Pre-War 30s German (?) Unmarked 84/98 III Bayonet Sneak / Blanco / Behoerden / Export?

[komet45]

I recently acquired this bayonet and have been trying to track down it's possible origins. No markings can be found on the blade or pommel, the number "1" is stamped on the tang under the grips and is also stamped on the lug press stud as is commonly found on German bayonets made during the 30s and very early 40s. It appears that "1" is written in pencil on the backside of one of the grips. The cleaning rod cut-out on the tang is shaped differently than any other examples in my collection and the "oil hole" on the grips is blocked by the additional material present. No Waffenamt stamps can be found, no "Script O" on the spine. No serial numbers on the blade, crossguard or pommel. The blade has a "rounded" spine, unlike the commonly encountered flat spines found on most German bayonets. The blade profile is similar to other early production blades I have on hand (the blade shown in comparison is a 1935 S/155K example that is unsharpened and clean) though there are differences that can be spotted. The unmarked example in question is slightly longer than a standard 84/98 III, with the crossguard being noticeably wider and the pommel having a slightly different profile as well. The tang is also wider than the 1935 example shown. It will fit on a K98k rifle, though there is a modest amount of "wobble" that can be detected, none of my other examples display this trait. The scabbard that came with the bayonet is textbook 30s German construction but has no maker's stamp or serial numbers. However, the finial is stamped with what appears to be a "Droop Eagle" Waffenamt numbered 88, which could indicate production by Pack in 1935. The frog that was included is similar to German construction yet has no rivets, retention strap and no markings of any kind. The leather is good quality but does not appear to be as thick as standard military issue examples and closer in profile to the type found with KS98 "dress" bayonets, though the material is much more substantial than those.

The inclusion of the leather spacer at the ricasso would seemingly point towards Spanish use, however the quality of fit and construction would not. It does not appear to be a Spanish made "M1943" or a Portuguese Contract "M1937." Could this be a early production example "Behoerden" 84/98 made for export? Or possibly an unmarked example destined for use by an internal civil branch like the Reichspost, Reichsbahn or even the Polizei? I would really appreciate any "light that could be shed" on this one as it has me thoroughly stumped!

 

[komet45]

Here are a few more photos

 

[grimlin13]

That is a beautiful bayonet. It is definitely not Spanish construction . You cannot base it being Spanish production on the use of a leather washer. I have seen other S84/98 that were used more for dress purposes than combat ( which is what I think yours was used for) that had leather washers in place. I would not want to give you any misinformation so will refrain from commenting other than that.
Looking forward to hear what Andy, Slash or Pwcosol have to say.
I will say that dress frogs varied in quality and leather types used. I have patent leather ones and regular buffed leather ones that were made with thinner leather and a few regular buffed leather ones that were constructed using thick leather like what you have. The thick leather dress frogs were with long version Ks98s and one was on an older firemans Ks98 that was made of steel and nickel plated, that is too heavy to be supported by a thinner light weight frog.
As an after thought, I think there has been a post on a bayonet, heavier made and longer like your bayonet. I will try to find the post

 

[AndyB]

You should proof its ever attachable on rifle?, as the locking lug has oval in upper part, similar was reported by Eickhorn dress items anyway mainly on low cost material grips, for this is significant non sloted press button, this could be teoretically used as Behoerden SG in case of non rifles equipment, the frog is certainly a dress one. Question remains the proof on ball finial, in case there is a 88 it could be too other makers, but i believe there could be 96 proof in reality. Question are the grips, as cleaning hole avialable, but tang has no recess to crossguard area, crossguard rivets are smaller as normal. I would measure the width of blade as this could be too a narrow pattern. E/88 was used by Eickhorn in early 1935 too. Its possible from the tang picture that the crossguard hole was too large and was soldered there and then riveted. I would measure too the lenght of blade and thickness near crossguard.

 

[bruce98k]

All of the typical narrow pattern blades usually are serialized on the grips and flashguard with matching assembly numbers.
This apparently has none.

 

[komet45]

Thank you for the kind words and information on this blade, very much appreciate all of you who took a moment to respond!

Grimlin13 - I think you are spot-on with your assessment of the frog. It is nearly identical to a patent leather example I have in my collection that came with a short KS98 bayonet but made of leather very similar to that of the standard military issue frogs. And also of interest, the leather spacer found on the Carl Eickhorn KS98 bayonet shown is nearly identical to the one on the unmarked blade...perhaps this would support Andy's thoughts on production by Eickhorn?

