Help me ID this Bayonet
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Joined
·
12,721 Posts
Yes, Turk.
Joined
·
12,808 Posts
Nice score!
At first sight it does look like Simson and Suhl, but this is a variant of their recognised marking as used on most M.1887 bayonets, which this piece is.
The tugra marking is good, but the date is odd. Remember that Turkey dropped the M.1887 for what we know as the M.1890, but this is dated 1309, which is, I think, 1892/1893 on the official Rumi calendar, but 1891/1892 on the Islamic year system, which was a bit behind. To be honest I am a bit rusty on Turkish bayonets right now and it is end of term essay and exam grading time, hence my hesitation on the date!
I will see if I can find my records on the Mauser rifle records for exports to Turkey, but I am wondering if this is one of a bulk lot made after the change over from M.1887 to M.1890, as the M,1887 did remain in service for a while. If so, this would explain the maker mark, which looks to be Simson, but is not the usual form as normal on M.1887!
One thing I'd like to know. Ok, so it has an 'Arabic' numeral on the crossguard, indicating - if applied in Turkey - a 1928+ date. So, has it been 'Turked', i.e., shortened?
Julian
The tugra marking is good, but the date is odd. Remember that Turkey dropped the M.1887 for what we know as the M.1890, but this is dated 1309, which is, I think, 1892/1893 on the official Rumi calendar, but 1891/1892 on the Islamic year system, which was a bit behind. To be honest I am a bit rusty on Turkish bayonets right now and it is end of term essay and exam grading time, hence my hesitation on the date!
I will see if I can find my records on the Mauser rifle records for exports to Turkey, but I am wondering if this is one of a bulk lot made after the change over from M.1887 to M.1890, as the M,1887 did remain in service for a while. If so, this would explain the maker mark, which looks to be Simson, but is not the usual form as normal on M.1887!
One thing I'd like to know. Ok, so it has an 'Arabic' numeral on the crossguard, indicating - if applied in Turkey - a 1928+ date. So, has it been 'Turked', i.e., shortened?
Julian
OK, the last M.1887 were sent to Constantinople on 2 March 1891, and the first M.1890 on 7 July 1891. So, that 1309 looks to be an Islamic year date of 1891/1892 - remember the year number changed in March...
I really must write something on these Ottoman bayonets... The late Otto did a good CD-rom on them but it needs formalising in a more archaeological way!
Julian
I really must write something on these Ottoman bayonets... The late Otto did a good CD-rom on them but it needs formalising in a more archaeological way!
Julian
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
