1894 Bayonet Production

[Dick Hosmer]

A lively (and so far civil) "discussion" has arisen on Facebook in the "The .30-40 Krag, The Great American Rifle" group.

A poster, citing the production data in Hartman's book (which I do not have) is insisting that only 750 such items were made. I believe that is WAAY too low. We know that well over 20,000 receivers are dated 1894, and I'm assuming that the bayonet situation is similar - if not identical. The other guy is, so far, oblivious to this logic, taking the tabular data at face value for only the bayonets.

Any other quick answers, without having to pore through the RCOs?

Mallory and Farmer seem to be silent.

Pinging Tom Pearce!!!!!

Thanks.

[Culpeper]

If the number count is correct, and I find it hard to believe, then all of the orignal 1894 bayonets and scabbards are way under priced. That would put their prices just under the 1900 Bowie bayonets, that had a count of around two thousand or so, which are not cheap or common.

I have no evidence from the archives but 750-ish seems very low. I'll have to dig out Mr. Hartman's book.

[Dick Hosmer]

The difference of opinion rests entirely on "made" vs. "marked". The latter is what counts in the pricing arena because there is NO way to tell an 1894/1894 from an 1895/1894. Now, there ARE nuances to the scabbards, and a keyhole will boost the price, just as a re-scaling will lower it. The bluing is another bone of contention, and, I would probably assume that a blued 1894 found today has an excellent chance of being a refinish.

[butlersrangers]

I reviewed the Chief of Ordnance Annual Report, published in 1895.
I could not find actual rifle production numbers.
(Note - I missed the clearly stated 14,491 number, reported on page 15. I must have been distracted by the insect on page 18)!

The report indicated production had risen to 100 rifles per day and, with recent improvements, would soon reach 350 rifles per day.
Not any details on bayonet manufacture, except that 'blued' blade finish was discontinued, and making aluminum scabbards was abandoned.

Since Regular Army Infantry Regiments were largely armed with Krags, during this Fiscal Year, I would think bayonets probably matched rifle numbers.
Work was started on developing a carbine for the Cavalry, at this time.

[butlersrangers]

More Annual Report trivia about blue cartridge belts and .30 caliber cartridge manufacture.

In 1895, an acceptable Domestic 'Smokeless Powder' did not yet exist.

[Whig]

I have an extra copy of Hartman's Krag Bayonets reference book. I was listing it on ebay for $75 plus shipping but I'll sell it to a KCA member for $65 shipped. I thought I'd mention it in this post since it was brought up.

[MooseNugget]

Hartman's book "The U.S. Krag Bayonets", page 35, list a fiscal year 1894 partial rifle/bayonet production of 750 produced between 1 July, 1983 - 30 June, 1984. Total numbers listed in the book are 410,840 produced between fiscal years 1894 to 1904. Numbers were extracted from the annual Reports of the Chief of Ordnance, 1894 - 1904.

[MooseNugget]

BTW: I'm sure most folks know this but the Krag bayonet will fit on the Springfield 1903, 1903A3 and M1 Garand.

Additionally, the 1905/1943 and M1 bayonets will fit on the Springfield Krag.

Below is a (from top to bottom):

a) 1903 w/Krag Bowie bayonet
b) 1903A3 w/1894 Krag bayonet
c) M1 Garand w/1895 blued Krag bayonet
d) 1898 Krag w/1943 16 inch bayonet

p.s. I think Culpeper has a Bolo Bayonet that fits a S&W/Colt 1917!

[butlersrangers]

'Local Boy' - Nice blades! ... but, you are starting to mimic a certain vendor, who sells amazing stuff for top dollar on GunBroker .... aka 'gray blanket'

You need to get an example of the rare Krag 'potato-peeler' bayonet for your collection.

[Dick Hosmer]

Yes, if you want "reach", the 1898 x 1943 is almost a pike!