British 1905 Pattern Infantry Staff Sergeant’s Sword by Enfield, 1912 Rehilt and Conversion for George V

Straight single-fullered spear-pointed blade. Hilt similar in form to the 1897 pattern infantry model, with pierced decoration including the crown and cypher of King George V. Fully chequered backstrap, integral oval pommel with tang button. The hilt, ferrule, backstrap and pommel are all non-ferrous metal, probably German silver (copper-nickel-zinc alloy). Wire-bound shagreen grip, brown leather washer. Blade 32¼ inches in length, the sword 38 inches overall. Nickel-plated steel parade scabbard with two hanging rings.

The blade is stamped at the forte on one side with a broad arrow, indicating War Department property, the maker’s mark ‘EFD’, indicating the Royal Small Arms Factory at Enfield, a crown inspection stamp with ‘E’ for Enfield and an ‘X’ indicating that the blade passed a manufacturer’s bending test. It is stamped on the other side with two further crown inspection stamps for Enfield, the manufacture date ’00, and issue stamps ’01 and ’03.

Unlike officers who privately purchased and owned their own swords, staff sergeants were issued their swords from regimental stores like a musket or bayonet, and the swords remained government property.

The 1905 Pattern staff sergeant’s sword was unusual in that it was manufactured using surplus 1899 Pattern cavalry trooper’s sword blades, which is thought to have been done to replace swords lost in the Boer War without too much expenditure. As originally produced the 1905 comprised of an unmodified 1899 Pattern blade fitted with new slab grips secured with rivets and an 1897 type infantry hilt bearing the cypher of Edward VII.

In 1912 both the 1898 and 1905 Pattern staff sergeant’s swords were officially rehilted to replace the old royal cypher with the new one of King George V. Having encountered and stocked multiple examples like this one, it is clear to me that other modifications were carried out to many of the 1905 Pattern swords beyond simply replacing the hilt, these modifications tending to bring them closer in form to the infantry officer’s sword (much like the 1898 Pattern sergeant’s sword, which was already a doppelganger of the officer’s model).

The blade of this example has been reduced in length by trimming the tip, and narrowed in both width and thickness by grinding the faces, belly and false edge. Some curve has been left in the blade which is unusual for the type, perhaps because this one has been fitted into an artillery scabbard which itself has a slight curvature. For comparison:

Original 1899 Pattern cavalry blade:

Curved, 33½ inches in length, 1.45 inches wide at the shoulder (due to a flare at the base designed to add strength there specifically), 1.05 inches wide at the midpoint (16.75 inches from shoulder), 0.36 inches thick at the shoulder, 0.275 inches thick at the midpoint

This sword’s blade:

Slightly curved, 32¼ inches in length, 1.04 inches wide at the shoulder, 0.77 inches wide at the midpoint (16.75 inches from shoulder, ignoring shortening for a more direct comparison), 0.32 inches thick at the shoulder, 0.26 inches thick at the midpoint

After this reshaping, which would have required complete reprofiling of the tip, the blade has been left unsharpened and mounted with its new hilt plus a new infantry-style shagreen grip and a standard infantry backstrap. The grip is very distinctive on these swords as it is quite crude compared to contemporary equivalents, lacking for instance grooves for the wire. Possibly the tang is wider than standard requiring something bespoke yet easily fabricated. While the pattern stamp found on the spine of the 1899 Pattern is missing on this example, probably ground off in the conversion, its issue stamps are typical and its modified shape is distinctive.

Even with a few manufacturing shortcuts, why the military went to such effort to convert these is an interesting question. My thought is that the 1912 sword would have stood out less on parade than the 1905 Pattern, which needed a larger scabbard and distinctive riveted grip to fit its cavalry blade. Rehilting swords for a new monarch may have become an opportunity for the Army to ‘fix’ the odd-looking and cumbersome 1905 Pattern into something that looked less makeshift, at minimal cost.

This rehilt & conversion type is not found in lists of official patterns, but the change is extensive enough that perhaps we ought to consider the 1912 Sergeant’s sword worth noting as a distinct model for collecting purposes. Its features are consistent and it helps explain why the 1905 Pattern staff sergeant’s sword is quite rare today.

The blade is bright with only very light patination in places and a polished finish. It is, as mentioned, unsharpened with no edge damage. The tip is fractionally bent to one side. The alloy parts are undamaged and bright with no damage or staining. The shagreen of the grip is all intact with very little handling wear, its wire binding is all present with very slight movement to all loops. The ferrule can shift slightly side to side: I suspect as a result of the conversion the tang is not quite the right thickness for it. The sword is otherwise firm in the hand, solidly peened with no movement to the grip. The scabbard is bright, free of dents with only a few tiny areas of wear to the plating. The sword sheaths and draws smoothly.