The advantages are as follows:

   1^st. In the bayonet charge, they will probably be as effective as the old pattern, being useful both for thrusting and cutting, while the appearance is even more appalling.

   2^nd. As trowels, they may be made, by slight modification, very efficient for rapid entrenching; as  hatchets, they may be used for cutting small brush.

  Upon the whole, I am decidedly in favor of the change.

 I am, General, very respectfully,

Your obedient servant,

Hanry L Abbot,

Maj. Eng’rs & B’vt Brig. Gen. Comd’g.

(Reports of Experiments with Rice’s Trowel Bayonet, Made by Officers of the Army. 1874)

  As a bayonet, I can only say that if your antagonist will agree to arm himself with the same bayonet, I see no objection to its adoption; but the present bayonet is 8 1-2 inches longer than the trowel bayonet, an advantage that would be materially felt at close quarters.

DE. L. Floyd Jones,

Colonel 3^rd Infantry

[Against adoption]

(Reports of Experiments with Rice’s Trowel Bayonet, Made by Officers of the Army. 1874)

  It took the men of my company, in double rank, forty minutes’ incessant labor, to accomplish what the inventor claimed would be performed in four minutes, to wit: earthwork eighteen inches high, twenty broad at top and forty at base.

  No experiments in double rank, face to face, were made as such seemed an absurdity after the signal failure of the first. 

  The imperfections of manufacture aside, I consider the trowel bayonet, as issued, a failure. 

Louice T Morris

Captain 3^rd Infantry

B’vt Maj. U.S. Army

[Against adoption]

(Reports of Experiments with Rice’s Trowel Bayonet, Made by Officers of the Army. 1874)

Edmund Rice (1842-1906) was a career officer in the United States Army, whose first commission was as a captain in the 14^th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry during the American Civil War, a regiment which he joined on August 22, 1861. He was subsequently transferred to the 19^th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry, where he took command of Company F. Rice led his company during the Peninsula Campaign and the Seven Days Campaign, including combat at Yorktown, Fair Oaks (Seven Pines), Savage’s Station, Glendale and Malvern Hill. In September of 1862 he was promoted to major and saw combat with the 19^th MA Infantry at Antietam and Fredericksburg. His regiment was near the “Copse of Trees” on the field at Gettysburg on July 3^rd, 1863, and fought valiantly to repulse Pickett’s Charge. Rice would be awarded the Medal of Honor in 1891 for his heroic actions on that day with the citation reading in part that the award was for “conspicuous bravery on the countercharge against Pickett’s Division where he fell severely wounded within the enemy’s lines.”

In February 1864 Rice was promoted to Lt. Colonel and commanded the 14^th MA during the Rapidan and Mine Run Campaigns, as well as at The Wilderness and Spotsylvania, where he was wounded and captured. He managed to escape from a prisoner transport train and after twenty-three days of escape and evasion managed to reach Union lines. In late July 1864 he was promoted to full colonel. He returned to command his regiment through the Petersburg Campaign, seeing fighting at several of the battles of that campaign, including the Battles of Weldon Railroad and Hatcher’s Run. After the Petersburg Campaign, the regiment pursued Lee’s Army and Rice and the 19^th MA were at Appomattox Courthouse for the surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia. 

At the conclusion of the war and after achieving the rank of colonel of volunteers, Rice sought to join the Regular Army. He was commissioned as a 1^st lieutenant in the 40^th Infantry Regiment in July of 1866 and proceeded to see his first Regular Army Service in the Deep South, doing occupation duty in Hilton Head, SC where he commanded the district, as well as in Raleigh, NC and at Jackson Barracks (New Orleans), LA.

Whether it was a naturally inquisitive and inventive mind, the boredom of southern occupation duty or a combination of both, Rice started to spend time developing a new, multipurpose field implement. As an officer who had led men during the Civil War and watched the face of war morph from Napoleonic era linear tactics to those of prepared defenses and the precursor to modern trench warfare, he apparently felt that every soldier should be equipped with some sort of entrenching tool. To that end he began the development of the combination socket bayonet and entrenching tool that would become known by its shape and appearance, the Trowel Bayonet.

His first design from 1868 simply mated the socket from a US Model 1855 socket bayonet to a leaf shaped trowel blade and incorporated a finger ring between the face of the bayonet’s shank and blade, to provide a more secure grasp and to protect the knuckle while digging. The theory was obviously that by carrying this single dual use item, the solider would have a bayonet, when necessary, but would also have a basic entrenching tool when needed. The general belief of the United States military in the immediate post-Civil War era was that the bayonet was no longer a viable weapon and that its issues and utility was limited. The belief impacting doctrine was that with the new breechloading and repeating weapons that were becoming the standard arms for soldiers that the ability to quickly and effectively create semi-prepared defensive positions was of far greater utility. To that end, in 1860 200 of Rice’s Entrenching Bayonets were produced at Springfield Arsenal and saw field trials within the US Corps of Engineers. After generally positive feedback and some input from the officer’s overseeing the trials, Rice patented an updated version of the bayonet the following year.

