Talk:Bayonet

message: I would like to open a discussion as to whether or not we should add Pistol Bayonets to this article. Please, present your argument both PRO and CON below.--71.22.156.40 (talk) 21:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: PISTOL BAYONETS

message: Picture one
Picture two
Picture three
Could the axe portion of these rifles be considered a bayonet? They are technically blades, and are technically affixed to the end of a gun/rifle.
: No these are combination weapons, meant for cavalry. The axe blade is permanently fixed to the barrel, and besides its an axe, not a knife.203.2.218.132 (talk) 09:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: "Axe" bayonet?

message: "it also allows air into the wound it produces, breaking the vacuum and making the bayonet easier to withdraw after a stabbing attack with it and less prone to getting stuck in the wound."  Actually the above is partially false.  There is no "vacuum" effect.  A fuller serves to lighten and stiffen the blade but has no effect on the ease with which is can be removed from a body.  See http://www.agrussell.com/knife_information/knife_encyclopedia/articles/blood_groove.html for a more detailed discussion.  Hopefully someone with more Wikipedia savvy than I will clean this up and put the link in an appropriate external links section. --4.19.249.110, 19:38, 30 Dec 2004 (copied from article & history)
:I've made the requested changes.--Polyparadigm 03:53, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Fuller =/ blood groove

message: someone needs to add the dissadvantages of bayonets, such as the loss of zero. I would , but I would probbably butcher it in the process. Kudos to whoever put up a pic of the new marine bayonet. --Knife Knut 05:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dissadvantages. 

message: At time of writing, the article includes the following text:
:A foot long bayonet, extending to a regulation 17 inches (approx 43 centimetres) during the Napoleonic period, on a 6 foot (almost 2 metre) tall musket achieved a reach similar to the infantry spear, and later halberd, of earlier times.
Aside from the awkward phrasing, were any regular army muskets actually 6 feet long?The Charleville musket is said to have been five feet long, but a 6-footer would be really slow to load. Can anybody provide a cite.
: As you say, a six-foot musket would have been a bugger to load, and I'm satisfied that no such arm existed in a regular army. The only possibility would be the muskets traded with native people in North America, where the going rate was a stack of skins as tall as the weapon and so the weapons got longer to get a better price. On the other hand, I don't know exactly how long a napoleonic musket would have been, and it's not crucial to the meaning of the sentence, so I'll leave it for now. PeteVerdon 12:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Infantry muskets of around 1720 when they started to become standardised usually had a 46-48 inch barrel and 12-14 inch LOP so 5 feet long plus 18 inches of socket bayonet equals aprox. 6 feet 6 inches total.  As the 18th century progressed the length of barrels on british and french muskets shrank to 38-42 inches. HOWEVER, much longer guns, long fowlers or for the french, fusils de Boucanier did exist. The minimum length was about 48 inches ranging to 60 inches (averaging around 54-56 inches) and the Boucanier muskets were often ordered with the stock cut back for a bayonet, as dual purpose weapons used for both hunting and defense. The story about the stack of skins is a myth, but long Boucanier guns were prefered by native americans as is seen from period illustrationsBenvenuto (talk) 09:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Infantry spears could easily exceed eight feet. Infantry pikes, which were common at the time, could exceed sixteen feet. 96.231.17.143 (talk) 22:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Length of muskets

message: In modern warfare, when body armor is so important in combat, wouldn't it be hard for soldiers to engage in hand-to-hand combat using bayonets when considering that the body armor both sides are likely wearing are built to stop even bullets? Taken this in to account, I don't see how bayonets are still useful as hand-to-hand combat weapons.--Ryz05 02:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not all pats of the body are armored, nor are all fighters armored.   The bullet proof vest is exactly that, a vest - something that only covers the chest.  Helmets dont cover the entire face. If one can manage to bayonett someone in the arms, throat, face, legs or the crotch,  you can badly hurt or even kill someone.  Does anyone know how much more usefull a bayonett would be rather then just useing the knife? Eds01 03:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bayonet against body armor in modern warfare 

