In a recent article/video we looked at the UK’s newly selected Alternative Individual Weapon system, the L403A1. The Knight’s Armament KS-1 was selected as the new rifle for the Ranger Regiments of the Army Special Operations Brigade and for elements of the Royal Marines Commandos.
One question which frequently appeared in the comments was “can it fit a bayonet?” This is a good question because the British Army is known to be a proponent of bayonet use with a long history of using it to great effect from the 1600s right through to recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Surveillance and Reconnaissance Squadron member with new L403A1 (Royal Marines Commandos)
The short answer to the question is – yes. The longer answer is a bit more complex. Just a week after the selection of the new rifle was announced Knights Armament displayed one of the rifles with a bayonet fixed at the DSEI 2023 exposition in London. This naturally caught some attention.
L403A1/KS-1 with a bayonet seen as DSEI 2023 (via social media)
However, when the selection of the L403A1 was initially announced a breakdown of the Alternative Individual Weapon system’s accessories and ancillaries was released. This included: a Vortex 1-10x LVPO, an Aimpoint ACRO and a QDC/MCQ-PRT [Quick Detach Coupling/Mini Close Quarters–Pressure Reduction Technology] suppressor along with a sling, a vertical front grip, and a Surefire weapon light but noticeably it did not include a bayonet.
Breakdown of the parts and accessories adopted with the L403A1 (Edgar Brothers)
The ability to fix a bayonet was not part of the weapon’s original requirements and it was not stipulated by the Rangers or Commandos. Instead, Knight’s Armament developed the capability themselves, perhaps recognising the UK’s fondness for the bayonet and the British Army’s long history of its use as both a training aid and as a weapon of war.
KAC’s 1st bayonet design with QDC attachment mechanism (courtesy of Gregory Knowles)
TAB reached out to Knight’s Armament about the bayonet and they confirmed that “the bayonet was designed in anticipation of a potential need, though not required as part of the contract.” The bayonet seen fixed to the rifle at DSEI was apparently the first iteration of the design which according to Knight’s Armament “used the same mounting mechanism as the suppressors” but a new “revised design uses an attachment mechanism that is more similar to the SA-80 bayonet attachment/retention design.”
Essentially, rather than using the suppressor’s ‘Quick Detach Coupling’ system the newer iteration of the bayonet uses a pivoting catch. The quick-detach method used by the suppressor involves the suppressor being rolled one way until the index pin seats in a notch before tightening it by twisting it the other direction.
Photos of 2nd bayonet design (Knight’s Armament Company)
The new iteration of the bayonet fits over the rifle’s 3-prong QDC muzzle device and uses the same style of catch system as the SA80. Knight’s Armament explained that “the redesign was a refinement of an initial concept after some basic testing and feasibility evaluation.” The bayonet haven’t undergone any serious testing as they’re still in the development phase. A chromed version of the latest iteration of the bayonet was also displayed at DSEI and has a removable pommel piece that can act as a small storage space and makes the bayonet more comfortable for use as a knife.
The bayonet’s blade is offset to the left side with a corresponding hole which lines up with the muzzle.
While bayonets aren’t currently planned to be issued with the rifles, the requirement might develop once they enter service. If, in the future, the UK Ministry of Defence requested a bayonet for the new rifles it seems that Knight’s Armament could be able to oblige.
The Johnson is already one of the 20th century’s most interesting military rifles, in terms of both design and history, and this rifle, serial number R-14, is perhaps even more interesting. Johnson’s military rifles were initially designated the Type R – for rotary magazine, it was the ‘R’ serialised rifles which were used during US military testing in 1938-40. We are most familiar with the classic handguard-less appearance of what became known as the Johnson M1941. Few examples of a Johnson with a handguard survive.
Right-side view of the R-14 with original optional extra handguard (Matthew Moss)
The rifle was developed by Melvin Johnson, a USMC Reserve Captain, in the mid-1930s, Johnson began work on the rifle just as the M1 Garand was adopted. Johnson was granted his first patent protecting his rifle in September 1937. His rifle was tested in 1938-39 by US Army Ordnance but advanced no further than testing. Johnson lobbied politicians leading to a bill being introduced in an effort to have Johnson’s rifle adopted. On May 29th, 1940 the US Senate’s Military Affairs Committee met with Johnson and military representatives to discuss the rifle and the Bill which had been proposed, S.3983, to ‘Provide for the Adoption of the Johnson Semiautomatic Rifle as a Standard Arm of the Military’. The bill, however, led nowhere and the M1 Garand’s introduction continued.
