I'm personally sitting on the fence with this one.
Have a slight preference for using swords in melee, although not those little ones that are no better than butter knives that light infantry use. The ability to change your attack direction, be it from a downwards thrust to an angular slash is what awards swords such versatility. And at times, able to confuse your opponent if he is't proficient enough in blocking. Swords also provide more maneuverability, allowing you to flank your foes more effectively.
Then again, the simple power of a bayonet, combined with the speed bonus from charging is more likely to bring your opponent down with one, if not a couple of hits most of the time. Although at times this becomes a little tedious once the blocking and counter thrusting of a duel starts to take place, is a little too easy to read where your enemies next attack is coming from (obviously can only be one of two directions) and is much easier to counter if you're quick enough.
Seeing as I play primarily as a Rifleman, I'm more accustomed to using the stock of my weapon to bludgeon my foes into the afterlife, seeing as firearms switched into melee mode offer greater versatility than a standard bayonet attack. It's a nice mix that I certainly can't find many faults with. I mean sure, a Rifle in melee mode isn't anywhere near as strong as a bayonet or sword (yes, even the butter knives...) but it is still an advantage to be able to attack your opponent from four possible directions, and easily switching from an overhead swing to a sweeping arc from either flank is most definitely a plus. Despite not having either the range of swords or bayonets, you're still able to offer some sort of crowd control which allows you, to a certain extent, to neutralise enemies and fight them is single combat.
Now, I can tell that my points are a little disjointed, and that I have surely covered many, if not all previous points. But, I hope that my opinion is worthwhile to the thread
Lance-Corporal Johnathon Stern, signing out!