Durability: just how tough is the M9?

[Kurtis Dwight Davis]

The original contract required Finn to yield two types of test results---those which assure minimum standards, and also results of destructive tests. Finn claimed to have submitted all required results, but the Army failed to provide any such information, even after numerous requests. The only way to determine exactly what the M-9 rod does is to actually test it and see. Davis took two M-9's to a laboratory and had both subjected to destructive testing, which reveals that the rod and grip first deform, and eventually the rod selectively shears the pin like end of the tang. Moreover, such selective shear is repairable without welding, by replacing the rod with a 3/16 clevis. To this end, the test samples, engineer's reports, and video tape of the destructive testing has been sent to Quarterbore Super Moderator Bill Porter (dispatched to his location via U.S. mail, over one year ago).
It should be further understood that the '420 invention involves more than selective shear by some attachment--the attachment must further allow for modularity, and all useful benefit which arises. Prior art cited by Davis includes Dickerman, which expresses the M-9 rod/threaded tang. If such rod is used to arrive at impact resistance, conjoined with modularity, in the hilt of a knife, it belongs to Davis (most especially when the rod is proven to selectively shear metal, which can be repaired without welding).

It is my conclusion that the United States Army was either too stupid to understand any of this, or too much a coward to admit it if they did.

Thank you for opportunity to share experience with the M-9 bayonet.