A Johnson M1941 (Courtesy of Rock Island Auction Company)
The handguard fitted to R-14 was actually an optional extra offered by Johnson Automatics. It appears to have been an attempt to address one of the main concerns raised by the US military – the Johnson’s unsuitability for bayonet fighting. As the rifle uses a short-recoil operated action the barrel recoils about ½ inch on firing, this means that the weapon’s barrel isn’t actually fixed in place meaning when the bayonet was used the barrel moves backwards ½ inch when it contacted something or someone with enough force.
A Johnson R-Type Rifle fitted with hanguard & M1905 bayonet (Johnson Automatics Brochure)
From the Senate Committee hearing we know that there were real concerns about the rifle’s bayonet fighting characteristics. With US Army Ordnance noting that “this rifle is very poorly suited to bayonet fighting.” Noting that the exposed barrel was too narrow to grasp properly and was also un-insulated if the barrel was hot from firing. The non-fixed, recoiling barrel was also highlighted as another ‘deficiency’. Major Grant Schlieker, the Infantry Liaison Officer at the Aberdeen Proving Ground, shared similar concerns. In addition to concerns about the lack of handguard to grasp when bayonet fighting he noted in his statement that during their testing the Johnson has struggled to cycle properly when fired at a depressed angle with a bayonet fixed and that striking something with the bayonet hard enough lead the rifle to extract and eject a chambered round.
A closer look at the handguard, also note the addition of a stacking swivel just behind the bayonet lug (Matthew Moss)
Johnson refuted these concerns by stating that the barrel was exposed with good reason so that it could cool rapidly, suggesting that enclosed barrels like the Garand’s became too hot to grasp after sustained firing thus also making bayonet fighting difficult. Johnson also noted that a ‘Johnson Sword Bayonet’, which extended forward under the barrel from the Johnson’s normal forend had been developed to address the problem but the ergonomics and usefulness of this terrifyingly long bayonet are unclear.
An R-type rifle fitted with the extremely long Johnson Sword Bayonet, note the large lug beneat the barrel, extending from the rifle’s handguard (Johnson’s Guns – Canfield)
You would imagine that a fixed, full-length stock with the barrel recoiling inside would have been a more elegant solution allowing the bayonet to be fixed to a nosecap rather than the barrel. But it would seem that Johnson was passionate about having the exposed barrel to allow cooling.
It is worth noting that the bayonet issued with the M1941 was the lightweight spike-type, developed in order to elevate potential issues with cycling while the bayonet was fixed.
A close up of R-14’s markings (Matthew Moss)
A proponent of the rifle, USMC Captain, George Van Orden (who commanded the Rifle Range at the Marine Corps Barracks at Quantico) went so far as to claim that the recoiling barrel had a positive impact on bayonet fighting “a recoiling barrel can provide extra thrust in bayonet fighting, as in the case of a boxer who in striking a blow, at the moment of contact… straightens his elbow smartly.” The Johnson Automatics manual for the rifle even claimed that testing against pine board showed that “the short recoil of the barrel actually tends to increase the penetration of the bayonet.”
From the May 1940 Senate hearing records we know that the R-14 wasn’t always fitted with the barrel with the enclosed handguard. It was one of several rifles used by Captain Van Orden to test the rifle’s accuracy and there is not mention in his account of the rifle’s barrel being shrouded with a handguard. This isn’t too surprising as the Johnson’s barrel can be removed easily and readily swapped out.
Close up of the guide collar at the rear end of the handguard (Matthew Moss)
The bayonet lug appears to be designed to mount a US Army M1905 bayonet, the sword bayonet issued with the M1903 Springfield. The assembly also has a sling swivel. R-14’s barrel is 23.75 inches long – this is a little longer than the standard 22 inch barrel, but 24 inch barrels were an option offered by Johnson Automatics. The round wooden grips panels are held in place by three pairs of slips and the nosecap and the guide collar.
Other than the forend this rifle also has a slightly different style of rear sight compared to the M1941 production rifles. The receiver markings are also simpler with calibre, patents and a plain maker’s mark, with serial number at the bottom.
