# Is the Bayonet Obsolete?



## Darrin Cook (Jan 31, 2010)

I have a new post on my blog about a debate in the US army whether or not to continue bayonet training.

I was surprised to discover that the bayonet is still used in combat, as recently as the Iraq war. The Brits also staged a successful bayonet charge in the Falkland Islands War.

I'm curious to find out if anyone uses a bayonet in a home defense situation. I think that a shotgun or a low powered rifle outfitted with a bayonet would be a very effective weapon for the home. I'm uncertain as to its legality, though. I remember that part of the "assault weapons" ban had to do with outlawing bayonet lugs, which somehow made certain guns evil.

Let me also recommend Cold Steel, a classic book on Marine Corps self-defense with the bayonet, knife, stick, and bare hands. It's an old book, but I don't know how you'd top it.

I should also add that if you train with the long stick as I do, that it directly applies to the bayonet.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 31, 2010)

The British Army and Royal Marines have been using the bayonet in Afghanistan too.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK...t-Bayonet-Point/Article/200809215098493?f=rss

Catterick is where I'm based and its always interesting to go up and watch them do their bayonet training, it's not open to the general public though!


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 31, 2010)

It seems like they've been saying that the bayonet is obsolete for generations now... yet it's still around...

They've said the same thing about the infantry, too.

It's hard to convincingly argue against a weapon that has very few points of failure...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 31, 2010)

A bayonet attached to a rifle is a knife on the end of a long stick, or a spear intended to be used with both hands to stab (rather than throwing it).  I can't imagine it would stop being useful, as long as people remain penetrable by pointy things in a stabby or slashy motion.

I can imagine it could have utility in a home-defense scenario, but I would not put on one any weapon intended to use for home defense.  Primarily because one of the major needs I see for a home defense weapon is small size.  The bayonet would make such a weapon longer than I would want mine to be.

I've had all the bayonet training I think I will need for the remainder of my life; if I came upon one, I'd be able to use it effectively, I think.  But I'd be just as likely to swing an entrenching tool as a bayonet if I didn't have the ability to use a firearm in its intended manner in a self-defense scenario.


----------



## FieldDiscipline (Jan 31, 2010)

Beat me to it Tez.  They don't like it up 'em.  

The British Army has always had an affinity for the bayonet, going back to the first time the French were routed by them, IIRC.


----------



## FieldDiscipline (Jan 31, 2010)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-fending-off-Taliban-attack-with-bayonet.html

http://www.hmforces.co.uk/news/arti...afghan-bravery-award-for-heroic-scots-officer

:ninja:


----------



## Darrin Cook (Jan 31, 2010)

Bill,

I think part of the problem is a ban on short weapons (there are minimum barrel lengths), that would make an additional bayonet just that much longer.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 31, 2010)

FieldDiscipline said:


> Beat me to it Tez. They don't like it up 'em.
> 
> The British Army has always had an affinity for the bayonet, going back to the first time the French were routed by them, IIRC.


 
 Absolutely Mr Mainwaring!  ( that's Mannering to non Brits) And of course you can't forget the Gurkhas with their Kukris.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 31, 2010)

Darrin Cook said:


> Bill,
> 
> I think part of the problem is a ban on short weapons (there are minimum barrel lengths), that would make an additional bayonet just that much longer.



I'm familiar with the laws on weapon length, I was an FFL holder once, and am former law enforcement.

Adding a bayonet to a short-barreled weapon does not increase its length as far as the law is concerned, so it's no help there. If I had an illegally short weapon, sticking a bayonet on it would not make it legal.

 I like a short-barreled (but legal) shotgun as a home defense weapon, or a handgun.  I would not put a bayonet on it.  Nothing wrong with a bayonet, I just would not find it of any particular use stuck on the end of a pistol or short shotgun.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jan 31, 2010)

The bayonet attached to a rifle is still effective.  As Bill said it is basically a spear.  It gives one reach and distance and it is a knife.  Wow it really is a no brainer.  Now, are there other things that could be more effective?  Certainly!  Like keeping your distance and having enough ammo that you never have to engage in close quarter fighting!


