LanCay P.I. Prototype M9s

[pwcosol]

Pictured are a couple of LanCay prototype product improved M9 bayonets, circa 1995. Homer Brett states in his excellent book "The Military Knife & Bayonet", M9 bayonets with these modified webbing systems were submitted to the Army & USMC for evaluation. I was informed by Mr. Brett the reason was twofold for this change. It was determined the exposed sharpening stone on the LanCay scabbard systems led to tearing of uniforms & abrasions by the wearer. In addition, the Fastex belt clip arrangement tended to rattle & make excessive noise.
In response to this, one pattern was provided with a stone covering flap similar in function to the original Phrobis design. The other variant had a more radically redesigned webbing arrangement which not only provided a stone covering flap, but eliminated the Fastex clip.
The first two photos are of the first variant. The bayonet is a early second contract with "LanCay" blade marking, hollow ground blade, & black oxide finish. The last two photos are of the second pattern. The bayonet is also marked "LanCay", has the laser-cut blade, & black oxide finish.

[Carlo]

I'm wondering how more nice bayonets we'll see coming from you collection!
Looking at the pictures I can't stop asking myself how ironic is that LanCay was trying to go backwards, to the original Phrobis design scabbard system

[pwcosol]

Carlo: Thank you for your kind comments regarding the two bayonets. Lancay was indeed fortunate the Army finally decided to allow modifications to the existing M9 configuration...something never granted to Phrobis. I believe these modifications (mostly simplifications or eliminations) allowed LanCay to reduce the amount of work necessary to produce the bayonet, but still receive the same unit price agreed to in their contracts. Likely rather than incurr a minor rise in cost to produce the bayonet scabbard with a stone protector flap, LanCay asked for & received authorization to eliminate the stone altogether on their product improved scabbard, solving that problem permanently!

It seemed aparrent to Phrobis the stone protector flap was necessary on the M9, yet LanCay was not required to supply this so didn't. Even Phrobis did away with it on the M9A1, but still retained it on their M9 product line. I would guess Phrobis elected to eliminate the stone protector flap on the M9A1 because the new Zytel scabbard system required no webbing, and the position of the scabbard on the utility belt might have reduced abrasion problems, although I think the stone would have been discarded by Phrobis eventually on the M9A1

[Carlo]

This is part of a letter by Homer Brett (we all know him as the author of a great book on military bayonets but he was, indeed, also involved in the LanCay design) on the subject

[pwcosol]

What Homer B. had to say is most informative. It seems surprising (or maybe not so much) it took two years to resolve the issue of the stone. Since LanCay was able to eliminate the stone protector strap from their initial contract with the Army, this was easier to accomplish than have it reinstituted! Why LanCay sought to delete the need for the strap in the first place, & the Army allowed it, would be interesting to know. I think one of the primary problems encountered, & made clear by Homer, was difficullties encountered with governmental bureaucrats. During the course of production these people came & went, so they were always dealing with different people in positions of authority, whom may have held opposing views when it came to incorporating changes in the M9 design....

[Carlo]

Originally Posted by pwcosol

Why LanCay sought to delete the need for the strap in the first place, & the Army allowed it, would be interesting to know.

I would guess the answer is quite simple: MONEY!
Based on what I remember from the (also excellent) book by Gary Cunningham, the price for a single M9 bayonet dropped from approximately $ 50 (1986 dollars) to less than $ 20 (hope to be correct, as I always don't remember if it was 19.99 or 9.99 ).
You HAVE to cut somewhere to reduce the price in such a way.

[pwcosol]

Carlo: Yesterday I also read the M9 commentary in Gary Cunningham's book. I was under the impression if a production contract was awarded by the government, a manufacturer would receive the specified amount or unit cost per item in the award until completed. From what Gary wrote, the LanCay webbing system, though lacking a stone flap, may have been considered product improved over the original Phrobis system. He mentions LanCay was able to reduce the cost of producing the bayonet with nearly every change in the design, & it looked like the U.S. Government was the one to benefit by the reduced production costs rather than LanCay. Perhaps the unit price reductions would not be realized until another contract or extension to the existing one was authorized by the government; the cost to produce the bayonet in the then current pattern being less than before.

[Carlo]

Originally Posted by pwcosol

Carlo: Yesterday I also read the M9 commentary in Gary Cunningham's book. I was under the impression if a production contract was awarded by the government, a manufacturer would receive the specified amount or unit cost per item in the award until completed. From what Gary wrote, the LanCay webbing system, though lacking a stone flap, may have been considered product improved over the original Phrobis system. He mentions LanCay was able to reduce the cost of producing the bayonet with nearly every change in the design, & it looked like the U.S. Government was the one to benefit by the reduced production costs rather than LanCay. Perhaps the unit price reductions would not be realized until another contract or extension to the existing one was authorized by the government; the cost to produce the bayonet in the then current pattern being less than before.

Hi,
you made very good points in your answer.
I may only add that, in my opinion, both LanCay and the US Government got a benefit from the reduced unit production cost.
I never saw a copy of the first or second LanCay contracts, but I'm sure that LanCay would never had been the winning bidder offering a bayonet, in 1992, for $49.56, as was with Phrobis, even with zero failures in the tests.
By the way, since you seem interested , here is an article I already posted in the forum, written just after Phrobis won the contract, where you can see the prices also offered by the other competitors.

[pwcosol]

Carlo: Thanks for posting the article on the trials result. I had not seen this before & find it really informative; the test results from the bayonets submitted being particularly interesting. I think Cunningham mentioned there were dozens of competitors whom were interested in the M9 trials and produced at least one prototype. Of those, 14 were selected & only seven were accepted for the trials competition. I wonder what all those other bayonets looked like? It is unfortunate someone (maybe they did) did not take a photo of every bayonet that was presented as a potential competitor. I bet there were some highly unusual variants!

I also noted how well Imperial fared compared to all other competitors (except Phrobis). The Eickhorn KCB77 should have provided stronger competition, as the design is basically a sound one. One of their main handicaps, (this goes all the way back to WWII & their pioneering "tool bayonet" concept, the Seitengewehr 42) was the thinness of the blade & it's point.
Surprisingly they seem not to have suffered any blade breakages. Perhaps the lightness of the bayonet helped it to rebound off the floor during the five foot drop tests. I was surprised the majority of failures were of the wirecutter. I wonder just what went wrong here...

[porterkids]

I believe all of the trials variations are shown in Homer Brett's book. If not I can post some pictures in the next few days.