A closer look at the handguard’s nosecap and bayonet lug (Matthew Moss)
The addition of the handguard certainly does allow a greater area for the forward hand to grip the rifle. But what is less clear is the effect the added mass of the handguard, nosecap and bayonet (when mounted) had on the cycling of the gun. Logic would suggest that any weight added to the barrel would slow the its travel and potentially cause reliability issues. The handguard and bayonet would have added at least 2lbs. Sadly, I’ve been unable to find any documentary evidence to tell us how the rifle functioned with the forend. No mention of the handguard is made during the Senate committee hearing but a ‘fixed-type’ bayonet is mentioned which is described as “not in any way interfering with the recoil of the barrel.” This was presumably referring to the long Johnson Sword Bayonet. Despite them being offered as an official option it is fair to presume that the rifle would have struggled to operate properly when fitted with the handguard.
When the Johnson finally entered production it was with an exposed barrel as he intended and R-14 remains one of the few examples to have the Johnson’s optional handguard.
Many thanks to the Cody Firearms Museum for allowing us to examine and film the rifle and take a look at a rare example of the Johnson Automatics optional extra handguard.
Military Handbook of the Johnson Semi-Automatic Rifle (1939)
The Johnson Semiautomatic Rifle: Hearing Before the Committee on Military Affairs, United States Senate, Seventy-sixth Congress, Third Session, on S. 3983, a Bill to Provide for the Adoption of the Johnson Semiautomatic Rifle as a Standard Arm of the Military and Naval Forces, May 29, 1940 (source)
Johnson Rifles and Machine Guns: The Story of Melvin M. Johnson, Jr. and His Guns, B. Canfield (2002)
The Model of 1941 Johnson Rifle in Marine Service, B. Canfield, American Rifleman, (source)
We’re proud to present our very first bayonet-centric episode. Vic takes a look at a bayonet for a Sudanese contract AR-10 as part of his ongoing Surplus Zone series. While a rather rare bayonet this example has some interesting features.
In 1958 the Sudanese Military contracted with Samuel Cummings company Interarmco, to supply 2,508 AR-10 Battle Rifles. 2,500 standard rifles and 8 adapted to mount optical sights as sniper rifles.
One of the requirements for the Sudanese rifles were that they were to be able to mount bayonets, something the AR-10 did not have a capability to do in its then current form. This inability to mount a bayonet was overcome by a rather simple and ingenious addition to the rifle. A cast and machined sleeve was fitted over the barrel between front sight base/gas block and the flash hider. This was pinned to the barrel just forward of the front sight base/gas block. It had machined into the underside of the bayonet adaptor a longitudinal rail to which the bayonet could be attached. This is the same interface as seen on WWII German issued Kar98K rifles, the significance of which will become clear!
It is uncertain why Interarmco chose the design of bayonet which they did. It would have been quite an expensive and complex one to manufacture but it is obvious that it is based upon the late WWII SG-42 bayonet come utility/fighting knife. The Sudanese contract AR-10 bayonet has a more symmetrical blade than that of the SG-42 and has no ‘blood groove’ (properly known as a fuller) which hints at the fact that it is seen more of a utility knife than as a ‘cut and thrust’ fighting knife/bayonet.
Sudanese contract AR-10 bayonet
It has been established that the SG-42 was manufactured by Waffenfabrik Carl Eickhorn in Solingen, Germany (determined by its cof marking / WaA19 inspection code), whereas the toolkit was made by Robert Klaas of Solingen (inspection code: ltk). Inside the bayonet’s grip are a number of tools which detach from the grip and can be used for rifle maintenance. The tools also include a bottle opener and a corkscrew. Inside the toolkit stored in the bayonet’s grip are a number of tools which detach from the grip and can be used for rifle maintenance. The tools also include a bottle opener and a corkscrew.
In regard to the AR-10 Sudanese bayonet, the Eickhorn company does not deny being the manufacturer of the Sudanese contract bayonet, they simply cannot confirm that they were the maker, since all relevant factory records have been lost!
In the Dutch AR-10 archives, Interarmco (i.e. Samuel Cummings) does not disclose the name of the manufacturer, but refers only (in the pertinent correspondence with A.I.) to “the Solingen manufacturer” of this knife-bayonet for the Sudanese contract.
Check out Vic’s earlier Surplus Zone videos hereand his special series on the AR-10 here.
The Armourers Bench 