Quarterbore.Net Forums


Go Back   Quarterbore's Forums > Knife Forums > Buck M9 Bayonet Topics
Home Forums Classifieds Photo Server FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-28-2008, 09:00 AM
porterkids's Avatar
porterkids porterkids is offline
Super Moderator
M9 Bayonet Collectors Club
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 675
Buck Barrel Nut M9

Here are some photos of a Buck prototype M9 that has a solid tang and utilizes a barrel nut to fasten the pommel. The corresponding article can be read at http://www.usmilitaryknives.com/bill_porter.htm








Last edited by porterkids; 02-21-2009 at 04:40 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-28-2008, 10:34 AM
Carlo's Avatar
Carlo Carlo is offline
Senior Member
M9 Bayonet Collectors Club
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Italy
Posts: 487
Wow, very nice!!!
I was reading again Bill's interesting article, where I found this sentence "the tang rod that is utilized with the standard M9 design is completely eliminated, thus reducing the manufacturing of one complete component".
I would like to know: was the full tang design (just say, only one "piece" of metal from the tip of the blade to the attach for the pommell) introduced/experimented to reduce the manufactoring cost, only?
Or, were there faults with the standard M9 configuration (where you have tow "pieces" of metal, the blade and the tang rod), like the bayonet breaking in half under intensive use?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-28-2008, 11:09 AM
Quarterbore's Avatar
Quarterbore Quarterbore is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Valley Forge, PA
Posts: 1,598
From the pictures, the end of that tang that is threaded looks pretty darn small. I would be woried about a failure of that part...

Still, this is a very interesting knife...

Thanks for sharing Bill!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-28-2008, 11:53 AM
porterkids's Avatar
porterkids porterkids is offline
Super Moderator
M9 Bayonet Collectors Club
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 675
At the point in time that Buck was working on this design (1996) they were looking for a way to reduce the manufacturing cost.

There are differing opinions as to which design is stronger; the solid tang or the separate tang rod. I believe the concept of the separate tang rod was to allow for some degree of flex that couldn't be acheived with a solid tang. When the USMC was looking into a new bayonet in 1993 they specifically wanted a solid tang. I do not have sufficient knowledge of knife making or metallurgy to have an opinion either way.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-03-2008, 01:35 PM
Carlo's Avatar
Carlo Carlo is offline
Senior Member
M9 Bayonet Collectors Club
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Italy
Posts: 487
I was looking again at the Finn 1989 patent 4,821,356 for the M9, which can be found here in this website
http://www.m9bayonet.com/library/04821356.pdf
and I found some answers to my questions.
Not really which one is better between a full tang and an a separate one, but still a good description on how the system was supposed to work and some great materials for speculations .





I don't understand anything on all these materials, but looking at the pictures and description it seems that the key is how the handle is made, and the fact that the tang "resiliency is greater than that on the blade".
I first thought this would not be achieved with a blade and tang made of the very same material, like in the full tang configuration

Seems I am wrong.
This is what the Buck Knives 1997 patent 5,594,967 says on the topic
http://www.m9bayonet.com/library/05594967.pdf




Last edited by Carlo; 03-03-2008 at 02:12 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.