----------



## David43515 (Jan 31, 2010)

During WWII my dad was in the infantry and trained to train bayonet instructors.The bayonet is and always will be an effective combat tool. There`s immediate cross over to other weapons as well. If you learned to use a bayonet in basic training you can use a riot baton, a cane, or a pool cue as well. 

But I can`t say I would want to attach one to a long gun for home defense. Hallways and small rooms might be tooo crowded as it is. For home defense, IMO,you`re better off with a couple large dogs to keep people busy while you retreat into the bedroom with a firearm and a cell phone. Gather your family, call the cops, and let them do thier job.


----------



## DBZ (Jan 31, 2010)

In the current US Army it is a matter of personal opinion if you like the bayonet or not. when I went thru BCT Over a year ago they did not cover the training. we did combatives instead(bjj type stuff) But my wife who went thru BCT at the same time at a diff company did do the training, So it kinda up in the air to me


----------



## Darrin Cook (Feb 1, 2010)

Bill, 

My point was that the typical legal shotgun is already too long for home defense. By the time you add a bayonet, it makes it even longer.

If a citizen could legally own a shorter barrel weapons, a bayonet might not be so combersome due to added length.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 1, 2010)

Darrin Cook said:


> Bill,
> 
> My point was that the typical legal shotgun is already too long for home defense. By the time you add a bayonet, it makes it even longer.
> 
> If a citizen could legally own a shorter barrel weapons, a bayonet might not be so combersome due to added length.



Hmm, still not sure what you mean.  A legal shotgun can be quite short indeed.  The barrel has to be at least 18 inches, overall length 26 inches.  A typical sporter rifle has a 24 inch barrel, so a 26 inch overall length is very short, but perfectly legal.  And very good for home defense.

The classic and inexpensive Mossberg 500 with a folding stock is my weapon of choice for home defense.  I think we agree that a bayonet would not serve much purpose on the end of that.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Feb 2, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Hmm, still not sure what you mean.  A legal shotgun can be quite short indeed.  The barrel has to be at least 18 inches, overall length 26 inches.  A typical sporter rifle has a 24 inch barrel, so a 26 inch overall length is very short, but perfectly legal.  And very good for home defense.
> 
> The classic and inexpensive Mossberg 500 with a folding stock is my weapon of choice for home defense.  I think we agree that a bayonet would not serve much purpose on the end of that.



Hey Bill,

Actually the Mossberg 590A1 has a bayonet lug on it and is an excellent home defense option with or without the bayonet.  Is a bayonet functional in a home self defense situation?  Maybe depending on the person using it and their knowledge and use of its length.  I think it has relevance in that capacity but the person carrying it has to realize and understand how to move with the extra six inches.


----------



## lklawson (Feb 2, 2010)

The bayonet is as obsolete as any other melee type weapon, or even bare hand fighting.

In other words, it has a very limited role way, way behind bullets and infantry cooperative tactics.

It's not gone and it probably never will but, but it ain't "first line" by any means.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 2, 2010)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> I think it has relevance in that capacity but the person carrying it has to realize and understand how to move with the extra six inches.



Sure everybody says it's six inches...

OK, kidding aside - a bayonet six inches long at the minimum.  I was not aware of the Mossberg 590A1, so thanks for that info.  Based on photos of it I see on the web, it looks as though the handle of the bayonet is withing the length of the shotgun barrel, and the blade extends beyond it from the guard.  The picture I see shows an M7 bayonet, which has a 6.75 inch blade.  The Mossberg 590A1 also is apparently sold with the shortest barrel being 18.5 inches.  So your weapon is going to end up being about 24 (minimum legal length of overall shotgun) inches plus nearly 7 inches, or 31 inches long.  Compared to 24 (without the bayonet) inches.

Perhaps I am just admitting that _"I don't know how to move with the bayonet"_ but I don't think it belongs on a home-defense shotgun and I would not mount one on mine.  I think there's a big difference between maneuvering a 24-inch weapon and a 31-inch weapon in close quarters.

Fine for trench warfare, not so much for the home - IMHO.  YMMV.


----------



## searcher (Feb 3, 2010)

It is obsolete until you are out of ammo, then it changes things a bit.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 4, 2010)

searcher said:


> It is obsolete until you are out of ammo, then it changes things a bit.



