English Naval Cutlass or English Lead Cutter

adrian · 8th April 2024, 09:02 PM

I hesitate to use the term Cutlasses ...because that term never really caught on until very lately.
During this period the term 'cutlass' was absolutely the description used.

I was surprised to see that these weapons werent issued to Royal Marines who were issued with those incredibly long bayonets ...

That web based article is misleading and neglects to explain that the P/1859 Cutlass was fitted to the P/1858 Naval Short Rifle, it was not for the Pattern 1853 Enfield Rifle, as that article claims, nor does it even fit to that arm. In the late 1850s the Royal Marines were armed with the Altered Pattern 1842 Rifled Musket and transitioning to the Pattern 1853 Enfield Rifle, both arms had 39-inch-long barrels which employed a regular socket bayonet with a 17-inch blade (ref: British Ordnance Muskets of the 1830s & 1840s) followed by the Snider with the same bayonet. I am confused by your description of 'incredibly long bayonets'..... the RMLI did not have a longer bayonet than that issued to regular infantry.

I would recommend applying caution when relying upon web-based articles as so often, but not always, there are, at best misleading and at worst erroneous, 'facts' contained within, making it difficult therefore to discern fact from fiction.

Peter Hudson · 9th April 2024, 12:47 AM

Thank you for pointing out the apparently small confusion set among a very large and muddled history of the so called Cutlass conundrum... Most bits of information are indeed shrouded in partial uncertainty but that is why Wiki puts in brackets at intervals the word (edit). The article in my view is excused for slight variations in details though for purposes of computer driven information gathering...which is also what we do on Forum...its not at all bad...and it is self righting to some extent because it is being updated all the time. It is not like a book for example which once something is placed in writing it cannot be corrected unless the entire book is rewritten, thus, which is the better of the data retrieval systems? Wiki or the book??....On bayonet length even the shorter Martini Henry Bayonet was more than 25 inches long...which to me suggests an enormous blade...Anyway I was surprised that Royal Marines on board were not given the Naval Swords...or Cutlasses but that is part of the confusion with that period in time.

Regards,
Peter Hudson.

8th April 2024, 09:02 PM	#1
adrian Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 118	I hesitate to use the term Cutlasses ...because that term never really caught on until very lately. During this period the term 'cutlass' was absolutely the description used. I was surprised to see that these weapons werent issued to Royal Marines who were issued with those incredibly long bayonets ... That web based article is misleading and neglects to explain that the P/1859 Cutlass was fitted to the P/1858 Naval Short Rifle, it was not for the Pattern 1853 Enfield Rifle, as that article claims, nor does it even fit to that arm. In the late 1850s the Royal Marines were armed with the Altered Pattern 1842 Rifled Musket and transitioning to the Pattern 1853 Enfield Rifle, both arms had 39-inch-long barrels which employed a regular socket bayonet with a 17-inch blade (ref: British Ordnance Muskets of the 1830s & 1840s) followed by the Snider with the same bayonet. I am confused by your description of 'incredibly long bayonets'..... the RMLI did not have a longer bayonet than that issued to regular infantry. I would recommend applying caution when relying upon web-based articles as so often, but not always, there are, at best misleading and at worst erroneous, 'facts' contained within, making it difficult therefore to discern fact from fiction. Last edited by adrian; 8th April 2024 at 09:14 PM.

9th April 2024, 12:47 AM	#2
Peter Hudson Member Join Date: Jul 2020 Posts: 311	Thank you for pointing out the apparently small confusion set among a very large and muddled history of the so called Cutlass conundrum... Most bits of information are indeed shrouded in partial uncertainty but that is why Wiki puts in brackets at intervals the word (edit). The article in my view is excused for slight variations in details though for purposes of computer driven information gathering...which is also what we do on Forum...its not at all bad...and it is self righting to some extent because it is being updated all the time. It is not like a book for example which once something is placed in writing it cannot be corrected unless the entire book is rewritten, thus, which is the better of the data retrieval systems? Wiki or the book??....On bayonet length even the shorter Martini Henry Bayonet was more than 25 inches long...which to me suggests an enormous blade...Anyway I was surprised that Royal Marines on board were not given the Naval Swords...or Cutlasses but that is part of the confusion with that period in time. Regards, Peter Hudson.