Looking to buy a Springfield Armory produced 1904 hospital corps bolo. I can’t find much solid info on them, period of use how issued or distributed etc. they were serialized and while I think it could be a wild goose chase if I do buy it would love to see if I could trace down who was issued it somehow. While I have not inspected in person yet, according to the description it was issued to someone 100+ years ago in the same unit I deployed to Iraq with! Would be an interesting project to research looking for some good starting points

Is this any help?

Borrowed from Bladeforums Bernard Levines sub forum:

Here is an article by Frank Trzaska, US Military knife guru. A long read, but LOTS of history about the knife.

USMC Hospital Corps Knife:

United States Marine Corps, Hospital Corps Knife: It is a knife not a bolo and not a Medical Corps knife. The correct nomenclature is arrived at logically; the Naval Medical Corps designates its members as Officers. Physicians who might use a scalpel, letter opener or a pocketknife but not a large knife such as this. The medical enlisted personnel, Navy Corpsman, who would use this knife, are in the Hospital Corps hence the proper name, Hospital Corps Knife.

That little bit of trivia has bothered us for many years. It is just a fact of life that the proper nomenclature will most likely never be correctly associated with the knife much like the V-44 and the Pilot Survival knife / Mark 1. We just had to get that out, it had been kept inside us too long and was bursting out at the seams, now on with the article.

According to good friend Carter Rilas research the Hospital Corps Knife was adopted in 1915 for issue by the USMC for Naval Hospital Corpsman serving on field duty with the Marines. The Hospital Corps knife was issued parallel to the Marine Corps Intrenching Machete during those early years using the same folded fiberboard under cloth duck scabbard. Both were made in a very similar way using the reduced thickness tang. The early Hospital Corps Knives we have observed were made by Plumb using this method with the early Village Blacksmith models using a tapered tang. Both machete and knife used the same type and shaped handle. The Marines issued it on a very limited basis until June 20, 1942 when the Commandant of the Marine Corps authorized the Hospital Corps Knife as a replacement for the Machete, Intrenching the square tipped short machete in use since 1912. Many of the uses would be the same but the construction of the new piece was very different consisting of a full width tang and a much more square handle. Although of Marine design and issue, the main forces to which it was issued were from a sister service, the U.S. Navy. For those of you that dont know it the Navy supplies all the medical personnel to the Marine Corps. They are permanently assigned to the Corps, they train together, eat together, fight together and bleed together but they are still in the Navy and do not wear the Marine Corps emblem, the Eagle Globe and Anchor. That is the rule.... now ask anyone who has had his or her life saved by a Navy Corpsman and you WILL get a different story! But now the knife was also to be issued to fighting Marines, one per four-man squad according to the Tables of Organization and Equipment then in effect. So although it is named a Hospital Corps Knife it was also to become a tool for Marine use in combat.

The knife was designed for use specifically for the field medical situations. The rounded point most likely influenced by the Army Model 1904 Hospital Corps Knife. The long rounded point 2 3/4" in radius is sharpened on both sides and around the point to a false edge on the top. The Army M1904 is a chisel grind being sharpened on one side only. Most folks when thinking of the Hospital Corps and a knife think amputations. When they see this knife, and to tell the truth it is an inside joke I use whenever the situation arises, you should see the size of the eyes on the unsuspecting guy at a gun or knife show when that comes up in conversation! Mainly it is used for clean up duties such as clearing out debris from waterlogged fields, swamps and just large mud holes. Stagnant water breeds mosquitoes, which in turn cause and carry disease. Disease is a bigger killer in war then bullets. This is the main job of the Hospital Corps, prevent spread of disease through proper sanitation. Straddle pits are easily dug with the sharp rounded edge. Field stretchers could be improvised with the use of branches and a poncho or shelter half. This type of use meant the knife needed to be able to cut branches of a decent size, shy of using an axe. This is the reason behind the durable construction of the knife. It is heavy enough to handle the work of an axe and yet light enough to handle the work of a machete. The knife measures 11 3/8 in length and 2 ¼ in width while the handle is 5 3/8 long, yielding an overall length of 16 3/4".