If you could carry a bayonet or an extra 30 round magazine, which would you carry? 

If there's room for a bayonet, there's room for more bullets.  Not saying it might not serve a purpose, but the reality is that bayonet combat was relatively rare even in the day and age it was en vogue............most incidents of bayoneting even in the golden age of the bayonet was in stabbing fleeing infantry in the back as they fled after they broke ranks during the initial volleys.

Point to point bayonet fighting did occur.......but it was the exception.

If someone wants to bring along something in case the rifle jams, and one finds themselves in immediate need of secondary lethal force, I would recommend a good reliable handgun.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 4, 2010)

Soldiers don't keep bayonets fixed, they just keep them close. For them they are useful for a lot of other things too so perhaps its more of a military weapon after all.


----------



## punisher73 (Feb 4, 2010)

Why? If you are in your own home and are legally defending yourself. Why not shoot them with a shotgun? You have 4 rounds that you can choose between buck shot or slugs, if you opt for a tactical model, you usually have about a 7 shot capacity. Add a side saddle to it for another 6 rounds of ammo on it. You have 13 shots available now to you. Why would you turn the best QCQ weapon available for home defense into a short spear?

Tactically speaking, it doesn't make sense at all if you goal is to protect your home. If you are close enough to stab them with a bayonet, you are close enough to pull the trigger on them. If you need more than 13 shots at close range with a shotgun, then you need to spend more time out on a range running drills and understanding your weapon. 

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/po...6145-5076a4acdaa1f0447e689f36dab627c59b606833​


----------



## wushuguy (Feb 9, 2010)

Reading the posts about bayonets, i think they're still a good idea. for soldiers kinda gives a hope when there's no ammo left, more strength to do an all out charge to fight for survival.

I don't know about our American soldiers, but I hope they have bayonets too, just in case.


----------



## FieldDiscipline (Feb 11, 2010)

Made me laugh.  He's good!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1K3uRIY-tPY&feature=related

Gets the blood up!


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 11, 2010)

I can't even begin to understand why we would discontinue the use of Bayonets. Once hand to hand combat is made obsolete, then ban bayonets.
Sean


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 11, 2010)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> The bayonet attached to a rifle is still effective. As Bill said it is basically a spear. It gives one reach and distance and it is a knife. Wow it really is a no brainer. Now, are there other things that could be more effective? Certainly! Like keeping your distance and having enough ammo that you never have to engage in close quarter fighting!


How about Magic Amunition that never runs out. LOL
Sean


----------



## Kittan Bachika (Feb 14, 2010)

FieldDiscipline said:


> Made me laugh.  He's good!
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1K3uRIY-tPY&feature=related
> 
> Gets the blood up!



I remember reading in BBM back in the day where they mentioned that the British military realized the importance of bayonets during the Falkland Islands War. Apparently a lot of the enemy were playing possum resulting in casualties for British soldiers because of the lack of bayonet training.

A poke from a bayonet would probably have saved a lot of lives.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 14, 2010)

Kittan Bachika said:


> I remember reading in BBM back in the day where they mentioned that the British military realized the importance of bayonets during the Falkland Islands War. Apparently a lot of the enemy were playing possum resulting in casualties for British soldiers because of the lack of bayonet training.
> 
> A poke from a bayonet would probably have saved a lot of lives.


 
I think the magazine is having you on quite frankly. Bayonet training has been a part of British military training since the year dot, it's always been taught. It's never been stopped. My other half was in the Falklands war and he's just said he's never heard of the 'playing possum' thing, the British soldiers aren't so stupid you know as to approach Argentinian bodies without taking precautions. For one thing they've learnt from previous campaigns that dead bodies are often booby trapped. My shift partner was there too in the Paras and he says its rot about British casulties.
Sorry, that article is just a lot of hot air.


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 14, 2010)

sgtmac_46 said:


> If you could carry a bayonet or an extra 30 round magazine, which would you carry?
> 
> If there's room for a bayonet, there's room for more bullets.



Until you start taking weight into consideration.   

And 'sides, if you are gonna carry a fixed blade knife, why not something multi-purposed such as a bayonet?


