To others with replica muskets, does one ever sharpen the bayonet to a knife's edge? While this pertains to my Brown Bess, it would apply to nearly any other musket from other eras. Are there rules for most reenactment groups? How pc (I.e. How sharp were they actually kept) is it? How about safety issues (for the few times one loads with a fixed bayonet)? The last reason is why I have kept mine factory blunt. I probably will continue to keep it that way, but I would like to know what is proper.
-
Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.
We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.
Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103
Sharpen a bayonet???
- Thread starter feyx0006
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
You must mean sherpening the point as there is no edge on a Brown Bess bayonett. The original bayonetts that I have don't have much of a point, nothing you would call sharp. My repro Bess bayonett has almost as sharp a point though it isn't as well shaped. I don't see any need to sharpen one unless you are going to use it to spit a pilfered pig.
So, period correct is with the tip pointed only? The remaining edges are all blunt? Sounds a bit like a rapier but less agile... So, this begs the question, when did sharpened edges come into play. Are 1812/Napoleonic, civil war, etc. bayonets sharpened on the edges? I do strongly believe they were during the Spanish-American war, but that it outside of our desired time-frame here. The transition, I assume, occurred sooner...
The bayonet had never been a key subject of interest to me. Suddenly, my interest has piqued... :thumbsup:
The bayonet had never been a key subject of interest to me. Suddenly, my interest has piqued... :thumbsup:
Ranger1759
40 Cal.
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2010
- Messages
- 397
- Reaction score
- 2
The purpose of the bayonett was to cause a semi-gagged three sided puncture wound with was very hard to sew back together....that is why the tri-angled bayonett was outlawed by the Geneva convention and a more knife/sword like bayonett came about, and those did have sharpened edges...
just my .02
Ranger
just my .02
Ranger
Many Klatch
69 Cal.
- Joined
- May 19, 2006
- Messages
- 3,498
- Reaction score
- 268
As a reenactor, about the only thing a Bess bayonet is good for is to use as a candle holder while stuck in the ground.
Many Klatch
Many Klatch
Va.Manuf.06
58 Cal.
feyx0006 said:
Yes. The bayonet on a long musket was used for thrusting, not slashing. The soldiers were trained to fence with the bayoneted musket, not to cut. They stood close beside each other in ranks (shoulder to shoulder, elbow to elbow as an unbreakable wall) and only on rare occasion had the ability to swing the barrel more than a foot in any direction.
feyx0006 said:
No, the standard socket bayonet was never sharpened in service except at the point to aid in penetration which it did very well creating a very hard to repair and deep wound. Sword bayonets, which were far from common in the 18th Century were sharpened but they did not see much use until the 2nd quarter of the 19th Century and did not become common until the last quarter or the end of the 19th Century. Keep in mind also that the bayonet training the average soldier of all then modern armies was extensive and intense and it did carry many battles up to and throughout the 19th Century. It instilled discipline and agility with it's fencing-like moves. And to dispose of a long held belief, like any and all European armies, both armies participating in the American Civil War were well trained in use of the bayonet and did use it, despite what the Dixie Gun Works catalog and others foolishly say on the subject.[/quote]
feyx0006 said:
At the time of the Spanish American War, the sword bayonet and then the knife bayonet had become the standard and most nations had adopted it or were in the process of using it as standard. The US and Spain were both using the knife or sword bayonet on the first line arms but both sides, especially the Americans, still used the socket bayonet in combat during the war, especially the American National Guard troops armed with the M1873 Trapdoor Springfield. Their bayonet walked directly out of our Civil War with many of the bayonets in use then having been veterans of that war, only slightly modified to fit the smaller .45 caliber Trapdoor.
Lets correct some myths and misconceptions...,
The musket of the 18th century and earlier was not viewed as a gun that had a spear point attached to it as a backup, it was viewed as a spear that could shoot. Battles were won by making the enemy leave the field, and this was normally done with the point of the bayonet. In fact many situations occurred where unloaded muskets with bayonets fixed were used to gain victory in an engagement. The first bayonets were flat blades, but they wanted the men to thrust, not to slash. When the socket bayonet came about..., the ability to slash was removed.
The purpose of the bayonet, was and is, to put the opponent down, as fast as possible, before he does the same to you. It was originally the primary weapon of the infantry.., now it's a last ditch weapon. There was little if any effort done in the way of medical care in the 18th century and even into the first half of the 19th century, so the late 19th - 20th century idea that the wounded soldier took a lot more logistics to care for, and thus a wound that took time to heal was better, is a myth concocted by armchair historians to explain the triangular bayonet.
The triangular bayonet was and is best employed on the chest cavity, puncturing a lung, and putting the man down. Other parts of the opponent work, but ask any deer hunter if popping a lung works, and you get the idea. One doesn't find a litany of notations from field hospitals on the scores of men recovering from triangular bayonet wounds, thus debunking the myth of the wound that's hard to heal.
