Eickhorn XM9 questions (KCB77?)

[x2b4]

Hello,
I have a few questions about the Eickhorn entry to the XM9 trials (essentially a KCB77 type bayonet). Since it seems that there is much expertise available on this forum, and that several members have quite advanced collections, I thought this would be the right place to ask.

1. Does this bayonet have a full tang design?

2. What were the reasons the KCB77 was not adopted? Did the rather thin blade of only ~3.5mm lead to many breakages? As I was unable to find any documents about the tests, perhaps the forumites here have some more information.

3. Is the new Bayonet System 2005 that was initially chosen for the USMC and then canceled (The Canadians now issue it) essentially just a KCB77 with a different blade profile and ergonomic grip?

4. Any personal opinions on how the Eickhorn entry compares to the other contenders of the trials, or as to its performance as a bayonet in general?

Thanks,
-x2b4

[porterkids]

The Eickhorn XM9 is basically a KCB77 bayonet with a longer scabbard to provide better leverage when using the wire cutter. The blade has a tang that extends into the grip and there is a screw that passes crossway through the grip, securing it to the tang. I do not know how far into the grip the tang goes as I have never taken one apart, but it obviously goes at least past the screw.

The Eickhorn bayonet did not fare well in the 1986 trials. Every problem or failure during the trial was documented and this information was used in determining which bayonet was chosen. Eickhorn had a total of 42 seperate failures. The majority of the failures were related to the wire cutter plate on the scabbard. There were a couple of blades that nicked on the false edge while being used to cut wire, but there were no reports of broken blades.

The USMC initially contracted for the Bayonet 2000, not the newer, heavier Bayonet 2005 that Canada is currently using. The bayonet is probably constructed similarly to the KCB series, but the blade is not as wide and much thicker and it has the ergonomic grip.

My personal opinion is based solely on physical examination of the bayonets, not anything with field use. I think the KCB series of blades are rather thin, but as the trials showed they must be well made as there weren't any failures. I personally like the Marto submission. The Royal Ordnance is impractical, just like the British SA80. And the Imperial was basically an M7 with a little heavier blade. Phrobis won the trial hands down with only two reported failures.

[Carlo]

Originally Posted by porterkids

Eickhorn had a total of 42 seperate failures. The majority of the failures were related to the wire cutter plate on the scabbard. There were a couple of blades that nicked on the false edge while being used to cut wire, but there were no reports of broken blades.

Bill,
do you have more documented information on the XM9 trials available?
I'm asking because I have a great interest on the trials, and, untill now, I was only able to find a copy of an article from The Blade Magazine, already posted on this forum,

where Eickhorn is reported with only 9 total failures, 7 with the wire cutter and 2 with the handle

[x2b4]

Thank you for the prompt and informative reply.

The KCB77, as well as the newer B2005 bayonets are made with a spring steel blade of 55Si7 at a Rockwell hardness of 51-53. The steel type combined with the relative softness makes the blade not particularly good at holding an edge (probably why the false edge nicked on the wire-cutter test), but it makes it very springy and flexible. I was informed by an Eickhorn-Solingen employee that the blade can deform up to 30 degrees before fracturing; this is probably why they survived the 5-foot drop tests. The M-9 likely cannot survive that much bending, but of course it takes far more force to even get it to bend at all due to its much thicker blade.

One thing I do not like is the boxy and less than ergonomic grip, which is based on the Stoner 63 rifle foregrip and its predecessor the KCB70.

The XM9 trials are very interesting and it would be great to see more documents about it. Do you or anyone else have any information about the USMC trials that ended in the adoption of the OKC-3S?

[Quarterbore]

Question for Bill and the other experts, the OKC-3S was adoped in 1994, correct?

If so, were the 1993 USMC M9 Bayonets prototypes for that contract?

I never did post photos of the 1993 USMC that I managed to get but my example does show why the drilled and threaded tang idea was a poor one.

I'll try to get some pictures...

[porterkids]

Hey QB,

The OKC3S was adopted much later than 1994. The Buck USMC solid tang prototypes were not part of the trials.

[Carlo]

Originally Posted by x2b4

Do you or anyone else have any information about the USMC trials that ended in the adoption of the OKC-3S?

There is a nice article about the OKC3S bayonet written by Gary Cunningham here
http://www.usmilitaryknives.com/bayo_points_28.htm
with some information about the trial.
One more informative article, written by Jim Maddox, about the same trial but from the Lan-Cay perspective could be find here
http:/http://www.usmilitaryknives.com/jim_maddox.htm
I'm quite sure I read something on the OKC3S and/or the 2002 trial from Frank Trzaska, on his website
http://www.usmilitaryknives.com/
but I can't find it anymore.