message: Under modern use maybe add this?
There was a british guy in the falklands war who got pinned down and bayoneted like 8 argies before being shot in the head by a sniper. He was in the papers a lot at the time because he got brain damage and the army hardly gave him any money for it... should be easy to find a reference. With relation to the section above he said its policy to go for the face.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.93.46 (talk) 00:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Falklands and Iraq - Modern british use

message: "In former times bayonets were sometimes used in sport shooting to finish off wounded animals: one old German word for "bayonet" meant "deer-knife"." I'm removing it for now, but leaving it here so if another editor can find a better place in the article for this, have at it. 64.241.37.140 23:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Paragraph badly interuping flow of the article

message: The article currently says (under "History") that: "The early muskets fired at a slow rate (about a round per minute when loading with loose powder and ball), and were unreliable.". This may be true if loading with loose powder from a powder flask, measuring the powder, wrapping bullet in wadding etc, but certainly by the 18th military musket drill relied upon the paper cartridge, with the correct amount of powder measured, easy to obtain with the ball and the cartridge paper used as wadding. The wikipedia article "musket" itself says that trained soldiers could fire around 3 shots a minute this way, 4 if they were very well trained and experienced. Its only a minor quibble, and the point of the section - that muskets were slow-firing enough that a bayonet charge was possible, whereas a bayonet charge over any distance against an enemy armed with breech loading or repeating rifles became suicidal- is still true, but i feel we should probably alter the sentence to conform to whats said elsewhere about musket firing rates.
Have gone ahead and altered the article very slightly as there has been no response to this for more than a month.
82.20.244.207 20:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rate of fire of muskets

message: What are Bayoneteers? -- 172.182.10.5 09:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bayoneteers 

message: I'm removing "The Bayonets were also used by the Jewish military organization Hagana against the defenseless Arab villagers in Palestine in the early 1930's. This technique was transferred to the Hagana by the British sergeant Amatziya Cohen." from the article on the grounds that it is unsighted and appeared prejudiced/biased in nature.
:Well, have Haganah militants used bayonets against Arab villagers, or not? If they had, I dont see why this could not be included in the history section. I will re-introduce it if I find a reference.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.50.81 (talk) 03:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly should not be included. Not only is the information unsourced, the language employed unduly emotive (ie defenseless), but to single out Jewish soldiers for the use of the bayonet against civilians is plainly ridiculous. By that logic, we should include every reference of bayonet-enabled war crimes possible in the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grarap (talk • contribs) 14:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of biased section 

message: Turks used bayonets with great effectiveness in many occasions in Korean War. There is not a lot of mention of it in Turkish sources, but Korean War memoirs by American soldiers are full of this. I will include this in the history section when I collect some references.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.50.81 (talk) 03:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkish bayonet charges in Korean War 

message: The term "frog" is often used on eBay describing something which goes with the sheath or scabbard of a bayonet.  Is it some sort of fastener?  Should "frog" be cited and linked and disambiguated?           Dr.Bastedo (talk) 01:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Frog" ? 

message: * The first source in this article - which is cited multiple times - is an editable article on the BBC website and not, as the footnote states, attributable to "BBC News." Here is a disclaimer from the source which should help to clear things up: "Most of the content on h2g2 is created by h2g2's Researchers, who are members of the public. The views expressed are theirs and unless specifically stated are not those of the BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of any external sites referenced." (Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/dontpanic-tour). I recommend removing this source, as it is open to be edited by the public (without verification). See: Wikipedia:SOURCES. With the above in mind, I have added the "unreliable sources" template to the article, and I request that it not be removed until the source in question is replaced. bwmcmaste (talk) 11:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: BBC Reference

message: The book  Scientific American War Book: the mechanism and technique of warfare (1915) by Albert Allis Hopkins, p. 141 contains an interesting prewar-oriented discussion of the supposed advantages of extremely long bayonets and the necessity of achieving a 'reach' advantage over one's opponent - all written prior to the realities of trench warfare, of course. Dellant (talk) 16:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: World War I and Bayonet 'Reach'

