Third Party Press

Unmarked k98K bayonet

Noah B

Member
Can I get some info on this bayonet? I’m stumped as there are no markings on the bayonet itself but a serial number of 6259 on the scabbard. The frog has a marking on the back but it is so vague I cannot discern what it is. Trace amounts of cosmoline are present. The same pawn shop also had a k98k bayonet with russian stamp marks, both items have me stumped but I purchased this one for 125
 

Attachments

  • AEE607A6-7884-4D1A-8FE4-36BD9DBCC0CF.jpeg
    AEE607A6-7884-4D1A-8FE4-36BD9DBCC0CF.jpeg
    115.4 KB · Views: 68
  • 2FFD8B17-3863-410B-9F12-FC57B0ED0EB1.jpeg
    2FFD8B17-3863-410B-9F12-FC57B0ED0EB1.jpeg
    142.4 KB · Views: 68
More and closer pics would help on a definite answer. Just from what you say it sounds like a behoerden (commercial) bayonet paired with standard battle issued S84/98 III scabbard. Looks like the blade has been sharpened, not a good thing, hurts value. The stamp on back of frog is the rbn number (code number for frog maker) We have members who can tell you who the frog maker is, maybe one will show up.
 
Good catch pwcosol. I need new glasses lol. So his frog is worth more than the rest of the set then. Like way more.
 
@grimlin13 @pwcosol here is Everything after cleaning the bayonet and conditioning the leather. Once the leather drys out I think the roll marks on the back will pop out more. The frog was pretty much devoid of any moisture. Im new to bayonets, how much would the frog go for?
C335CBDB-A494-4C99-8F0C-E9AFA56A1F20.jpeg
 

Attachments

  • BD1B04F8-FCDC-45B6-B38C-DEAA9A440315.jpeg
    BD1B04F8-FCDC-45B6-B38C-DEAA9A440315.jpeg
    87 KB · Views: 35
  • 35C108A4-6812-455F-932F-8300A00486EE.jpeg
    35C108A4-6812-455F-932F-8300A00486EE.jpeg
    74.6 KB · Views: 38
  • 24D616DF-FBDF-4EA2-A435-DB9507A42B25.jpeg
    24D616DF-FBDF-4EA2-A435-DB9507A42B25.jpeg
    70.6 KB · Views: 39
  • AA436743-C889-495D-9251-8AFBE71E7859.jpeg
    AA436743-C889-495D-9251-8AFBE71E7859.jpeg
    64.7 KB · Views: 38
  • 5056B56D-29DE-48AE-9E37-AF29699E5357.jpeg
    5056B56D-29DE-48AE-9E37-AF29699E5357.jpeg
    69.7 KB · Views: 36
  • 0315E07B-3839-408F-B89D-9FEF5C6C0172.jpeg
    0315E07B-3839-408F-B89D-9FEF5C6C0172.jpeg
    82.1 KB · Views: 35
Exactly what did you put on the leather? It may end up doing more harm than good. Leather treatments can break down the leather`s cell structure and cause the leather to degrade. Plus it can cause the stamping to push out and be lost. I know from experience. While I never used any saddle soaps or leather treatments to soften or clean my leather items, I did use pure lanoline on a few items. I wish I had not now. It darkened the leather, left it oily feeling and looking, plus pushed out some of the maker stamping to the extent where it is gone.
There have been several discussions about treating leather here on the forum. I think the consensus is that the best thing to do is basically nothing more than wipe the leather off with a slightly damp cloth or paper towel. I now lightly spray Windex on a paper towel (not directly on leather) just enough to slightly dampen (not dripping wet) one section of the paper towel. I fold it in half and then in half again, then squeeze it in my hand to disperse the Windex though out paper towel. Then I wipe leather off. I do not scrub. Most of the dirt will come off the surface. I do not have to wait for the leather to dry because it is not wet (soaked) from anything. Then I use a clean soft cloth to buff out the leather to a degree, again not scrubbing but lightly wiping.
I hope your frog is not damaged from whatever you did to it. Time will (and does) tell.
Too bad about the grinding done on the blade. Looks like a nice bayonet other than that.
 
I mentioned to the OP on Reddit that this may be a "blanko" bayonet, produced for export.

I agree that the leather should have been left alone... adding treatments to leather and wood do more harm than good on militaria.
 
Same opinion the piece is a Behoerden blanko piece, possible Hoerster or other maker production, period 43/44, the minus of collector value is the sharpening of blade. It was not made for export. The first picture of frog looks much detailed as the second one.
 
the frog dried out and you can see the roll marks, I’ll make sure not to add anything else to it going forward!
 
The bayonet was made by E u F Hörster. The RBNr on the frog is indeed 43 > 0/0378/0005. 43 being the date of manufacture. The maker is Remse, Sachsen.
 
I have a nice K98k bayonet, but the blade is unmarked; no date, name, code, blued and mint. Is it okay ?
 

Military Rifle Journal
Back
Top