[sirupate]

Jonathan; 2 kukri displayed at the Gurkha museam as battlefield or theartre pickups. The top one in Egypt probably from the 3rd Gurkha rifles the lower one from Gallipoli in 1915. Neither look very official issue or standarised to me....

Jonathan, please at least get the quote correct from the GM, as it puts a whole different emphasise on the kukri one looks at, and is quite misleading;
“acquired by a trooper of the Queen’s Own Oxfordshire Hussars, c.1917 in Egypt, and is potentially from 3rd Gurkha Rifles.”

1st Kukri;The quality of the kukri has in reality only two potential sources;
1/ Lets not forget that this practise was only done if time allowed;
‘If a soldier died in service his possessions were auctioned in Company level auction sales to raise the best price. The total money accrued was then sent to the deceased family’
It is feasable that the kukri was a dead British Officer's kukri, whose face and uniform may have been badly mutilated, and this may have been the reason behind the word ‘potentially’.
2/ That it was a kukri for mess orderlies, here the word ‘acquired’ springs to mind!

Before we go into the second kukri this is what I had to say in my précis about this period, which is relevant to this section;
There is a picture of British Gurkha Officers, of 1/1st Gurkha Rifles, in discussion with Nepalese Gurkha Officers in France during WWI. From the picture it would appear that the British Officers are not wearing kukri, but that the Nepalese Gurkha Officers are. In foreground, of the picture, one of the Nepalese Gurkha Officers is wearing a kukri on his left hip, which has what appear to be metal rings going around the handle and a metal butt plate, and another Nepalese Gurkha Officer (a bit further into the photo) is wearing a wooden handled kukri, again on his left hip, rather than the regulation carry of rifleman on the centre back, or the right back. In WW1 Nepalese Gurkha Officers including Naiks and Havildars etc. were allowed to carry personnel kukri.

2nd Kukri;Displayed directly below the alloy handled kukri in a green scabbard, is a kukri potentially used by10th Gurkha Rifles, and was picked up by Naval Officers during the Gallipoli campaign. We also have to remember that the 2/10 GR had problems getting hold of kukri, and ended up making them themselves for the new recruits, of which I have one.

& then again 4 Gurkhas in WW1 displaying there kukri. Again not very standardised. Looks like at least 3 different types of kukri to me. {picure courtesy of PCpostCards.]

Second picture;First of all, it does seem strange to me that one would present a picture as evidence, without knowing the circumstances and background behind the picture!!
Before we cover that, it is well known that there were huge supply problems for kukri and equipment in general (ref; 2/10 GR.) during WW1, due to the huge influx of men, which would not have been catered for in the normal run of things. Of course this was the same in WWII, for example the new 8th GR training centre at Quetta, by 1943 suddenly found itself with 6,000 Gurkhas!!
Regarding the problems of obtaining kukri, JP had this to say ‘If Ordnance Branch asked Regimental Depots to help out and held a pool of such to supplement other sources, then yes, If not no’. In other words, other sources were used to obtain what kukri they could get. This of course would lead to variations, but the kukri would still be ‘Sarkari’ issue.
Also one has to take into account that to replace Gurkha casualties in 1914 and 1915, they milked other Gurkha Battalions from India for replacements, therefore Gurkhas from different battalions were often mixed in.

So about this picture you have presented;
1/ The Havildar on the left; is not of rifleman rank, and was entitled to carry his own kukri, if he so wished, this did not appear to be the case By WWII.
2/ The two middle Gurkhas; They may well have been pr-WW1 enlistments, with Battalion regulation or original Sarkari issue kukri, from when they joined.
3/ The Gurkha on the right; He may well have originated from another battalion, so a different style of issue kukri, or it may be a replacement Sarkari sourced issue kukri, but not his own private purchased kukri!



Once again there are in reality only two possibilities, it was a British Officers kukri, or a Nepalese Gurkha officers kukri, as mentioned before.
Indeed British Officers often wore large kukri in that period, as you know, I have one from that period, spec; It has a 39cm long blade of the Rana period style, a belly of 7.1cm, a smooth spine, with a width of 9mm by the handle, tapering down to 2mm just before the point, and a ridge-less, hollow forged cross section, weighing 790 grams. It has a thick wooden stick tang handle of 11.2cm in length with a nice curve to help it fit the hand. The handle has a protective metal butt plate which has a basic attachment to the stick tang. For such a large kukri it is beautifully balanced and handles like a much lighter kukri, it is possible that this kukri was made by one of the Battalion armourers.