Andy - I just measured the blade and the total length from crossguard to tip appears to be about 25.5 cm and the width is about 4-5 mm. The crossguard measures 8-9 mm wide while the crossguard on the S/155K measures 7 mm. As you noted, the rivet pins on the unmarked bayonet are much smaller than those on the S/155K. I took two more photos of the scabbard finial with a 6x jewelers loop and it is difficult to read the full number, it looks like it could be either "88" or "96." The first number strongly appears to be an "8" but I really cannot say for certain. The press stud is very close in appearance to a Carl Eickhorn example I have in my collection, however the catch has a "straight back" and is not the same "oval" shape as seen on the unmarked bayonet. I was easily able to attach the unmarked bayonet to a K98k rifle, though it was a noticeably looser fit than any of my other military proofed examples. Please let me know if any other details or measurements would be helpful to you, I really appreciate your kind attention to this matter!

 

[komet45]

All of the typical narrow pattern blades usually are serialized on the grips and flashguard with matching assembly numbers.
This apparently has none.

This is the reason I did not believe it to be a true "Narrow" example as it did seem as if all others I could find had a serial number stamped in at least one place. The only stamps I can find anywhere (the two "1" stamps) appear to be internal proofs and do not offer much more information than that.

 

[AndyB]

The dimmension should be measured by a caliper as thickness of blade when 4-5mm is certainly lighter as normal combat S84/98, 25.4mm is normally lenght of blade. You compare the locking lug with wrong KS98 this is a post 1935 Zinc alloy cast handle on KS98. I assume the crossguard is a replacement as visible soldering of the piece on crossguard, and i assume there is larger hole as normal. Width of blade near cg is 25mm?

 

[pwcosol]

I note the S84/98 in question has one of those thick, "U" shaped crossguards with the sides being more flat than slightly rounded on the edges. Pictured is a EuF Horster behoerden with "Dagger H" logo on ricasso. Scabbard is a S/155K w/matching SN 30 and stick-eagle WaA49 on finial ball. I have suspected for a long time the crossguard on this one may originally have had a muzzle ring. Muzzle ring would have been removed at the factory prior to installation to meet S84/98 T3 standard. Bayonet is finished "in-white" but have seen these blued "after-the-fact"... most notably one which was found in a heavy black leather frog bearing a "circled VA & SS" stamping on back side of the belt loop. Also of note on the OP's bayonet is the lack of a slotted push-button... again, something seen on very early Horster S84/98 T3 behoerden as well. EuF Horster behoerden with "Dagger H" logo Nr 366 is blued, with high-polish, unmarked scabbard. Again, "wide/flat" crossguard is seen.

 

[komet45]

The dimmension should be measured by a caliper as thickness of blade when 4-5mm is certainly lighter as normal combat S84/98, 25.4mm is normally lenght of blade. You compare the locking lug with wrong KS98 this is a post 1935 Zinc alloy cast handle on KS98. I assume the crossguard is a replacement as visible soldering of the piece on crossguard, and i assume there is larger hole as normal. Width of blade near cg is 25mm?

Andy - hope these photos will help show more accurate measurements. It appears the blade length is almost perfectly 25.5 cm and the width is 4 mm.

 

[komet45]

I note the S84/98 in question has one of those thick, "U" shaped crossguards with the sides being more flat than slightly rounded on the edges. Pictured is a EuF Horster behoerden with "Dagger H" logo on ricasso. Scabbard is a S/155K w/matching SN 30 and stick-eagle WaA49 on finial ball. I have suspected for a long time the crossguard on this one may originally have had a muzzle ring. Muzzle ring would have been removed at the factory prior to installation to meet S84/98 T3 standard. Bayonet is finished "in-white" but have seen these blued "after-the-fact"... most notably one which was found in a heavy black leather frog bearing a "circled VA & SS" stamping on back side of the belt loop. Also of note on the OP's bayonet is the lack of a slotted push-button... again, something seen on very early Horster S84/98 T3 behoerden as well. EuF Horster behoerden with "Dagger H" logo Nr 366 is blued, with high-polish, unmarked scabbard. Again, "wide/flat" crossguard is seen.

pwcosol - Thank you very much for your reply, there are some interesting similarities between the blade you have shown and my own. I really appreciate the information you have shared concerning the push-button, as that was a "sticking point" I could not get around in trying to identify my example. You also mention Horster's use of 98/05 style crossguards - would Horster have used "new old stock" components left over from 98/05 production on these "transitional" style bayonets? Andy points out that the rivet pins observed on my example are very small and there is clear evidence of solder on the upper and lower surfaces of the crossguard - is this common in early Horster production?

 

[AndyB]

Thanks for measuring, firstly the thickness of blade is not 4mm, but 5,2mm which is certainly thinner as normal S84/98, which i proofed on Hoerster 1938 is 5,6mm. Important is measure width of blade near crossguard?? is 25mm or smaller??As the fuller is moved forwards the crossguard is probably not exact placed as by S84/98, by dress or Behoerden piece wout rifle it was not so important, the flat crossguard was used by Diamant too, here is no signs of Hoerster for me. Thickness of normal S84/98 should be around 7,6mm certainly not 7mm.

