Bayonet on eBay

[Matt K. 0]

JSAR bayonet on eBay. Coated in something. Originally, from the pictures, I thought it had melted! Seller calls it "original protective coating."

I don't know if it is rubber or cosmoline, but the scabbard is numbered, so did the Dutch coat the bayonet for storage?

Bayonet on eBay

[Rick S. 0]

Matt,

The "original protective coating" is likely very old cosmolene, or cosmolene-like. I can't imagine what's "original" about it, though. I would imagine the Dutch applied the cosmolene when the bayonets were retired from service, and placed in long-term storage.

I have a JSAR bayonet that also has cosmolene on it, that I have tried my dead level best to leave intact. It has become brittle, and is flaking off. Underneath is a used and somewhat worn genuine JSAR bayonet. While the bayonet is intact, the original finish shows some edge wear, and the point is very slightly bent. On mine, the muzzle ring does have a four digit number, presumably applied by the Dutch, that did not match the number on the sheath. I have heard stories of others with similarly coated JSAR bayonets, and mine does have a consistency resembling a rubber coating.

In my humble opinion, without being able to examine it first hand, coupled with a numbered sheath, it is likely to be genuine. The bayonet does have the contours of an original, and not those of the more recently made south asian re-pops.

A couple of points to make about the referenced auction:

1) The USN did not officially posses or issue JSARs, in spite of the fact that they published information and photos in a 1943 edition of the Bluejackets Manual (a manual for all sailors, issued while in basic training).

2) Unscrupulous dealers have been known to coat phony or junk arms, and parts, in cosmolene to make a sale to gullible buyers. This practice has been around at least since the end of WWI. Looking at the photos in the auction, at least the "original protective coating" doesn't appear fresh.

3) Nothing outside of the words written by the seller indicate the piece is "mint", or anywhere close. In fact, I'm inclined to believe it's original, and if the bayonet or sheath appeared "mint", it would be highly suspect. JSARs and accouterments were made during wartime to fight war, and no one spent the time or money to preserve them for the pleasure of collectors at some future date.

As I've heard Mr. Bruce Canfield (distinguished collector, historian, author, and editor, who frequents this and other websites) state: "Buy the weapon, not the story".

Good luck!

Semper Fi,

Rick S.

[Matt K. 0]

Rick,

Good insights. I didn't doubt the bayonet is real. I have two (but need two more). Just haven't seen one before in cosmoline.

R/Matt

[sgtrock 0]

what does a good to mint bayonet and scabbard go for ,and are there replicas, thanks for any help

[Rick S. 0]

sgtrock,

Fair market value for bayonets, and any other accessories for this rifle have increased so much, so fast, that I couldn't possibly offer an accurate guess. $300 and up to whatever anyone is willing to pay is my WAG. Sorry, that's the best I can do. I guess I don't keep track for fear I may sell out.

Yes there are definitely reproductions out there that will fool the uninformed. Go to the main site @ http://johnsonautomatics.com , click on the "bayonets" button, and get smart. As the repros do cost as much as the originals, and the original bayonets are at least as rare as the rifles, those selling a repro may genuinely believe they are selling an original. If you recognize a fake, the mere suggestion that it may not be real could make for an exciting afternoon at the gunshow, so be careful.

Also, genuine bayonets can be paired with phony sheaths, and visa-versa. While it may be worthwhile to negotiate to make the best of an opportunity, it is advisable to be very diplomatic, and polite. As difficult as it might be, sometimes, you just have to walk away. Some folks are so proud that the more you try to help, the more agitated they become. They just don't like to be told they got taken in a public forum.

Get smart. If you do find a genuine set, and have to have it, remember that you may not have paid too much, you just bought it too early. (Be advised not to say that to your wife: If she understands the concept, she may use it to justify a jewelry purchase.)

Good luck!

Semper Fi,

Rick S.

[sgtrock 0]

Thanks for the info, I have found the people here both knowledge and very friendly,,

[Bob Lamoreaux 0]

Matt,

1) The USN did not officially posses or issue JSARs, in spite of the fact that they published information and photos in a 1943 edition of the Bluejackets Manual (a manual for all sailors, issued while in basic training).

The U.S. Navy was going to issue JSARs to the Seabees, hence the info in the Bluejackets Manual. I don't have my reference material in front of me and can't remember why the contract got cancelled. I believe that the decision was to arm them with BARs. Frankly, in '43, BARs were in short supply according to all the references I've seen, so this rationale seems suspect.

Don't forget that most JSARs were imported from Indonesia (Netherlands East Indies) with some coming from the Hague and probably a few from the Netherlands West Indies. These were mostly purchased by Western Arms Corp. and imported to a bonded warehouse from which Interarmco (name changed to Interarms) purchased JSARs, JLMGs, and presumably bayonets with scabbards. The cosmoline or preservative was probably applied by the Dutch prior to storage.

Bob

[webmaster 0]

Bob,

You got it the wrong way around!

The USN was going to issue JSAR's due to the short supply of BAR's at the time. However when new supplies of the BAR (probably from NESA) came online the Johnson contract was dropped.

[Bob Lamoreaux 0]

Bob,

You got it the wrong way around!

The USN was going to issue JSAR's due to the short supply of BAR's at the time. However when new supplies of the BAR (probably from NESA) came online the Johnson contract was dropped.

Thanks, Jim! I was not sufficiently articulate. You are correct in the arming of the SeaBees with JSARs in lieu of BARs due to the lack of BARs. I suspect that there was still a lack of BARs to arm the SeaBees when the JSAR was dropped as I believe the SeaBees were armed with Springfields as the primary small arm. . . Didn't research this, however. Probably cancelled the JSAR contract due to cost of JSARs and a decision to use Springfields and BARs. Some weird stuff happened in '42-'43 with ordnance supply to both our own forces and our Allied forces that indicates a desire for greater Ord Dept control over the supply (manufacture?) of ordnance.