Durability: just how tough is the M9?

[pwcosol]

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...