Concept - The M3-B Trench Knife

[Thaeris]

A few days ago, I was tempted to email Ontario with this suggestion, but it seems like a much better idea to do it on the forums. That said, consider this as a concept:

The likelihood of seeing an issued bayonet is less and less as time goes on. Ontario's current retractable bayonet design, to be frank, seems a bit unwieldy and limited in terms of its versatility. That design does do something right, however: its blade is based on that of the M7 bayonet, which derives its heritage from the M3 Trench Knife. So, while an issue bayonet may become a distant outlier, why not revert to what the long-lived M7 bayonet was effectively derived from - the M3 Trench Knife?

Consider thus the concept of the "M3-B Trench Knife." This uses the same improved handle and ergonomics of the M7-B bayonet, the same scabbard (M10), and honestly, the same blade. It can be produced now and fills the role of a combat-oriented fighting knife very effectively. If given options similar to those of the M9 bayonet - different colors for handle and scabbard furniture (black, ODG, tan), etc., it becomes more marketable and easier to integrate into uniforms and kit. Given common tooling, it should be able to be produced and sold at a similar or better price point than other edged weapons in a similar role, such as the various Ka-Bars (and Eks), etc. Just as in the case of those Ka-Bars and Eks, producing an updated M3 lets a historic weapon continue on in service for a new user group.

*****

...So, needless to say, the above idea seems like a low-risk but easy ROI to me. And for the record, I'd like my M3-B in olive drab, thank you very much. I am curious about what others might think of this as well - I'd be more interested in what someone over at Ontario has to say about this!

 

[Dan Maragni]

I have passed your suggestion on to Ontario and do know that they are aggressively pursuing new government contracts. Unfortunately the government contracts are government contracts and Ontario's input is negligible. The government specifies every detail in the manufacture of the knife (design, materials, heat treatment, etc.), sheath design and materials, packaging, labelling, etc.

I do agree with your analysis of the retractable bayonet (the blade is the best part) and it appears to be targeting a very specialized market. I would also like to see a totally redesigned bayonet but unfortunately it is not up to us.

 

[Thaeris]

Thanks, Dan!

Yes, I've run into the government specs wall before when making suggestions. Not that my suggestions should hold any particular weight, but it's a good reminder when these subjects come up!

I was a bit surprised to learn about the SP3 the other day from looking into the threads focused on the SP-series knives. That knife was working along the same lines as my suggestion, although there are a few key differences:

1. The asymmetric guard on the M3 (and the bayonets which came after) is a useful feature, as it helps the user determine the orientation of the blade without having to feel or look for the edges. The SP3 opted for a symmetric guard, which looks great and certainly has a utility all of its own, but as a result lost out on this particular (and important) use case.

2. The flat hammer-like pommel on the M3 is useful as a tool, which is an important feature on a knife which otherwise has limited utility applications. The SP3 opted for a V-42 style skull crusher, which is very cool, but outside of busting glass or heads, is not really that useful (and is more likely to poke and prod the user most of the time!).

...That said, if Ontario does not decide to put the SP3 back into the lineup in the future, a proper M3 with modernized materials might make for a good SP-series candidate, and such a move bypasses a bit of the government contract issues as well.

Another thought on modernizing the M3 involves the M10 scabbard:

1. The "throat" of the scabbard is a separate plastic piece which acts as an anchor for the belt loop, for which the latter is secured into place by sewing it on. That same throat could continue to be used going forward just by changing out the existing textile suspension. For instance, MOLLE / PALS compatible webbing could easily be mounted in that location, in any number of configurations. Depending on the textile design, one could easily add utility pouches or camouflage covers to the scabbard, all without changing the base hardware. The offset built into the scabbard throat for the belt loop would allow a sharpening stone to be hid in the back if so desired. There are a legion of options, all of which retain the same wonderfully light and simple base scabbard design.

I will note that I couldn't help myself and had to order an Ontario M3 during the last few days. Really looking forward to adding it to the collection!

 

[Dan Maragni]

I see that you are familiar with the limitations placed on manufacturers by military contracts, it can be incredibly frustrating at times.

I have also been told that the asymmetric top guard on the M-3 minimizes "thumb jamb" when stabbing with the thumb on top of the grip and it does make a bit of sense.

I agree with you regarding the danger involved in carrying a knife with a "skull crusher" pommel. "Skull crusher" pommels were popular when I was making custom knives and I thought I would give them a try. After carrying one in a sheath on my belt to test out the potential danger and ripping a long wound in my forearm I decided that they were not such a good idea. I did manage to sell some even after warning the customers of the risk.