We can note many companies were in on the manufacture of the Hospital Corps Knife. By way of construction we would conclude that the first examples were made by Plumb. They are the only ones to create the handle in the same way as the sister Machete, Intrenching. This was a much more labor-intensive design then the later plain flat method used. With this in mind it is thought that the design was originally taken from the earlier tool. The who came first is merely speculation at this point between Plumb and possibly Village Blacksmith. Others, including John Chatillon & Sons, Charles D. Bridell, Inc., and Clyde Cutlery Company manufactured the Hospital Corps Knife. Variations in the manufacturing of the Hospital Corps Knife included the number of rivets in the wood handle. Some are found with three while others have four. Some rivets were steel while others were brass (Brass was a restricted item during 1943, anything that could be used in place of brass was tried. Remember the steel pennies). Type of wood called for in the original specifications was Applewood, where that one came from is anyones guess! We have never heard of Applewood specified for anything! Must have been someone who had an investment in Applewood that wrote the original specifications. In a letter to the USMC Quartermaster dated incidentally December 8, 1941, John Chatillon & Sons requests that the specification be altered to include birch, beech, or maple as a substitute for the hard to obtain, specified Applewood. Most of the Hospital Corps Knives were manufacturer marked as well as having USMC in large letters deeply struck in the upper flat of the blade. Only one style is said to exist that has no manufacturers markings, that one is most likely a Clyde product as they used an etch as opposed to a stamping. This etch wore away quickly and left a knife that was unmarked. Buyers beware.

The Intrenching Machete, as discussed above, shared the original scabbard for the Hospital Corps Knife. From an outward appearance the scabbard looks to follow the design of the Model 1910 bolo scabbard. This is strictly an illusion as the two are very different. The canvas cover is riveted in place and not removable like the 1910. More importantly the materials used are vastly different. The scabbard is formed from a piece of paper fiberboard folded in a triangular fashion, covered in cloth duck and seam covered in leather. A pleasant looking scabbard and light in weight but not at all durable. The knives and machetes survived the abuse of wear and tear but few of the original scabbards did. The heavy leather sheath for this knife was just as heavy duty and durable as the knife. The throat is made of brass and riveted on. The M1910 double hook is attached to the body by a billet that is sewn and riveted to a reinforcing piece which is then sewn to the sheath body. This hangar setup attachment is identical to the M1939 leather machete scabbards also manufactured by Boyt. The Boyt Harness Company manufactured it in several variations if you count markings as differences. Those of you wanting an example of every type will no doubt love the dating of the scabbards. Be on the lookout as the orientation of the stamping could also be off 90 degrees! Another variation for those of you counting. Ironically the only other difference was the number of rivets found on the blackened brass throat of the sheath, aside from that and the markings they are virtually identical. The earliest pattern had two attaching rivets on either side of the throat while the later pattern had an added third rivet in the center of the throat to keep it in contact with the leather. You can see on the early pattern sheaths that the leather would sometimes fold and not allow the knife to be inserted, the additional rivet solved that problem, just like it did on the Model 1872 Intrenching Tool scabbards. Scrimping on one rivet per side... The scabbards were all marked on the back with Boyt and the date of manufacture, 42, 43, 44, or 45. The 42-manufactured piece did not have the USMC over Boyt marking, but did have US / Boyt / 42. Why the Marines didnt catch that earlier is a mystery. It is rare that you find a Marine Corps specified implement that is not USMC marked. In 1942 alone, the Marine Corps ordered 83,650 sheaths from Boyt at a cost of $1.30 each.

