1894 Bayonet Production

[butlersrangers]

Culpeper posed an interesting question.
When would Springfield Armory change the 'Year Stamp' on Krag bayonet blades?
Did they do it at the End of the Fiscal Year or at the End of the Calendar Year?

If this change followed the odd "pattern", we see with Krag rifle and carbine receivers, the answer may be NEITHER.
The date probably wasn't considered very important.
The 'year/date' was changed, apparently, when they got around to it in the new year.

A serviceable blade, that passed inspection went into a 'parts bin'. When pulled out of the bin, it was OK to fabricate into a complete bayonet, regardless of date.

Krag Receiver Examples:

Model 1896 carbine #30647 was likely assembled around March to May of 1896, it is the highest # (known) receiver marked "1895".
Model 1896 carbine #30352 was likely assembled around March to May of 1896, it is the lowest # (known) receiver marked "1896".
(Both of these carbines are considered to be in the first 'block' or batch and were likely assembled around the same time).

Model 1892 rifle #26116 is the highest known receiver marked "1894" and was likely assembled around December 1895 or January 1896.
Model 1892 rifle #23020 is the lowest known receiver marked "1895" and was likely assembled around October 1895 or November 1895.

Model 1896 rifle #37045 is the highest known receiver marked "1896" and was likely assembled around July 1896.
Model 1896 rifle #37201 is the lowest known receiver marked "model 1896" and was likely assembled around July 1896.

It all seems kind of arbitrary & organic!

[Dick Hosmer]

(duplicated posting deleted)

[Dick Hosmer]

I'd REALLY like to see either the original guns, or high-quality photos of the four arms involved in the two overlaps. I really suspect that mistakes may have been made.

What if 30352 is really 30852? What if 23020 is really 28020? Remember that the compiling party (bless his heart) carried a few 8xxxxx numbers for years and years . . . Was there some 8/3 or 3/8 dyslexia, or buggered stamping involved?

[butlersrangers]

Interesting points Dick Hosmer.
Difficulty reading some styles of Krag numerical-fonts and human clerical errors have certainly contaminated and introduced 'reasonable doubt', into anything dependent on exact serial numbers.

I don't know at what point in the manufacturing process a year was stamped onto a bayonet blade?
I don't know at what point in the Year they got around to changing 'date stamps'?

I imagine it was possible that some Krag markings, denoting year (1894, 1895, or 1896) or model with a year (1896, 1898, or 1899), as well as, Springfield Armory, could have been stamped or rolled onto a 'soft' receiver, before heat-treat? (IDK)

If all the markings were all done at the same time, and after the heat-treat, it reduces possible scenarios.

Logic tells me that "P" proof marks and Serial Numbers had to be applied to receivers almost as a last step, after heat-treat, but before assembly.

There are lots of ways a finished appropriate part could sit around for a while, before it got picked-up and attached to something!

IMO - If simple year/date and model/year marks went on before heat-treat, this could ultimately increase serial number 'out-of-sequence' and other anomalies.

[Kragrifle]

You’re missing the cadet bayonet, the BOF bayonet and the Bolo

[Kragrifle]

One more point, the bayonets were shipped in the same crate as the rifles, no scabbards, 10 or 20 of each in each crate.

[Old Soldier]

So Wig,
Did you ever get a buyer for your book? If not, I'll take it. Tell me how to pay you.

[Whig]

pm sent.