UBB.threads Forums Edged Weapons The BCN Bayonet Forum German modified VZ 24 Bayonet WaA80

I decided to buy one of the converted Czechs when I saw the WaA proofs.

Another picture....

German Serial Number...

They did not scrub the Czech scabbard with a 1936 date....

This is a good one Anttom.

Hello You have there a missmatched piece, Sg24(t) the bayonet was made in this configuration the scabbard is of older czechoslovak production. best regards,Andy

Andy couldn't the bayonet be a reworked VZ24 bayonet in its original scabbard that did not get scrubbed?

Andy is correct. Manufactured without muzzle rings, the Waffenamt "A80" series of bayonets had either plain or Waffenamt "63" marked scabbard frog studs. The bayonet posted has what looks like an electropencil number on the ricasso. And a different number on the crossguard. Not a standard feature of the "A80" series. (The Waffenamt posted is from a "dot" series bayonet, which are different/smaller, as I don't have a prepared image ready to post. But the placement of the Waffenmt is the same.) FP

The Germans not only converted Czech VZ24 bayonets, but they also used up all the incompleted bayonet parts when making new
S24(t) bayonets and often left the Czech proofs on the bayonets, not shown in my pictures is a Z in a double circle on the other side of the ricasso blade representing Czech production at Bystrica. So this bayonet was made with Czech produced parts. The etched numbers are probably an assembly number etched on the bayonet during production. I have seen similar etched numbers on K98k rifles put there during production that were buffed out when the rifle was serial numbered. AS for the scabbard the Germans used up all the Czech scabbards produced before they took over. The fact that the Germans did not remove the Czech proofs is an oversight that was common during the pressures of wartime production and in no way makes this a mismatched bayonet IMHO. This bayonet came back with a vet exactly as captured.

I went over George Wheeler's History of the German Bayonet 1919-1945 section on Czech bayonets converted/manufactured by the Germans several times before I made this purchase and it exhibits many of the same characteristics of his examples that show a mix of both Czech and German proofing. There is no one correct way with these captured Czech bayonets and bayonet parts.

Anttom, I�m afraid that I am going to have to respectfully disagree. The no muzzle ring Waffenamt A80 bayonets were from the second series made under the control of the Germans. With the first series being the full muzzle ring gray phosphate/bright finish Waffenamt 607 bayonets from Bystrica, or WaA63 marked examples from Brno. With a Circle/Z from Brno, and Double Circle/Z from Bystrica on the obverse sides. The third series of course being the dated and (ricasso) serial number marked bayonets from �dot� (Brno).

As for bayonets getting new scabbards when something happened to the old one - that is another matter. Sometimes in the field. Sometimes during a bayonet�s postwar use by the various armies that continued to use them.

And sometimes German bayonets were re-serial numbered as a part of an armory rebuild process before they discontinued that practice. With some CZ bayonets, manufactured without having serial numbers, having them added during a later overhaul/refurbishing process. But if it�s electro-penciled, I would tend to suspect Soviet origin like many of the 98K rifles now coming from there. Or it could be some other user.

As I have never seen it (electro-pencil) done to a factory (OEM) bayonet for either German, or CZ production. FP

An early first series full muzzle ring Circle/Z (Brno) manufactured bayonet, with the correct WaA63 marked scabbard (the artificial lighting does not reflect the true color values in sunlight).

I believe FP answered all Your question, but some correction are important, firstly there is the second plant of Zbrojovka Brno located to Povazska Bystrica, because in Slovakia exist about 20 towns called Bystrica,important for teh determining location is the first word in front. Second Your piece was made in this configuration, not removed barrel ring on crosspiece, the finish is probably postwar reblued, so the number on ricasso is postwar elektropencil, the german number is on crosspiece,which should mean the mouth piece of scabbard should be so stamped, the scabbard was probably from older czechoslovak piece , and should be on a reworked bayonet Vz.24 too marked 1936. best regards,Andy

This bayonet has a double circle Z proof on one side of the ricasso blade. Based on what you are saying that would be a first series produced bayonet in 1941. The WaA607 waffenamt was discontinued early in 1941 being replaced by the WaA80 waffenamt.So it is possible this is a later first series bayonet. During production of the first series bayonets they used up Czech parts that they had already acquired hence the 1936 dated scabbard. As for the EP on the other side of the blades ricasso under the Eagle/A80 I cannot imagine the Russians taking the time to rework bayonets, but granted it is somewhat of a mystery how it got there.

We are almost there. The Waffenamt "A 80"�s from a basic manufacturing standpoint are the same as the 1942/43 �dot� bayonets. Other than the markings, they are blued with no muzzle rings. Seen with three different kinds of scabbard markings, one being no marking at all. (It gets worse. There is an identical Double Circle/Z variant without Waffenamts.)