In December 1942, the Hospital Corps Knife was reviewed by the Marine Corps due to the adoption of the then new M1942 18" machete resulting in the cancellation of the Hospital Corps Knife contracts. In a letter from the Marine Corps to The Village Blacksmith, one of the manufacturers, it was asked to cancel two contracts amounting to 45,500 knives. The Marine Corps did state that other options could be arranged if the knives were made or steel and supplies were already secured. We also find a reply from John Chatillon & Sons dated December 1942 so we can conclude that all the Hospital Corps Knife manufacturers must have received the same cancellation letter from the Marine Corps. The reply stated:

Incidentally, we cooperated with your Department in revising the specifications on the Hospital Knife. At that time it was explained to us that the Hospital Knife was used as a general-purpose field tool for cutting splints, prying open boxes, even for driving nails. On the other hand, we understand the machete is more of a weapon and brush knife.
The gauge of the machete is so light compared with that of the Hospital Knife that it would not be practical to use it for the same type of service that the Hospital Knife was originally made up for. We are wondering if this was considered.

It was a legitimate request, hell even a good one. A December 10 1942 follow up letter from the Marine Corps must have agreed as the request for cancellation was rescinded. The quickest cancellation reinstatement on record! The Hospital Corps Knife continued in production and in use for the remainder of the war. In fact it was again standard issue during the hostilities in Korea. The 1960 Landing Party Manual as issued by the Navy did not include the Hospital Corps Knife. While that is not an official indicator of status it does give us an indication of the use of various tools and weapons. The Hospital Corps Knife was not in the listing.

We could not extract the exact number of knives made from the existing records found but a fairly accurate count on remaining information places the number at above 200,000 made. With the numbers found today and the numbers we know were produced, Hospital Corps Knives were far outnumbering the Hospital Corpsmen. Various photos can be found of Marines wearing the Knife on the belts and backpacks as part of the assaulting force infantry. As the knife was issued as a part of the squad it stands to reason they often found favor with fighting men in the close quarter combat of the Pacific Islands. We also can find these knives in almost perfect condition today owing to the fact that so many were made they would naturally have been in storage, unused for years. This is the condition we like to find our collectibles in, crisp and unsharpened. Pick up a few, they make great conversation pieces when the conversation turns to uses.... such as amputation....

The author would like to thank fellow researchers Carter Rila and Alec Tulkoff for their efforts in helping to bring this information to print. We look forward to Alecs soon to be in print book, Grunt Gear; knife aficionados will need to pick one up. A large Thank You to Larry Thomas for allowing access to photograph items in his collection. A true gentleman, always ready, willing and able to help.

All the best
Frank Trzaska

This mentions it too:

THE WORLD WAR I BOLO

by Bernard Levine, (c)1993
"Knife Lore" #62 [part], National Knife Magazine, September 1993

One of the commonest government issue edged weapons on the
collector market is the U.S. Army's Model 1917 bolo. The
Model 1917 was the contractor-made version of the scarcer
arsenal-made Model 1910 bolo. The wartime Model 1917 is
simpler made and slightly rougher finished than the peacetime
Model 1910, but its profile and important dimensions are
identical. The only obvious difference is that the Model 1917
lacks the scabbard latch which is present on the Model 1910.
For all practical purposes, to soldiers in World War I, the
two bolos were identical.

The Model 1910/1917 bolo was the fourth style of bolo
adopted by the U.S. Army. The three earlier models,
introduced in 1887, 1904, and 1909 were both significantly
larger and more costly to make. In addition, the first two of
those earlier bolos were of limited issue, being intended
only for use by Hospital Corps troops. They used their bolos
for clearing brush, and for cutting saplings to make
emergency litters and shelters for sick or wounded troops.
The Model 1904 Hospital Corps bolo remained in production
through 1915.

By contrast the Model 1909 bolo was intended for use by all
types of units, including infantry, artillery, engineers, and
quartermaster troops. With its stout 14 inch blade, this bolo
was big enough for constant use in the densest of jungles.
The only trouble with this was that in the 1910s, few
American troops had occasion to operate in jungles. In most
North American or European environments, this long heavy
knife was more a liability than an asset, especially to
infantry troops who had to pack all their own gear -- hence,
the introduction of the compact Model 1910 bolo, with its 10-
3/8 inch blade.