The triangular shape in a thin blade such as an Epee or Gentleman's short sword existed long before the bayonet (rapiers are diamond shaped in cross section, not a triangle nor a "Y"). That shape is to give the long, thin blade reenforcement as it pierces the opponent.
Such a sword blade is generally made of good steel, very good indeed. When you then go to the triangular bayonet, you are using the cheapest steel possible. Again if you use a tapered, triangular shape, you get the best possible shape for strength and piercing. You also get a shape which a heated metal billet is easily forged into, when that billet is hammered over a swage block designed to make bayonets. So you achieve a strong, and very simple to produce blade, with the cheapest steel around.
As time went on, the steel improved and the blade thickness was thus reduced, but the "Y" shape remained to provide strength.
So to recap....,
It was a triangle to give it strength with cheap steel,
Slow healing wounds are a mythical consideration...,
ff
Now today you hear all this BS about "The Geneva Convention" outlawing sharpened bayonets. The Geneva convention deals with prisoners of war folks,
The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 deal with the rules of war and this is what it says about war on land...,
1899
Section II
Article 23
Besides the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially prohibited:--
To employ poison or poisoned arms;
To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;
To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;
To declare that no quarter will be given;
To employ arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous injury;
To make improper use of a flag of truce, the national flag, or military ensigns and the enemy's uniform, as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention;
To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war.
1907
Section IV
Art. 23.
In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden -
To employ poison or poisoned weapons;
To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;
To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;
To declare that no quarter will be given;
To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;
To make improper use of a flag of truce, of the national flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy, as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention;
To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;
To declare abolished, suspended, or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party. A belligerent is likewise forbidden to compel the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent's service before the commencement of the war.
Now it's sub-article 5 that says one cannot employ arms to cause "superfluous injury" or "unnecessary suffering". Those are rather broad wordings, for who defines "superfluous" or "unnecessary"? As a mater of fact, the width of the modern knife blade bayonet, which doubles as a fighting knife AND as a belt knife, causes more damage than the triangular bayonets that existed at the time these laws were written.
IF a knife blade bayonet cannot be sharpened, then using a K-Bar fighting knife in combat (or any fighting knife in combat), heck even carrying one one your belt, would be a war crime. The K-Bar, still part of the USMC inventory, is every bit as long and deadly therefore, as the modern M-4 bayonet, or the AK-47 knife/wire cutter bayonet.
Further the United States Navy adopted the Model 1917 cutlass 10 years after the Hague agreement, and they were used until 1949. Now a cutlass will do a lot more "superfluous" damage and cause suffering than will a knife blade, no? So much for the "you can't sharpen that" myth.
Sorry that I strayed..., but often we get tourists who ask about bayonets at battle reenactments and other events, and we hear the myths over and over and over again... :grin:
LD
The musket of the 18th century and earlier was not viewed as a gun that had a spear point attached to it as a backup, it was viewed as a spear that could shoot. Battles were won by making the enemy leave the field, and this was normally done with the point of the bayonet. In fact many situations occurred where unloaded muskets with bayonets fixed were used to gain victory in an engagement. The first bayonets were flat blades, but they wanted the men to thrust, not to slash. When the socket bayonet came about..., the ability to slash was removed.
The purpose of the bayonet, was and is, to put the opponent down, as fast as possible, before he does the same to you. It was originally the primary weapon of the infantry.., now it's a last ditch weapon. There was little if any effort done in the way of medical care in the 18th century and even into the first half of the 19th century, so the late 19th - 20th century idea that the wounded soldier took a lot more logistics to care for, and thus a wound that took time to heal was better, is a myth concocted by armchair historians to explain the triangular bayonet.
The triangular bayonet was and is best employed on the chest cavity, puncturing a lung, and putting the man down. Other parts of the opponent work, but ask any deer hunter if popping a lung works, and you get the idea. One doesn't find a litany of notations from field hospitals on the scores of men recovering from triangular bayonet wounds, thus debunking the myth of the wound that's hard to heal.
The triangular shape in a thin blade such as an Epee or Gentleman's short sword existed long before the bayonet (rapiers are diamond shaped in cross section, not a triangle nor a "Y"). That shape is to give the long, thin blade reenforcement as it pierces the opponent.
Such a sword blade is generally made of good steel, very good indeed. When you then go to the triangular bayonet, you are using the cheapest steel possible. Again if you use a tapered, triangular shape, you get the best possible shape for strength and piercing. You also get a shape which a heated metal billet is easily forged into, when that billet is hammered over a swage block designed to make bayonets. So you achieve a strong, and very simple to produce blade, with the cheapest steel around.
