paulvallandigham said:
I am curious: Other than re-enacting battle scenes, what use is a bayonet on the end of your barrel today? Yes, I know that some re-enactors use their bayonets as shovels, or for a spit to cook meat over an open fire, and for other camp chores.
If all you have is one of these cheap bayonets, you might as well use them as such and get some benefit out of them. I would not use the expensive bayonets as a shovel, and would worry that the cheap ones might bend in the process, but for light chores it might work.
I am not a re-enactor- at least not of that period of time. I had access to my father's Springfield rifle with its bayonet as a kid, a genuine antique, and we explored its uses then. I decided that unless you are in actual war, doing hand to hand fighting, the bayonet was just something more to drag your pants down.
My intent is not to negative here, as I enjoy watching colonial re-enactors along with the best of them. I admire the people who are into that period of re-enacting. I just don't understand why there is such a range in prices for those bayonets, or any difference in quality.
I suppose that if being a re-enactor REQUIRES you to stab bales of hay with your bayonet, yank it out, etc.,a better made bayonet might be required. But, I have seen no such use other than in movies.
So, guys, what gives? Am I obviously missing something here???
I don't think you're missing anything, Paul. I re-enacted for years and carried one a good part of the time. It was usually a pain in the butt, despite being useful as a candleholder or as a tool to pull a stuck ramrod when cleaning a musket. We used them in battle in the '70's, but it got so it was too dangerous and that practice stopped except in a very few, closely choreographed scenarios. We were required to fix them for parades, inspections, &c, and we took pride in keeping them shiny and straight and woe to the man who didn't have one at those times. In fact, I and several others who at the time carried Enfields with blued barrels, actually blued the socket and shank to match the barrels and to make them easier to care for. Another reason for carrying them was for stacking the muskets. The bayonets are used for this purpose, although it can be done with the ramrods. However, that's not a good practice as they can be damaged if done hurriedly and I've seen stocks cracked if improperly done. So, there is a good reason to have a bayonet for most re-enactments. But, as far as actual battlefield use in a re-enactment, there are good reasons
not to have one. Although it looks good, and many spectators would expect it, it's not a great idea to have them fixed, even if the opposing sides do not close with each other. If a soldier stumbles or takes a hit, chances are good that his bayonet is going to poke somebody. I've seen it happen. And even if it stays in the scabbard, it gets caught on things and if you take a hit and fall a certain way, you're going to gouge yourself or bend it if it's one of the cheap ones. And believe me, I know, personally.
When we did late-war impressions, many times most of us didn't even carry them. There has been an age-old argument about whether Confederates carried bayonets. We know they did and there are quite a few photos of dead soldiers with bayonetted muskets lying near them, but there are many first hand accounts by veterans stating that they preferred clubbing their muskets rather than using the bayonet. I guess it's up to the individual (or unit) as to whether or not to add them to their accoutrements.
I've read some of the comments by posters about either the sloppy or tight fits of their bayonets. Obviously, the specs followed by different companies are not the same, as well as the quality. But there is also some history at play here. Up until the 1840's here and even later in Britain, as we all know, barrels and bayonets were handmade. The bayonets were hand fitted to the muskets. And even as late as our Civil War, the only British muskets that were interchangeable were those of the London Armoury Co. and the government works at Enfield. The Birmingham guns were handmade and not interchangeable and that included the bayonets. Here in the States, all Springfield pattern arms and bayonets, even those of contractors were interchangeable. The Birmingham guns had to have their bayonets fitted and issued together. If not, someone had to fit them in the field. I had a British made bayonet (reproduction) that I had to fit with a rattail file to my reproduction Enfield. We used to go through all the sutler's stock of bayonets looking for something that fit. We rarely found a good fit. We did find that the best thing to do was to find one just a little too small and file it to fit. That way, you get a good solid fit that didn't rattle and flop around. But we also found that even cheap Indian made bayonets would fit any Springfield, original or reproduction, and most of the Springfields were made by the same companies that made the Enfields.
The bayonets used with US muskets had steel blades, including the neck and elbow. These were welded to the iron socket. The British repro bayonet I had was made of steel and of good quality. I still have an Indian bayonet that appears to be dead soft steel. A man could try it, but I doubt that anyone could temper any of the cheap ones. If someone wants to make one less likely to bend, he could put a deep casehardening on it and use steel wool to put a good shine on it. This should serve well enough for those who poke at bales or melons and still need a bright sticker for parades and such. As for me, my bayonet totin' days ended when I started carrying a Whitworth and even earlier when we did long marches and tacticals, as I discovered early on that it did indeed serve no other purpose than to pull my britches down, as did many original soldiers according to their accounts.