With my apologies first for poor quality images from an old photo shoot. From left to right: A serial number added 1937 original Czech army bayonet and scabbard, all matching including the Czech markings. In the center, a Waffenamt 607 bayonet with its WaA63 scabbard. And to the right, a serial numbered �dot� 1942.

The �bottom line� being, a first series has a muzzle ring. And the old parts had already been used up - if you look at the distinctive diagonal machining marks on the A80 blades.

PS to Andy: 20 towns . I had forgotten about Povazska Bystrica. Thanks for reminding me. FP

hello, i believe Your piece is a yugo or balkan area rework not russian, other point is that this is a commercial contract for Wehrmacht, so there was used the Z circle stamp, A80 stamps were used from middle of 1941 not early, the elekropenciled number was not used by germans, the scabbard was probably captured by germans, does it have a number near mouth piece?, or is the piece turned?, as You gave the bayonet in wrong way on third picture. best regards,Andy
PS is any stamps on the frog stud from side? Do You removed the frog from the scabbard?

The scabbard was modified by the Germans. I took it out of the frog and noted the following. The scabbard has had the throat piece rivets removed, and then the holes were soldered over. A German S84/98 style scabbard screw was placed on the edge of the scabbard. This proves that this scabbard is not a mismatch and was captured by the Germans and reworked before it was issued with this S24(t) bayonet. The Germans just skipped scrubbing the scabbard stud of the Czech proofs.

One last important point the muzzle ring area shows evidence of grinding marks on the metal. I can confidently say that at one time this bayonet had a muzzle ring on it that was ground off. So we have a waffenamt Eagle/A80 bayonet that was not produced without a muzzle ring before it was ground off.

Andy has made some excellent observations. First, in the scabbard, the muzzle ring end of the bayonet posted appears to be facing right which is a characteristic of the German conversions. Which has been confirmed. I forgot to mention that the frog has the look sometimes observed when the hole is modified slightly to accommodate the Czech style frog stud which is sometimes seen. For the scabbard and the frog, both plusses.

The Circle/Z was used as a commercial or export mark, for example, as seen with CZ bayonets intended for Romania. And its use seems to occupy a similar function as a sort of trademark while under German control. For the Wehrmacht, the �d� block of Fertigungskennzeichen (manufacturer's letter codes) was instituted circa April 1941. But where it gets really interesting IMO is when you look at rifle production. With the 1940 dated G. 33/40 carbines (Waffenamt "63") first using the "945" number codes extending into 1941. And the Pov�zsk� Bystrica (Andy, I can�t always replicate specific characters, is that correct?) manufactured Vz. 24�s from leftover parts with the Waffenamt "607". Both Waffenamts continuing on into 1941 for the G. 33/40, and what became the G. 24(t).

With from my perspective, the full muzzle ring versions very likely being 1940 production, and the Pov�zsk� Bystrica "A 80" Waffenamt examples of course 1941 as was stated. And the original purpose, of at least the first Brno made examples, as bayonets for the G. 33/40.

The problem of course being when were the conversions done? Having seen dated 1942 manufactured bayonets originally made under German control which have been modified. Because of the extreme amount of diversity seen with the modifications (20 different changes/variations - combinations?), I think it�s very reasonable to assume that they were not �dot� or �dou� factory modifications. But outsourced elsewhere, probably to a lot of little shops, that had their own ideas as to what work was to be done.

Where the �disconnect� seems to be is with differentiating between factory (OEM) production which is very consistent. And the fairly common conversions of preexisting bayonets after they left the factory - which can be seen in many different configurations.

PS: I have seen quite few conversion where the muzzle ring was ground off. This is not one of them, and appears to be a standard factory crossguard as manufactured under German control.

Best Regards to All, FP

There are easily identified grinding marks on the cross guard where the muzzle ring was. I have the bayonet and I am looking at the evidence.

Anttom, I have multiple examples of your bayonet (and other CZ production) in "as manufactured" condition (OEM), and they are basically the same as far as what is underneath the bluing. I'm not trying to be disagreeable, but I think you are possibly confusing a standard military type of "brush" finish - with something that was done post production.

Perhaps this will help: Your bayonet alongside a few late H�rster's which were almost finished. Which then had the catch releases ground flush to be level with the rest of the pommel, as a part of the manufacturing process. Prior to bluing/phosphating.

