitted to the front part of the reciever of the BAR and the rod part became a pintel mount for the gun. Very, very, very rare. It's the only one I have ever seen that is matching. In fact in Kieslings books the bayo is described in volume 2 but the scabbard was not located till volume 4!

Gary

The bayonet is Belgian and was supposedly made for their Air Force.

John Allen

[Skipper Greenwade]

Interesting...although I must confess a lack of detailed knowledge when it comes to bayonets - especially other than Third Reich - I am impressed with the knowledge some of the other Members have.

Great thread...thanks Gary

Skip

[Frogprince]

Retrieving my long buried volume 4 of Kiesling he says that the bayonet was made for the FN Mauser Model 1935/36 rifles (Fusil Modèle 1935/1936). And that the sheathed bayonet was attached to the rifle as a mount for the machine gun. And the fork (bracket) rotated up so that it projected above the scabbard tip to be used for mounting the Browning Automatic Rifle (FN Mle 30). There is a line drawing showing it deployed on a Mauser rifle. And as far as I know BAR’s never had bayonet mounting studs. Is there some kind of secondary attachment point for the bayonet/scabbard that I am not aware of ?? FP

[Frogprince]

Looking at Kiesling again I think that he might have got part of it wrong - which would not be the first mistake in his excellent series of books. He actually says: “developed for pilots of the Belgium air force and was standard issue”. Knowing a little about aircraft design you try to minimize weight not add it to an airframe. The total rig would be heavy and would have to fit in a cramped cockpit along with spare magazines and a rifle. Have very limited magazine capacity for combat. And would not be very flexible if you tried to shoot to either side or downward. Were the Belgium's were that unrealistic in the 1930’s ????

Now if somebody told me that the ensemble was designed as an improvised method to be used for airfield defense. Or some other antiaircraft application from the ground (in that time frame) that to me makes a lot more sense.

Anybody else have an opinion ?? FP

PS: It’s still a very rare combination. A friend has the bayonet only, and has been offered a complete rig, but the asking price was quite high and the condition was not exceptional.

[Gary Cain]

Yes Kieslings books are very good but there are issus as you have noted. The bayonet is first mentioned in Volume 2 (no.332 or there abouts) and the scabbard was not located till they were working on volume 4. It is not for the pilot but for the observer(who sits in the back. The scabbard acts as a pintle mount for the gun. The whole system is actually fairly lightweight, and the gun can both swivel and pivot on the mount. It is rather ingenious. Of course within two years it was obsolete as the aircraft changed so dramatically in technology.

Gary

Looking at Kiesling again I think that he might have got part of it wrong - which would not be the first mistake in his excellent series of books. He actually says: “developed for pilots of the Belgium air force and was standard issue”. Knowing a little about aircraft design you try to minimize weight not add it to an airframe. The total rig would be heavy and would have to fit in a cramped cockpit along with spare magazines and a rifle. Have very limited magazine capacity for combat. And would not be very flexible if you tried to shoot to either side or downward. Were the Belgium's were that unrealistic in the 1930’s ????

Now if somebody told me that the ensemble was designed as an improvised method to be used for airfield defense. Or some other antiaircraft application from the ground (in that time frame) that to me makes a lot more sense.

Anybody else have an opinion ?? FP

PS: It’s still a very rare combination. A friend has the bayonet only, and has been offered a complete rig, but the asking price was quite high and the condition was not exceptional.

[Frogprince]

Gary, Most respectfully as an academic discussion: Volume #2 also calls it a bayonet designed for pilots. And states that it’s a “bayonette-allonge support pour FN Model 30” which he translated as a “bayonet-lengthening support for FN Model 30”. If we assume that Kiesling misspoke and that he was referring instead to a rear observer (which I agree does make more sense) that brings a couple of other issues into play. I understand pintle mounts and if Kiesling’s line drawing is correct the FN30 would be at a minimum about 5 1/2 feet from the floor of the aircraft. If the observer was seated he could shoot up and back in a limited arc. If he stood and was very tall, or had a step stool, he could get a greater range of motion assuming that the rifle to which the bayonet was attached was fixed in place - or had some kind of rotating basket to support it.

In WWI standing observers were not that rare and what is usually seen is a ring mount. That the fork mounted bayonet/scabbard is legitimate is not in question. I tried to find something in the Belgium Air Force’s prewar inventory that could have used such an improvised mount - but was not successful. Do you know what kind of aircraft was supposed to carry this conglomerate type weapon system? Or perhaps one of our Belgian friends can shed some light on this seemingly conflicting information? Regards, FP

PS: It still looks like a ground antiaircraft mount to me - but who knows??

Yes Kieslings books are very good but there are issus as you have noted. The bayonet is first mentioned in Volume 2 (no.332 or there abouts) and the scabbard was not located till they were working on volume 4. It is not for the pilot but for the observer(who sits in the back. The scabbard acts as a pintle mount for the gun. The whole system is actually fairly lightweight, and the gun can both swivel and pivot on the mount. It is rather ingenious. Of course within two years it was obsolete as the aircraft changed so dramatically in technology.

Gary