A further convenient innovation on the Model 1910, in
addition to its compact size, was the addition of wire hooks
on the scabbard for attachment to eyelets on the haversack or
the cartridge belt. This bolo was the first U.S. Army knife
that was so equipped.

I have not seen total production figures for the Model 1917
bolo, but the numbers were probably in the hundreds of
thousands. Peacetime production of the Model 1910 (about
60,000) exceeded the wartime production of the bigger Model
1909. So many Model 1917 bolos were made during 1917 and 1918
that they were still available for issue in limited
quantities throughout World War II, and unused surplus stocks
of bolos and their sheaths continued to turn up in warehouses
as late as the 1970s.

Model 1917 bolos are still so common that their collector
value in excellent condition is less than it would probably
cost to make them new today. Many is the time that I have had
to disappoint a beginning collector, who is convinced that
his newly discovered 76 year old treasure must be worth a
small fortune.


WEARING THE BOLO

For all that we know about the production of the Model 1910
and 1917 bolos, we have not known much about how they were
used or carried. Long ago I saw a reference to army machine
gunners using their bolos to clear brush and small trees out
of the fields
of fire in front of their emplacements, but that was all I knew.

Recently I found a copy of a book called the Private's
Manual by Col. Jas. A. Moss, U.S. Army. This was a
commercially published book, written in 1915 and updated in
1918. It incorporated material from a variety of War
Department publications and orders, but it was not an
official manual.

The second chapter of the Private's Manual details the
soldier's equipment, and how it was to be packed and carried.
Attached to his cartridge belt every man carried his canteen,
his first aid packet, and his bayonet scabbard. However, when
a man was wearing the haversack, the bayonet scabbard was
supposed to be attached to it. Also attached either to the
belt or to the haversack were five tools used frequently in
the field, but only a few men in each platoon carried these
tools. Ordinarily the intrenching shovel and the pick mattock
were attached to the haversack, while the hand axe, the wire
cutter, and the bolo were attached to the left side of the
belt.

Three men in each squad (Nos. 1, 2, and 3 in the front
rank) each carried an intrenching shovel, with its rigid T-
handle. The No. 2 man in the rear rank of each squad, as well
as each musician, carried a wire cutter.

The other three tools were carried by one man in every
other squad. No. 1 man in the rear rank of even numbered
squads carried a pick mattock with detachable handle. No. 3
man in the rear rank of even numbered squads carried a hand
axe. And No. 3 man in the rear rank of odd numbered squads
carried a bolo.

Of course this allocation of one bolo to every two squads
was the theoretical distribution to troops on maneuvers in
1915, while the United States was still at peace. After we
entered the war, in April 1917, I suspect that a lot more
bolos were distributed to troops serving in France, while
nearly everyone would have been issued intrenching shovels.
In addition, soldiers destined for the front lines would also
have been issued gas masks, not mentioned by Col. Moss, and
many of them were eventually issued the new knuckle-duster
trench knives, first introduced in 1917.

*** END ***

http://www.knife-expert.com/

Thank you for the replies, but the trouble is there seems to be a lot written about the USMC book but very little regarding the Army issue one I am considering

I know the knife you re referring to. It's one of a number of the type the US military issued during the early part of the 20th century.

About 25 years ago I set out to design and make the an efficient parang-type knife for use on the ranch and in the mountains here. That led to making all sorts of knives heavy and small but needless to say I made many variations of heavy knives and some were OK and some not so much. Eventually I came up with a few designs that were really and truly excellent and...which turned out to be very similar to old ethnographic designs that have been around for many, many years!! Fancy that! Anyway, I studied all the US military bolos and of course indigenous bolos and parangs of East Asia. I bought a couple of the US military bolos but never got a 1904.

