The M38 was intended for use by rear-area troops and, as such, was not designed with their use in mind.
Most material out there seems to agree that the MN M38 would have been issued without a bayonet.
Comparing the M38 sitting next to me with a 91/30 I have handy reveals that the M38's barrel has a "band" that goes around the barrel at the location of the front site that almost certainly precludes the use of a bayonet from a 91/30. At least one that hasn't been modified or wasn't very loose on the 91/30.
Originally Posted By tep0583:
The M38 was intended for use by rear-area troops and, as such, was not designed with their use in mind.
Most material out there seems to agree that the MN M38 would have been issued without a bayonet.
Comparing the M38 sitting next to me with a 91/30 I have handy reveals that the M38's barrel has a "band" that goes around the barrel at the location of the front site that almost certainly precludes the use of a bayonet from a 91/30. At least one that hasn't been modified or wasn't very loose on the 91/30.
Thanks for the information
Originally Posted By reaper556:
Originally Posted By tep0583:
The M38 was intended for use by rear-area troops and, as such, was not designed with their use in mind.
Most material out there seems to agree that the MN M38 would have been issued without a bayonet.
Comparing the M38 sitting next to me with a 91/30 I have handy reveals that the M38's barrel has a "band" that goes around the barrel at the location of the front site that almost certainly precludes the use of a bayonet from a 91/30. At least one that hasn't been modified or wasn't very loose on the 91/30.
Thanks for the information
You're welcome!
