Durability: just how tough is the M9?
 

I have heard the stories of how tough they can be, but every M9 I ever saw while in the Corps was broken. I literally never saw one in use that didn't break. However, that was probably less than 10 of them. We used the M7 exclusively, so I have no personal experience, just casual observation.

So, what kind of abuse have you put an M9 through, and what brand was it?

Thanks,

The M9 is (almost) unbreakable. The used steel is very good, very hard. My great friend Joe ANVIL know well the "hard" & difficult work on it. btw, me too.

Thank you for the input. However, I am looking for more specific information on what you have been able to put them through.

Based on my experience, calling them unbreakable is laughable. Please, provide some details and prove me wrong.

That's interesting, and I have seen it before. The lateral bending is useful, but doesn't tell the whole story. The stress on a bayonet is going to be at the end of a meter long lever arm, not just the knife itself. Part 9 was also somewhat useful, but again, tests only the knife itself, not as a bayonet. I am looking for more information on how it performs as a bayonet. Specifically the Lan-Cay and Ontario models, since they tend to be the most readily available. I am really interested in the M9, since it will actually allow me to reverse the orientation of the blade, which I very much prefer in a bayonet.

Thank you for your input.

You answered your own question Devil. The M9 was not Marine "ABUSE" proof and is probably one of the main reasons it was never fully adopted by the Marines. As a bayonet/field utility knife the M9 is superior to the M7 and will serve you well if you take care of it and don't "ABUSE" it. Particularly so with the later models that you are interested in. Reading up I have seen stories where the ARMY had quite a few problems with the M9 early on, due to improper QC, heat treating etc.

I believe it was here. A gent posted that his unit in the ARMY was one of the first to get the new M9's in the 80's. His first shirt was looking one over in their Armory, accidentally dropped it and the blade snapped in two when it hit the deck. Needless to say that wasn't a good first impression :confused:

As far as bayonets are concerned it's pretty hard to beat the M7. Those things were absolutely beat to shit in the fleet and I never saw one break.

From a collectors stand point, I really enjoy both, however If your looking for a real world bayonet/field utility knife IMHO you would be better served with what the Corps is using today...the OKC3S.

I think I am gonna pinch some pennies and get the ZT9. M9 size with a full tang and Strider design in S30V. Pretty much a winner all around, to me :D

M-9 durability
 

Broken M-9's come as no surprise to me. I invented the impact resistant/modular design, as evidenced by U.S. Patent 4,458,420. The present form of the M-9 happens to be an ineffecient application of my advance to the art, and is guaranteed to selectively shear metal if enough stress is applied to the hilt. It will be interesting to see what Mr. Bill Porter and/or "Quarterbore" decide to share with you, with regards to information now sent.

Nothing is unbreakable, I know i break things for a living and do failure investigations on things that have. A tool is designed for a particular use and stresss, over do it and it will break. Of course the first thing peopel do when they get somethign like this is see if it will break, and if it can be thrown!! they then complain when it does and it can't, it is nice however to know th elimits of your tools.

Me i woudl take the Extrema Ratio but then it is 3 times the cost and Americans complain at their taxes already

I believe when the U.S. Government issues a solicitation for bids to manufacture certain piece of equipment, they normally provide the minimum standards to be met. Then it is up to the competitors to produce the best piece of equipment at the lowest unit cost, if they hope to win the contract. In the case of bayonets, they are not (nor ever will be) expected to be indestructible. However, a bayonet which is strong but tensile enough to withstand normal service use is all that is required.

The XM9 trials competition is a perfect example of this. Look at the number of failures, and examine the corresponding bayonets submitted. Plainly the majority were weakly constructed and had blades or other components which were too brittle or prone to breakage. The Phrobis XM9 was the most robust of the lot. Because of this, the Army opted to purchase the Phrobis regardless of the cost (and took a lot of heat for it, too!). I suspect had the Phrobis design proven as flawed as the majority, the Army would have rejected the entire lot, and either retained the M7 or held another trials at a later date.

One other point worth consideration is Phrobis researched, developed, & offered numerous improvements for the M9 to the Army. This was one of the concepts at the core of the Multi Purpose Bayonet System (MPBS) M9. Unfortunately Army thinking at the time had not evolved sufficiently (as is has now) to take advantage of this benefit. Had it done so, improvements might have been made to make the M9 an even better bayonet, and likely at no additional cost to the Army...