Let me start this with the caveat that I'm no expert and I'm not entirely sure either way. There are some things that don't look like others I've seen:
1 I think yours is refinished as WSC bayonet blades started life in the white not parkarised. The straightness of the black line where the bluing of the handguard meets the parkarised finish of the blade is usually far less uniform. Apparently these were refinished on a local level which would result in differences, it just doesn't look like others I've seen.
2 The WSC logo and broad arrow are usually not stamped as crisply as they are on yours. The ones I've seen are usually really sloppy especially on refinished ones and I haven't seen a WSC one without their code S.294 above the WSC mark.
Hopefully I'm wrong and its a good mint example. If not its a really well made repro.
Alex
I have to agree with Alex, I think this is a reproduction. My reason being the W.S.C. (Wilkinson), x bend test and broad arrow marks all look cast in blade rather than struck. I suspect it's Indian made, possibly by Windlass. However it does look nice with the rifle.
I have to agree with the others , Its not quite right in every aspect stated above.
Cheers Rick
Ralph's example also shows the end of contract code S294 mark usually seen with the WSC made No.5 bayonets.
Hi, mates, for comparison:
No.5 MkII S294/W.S.C.
Here´s another No.5 MkII S.294 / W.S.C. (Wilkinson Sword Company) bayonet for the Rifle No 5 Mk I (aka Lee–Enfield No 5 Mk I, aka Lee–Enfield "Jungle Carbine") showin´ the wartime code S294
Don't know if the frog goes with the bayonet. But it looks like frog and bayonet have always been together.
Inscription on the frog no longer legible.
I would appreciate opinions from you.
![]()
Similar Threads
Bookmarks