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 14, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> Until you start taking weight into consideration.
> 
> And 'sides, if you are gonna carry a fixed blade knife, why not something multi-purposed such as a bayonet?


 
It would be an odd or ill prepared soldier that didn't have a knife so a bayonet would be ideal surely.
You could say a radio to call in air strikes is every bit as important these days but the best laid plans of mice and men etc so carrying a bayonet is never going to be 'pointless' is it!
*And* they have been used a fighting weapon in Afghan oh and the Falklands which probably proves that the British army has never stopped using or training with them.

http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/Bayonet Tee hee!


----------



## Kittan Bachika (Feb 19, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> I think the magazine is having you on quite frankly. Bayonet training has been a part of British military training since the year dot, it's always been taught. It's never been stopped. My other half was in the Falklands war and he's just said he's never heard of the 'playing possum' thing, the British soldiers aren't so stupid you know as to approach Argentinian bodies without taking precautions. For one thing they've learnt from previous campaigns that dead bodies are often booby trapped. My shift partner was there too in the Paras and he says its rot about British casulties.
> Sorry, that article is just a lot of hot air.



I should really know better because I remember from reading Rogue Warrior that a popular trick amongst the Seals was to bobby trap dead NVA soldiers. And as you pointed out, it is BBM.

Also the British did win that war.

So how did the Paras figure out whether they had a corpse or had someone playing possum without endangering themselves?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 16, 2010)

The US Army announced today that they are dropping bayonet training:

http://www.military.com/news/article/army-drops-bayonets-in-training-revamp.html?ESRC=topstories.RSS


> *Army Drops Bayonets in Training Revamp*
> 
> March 16, 2010
> Associated Press
> ...


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Mar 16, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The US Army announced today that they are dropping bayonet training:
> 
> http://www.military.com/news/article/army-drops-bayonets-in-training-revamp.html?ESRC=topstories.RSS



Interesting!


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Mar 16, 2010)

I do not expect our Marines or the British military, China, Russian, etc. to drop bayonet training.  So it is a little surprising.  I do think that sprints are a better way for soldiers to train for short explosive, intensive combat however over all endurance running should be important as well.


----------



## David43515 (Mar 16, 2010)

I don`t think they should be doing away with bayonette training, but it makes sense to be focusing more on sprint training. But as long as there are forced marches in the military there`ll be endurance training.


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 16, 2010)

It's not like bayonet training took up a whole lot of time in the first place..I think it should stay.


----------



## Kajowaraku (Mar 23, 2010)

When all else fails: the bayonet is your friend in need. Ever tried peeling potatoes with a 50 cal? That's why a multi-purpose, attachable blade is wonderful in close quartered battles of attrition. That and carpetbombing, but you just can't fix that to a rifle. Seriously now, if you want to train soldiers to kill, having them aim at cardboard targets just isn't the same as charging a dummy and running it through with a bayonet while screaming something along the line of "Aaaaaa! Perish, you rather nasty looking chap!" (adapt according to cultural background of bayonetwielder). The problem is that those that actually used a bayonet in real combat are more likely to get traumatised by the closeness of the inflicted carnage. Bayonets are many things, but "gentle" they are not. It's a weapon afteral, a relic of a time long gone, still serving it's particular function as a weapon of last resort. Maybe doing away with it isn't such a bad idea afteral. I suppose the US mil has standard issue combatknives to fall back to in case of need.


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 23, 2010)

So does this also mean no more issuance of bayonets?


----------



## Gaius Julius Caesar (Jun 11, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> So does this also mean no more issuance of bayonets?


 
 The modern American Baynet is a POS, they tried to make it do too many differnt things except job one, Penatrate.

 If I was in I would take the ring and handle from the bayonet and then take it to a knife maker and have the old triangler bayonet blade or the sword bayonet blade (But shorter) mated to the handle.

 Col. Bristol said the slash is over played. When he started MCMAP and redid the Bayonet training for the USMC, he got rid of the slashing and alot of the wide butt strokes.

 The Army might regret this.