message: Technically it is only a spear if it features a symmetrical shape and a double (dagger) or multi (spike) edged configuration designed solely for stabbing or throwing. These blade shapes are optimal for these purposes but have little weight or stiffness for slashing and break easily if blocked by a thicker blade.
Most of the newer knife-type bayonets are single edged and designed to slash, stab and parry in equal measure. A single-edged polearm that's meant for 50% slashing/50% stabbing is called a glaive, not a spear. Just a point of reference. Bravo Foxtrot (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "effectively turning the gun into a spear" 

message: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-horses-and-bayonets-fact-check-20121023,0,7526260.story
:Worth a mention? Hcobb (talk) 18:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh well, an IP user said that the actual scope of usage was off-topic somehow. Hcobb (talk) 14:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  USA has more bayonets now than in 1917 

message: This rather confusing extract appears in the 'Early history' section, para four "... that the younger Puységur invented a socket bayonet in 1678...".
I think it should read something like: "...[christian name] Puységur, a young French/German/Italian/Chinese inventor, procured a socket bayonet in 1678..." 
Who is or was he? RASAM (talk) 20:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who him ? 

message: I was reading recently that the Empire of Japan placed heavy emphasis on bayonet use, giving recruits extensive training based on Kendo and other martial arts. Right now, there's no mention of their use in WWII, so a paragraph or so might be appropriate. Rezin (talk) 19:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: See link to jukendo. Kortoso  (talk) 21:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japan 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bayonet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130523124550/http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_02/iss_1/CAJ_vol2.1_07_e.pdf to http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_02/iss_1/CAJ_vol2.1_07_e.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120422033251/http://www.botachtactical.com:80/glockknives.html to http://www.botachtactical.com/glockknives.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120426090259/http://www.ak47bayonets.com:80/AK47_Bayonet_Chinese.php to http://www.ak47bayonets.com/AK47_Bayonet_Chinese.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121021021531/http://www.jeffreyhayes.com:80/books/ebook/G3.pdf to http://www.jeffreyhayes.com/books/ebook/G3.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:39, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The first section of this article states that "A triangular blade was introduced around 1715... creating wounds which were harder to treat due to the propensity of healing scar tissue to pull apart the triangular incision." This paragraph has no reference of its own, but the next paragraph references a web encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone, in the manner of Wikipedia itself. This has been noted elsewhere on this talk page as an unreliable source. Furthermore, the source no longer makes any mention of the wounding effects of triangular blades.
Although this proposition (that triangular bayonets cause more grievous or more difficult to treat wounds than other kinds of bayonet) seems to be commonly stated on message boards and blogs, I can find no reliable source for it. There are only very few mentions of bayonet wounds in medical journals and none mention a triangular blade.
The idea seems to go hand-in-hand with a myth that the Geneva or Hague conventions banned the use of triangular bayonets (already discussed elsewhere on this talk page), so I expect it is itself a myth. In any case, since there is no reliable reference (unless someone else can find one?), I suggest this part of the sentence be removed.Cloudspert (talk) 15:27, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Triangular blades causing wounds that are harder to treat 

message: Germany wouldn't be a definable political entity until 1815 or 1871 depending on how you count. Should this refer to England and the Holy Roman Empire? Neonchameleon (talk) 08:38, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Shortly after the Peace of Ryswick (1697), the English and Germans?=

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: Should we change the name of this section?
It seems a bit biased against the bayonet, and somewhat inaccurate considering the fact that it implies bayonet charges no longer happen despite the fact that they keep happening every so often, as stated within the section 2607:FEA8:9540:2A00:D1DA:BBE2:2FE5:715B (talk) 18:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last Hurrahs 

message: I have added a paragraph about a bayonet charge on anti-war protestors in 1970. Usually I make only brief edits, like copy editing, so this is a new step for me. I welcome any suggestions.
I have also found a photo to go with this paragraph that is permitted under Creative Commons. However, I don't know how to add it to this article. If someone can point me to an instructional article on how to do that, it would be appreciated. Dgndenver (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of bayonets in New Mexico 1970 

message: Since a bayonet attached to a firearm is used for thrusting rather than throwing, and is not normally used on a horse, it is more correctly a pike. There is an article on the subject, Pike (weapon). I would edit accordingly but that would risk hijacking the reference. Would someone who can check the reference please do so and replace the word spear. Humpster (talk) 08:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  spear-like weapon