Quote Originally Posted by rs2excelsior View Post
The ease of loading thing might well have something to do with it--the offset you see with bayonets from this period helps to keep the blade away from your hand when you're loading, and it'd be harder to get that with a blade. Loading a musket with bayonet is really no more difficult than without (though I've obviously never done it while being shot at).

The "stab and twist" method wouldn't work as well with a sword bayonet, either... although now that I think of it, that technique might have come about after the offset, with the offset initially designed to allow for easier loading. I'm honestly not sure which came first, so to speak. I'm also not sure whether a triangular blade or a sword-type blade would be easier to manufacture... it'd probably depend a lot on how you're making them.
Stab and twist works fine with a sword bayonet. That's what they still teach. You let air into the wound and break the vacuum that holds the weapon in the body. The same way you rock and twist anything that is stuck in anything to work it free. And a sword bayonet will cut as you wiggle it, widening the wound and cutting itself free.

The triangular bayonet is easier to produce because the metal doesn't have to be as well forged, since the very thickness of the spike and shape means it will be strong even if the steel isn't all that carefully forged. It doesn't need to be as tough or resilient as a flat blade, and it doesn't have to hold a good edge.

And I think it wasn't wounding capability that determined the choice, since not many men are actually wounded or killed with the bayonet. You hope that it will see the enemy off. If you actually get to bayonet combat, things are very, very ugly, and the ease of stitching the wound is just ... like the last thing anybody will care about.