BTW I did try to jam the pike Baynet from a SKS rifle into the *** of a tresspaser years ago. He was in the backyard and when I tolf him to halt he ran for the fence so I took a stab at him and missed his *** by 2''.
 That would have been a great news story 18 Year old stabs intruder with an Assult rifle's bayonet!


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 11, 2010)

Gaius Julius Caesar said:


> BTW I did try to jam the pike Baynet from a SKS rifle into the *** of a tresspaser years ago. He was in the backyard and when I tolf him to halt he ran for the fence so I took a stab at him and missed his *** by 2''. That would have been a great news story 18 Year old stabs intruder with an Assult rifle's bayonet!



It probably would have made a story about a man stabbing a trespasser and getting arrested for assault.  Trespassing itself is seldom cause for deadly force to be used, and isn't legal in most states.  Somehow, I'm not surprised to read this, though.


----------



## knuckleheader (Jun 14, 2010)

".....and honing core muscles."

After some core muscles have been shot or stabbed, having run out out of bullets. They will re-issue the bayonet.

Thats my prediction.


----------



## Mark Jordan (Jun 14, 2010)

Bayonet has its place and thus will never be obsolete.

In California (I don't know with the other States), SKS and AK-47 with bayonets are perfectly legal but with certain restrictions.

The problem with having a bayonet is that the weapon gets to be too long and too bulky to quickly deploy and maneuver it in close quarter.


----------



## lklawson (Jun 15, 2010)

Mark Jordan said:


> The problem with having a bayonet is that the weapon gets to be too long and too bulky to quickly deploy and maneuver it in close quarter.


Unsurprising.  The history of the bayonet, in conjunction with the physics of a rifle, conspire to make it a "long" weapon.

Historically, bayonets were to turn a single-shot longarm into a semi-effective spear after the round had been fired.  In this case, longer is almost always better.

With rifles, the more length to the barrel, the more accurate (up to a point anyway).

Heck, just adding a point/knife to the end, by definition, adds length.

Hence, adding a bayonet is always going to make the weapon more cumbersome and unwieldy in "close quarters" than without.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Gaius Julius Caesar (Jun 15, 2010)

Dropping long runs and adding more functional drills than push ups and jumping jacks is a good thing.

 But if they are trying to tough up the new generation for fighting than some time with the bayonet is a good idea whether he ever uses one for real or not.

 There is enough documented use of the weapon to keep it around.
 If something is documented you know it has happend alot more undocumented.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 15, 2010)

Why not just extend the training time, 10 weeks is a very short time to train a soldier.


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 16, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Why not just extend the training time, 10 weeks is a very short time to train a soldier.


Current US military training consists of multiple phases.  Boot camp or Basic is about making the transition from civilian to soldier/sailor/airman/Marine.  The get basic combat training, but the main thing is about learning to be a military service member.  After Basic, the service member moves into specialized training related to their Military Occupations Specialty.  The length of specialized training depends on the specialty.


----------



## chinto (May 19, 2011)

the simple answer is .. of course not!! not just no, but HELL NO!  I believe that the military needs to make sure that the soldier and marine is competent with his knife, bayonet, rifle and other weapons, and unarmed.  but when the enemy is very very determined you still may have to go in with a bayonet and make him stop!  it has use in crowd control as well.


----------



## CNida (Oct 6, 2013)

Are bayonets obsolete? Absolutely. Why?

In my opinion it is not because the bayonet is not useful or can't be effective. It is obsolete simply because, for the most part, there was no use for it outside of Basic other than to waste space in the arms room.

I believe it could still be used effectively in close range situations. But alas, I haven't seen a bayonet mounted on a rifle outside of Basic unless it was fixed on a ceremonial service rifle.

With the current state of affairs being what they are in the military, it might be far more prudent to instruct Soldiers and Marines more about how to use your rifle itself as a melee weapon. The buttstock of a rifle may not be as sharp as a bayonet, but I for one wouldn't enjoy being bludgeoned with one.


____________________________

"He who knows not and knows not he knows not: He is a fool. Shun him. He who knows not and knows he knows not: He is simple. Teach him. He who knows and knows not he knows: He is asleep. Awaken him. He who knows and knows that he knows: He is wise. Follow him."
- Bruce Lee


----------

