Durability: just how tough is the M9?

[Kurtis Dwight Davis]

Minimum standards for durability of the M-9 were carefully defined in the original contract. These standards were supposed to be verified with destructive scientific testing. When asked to provide the results of such lawfully required tests, the United States Army failed to do so.

[pwcosol]

That is an interesting fact. Guess it begs the question as to why the Army declined to release the data. That being said, Phrobis/BUCK undoubtedly did their own stress tests to ensure the bayonets did meet Army specs. We know from reports the tip of the bayonet as found on the prototypes was weak, and this problem was subsequently redressed in the production bayonets. I have read there were concerns about the fuller possibly making the blade weak, and the tang/rod may have also been an issue. The latter seems evident from the Phrobis product improved prototype held by one of our Forum members: http://www.quarterbore.net/forums/showthread.php?t=2900. I recall seeing another Phrobis P. I. M9 with what looked like a nylon hex rod in the grip as well. In addition, the insistence of the USMC wanting a solid-tang incorporated in the 1993 trials bayonets submitted by BUCK also shows concern over the threaded tang/rod.

[Kurtis Dwight Davis]

From my point of view, it seemed the Army wanted to sit at a desk and simply guess about the exact operation of the M-9 hilt. By doing so, they could avoid recognizing that operation of the hilt infringes U.S. Patent 4,458,420. Destructive scientific tests were the responsibility of the contractor, with the results being submitted to Army possession. After repeated requests for those results were made, it became apparent that they were unavailable, and certainly never relied on as per claim of infringement made with the United States Army Laboratory Command. These guys further ignored such scientific tests as submitted by me.

[Mister Moon]

U.S. Patent 4,458,420 Shear pin hilt for knife
Abstract
An impact-resistant knife hilt comprising a hollow handle containing a clevis with shear pin connecting the knife blade to a bolt passing through the end cap of the knife handle. Such a knife is readily assembled and disassembled by tightening or removing the bolt while the hilt with shear pin reduces the risk of blade breakage upon their impact.

Inventors: Davis; Kurtis D. (8530 E. 66th Pl. S. - No. B, Tulsa, OK 74133)
Appl. No.: 515200
Filed: July 20, 1983


http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4458420.html

http://cgi.ebay.ph/280-SWORDS-KNIVES...-/270319872663

[pwcosol]

Thanks M.M. for posting the link to KDD's patent. I reviewed the patent description & accompanying photos. The clevis w/shear pin arrangement is an interesting concept to allow ease of assembly, repair, and retention of the blade to the guard & other components. The general idea certainly shares some similarities with the Phrobis design. However, the threaded blade tang and rod utilized to secure the blade to the grip/pommel do differ substantially. Whether it does or does not to the degree it might be considered a violation of patent 4,458,420 would be up to a court of law to determine.

[Mister Moon]

...yes.
We are not... judge(s)

[Kurtis Dwight Davis]

The true test of infringement is whether or not one or more of the '420 claims may be applied to a fully assembled M-9 hilt, while said hilt is under pressure, or put to some kind of work. Furthermore, patent infringement considers much more than the title of the patent, or comparison of elements. What exactly the Patent Office agreed to, and how it may be applied to actual M-9 performance is what counts. However, there will be no judge/jury, because we all had our 1st amendment right to petition for redress of grievance abridged, and it was Ronald Reagan who signed the law. Of further note is the fact that any personal correspondence received from the infringing party, before infringement, may be considered evidence. Unfortunately, it is not convenient to supply you with such evidence---copy has been sent to Mr. Bill Porter. Taking one small part of '420, while neglecting all the other technical language therein, will not allow adequate comprehension. Thank you for an opportunity to speak up.

[Mister Moon]

Thanx for these information.

[Carlo]

Originally Posted by pwcosol

That being said, Phrobis/BUCK undoubtedly did their own stress tests to ensure the bayonets did meet Army specs.

Yes, I also think so.
In the article posted on this topic (I just updated the download link) http://www.quarterbore.net/forums/showthread.php?t=2485
there are reports and pictures of the machines used during the testing.

[Kurtis Dwight Davis]

Interesting picture. It's too bad the United States Army was unable to provide copy of actual test reports, as repeatedly ask for. Even worse would be the fact that the United States Army Laboratory Command completely ignored such results, even if they did in fact exist.