Richard,
While I imagine that a lot of us are eager to see the 1939 and some other bayonets that have been mentioned. I understand what it’s like to try and keep on top of multiple things all going on at one time. But if you have the time, in addition to Andy's request if you have anything else ready to go for either bayonets and frogs that would be great also.
Some general observations: Barrels vibrate upon firing and a muzzle ring can affect accuracy. And the Germans chose to not use muzzle rings for that reason. But at more practical ranges the effect is not that severe, so we see muzzle rings for other nations. But why they (the Germans) cut off the muzzle rings of some of the Vz. 33 carbine bayonets. Which have 3 cm bayonet lugs (versus 4 cm) I really don’t understand.
While the later Czech weapons had superlative quality (H. Himmler liked them), the early ones not so much. With one problem being the standardization - interchangeability of parts. Which (as was already mentioned) is probably why the early Vz. 24 bayonets were numbered. Also having a couple of numbered 98/22’s that don’t seem to want to fit on a standard 4 cm bayonet lug. I also never tried to put a Vz. 24 bayonet on a Kar. 98a myself, but am not that surprised it didn’t fit. But to be blunt, some WW I German rifles IMO were (and still are) substandard. And to me a much more serious concern than fitting a bayonet, would be the soft receivers.
As for the finishing of bayonets, the later Czech types under the Germans were blued. While the domestic Czech bayonets, and early German, (there is some variation with export models) had polished steel tangs and pommels. And the crossguards and blades were sandblasted. But to me, it looks like some of them might also have been lightly phosphated as well as an aid to rust prevention. But not with a period conventional U. S. 'Parkerized' type finish*.
* PS: U.S. finishes are variable between time period and maker, but overall have a different look.
Regards to All, FP