As time went on, the steel improved and the blade thickness was thus reduced, but the "Y" shape remained to provide strength.
So to recap....,
It was a triangle to give it strength with cheap steel,
Slow healing wounds are a mythical consideration...,
ff Now today you hear all this BS about "The Geneva Convention" outlawing sharpened bayonets. The Geneva convention deals with prisoners of war folks,
The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 deal with the rules of war and this is what it says about war on land...,
1899
Section II
Article 23
Besides the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially prohibited:--
To employ poison or poisoned arms;
To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;
To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;
To declare that no quarter will be given;
To employ arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous injury;
To make improper use of a flag of truce, the national flag, or military ensigns and the enemy's uniform, as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention;
To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war.
1907
Section IV
Art. 23.
In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden -
To employ poison or poisoned weapons;
To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;
To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;
To declare that no quarter will be given;
To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;
To make improper use of a flag of truce, of the national flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy, as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention;
To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;
To declare abolished, suspended, or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party. A belligerent is likewise forbidden to compel the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent's service before the commencement of the war.
Now it's sub-article 5 that says one cannot employ arms to cause "superfluous injury" or "unnecessary suffering". Those are rather broad wordings, for who defines "superfluous" or "unnecessary"? As a mater of fact, the width of the modern knife blade bayonet, which doubles as a fighting knife AND as a belt knife, causes more damage than the triangular bayonets that existed at the time these laws were written.
IF a knife blade bayonet cannot be sharpened, then using a K-Bar fighting knife in combat (or any fighting knife in combat), heck even carrying one one your belt, would be a war crime. The K-Bar, still part of the USMC inventory, is every bit as long and deadly therefore, as the modern M-4 bayonet, or the AK-47 knife/wire cutter bayonet.
Further the United States Navy adopted the Model 1917 cutlass 10 years after the Hague agreement, and they were used until 1949. Now a cutlass will do a lot more "superfluous" damage and cause suffering than will a knife blade, no? So much for the "you can't sharpen that" myth.
Sorry that I strayed..., but often we get tourists who ask about bayonets at battle reenactments and other events, and we hear the myths over and over and over again... :grin:
LD
Va.Manuf.06
58 Cal.
Dave, a very good post. Well informed and reasonably stated and it is true that the bayonet owes it's shape more to strength and purpose - to penetrate - rather than to it's difficult to heal wound. But, in truth the triangular wound, a side effect of it's shape, is difficult to deal with even today. But enough said about that.
The triangular bayonet's wound, usually to the trunk of the body, rarely allowed the wounded victim the time to get to a hospital. Through and through wounds were common. Blood loss was immediate and heavy and damage to internal organs, often more than one, was massive and irreparable in the time allowed.
To reiterate, the sharp point was all that was needed.
The triangular bayonet's wound, usually to the trunk of the body, rarely allowed the wounded victim the time to get to a hospital. Through and through wounds were common. Blood loss was immediate and heavy and damage to internal organs, often more than one, was massive and irreparable in the time allowed.
To reiterate, the sharp point was all that was needed.
Thank you for the thoughtful replies. I do so enjoy learning. Being a surgeon that has taken care of my fair share of penetrating injuries, I feel I should add that managing a triangular wound is not much more difficult than managing a linear wound. Perhaps an extra "corner stitch" or "figure of eight" would be needed, but the tissue could still be closed easily. That being said, modern surgical technique didn't exist at the time, so any penetration of viscera, lung, etc. would likely prove fatal. Besides, the blunt triangular edges would more push the tissue to the side rather than cut it during penetration, and this would probably result in something more like a small circular hole... not that I have seen a bunch of bayonet wounds roll through the ER of late... In any case, I would have to concur that the shape was for strength and little else (except the aforementioned critical candle holding application, which is still cool).
It does make sense that as armies left massed formations behind, the bayonet design would change. With more room to maneuver, one would be capable of more swinging and slashing moves, and weapon design would follow that. I guess I had just extrapolated or assumed that the edges had been sharpened based on modern equivalents. I appreciate the correction.
Thanks again for the interesting information I had never really spent much time thinking about.
Being a surgeon that has taken care of my fair share of penetrating injuries, I feel I should add that managing a triangular wound is not much more difficult than managing a linear wound. Perhaps an extra "corner stitch" or "figure of eight" would be needed, but the tissue could still be closed easily. That being said, modern surgical technique didn't exist at the time, so any penetration of viscera, lung, etc. would likely prove fatal. Besides, the blunt triangular edges would more push the tissue to the side rather than cut it during penetration, and this would probably result in something more like a small circular hole... not that I have seen a bunch of bayonet wounds roll through the ER of late... In any case, I would have to concur that the shape was for strength and little else (except the aforementioned critical candle holding application, which is still cool). It does make sense that as armies left massed formations behind, the bayonet design would change. With more room to maneuver, one would be capable of more swinging and slashing moves, and weapon design would follow that. I guess I had just extrapolated or assumed that the edges had been sharpened based on modern equivalents. I appreciate the correction.