On 22 June 1869 Rice received US Patent #91,564 for an updated version of his 1868 bayonet design. Essentially the patent was for his 1868 pattern bayonet with the addition of a folding tompion. This was incorporated into the design to allow the muzzle of the rifle or rifle musket to be covered when the bayonet was fixed. This added feature probably caused more issues than Rice anticipated as it suggested that the trowel bayonet was to be used while affixed to the rifle, something it was never designed for. 500 of Rice’s newly patented Model 1869 Trowel Bayonets were produced at Springfield Armory and were issued to field trials. In particular they saw frontier issue to companies of both the 3^rd and 5^th US Infantry. 

The results of the trials were reported and summarized in Reports of Experiments with Rice’s Trowel Bayonet, Made by Officers of the Army 1874, portions of which were quoted above. A total of 50 officers provided their opinions of the design, which were overwhelmingly favorable. Of the 50 officers, only 4 were “against adoption”, although those men were virulent in their opposition. In the 3^rd US Infantry 19 officers endorsed the design, while only 3 were against it, although two were company commanders and one was the regimental colonel. In the 5^th US Infantry 27 officers were in support of the design and only one was against it. In his scathing condemnation of the design, 1^st Lieutenant Quintin Campbell of the 5^th US Infantry noted in part:

“I am forced to conclude that this bayonet is useless for the fulfilment of the supposed requirements for which it was constructed. The fault, breaking and bending, could be remedied by introducing better metal. As an offensive weapon it is not equal to the old bayonet now in use, the great extent of flattened surface rendering it less sure of inflicting a prompt, sure, and serious wound, in case of a charge or the repulse of an attack….The old bayonet is preferable, being fully as useful, more ornamental, and a better offensive weapon….The bayonet, the “Rice” wears an uncouth and ugly appearance on the musket; as worn in the scabbard, interferes with the movements of the piece when handled at drills, parades, etc. I see no way of remedying this.”

However, nearly every other reporting officer endorsed the design, with the one somewhat common complaint being that the 1855 pattern socket was a poor hand grip and impaired the use of an otherwise well-designed tool. The other issue was that despite instructions that the bayonet should never be used for digging while fixed to the rifle, soldiers did use it that way. This was probably due to a combination of factors, including the hand fatigue induced by holding the bayonet’s socket when digging, the uncomfortable position a solider had to be in to dig with a small shovel that had no handle and the presence of the integral folding tompion, which suggested that the it was to be used to keep dirt out of the muzzle of the rifle while digging. 

The grip discomfort problem was solved by Springfield Armory saddler and inspector Felix Chillingworth, Springfield Armory pattern maker Ira Merrill and US Army Lieutenant Henry Metcalfe. It is worth noting that Chillingworth had previously patented a scabbard for use with the 1868 pattern Rice entrenching bayonet, and would receive other patents, including for the 1880 Hunting Knife scabbard. The men designed a comfortable combination socket and handle that had a palm swell and textured lines to enhance the grip. They also conceived of a small wooden handle insert which could be inserted in the socket to improve the grip further. Chillingworth and Merrill received an initial US Patent (#125, 720) for the socket design on 16 April 1872, and an additional US Patent (#151,238) was granted to Chillingworth and Metcalfe on 26 May 1874 for a further improved version of the Rice trowel bayonet.

These improvements were incorporated into the Model 1873 Trowel Bayonet, which was approved by the Terry Board evaluating small arms, which included Major Marcus Reno of the 7^th Calvary as one of its members. 10,000 of the new Model 1873 Trowel Bayonets were authorized to be produced at Springfield Armory in 1874-1875 and were issued to members of the US infantry, particular to those serving on the western frontier. The bayonets were issued in brass mounted leather covered tin scabbard with a swivel type belt frog, based upon Chillingworth’s earlier design. As with the earlier trials, the opinions were mixed, but still fairly positive. In a poignant and bittern comment on the efficacy of the design Major Reno, who had been part of the approval process of the design by the Terry Board, noted after the Battle of the Little Bighorn, that “my loss would have been less had I been provided with some instruments similar to the trowel bayonet and I am sure had an opponent of that weapons been present with my command on the night of June 25^th, he would have given his right arm for 50 bayonets.”

