My crudest K98k bayonet

**TWS** · 08-26-2019, 05:01 AM

I have a number of nicer ones I could post, but I bought this one simply because how inelegant it is compared to my earlier examples. Check out how the machining (or lack thereof) screams "late war". The crude manufacture notwithstanding, it's actually in really good condition as is the (I believe) mis-matched scabbard. The scabbard is stamped cof 43 for Carl Eickhorn, 1943, but the bayonet is marked (19)44 CU or possibly CO. Those don't match any mfg code that I know of, so I wonder if it was CUL for Ernst Pack u. Söhne or another COF for Carl Eickhorn and in either case the last letter was missed. Anyway, it's kind of neat in its crudeness and I hope you enjoy.

**Espenlaub Militaria** · 08-26-2019 05:01 AM

We also buy and trade your items and full collections!

**Sleepwalker** · 08-26-2019, 06:08 AM

Hello.
Hello.

Eickhorn is known for its coarse surface finish from 1943. Unfortunately, the set is not the same number and maker. The manufacturer of the scabbard is cvl = WKC Solingen.

**Anderson** · 08-26-2019, 07:55 AM

Actually you've got that switched around Mark. The bayonet, not the scabbard is made by WKC (code cvl), the scabbard is a Eickhorn from 1943.
S84/98 bayonets have a rough finish from 1943 with all manufacturers as the final polishing stage was left out and the bayonets when straight to blueing or sometimes phosphate finish. WKC was one of the few makers that was still in production of bayonets in 1945, but only managed about 800 units.

**AndyB** · 08-26-2019, 11:28 AM

offcoarse the late finish is rough as easier manufacturing and to speed production, 44cvl is well known maker, last production is riveted grips.
About 45 cvl dont exist any confirmed real pieces, so there is no real confirmation about 45 production by WKC, possible unmarked WKC for police contracts? but thats could be not dated. b.r.Andy

**TWS** · 08-26-2019, 02:16 PM

Thanks for chiming in guys. Now I know it's a cvl (for WKC) thanks to you. I realized Sleepwalker was sleepwalking and transposed what he meant to say.

I'm not a hardcore edged weapons collector and didn't know the bayonet blades this rough started in 1943. '44 sure, but '43 I didn't know. I have a few others but they are all earlier.

I'll try to post some of my "good looking" bayonets later.

**Frogprince** · 08-27-2019, 05:06 PM

From my perspective the manufacturing standards increasingly started to deteriorate in 1942 probably about the time that civilian blade production slowed and was terminated to concentrate on the war effort. Dateable, it can be seen with the products from some makers that early in 1942 still had the more highly polished finishes of early bayonets, the reintroduction of wood grips vs. Bakelite etc. etc. Of course even later it only got worse as more shortcuts were used to (presumably) increase production. Best Regards, Fred

**AndyB** · 08-27-2019, 06:00 PM

It haengs with Speer 1942 armament plan directive to speed up production and made all sources for war efforts, the production was increased minimally about 40-100% is visible as sample on Hoerster production as they doubbled they production from 1942 to 1943. b.r.Andy
Cof43 still have nice finish the crudest was in 1944.

**Sleepwalker** · 12-12-2019, 08:18 PM

Hi,

my crudest bayonet is a sgx44. Very sloppy surface processing. Inaccurate blade grinding and the handle head was made from a bad blank, which should have been melted down again.

**Anderson** · 12-12-2019, 09:37 PM

It might be crudely constructed, but the condition it's still in today is very good as an example of a late war bayonet, phosphate finish, rivets, sgx...a very collectable bayonet. We could perhaps imagine the inspector thinking "a few years ago I would have rejected this" as he stamped the WaA mark. Thanks for posting this one.