Thanks again for the interesting information I had never really spent much time thinking about.
Va.Manuf.06
58 Cal.
feyx0006 said:Thank you for the thoughtful replies. I do so enjoy learning.
Thanks for that information feyx0006, it goes to show that old wives' tales can be shut down by those with experience.
Lonegun1894
54 Cal.
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2005
- Messages
- 1,531
- Reaction score
- 17
I can't speak for back then, but way back in 2003, my bayonet was sharp enough tp shave with on both sides because, as has been said, it is a combat knife, and a field knife used for any and all chores that a knife is good for. Now my Gunny did kinda smile at me carrying both the Ka-bar and the bayonet, but it wasn't the strangest thing carried by me or other members of our unit, and no one told anyone they couldn't have something if there was any way it could be helpful--as long as they were willing to carry it along with required equipment. I'm sure much the same logic was applied in the old days too.
Captain outwater
40 Cal.
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2006
- Messages
- 138
- Reaction score
- 1
Triangular bayonets as on the Bess had no real edge to sharpen. You might sharpen the point some, but it is a stabbing weapon, not made for cutting.
The shape is made that way so you get the strongest possible stabbing weapon, with the least amount of weight. Some people claim it was to cause 'unhealable' wounds, but users were more interested in surviving the attack, not in whether the enemy suffered later.
Line tactics used during the Revolution, and thru the Civil war, required the men to stand shoulder to shoulder to repel a bayonet charge. During the Revolution, tactics on attack therefore called for trying to approach close enough to knock holes in the enemy line, then charge with the bayonet before they could recover. Men with open spaces next to them would not try and stand and fight several men off, they ran. So the bayonet carried the day, but few were actually stuck.
The shape is made that way so you get the strongest possible stabbing weapon, with the least amount of weight. Some people claim it was to cause 'unhealable' wounds, but users were more interested in surviving the attack, not in whether the enemy suffered later.
Line tactics used during the Revolution, and thru the Civil war, required the men to stand shoulder to shoulder to repel a bayonet charge. During the Revolution, tactics on attack therefore called for trying to approach close enough to knock holes in the enemy line, then charge with the bayonet before they could recover. Men with open spaces next to them would not try and stand and fight several men off, they ran. So the bayonet carried the day, but few were actually stuck.
I dont sharpen my bayonet , i have no need to .A couple of years ago my CW unit was doing a period bayonet drill display in three ranks, a bayonet came off an enfield rifle and stuck the guy in the front rank in the backside, the crowd loved ithe didnt. :haha: :haha: :haha:
No one mentioned it but the mid 19th century Austrian Lorenz used by both sides in the CW had a quadrangular bayonet.The rifle not having been used by both sides in the CW all that much is relatively uncommon today along with its odd bayonet.
I would add another CW use for bayonets which was that it was handy for skewering and baking potatoes.
Probably the last great bayonet charge was Chamberlain out of ammo and charging down the hill against surprised Confederates at Gettysburg to carry the day.
Tom Patton
I would add another CW use for bayonets which was that it was handy for skewering and baking potatoes.
Probably the last great bayonet charge was Chamberlain out of ammo and charging down the hill against surprised Confederates at Gettysburg to carry the day.
Tom Patton
martiniarms
32 Cal.
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2012
- Messages
- 9
- Reaction score
- 0
As a historian and bayonet enthusiast, it grieves me that effectively for many Army units, bayonet training has been completely removed from the annual training cycle. They've also removed certifications in the bayonet. If I get my way, my unit's box of bayonets will accompany us on our next overseas tour.
On another note, at times some units were specifically ordered not to load their muskets in order to encourage Soldiers to maintain formation in the face of hostile fire, as their only recourse would be to continue the advance and only be able to fight with the bayonet. In a history of a British regiment present at Bunker Hill that I read, the author attributed defeat of several of the attempted stormings of the works to indiscipline of formations that would halt to return fire, in the process making themselves great targets.
On another note, at times some units were specifically ordered not to load their muskets in order to encourage Soldiers to maintain formation in the face of hostile fire, as their only recourse would be to continue the advance and only be able to fight with the bayonet. In a history of a British regiment present at Bunker Hill that I read, the author attributed defeat of several of the attempted stormings of the works to indiscipline of formations that would halt to return fire, in the process making themselves great targets.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
FOR SALE Kuchenreuter Caplock pistol ...more More new pics and info- Latest: No second place
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