Despite the apparent general support for the design, the concept was abandoned in favor of a return to the conventional socket bayonet, and a later flirtation with the “ramrod bayonet”, and a separate piece of equipment was issued to the solider on the frontier for digging purposes. Initially it was the Model 1873 Entrenching Tool and later the Model 1880 Hunting Knife. However, the army’s fascination with combination bayonet tools would continue with other ideas tested and even issued in limited quantities through the first decade of the 20^th century. These included another experimental Rice design that saw limited testing, as well as the “Bowie” and “Bolo” blade bayonets developed for Krag Rifle and later a “Bolo” bayonet for the Model 1903 Rifle. While none of these were particularly successful and were never adopted for general issue, they did show that the army was always thinking about ways to take two useful and well-designed items, a bayonet and a shovel, and combine them into an item that did neither job well.

Rice would continue to his career with the US Army seeing service with a number of commands and at a number of frontier posts. He participated in the 1874 campaign against the Utes, the 1876 retaliatory campaign against the Sioux in the wake of the Little Bighorn massacre and General Nelson Miles’ 1879 expedition against the Sioux. He did a tour as a military envoy to both Russia and Great Britain and was Commandant of the Columbian Guard at the 1893 World’s Fair. He was serving as the military attaché to Japan when the Spanish American War broke out and Rice immediately requested transfer to a field command. He initially served as Inspector General on General Nelson Miles’ staff and was then made the Colonel of the 6^th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry in Puerto Rico and then Cuba. In July of 1898 Rice was sent to the Philippines and made the senior colonel of all U.S. Volunteers serving there. He commanded the 26^thUS Infantry in the Philippines during the Moro Insurrection and was then made the Military Governor of the island of Panay, a position he remained in until a civilian governor was appointed in April of 1901. Upon his return to the United States, Rice served as the commander of the 19^th U.S. Infantry at the Presidio in San Francisco, retiring in August of 1903 with the rank of Brigadier General. He died “suddenly” in Wakefield, MA on July 20, 1906.

Offered here is a FINE condition example of one of the 10,000 experimental US Model 1873 Trowel Bayonetsproduced for trial use on the US Model 1873 Trapdoor Rifle. The bayonet is the resulting combination of Rice’s original trowel design, as improved by Chillingworth’s, Merrill’s and Metcalfe’s designs. The bayonet is complete with a fully functional socket and remains in an original leather covered tin scabbard with a US marked brass Hoffman style swivel rosette joining the scabbard body to the blet frog. The trowel blade measures nominally 10” in length and 3 ½” wide at the base, with a 3 ½” socket and an overall length of 14 ½”. The blade is unmarked and has a prominent medial ridge along the spine. The blades were polished bright when produced with the sockets and shanks blued. The right side of the socket is marked forward of the mortise cut PAT. APR. 16^th 72 referencing Chillingworth’s and Merrill’s patent for the improved combination handle and socket. The bayonet is otherwise unmarked. The leather covered tin scabbard has a brass drag and as noted a US embossed brass swivel connecting the belt frog to the scabbard body. The face of the frog is lightly stamped WATERVLIET/ARSENAL in two lines above the swivel and A.R.S. and S.M. on the inside face of the scabbard, which are probably Watervliet inspection marks. The frog is attached to the scabbard with a pair of copper rivets in much the same way that Civil War era scabbards were assembled. A later version of the scabbard eliminated the leather belt loop and swivel and substituted a brass hook for use on the woven Prairie Belt. Many of the scabbards in the field or arsenal storage were modified to the Prairie Belt hook system, making these first pattern scabbards fairly scarce today.

As noted, the bayonet remains in FINE condition. The blade retains some of the original arsenal bright polish with scattered discoloration due to oxidized freckling. The mottled discoloration is fairly limited on the face of the blade and is mostly around the ricasso and shank area. The rear of the blade shows more moderate amounts of evenly distributed oxidation.  The metal is almost entirely smooth with no pitting to speak of but showing some minor scuffs and marks, as well as a small impact mark on the lower rear edge of the right side of the blade. The socket retains about 85%+ of its thinning blued finish with a clear patent mark date. The socket swivels smoothly as it should to allow mounting and dismounting the bayonet from the rifle. The scabbard is also in about FINE condition as well, with the only significant wear being to the riveted leather piece that secures the scabbard to the frog swivel. The leather in this area shows moderate wear, moderate to heavy crazing and is somewhat delicate. Otherwise, the scabbard shows scattered scuffs, marks and mars, with scuffed finish loss primarily along the sharp and high edges, as well as the contact points. The swivel that joins the belt loop to the leather scabbard hanger is frozen and does not move. The belt loop, swivel and hanger are somewhat delicate and should be handled carefully. Otherwise, the scabbard is in very useable condition and is fairly crisp and certainly displays well.

SOLD