 

[pwcosol]

pwcosol - Thank you very much for your reply, thered are some interesting similarities between the blade you have shown and my own. I really appreciate the information you have shared concerning the push-button, as that was a "sticking point" I could not get around in trying to identify my example. You also mention Horster's use of 98/05 style crossguards - would Horster have used "new old stock" components left over from 98/05 production on these "transitional" style bayonets? Andy points out that the rivet pins observed on my example are very small and there is clear evidence of solder on the upper and lower surfaces of the crossguard - is this common in early Horster production?

K45: EuF Horster had made bayonets for some time and as mentioned, did produce the S98/05, along with behoerden patterns for sale internationally and extraseitengewehre. One such example might be the bayonet produced to accompany the Mauser O/an Brazilian M1935 contract rifles. I say "might", as am not sure this bayonet has been proven beyond a doubt to be of Horster production, but IMHO it is highly likely. Note the very thick (almost "industrial-grade") crossguard with muzzle ring. Being c.a. 1935, I could envision some amount of excess component production lying about which might have been utilized where needed at the time... manufacture of the S84/98 T3 behoerden... just a bit of cutting here, grinding & polishing there and presto, your T3 crossguard!

 

[AndyB]

As mentioned important is the oval locking lug, in majority made by Eickhorn on brass and steel handle KS98 dress pieces, mainly of imperial and early Weimar period.

WWI Dress sawback bayonet

Ok so I bought this bayonet I believe it is a WWI dress bayonet made by Carl Eickhorn. Hope you guys like it as much as I do . Gary

www.warrelics.eu

 

[komet45]

Thanks for measuring, firstly the thickness of blade is not 4mm, but 5,2mm which is certainly thinner as normal S84/98, which i proofed on Hoerster 1938 is 5,6mm. Important is measure width of blade near crossguard?? is 25mm or smaller??As the fuller is moved forwards the crossguard is probably not exact placed as by S84/98, by dress or Behoerden piece wout rifle it was not so important, the flat crossguard was used by Diamant too, here is no signs of Hoerster for me. Thickness of normal S84/98 should be around 7,6mm certainly not 7mm.

Andy - my apologies for my late response and sorry for any confusion that might have been caused concerning the measurements of this blade. Hope these measurements will make more sense!

Width of the blade at ricasso just above the crossguard: 26 millimeters
Width of the blade "spine" at the crossguard: 5 millimeters
Total length of blade from tip to crossguard: 25.5 centimeters
Thickness of crossguard measuring from "point to pommel": 8 millimeters

 

[AndyB]

Dont worry about Your piece is certainly over dimmensioned in case of thickness of crossguard and blade lenght, as it was fitted personally by finisher, the blade have thinner thickness as normal S84/98 so i assume its very early dress type S84/98 of end of imperial era or early Weimar or a Behoerden piece. It was mixed with unfinished or non serialed early S84/98 scabbard from 1934/5 timeframe, is possible they used older material,prior the directives of WuK 1927 were used widely.

 

[Slash]

Thanks for posting this interesting bayonet. Are there any markings hidden on the top or bottom "flats" of the locking pin/lug? Press the circular locking nut down and take a look. Also of note are the oblong holes in the flashguard. The change from round to oblong flashguard holes did not commence until late in 1943 (depending on maker). The remainder of the bayonet certainly appears to be of much earlier vintage as already discussed above by the experts. Suggests in my opinion that the flashguard was replaced at some point.

 

[komet45]

Slash - The "top flat" of the locking pin is marked with a "1" just like the tang underneath the grips. One of the grips also appears to have a "1" written in pencil too but I cannot say this for sure. The flashguard is very snuggly fitted and I have to use a brass punch to gently tap it on and off the tang. Both of the screw holes on the flashguard are oblong as you observed. And now comes the curve ball! Upon close inspection of the flashguard I located a very small Waffenamt stamp I had previously overlooked. It appears to be a "Droop Eagle" 68 stamp, which would seemingly indicate production by Horster in 1934. This discovery appears to strongly support pwcosol's suggestion of early Horster production. Never ceases to amaze me when and how these pieces decide to divulge their secrets!

This find also makes me wonder if the Waffenamt stamp on the scabbard finial might be a "68" instead of an "88." Sadly, the scabbard stamp is very difficult to make out but the construction and aesthetics are identical to 1934 and 1935 dated scabbards I have in my collection. The similar condition in finish of both the bayonet and the scabbard also lead me to believe these two pieces have been together for a very long time.

 

[AndyB]

As always the best thing is made good pictures, i was in same opinion that the flashguard is old, problem was only in the bayonet, as this is a pre 1934 production and the flashguard was added on it by adding same proofed as the scabbard, the flashguard got oval holes for screws as it was not proper lenght the tang, visible on not correctly ended cleaning channel, 68 speaks only same way as ball finial proof, this could be Eickhorn piece or made by other Solingen maker with parts of 1934/5 production. Problem by Horster is You will never find by his production a oval nut, but by Eickhorn is this confirmed on many KS98, dress and some S84/98 blanko pieces.