For reading material, get MH Cole's US MILITARY KNIVES, BAYONETS AND MACHETES. Also, Harold Peterson's AMERICAN KNIVES is sort of a classic. There is a little information on the 1904 in both of these books. I'd get Henry's COLLINS: MACHETES AND BOWIES 1845-1965 if I were you, too, just because these hand tools are really interesting.

Anyhow, I trust MH Cole's info more than Peterson's. Cole's book is a compendium of excellent line drawings of the knives, with historical information included. He cites total production of 39,919 from 1904-1915. Peterson lists 6502 made with an end date of 1913. Since the knives are serialized far beyond 6502, I trust Cole.

The 1904 was made with two different scabbards; one with a leather belt loop and the other with a steel and brass swiveling hanger similar to the complicated gizmos used on some Krag bayonet scabbards. The blade itself is chisel ground on the obverse {commonly known as a "right-hand" chisel-grind}. It should ONLY be sharpened on that side and merely stropped on the other.

The 1904 is surely a better-balanced affair than are the USMC Intrenching Machete or the USMC Hospital Corps bolo {AKA "Splint Knife} or the Collins 1005, Army Engineers Machete {bolo}. The M1909 Army bolo which is also chisel-ground is more in line with the 1904 and quite handy tho the factory edge grind is too steep for effective cutting of brush. The others are clubs, really inefficient cutting tools. I carried a USMC Hospital Corps bolo and an Army Engineers bolo both for a long time and came to appreciate both of them as hammers, with purpose-built hammers performing better than both of them for cutting!

The Army issued another chisel-ground knife, the shorter 10 3/8" bladed M1917 job. It was issued to machinegunners for clearing lines of fire and aiding in setting up heavy machineguns but eventually got spread around to all sorts of troops.

With all these choppers serving Uncle Sam during a similar time period, one might ask why and the answer is that in those days soldiers and Marines found themselves in all sorts of environments where they were forced to fend for themselves in regards to living quarters, cooking fires and the like. Hand tools were essential for clearing trails as well. Helicopter insertion/extraction was 50 years in the future. The old timers had to "get there" on mares and shank's mare and that meant cutting roads and trails and/or expanding the ones that were already there. Army service was one whale of a lot different in those days than it is in most of the areas where we operate today, especially in the Philippines which were of course an American colony till the end of WW2. Indeed, we got the ideas for the general concept of our military bolos from our contact with Filipinos who gave the English language the term "bolo" as well. We should have paid better attention to detail, tho, as most of our military bolos are really poorly executed compared to the indigenous cutting tools.

Hospital Corps personnel were especially in need of heavy knives as they were tasked with setting up field sanitation and hygiene facilities. That meant a lot of hand work in the era before the advent of the bulldozer. Along with a copy of the 1943 edition of THE BLUEJACKET'S MANUAL I have a large field manual for US Navy medical personnel both of which were issued to my Dad who was a Hospital Corpsman Pharmacist's Mate during WW2. The latter book especially addresses VERY basic sanitation facility setups where bolo-type knives would have been very useful.

Large knives demand skill in their use and chisel ground blades demand a extra skill on top of that and for tyros they can be just plain dangerous. I prefer chisel ground edges on the parangs I make for myself {left hand ground} as they allow for making more than just a straight cut but I had a learning curve to go thru in the use of large knives in general complete with bandaids and stitches. I've always wondered how many GI's, Marines and Navy Landing Party personnel suffered cuts due to unskilled use. Parenthetically, Frederick Spencer Chapman comments on the unintentional self-infliction of severe cuts due to unskilled use of parangs in his excellent classic THE JUNGLE IS NEUTRAL. I don't doubt it.

The 1904 is a very interesting blade from a very interesting time.

Take some pix of the rascal and let us see it when you get the chance.

Here's a neat site that might be of some interest.

http://www.springfieldedge.com...al_kinfe_m-1904.html

This message has been edited. Last edited by: 3/4Flap,