I don't see this kind of work in the images posted, do you have others? And hasn't your bayonet been refinished over the electro-pencil marking? FP

In the groove at the top of the crossguard are grinding marks. I believe the finish is the original German Blackened phosphate and the bayonet is not refinished. The EP mark can be explained without assuming that the bayonet was refinished postwar by a Commblock nation. I think it was some sort of assembly or inventory number that was not polished off before the bayonet was blackened.

The problem that I am having in accepting your evaluation 100% is an issue I often see with collectors. They develop a set of guidelines for military collectibles and forget that these items were made under the stresses of wartime production, and subsequently there are exceptions to the guidelines that they have set for a particular piece of military equipment. I think this particular bayonet is a German produced S24(t) and is original and correct. That is why I purchased it. You disagree and have deemed it a mismatched bayonet and scabbard reworked by a Commblock nation based on an EP number. We can just agree to disagree on this one. I respect your knowledge and opinions, but they do not change my views on this bayonet. Those views are that the bayonet and scabbard were reworked by the German manufacturers at dou and the piece is WWII original. We can agree to disagree without any bad feelings. In fact, thank you for all the information about these bayonets.

Hello, interesting discussion, certainly FP is one of the first expert who named the overall ZB production and have a large collection of bayonets made in Czechia and Slovakia, to Your points, by Your bayonet is unfortunally mashined the ricasso not only the crossguard, which speaks for a rework, certainly the blueing from the pictures is too dark on the blade, and elekropenciled number is 100% postwar, the scabbard is certainly not for this piece, the one moment is that this bayonet was reworked by germans or minimally serialed on crossguard, so the scabbard should have same number as in on crossguard, by matching piece. You should compare a dot 42/43 piece with this, i believe the dimension of the crossguard are similar like on without barellring piece. best regards,Andy
PS to FP the real name is Pova�sk� Bystrica but for Your area without diacritics is probably the best way write Povazska Bystrica

That items made during wartime can be subject to wartime stresses and variation is one of the plusses in collecting WW II era weapons and militaria. Most collectors love variations, and there are quite a few to be found with those made for the Wehrmacht.

It was those same stresses that caused the Germans to first accept unchanged (except perhaps for the markings) items made in factories which came under their control. With, in many cases, a changeover to a more or less standard German configuration if the item continued to be made.

There is also no question IMO that the bayonet component configurations/modifications posted saw service with the Wehrmacht. Which is really the central issue - irrespective of what may or may not have happened to it at a later date.

But for the fact that there were a very few ex-Slovakian issue Vz. 24 bayonets that had been used later by the Romanian army. Mixed in with surplus imports from Romania including ex-German and CZ Romanian bayonets (sometimes "as is", sometimes reworked). With Romania having the second largest Axis army in Russia. I don�t think that I would ever have had the opportunity to examine one of them 'in hand'. My point being that what happened later on is sometimes not as important as discovering an item which is difficult, or in some cases almost impossible to find otherwise. FP

My picture was of a Yugo postwar reworked SG24(t) the crossguard is yugo stamped, but this sample was made wout barell ring, to Antom could You measure the upper part of crossguard how wide is it, where should be the barellring? When possible on milimeters. The other point is "bayonet and scabbard were reworked by the German manufacturers at dou" this is probably the problem, dou is a german code for Zbrojovka Brno , plant Povazska Bystrica, they produced bayonets not only for Wehrmacht, as the reworks are so different is high possibility it was reworked by german fieldworks.best regards,Andy

PS: I�m glad that Andy posted the example that he did.

It�s another example of those that were TR period reworked to make them look like a little more like 98K bayonets - prior to seeing service in Yugoslavia.

One of the many different modifications (some bayonets have them, others do not). The grip bolts have had screw slots machined into them. Which was cosmetic in nature like some of the others, and (IMO) also an interesting exercise in futility. As the grip bolts themselves were splined (small vertical cuts on the circumference of the bolt head parallel to the shaft). To keep the bolts from rotating that were usually left intact. What were they thinking?? Best Regards to All, FP

Anttom, I was very remiss with something that I should have addressed earlier. I also have George Wheeler's "Seitengeweher: History of the German Bayonet 1919-1945". It�s a truly excellent book which I use all of the time. So you exercised what could be called reasonable �due diligence� in researching the Czech bayonets before making the purchase.

The problem that seems to face all authors (and especially with militaria) is that as soon as the book is in print - new information is uncovered. And as hard as George worked to get as much good information as he could out there for collectors. Because his book was printed in 1999, there are some areas that I think could probably be �freshened up� if he decides to write a 2nd edition. (If there ever is a 2nd edition, I will be one of the ones at the front of the line to buy it . )

With updates being an ongoing problem in many collecting specialties. That very often are seen with the online resources as well - in one area or another. Best Regards, FP