Become our sponsor and display your banner here
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23

Bursting my Bayonet cherry

Article about: Hi Guys, This week I picked up my first bayonet. Although a mismatch between bayo and scabbard, it still displays well, and gives a bit more depth to my small TR helmet collection. It is sta

  1. #11
    ?

    Default

    I think yours are plastic. But to better tell you can knock on the handle, a harder clunky sound will be bakelite, while plastic will emit a higher pitched sound. Also, if you use some hot water and rub it on the handle and it emits a strong odor it is bakelite, no smell and it is plastic.

  2. # ADS
    Circuit advertisement
    Join Date
    Always
    Location
    Advertising world
    Age
    2010
    P
    Many
     

  3. #12
    ?

    Default

    Quote by Frogprince View Post
    Brad, the grips here are Bakelite with a fine textured filler. A very nice find , the first one of these frogs I ever saw was 1944 dated in a small musty old box with a few of its "brothers", so I got one for myself and another for a good friend. Also thinking that it was an effort to conserve leather, I had doubts about putting on a bayonet because of the small pouch. But my friend wanted his mounted which he did .................. and then a year or two later he wanted it taken off. With my point in relating this piece of information being that he had previously damaged a frog or two so he asked me to help him. Which I did taking weeks to do it very, very, slowly - and from what I've seen with this one I would be very inclined to leave it as is.

    Of course later on I found out that it was the M 1942(?) frog for the folding shovel which was a relatively limited issue piece of field equipment. But what was even more interesting IMO was seeing a 1942 dated photo not with infantry soldiers. But brand new folding shovels in Luftwaffe bomber survival kits in (I believe) Russia in the wintertime. Best regards, Fred
    Thanks for the information Fred, there are many aspects of these to learn about.
    I won't be removing the frog as I know that that the leather is not far from breaking further, and I would hate myself if I were to damage it,
    and ruin a historical piece.

    Brad.

  4. #13
    ?

    Default

    Quote by dramos View Post
    I think yours are plastic. But to better tell you can knock on the handle, a harder clunky sound will be bakelite, while plastic will emit a higher pitched sound. Also, if you use some hot water and rub it on the handle and it emits a strong odor it is bakelite, no smell and it is plastic.
    I gave it a tap Doug, and it has a fairly solid sound.
    So I will go with bakelite.

    Brad.

  5. #14

    Default

    Yes this is the frog for the folding shovel - Seitengewehrtasche fr das zusammenklappbare Schanzwerkzeug - , issued in 1942.

    Has the frog any maker mark?

    Regards

  6. #15
    ?

    Default

    Quote by Sleepwalker View Post
    Yes this is the frog for the folding shovel - Seitengewehrtasche fr das zusammenklappbare Schanzwerkzeug - , issued in 1942.

    Has the frog any maker mark?

    Regards
    I had a close look on both sides, but there doesn't appear to be anything visible.
    I've added a couple of pics for reference.

    Brad.
    Click to enlarge the picture Click to enlarge the picture Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSCN0745 copy copy.jpg 
Views:	21 
Size:	321.0 KB 
ID:	572191   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSCN0746 copy copy.jpg 
Views:	19 
Size:	320.6 KB 
ID:	572192  


  7. #16

    Default

    Quote by Lidman View Post
    I had a close look on both sides, but there doesn't appear to be anything visible.
    I've added a couple of pics for reference.

    Brad.
    Hello Brad,

    Thank you for the new photos, which don't seem to show any markings. But that (at least IMO) is just another example to be put into the data base. Which may eventually paint a better picture of what was going on during different time periods with many of these frogs having maker markings - but not all of them. With one group that appears to be fairly early in manufacture, and may be a separate contract? And the example posted here with no maker marking that is probably late (or later) using a stamped calfskin tie strap (the same leather as seen with some later period pistol holsters). And hollow rivets at both the top and the bottom, with the two on the bottom different than the top. Also noting the cuts in the leather on the rear side of the backpiece underneath the stitching, and a very light 3 digit parts number(?) that seems to serve no other purpose - all of which may be indicators of later period manufacture.

    Best regards, Fred
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  8. #17

    Default

    there exist many variations by the M42. Different rivets, quality of leather, stitching etc.

    here are 4 examples

    i think this variation i have too... i have a look for. I think the frog stud is made in Alu? could it be?
    No maker mark is normal for this maker
    Click to enlarge the picture Click to enlarge the picture Click image for larger version. 

Name:	P1090730.JPG 
Views:	22 
Size:	156.2 KB 
ID:	572420  

  9. #18

    Default

    While some different styles/types of rivets were used, the one thing that seems to be fairly consistent is for the rivets inside the pouch to have as low of a profile as possible. From an old photo shoot (where I had better success than usual) - here is an image that I think illustrates why it would make a difference. Best regards, Fred
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  10. #19
    ?

    Default

    Quote by Frogprince View Post
    Hello Brad,

    Thank you for the new photos, which don't seem to show any markings. But that (at least IMO) is just another example to be put into the data base. Which may eventually paint a better picture of what was going on during different time periods with many of these frogs having maker markings - but not all of them. With one group that appears to be fairly early in manufacture, and may be a separate contract? And the example posted here with no maker marking that is probably late (or later) using a stamped calfskin tie strap (the same leather as seen with some later period pistol holsters). And hollow rivets at both the top and the bottom, with the two on the bottom different than the top. Also noting the cuts in the leather on the rear side of the backpiece underneath the stitching, and a very light 3 digit parts number(?) that seems to serve no other purpose - all of which may be indicators of later period manufacture.

    Best regards, Fred
    Hi Fred,

    The example you show with the scoring/cuts to the back side leather support your theory of it being a later manufactured piece in my opinion.
    With the war dragging on, draining the resources and supplies, defects like this would not have mattered from a quality/production point of view.
    Where, earlier in the war, where quality of the item produced would probably seen this piece destined for the scrap bin or civil use.

    By the way, I just checked and the rivets used on my frog are steel (used a magnet to check, just out of interest).

    Brad.

  11. #20

    Default

    This frogs were build since 1942 in this way.

    Later examples you can only identify by poor thin leather... not of the rivets.
    I know only rivets out of steel... lacquered and/or zinc-plated.

    This frog model were made in low quantities, because not so very much were needed.
    The last example with date i know is from 1944.

    The production of the S84/98 frog went on parallel until 1945.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. 06-05-2013, 11:51 PM
  2. 04-03-2013, 04:25 AM
  3. k98 bayonet, unknown stamp ? and dress bayonet ?

    In Bayonets and trench knives of the world
    05-25-2012, 07:09 PM
  4. 08-16-2011, 01:28 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •