- Joined
- Dec 15, 2000
- Messages
- 89
Are there any reviews on this knife,Is it a usefull survival or fighting knife.
-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is available! Price is $250 ea (shipped within CONUS).
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/
M9 Bayonett any good
- Thread starter Conajohara
- Start date
I agree with those posting above. It was supposed to be a combination bayonet/field knife (knife fighting was way down on the list of tasks this knife was supposed to perform). As is the usual case, it did neither of these tasks as well as a tool dedicated for each. The Army's requirement in it's development was that it should weigh no more than the "then" current M-7 bayonet. It weighs a lot more! As an Army Officer I chose to carry an M-7 bayonet and a field knife of my choice. These weighed about the same as a single M-9 but I felt I was better equipped. Now that I'm retired (two years ago) I still have the M-7 I purchased (I didn't steal it from the Government) but was glad to return the issue M-9.
Bruce Woodbury
Bruce Woodbury
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2000
- Messages
- 3,625
I quite like it! Sure its big and chunky and made from a lower grade steel (425) but I just like it! The handle gives a good grip and the blade takes a good edge and holds it a fair length of time.
There are worse knives to own than this. Its a pity it was not made from a better steel.
There are worse knives to own than this. Its a pity it was not made from a better steel.
When I was in the service, I used mine for a tent peg. Best use for the thing, IMHO.
That cake-eatin' civilians actually pay money for the things, that is unbelievable. If you want a bayonet, get a surplus M7. Better steel, a fourth of the cost, and alot lighter.
They picked a good name for it, the same as another dud in the inventory
.
That cake-eatin' civilians actually pay money for the things, that is unbelievable. If you want a bayonet, get a surplus M7. Better steel, a fourth of the cost, and alot lighter.
They picked a good name for it, the same as another dud in the inventory
.
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2001
- Messages
- 343
Well Survivor,
That's raised quite an interesting question. Perhaps one ought to go back to the original contenders during the tendering and trials process in the mid 1980's. If memory serves me right, Imperial tendered a modified M7 for barb wire cutting. Which failed to impress the decision makers, though that did not stop Imperial from producing this commercially in the late 1980's as a survival knife. Then there was Marto of Spain with its own ideas of what the next American bayonet should look like, but that didn't see the light of day. Strangely enough Marto became a manufacturer for the M9 (And they also made a Utility Knife for the SEAL's, looking much like a scaled down version of the M9 minus the usual bayonet fittings). Even though Buck Knives won the contract, to me at least the best entry was the one submitted by Carl Eickhorn of Solingen, Germany. Quite easily it was leader of the pack, but...
Here's the link of what it looked like.
http://www.eickhorn-solingen.com/englisch/framesets/military/frameset_bayonets.html
A bit odd looking at first, but a lot of R&D had gone into its development (See AES USM 9).
Take time to go through the entire site, you could learn a thing or two from the old masters of military blade manufacture.
Krizzard. out.
"...Whoever kills with the sword must be killed by the sword... "
- The New Testament, Revelation 13:10
That's raised quite an interesting question. Perhaps one ought to go back to the original contenders during the tendering and trials process in the mid 1980's. If memory serves me right, Imperial tendered a modified M7 for barb wire cutting. Which failed to impress the decision makers, though that did not stop Imperial from producing this commercially in the late 1980's as a survival knife. Then there was Marto of Spain with its own ideas of what the next American bayonet should look like, but that didn't see the light of day. Strangely enough Marto became a manufacturer for the M9 (And they also made a Utility Knife for the SEAL's, looking much like a scaled down version of the M9 minus the usual bayonet fittings). Even though Buck Knives won the contract, to me at least the best entry was the one submitted by Carl Eickhorn of Solingen, Germany. Quite easily it was leader of the pack, but...
Here's the link of what it looked like.
http://www.eickhorn-solingen.com/englisch/framesets/military/frameset_bayonets.html
A bit odd looking at first, but a lot of R&D had gone into its development (See AES USM 9).
Take time to go through the entire site, you could learn a thing or two from the old masters of military blade manufacture.
Krizzard. out.
"...Whoever kills with the sword must be killed by the sword... "
- The New Testament, Revelation 13:10
Krizzard, my problem with the Eickhorn bayonet you indicated is that it appears to follow the form of the AK bayonet with a fragile tip. That same style as the Mod 0 used by the Navy was notoriously fragile in the point. Perhaps if the point had a straight clip instead of a concave clip point on top.
A while back I remember reading a review of the M9 that stated it was not suitable for _any_ use due to it's construction. The blade tang goes only half way into the handle, and is met by a screw coming in from the back. This weak point combined with another one in the blade (I can't remember where) led to the knife snapping in two under an unacceptably low load.
Anybody else remember this review?
As an aside, I have a soviet bayonet sitting around somewhere. Ok pair of wirecutters, but I haven't been able to put an edge on the damn thing no matter what I try.
Anybody else remember this review?
As an aside, I have a soviet bayonet sitting around somewhere. Ok pair of wirecutters, but I haven't been able to put an edge on the damn thing no matter what I try.
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2001
- Messages
- 343
Bruce!
"Point taken"
Perhaps one should question the purpose of a bayonet in the first place. Mainly it was designed to stab and not truly to slice things in clean half's. The entire idea of the M9 bayonet doubling up as a utility knife cum wire cutter is perhaps not the most suitable purpose for a weapon that was originally intended to be attached to the end of a high powered rifle. But I suppose more often than not bayonets become prybars for ammo crates and even to the extend of becoming make shift can openers or spoons. So in the field at least, it had to be a jack of all trades; but more importantly useful for the trooper and be entirely "soldier proof". The M9 would be the first US bayonet in stainless steel (I stand corrected), a feature that is often overlooked. Sure there are better steels, but there will always be compromises made when it comes to dollar versus quality; even so, it's a well appreciated fact that stainless requires less after care and can outlast a plain carbon blade when left to the elements.
The quality of sharpness depends upon its use. And most bayonets are never easy to sharpen especially vintage ones, only because it had to be exceptionally hard at the point, to take heavy abuse. So no one really bothers about shaving sharp on a bayonet, least of all the contractors!( Well, maybe not until one has an urgent requirement to cut something real fast). Maybe that's why the military issues out utility folders for general slicing and daggers for people especially trained for specialized missions. It would be the end of military blade contracting should some future bayonet be fielded where a balance between these task are fully met!
It's certainly a great idea to have a wire cutting ability incorporated, but not everybody appreciates that feature, especially if it adds more weight than anything else. Just as the M7 can trace its lineage from the M3 fighting knife, which was a true "pig sticker" in every way; the design inspiration for the M9 was drawn directly from the Soviet AK bayonet. So in this aspect the AK bayonet still represents a genuine innovation for it was cheap, light and adequate enough for mass production, but more importantly it kept Comrade Ivan in happy spirits knowing he had a dependable tool as well. And there is one thing I would like to point out, in that AK bayonets are mounted edge up. Now clearly this should be the case, as one follows the natural flow of an upward thrust upon the initial penetration of a target.
Despite of the many complaints, the M9 does appears to be an impressive looking bayonet. One only need to compare it with all other known bayonets, to find that it has a certain degree of high technology ingrained in its appearance. No doubt the M9 "will be product improved" from time to time, but shouldn't that be the case for all products that has a "life and death" label on it? My advice currently is, to get use to it, understand its weaknesses and try showing some due respect as to how it should be handled. If by some "misfortune" one has a personal dislike or distrust for it, there's always enough M7's to go around. Something tells me we will be seeing this bayonet and its variants doing some very hard soldiering for years to come.
Krizzard. out.
"...Whoever kills with the sword must be killed by the sword... "
- The New Testament, Revelation 13:10
"Point taken"
Perhaps one should question the purpose of a bayonet in the first place. Mainly it was designed to stab and not truly to slice things in clean half's. The entire idea of the M9 bayonet doubling up as a utility knife cum wire cutter is perhaps not the most suitable purpose for a weapon that was originally intended to be attached to the end of a high powered rifle. But I suppose more often than not bayonets become prybars for ammo crates and even to the extend of becoming make shift can openers or spoons. So in the field at least, it had to be a jack of all trades; but more importantly useful for the trooper and be entirely "soldier proof". The M9 would be the first US bayonet in stainless steel (I stand corrected), a feature that is often overlooked. Sure there are better steels, but there will always be compromises made when it comes to dollar versus quality; even so, it's a well appreciated fact that stainless requires less after care and can outlast a plain carbon blade when left to the elements. The quality of sharpness depends upon its use. And most bayonets are never easy to sharpen especially vintage ones, only because it had to be exceptionally hard at the point, to take heavy abuse. So no one really bothers about shaving sharp on a bayonet, least of all the contractors!( Well, maybe not until one has an urgent requirement to cut something real fast). Maybe that's why the military issues out utility folders for general slicing and daggers for people especially trained for specialized missions. It would be the end of military blade contracting should some future bayonet be fielded where a balance between these task are fully met!
It's certainly a great idea to have a wire cutting ability incorporated, but not everybody appreciates that feature, especially if it adds more weight than anything else. Just as the M7 can trace its lineage from the M3 fighting knife, which was a true "pig sticker" in every way; the design inspiration for the M9 was drawn directly from the Soviet AK bayonet. So in this aspect the AK bayonet still represents a genuine innovation for it was cheap, light and adequate enough for mass production, but more importantly it kept Comrade Ivan in happy spirits knowing he had a dependable tool as well. And there is one thing I would like to point out, in that AK bayonets are mounted edge up. Now clearly this should be the case, as one follows the natural flow of an upward thrust upon the initial penetration of a target.
Despite of the many complaints, the M9 does appears to be an impressive looking bayonet. One only need to compare it with all other known bayonets, to find that it has a certain degree of high technology ingrained in its appearance. No doubt the M9 "will be product improved" from time to time, but shouldn't that be the case for all products that has a "life and death" label on it? My advice currently is, to get use to it, understand its weaknesses and try showing some due respect as to how it should be handled. If by some "misfortune" one has a personal dislike or distrust for it, there's always enough M7's to go around. Something tells me we will be seeing this bayonet and its variants doing some very hard soldiering for years to come.
Krizzard. out.
"...Whoever kills with the sword must be killed by the sword... "
- The New Testament, Revelation 13:10
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2001
- Messages
- 343
Tattoo,
A Duane Dwyer M9 you say? Interesting! Would you be in a position to know if Strider Knives are doing this officially for the US Military or would this be rather a private commercial venture?
Either way, this would be a great addition for any M9 collector out there.
Krizzard, out.
"...Whoever kills with the sword must be killed by the sword... "
- The New Testament, Revelation 13:10
A Duane Dwyer M9 you say? Interesting! Would you be in a position to know if Strider Knives are doing this officially for the US Military or would this be rather a private commercial venture?
Either way, this would be a great addition for any M9 collector out there.
Krizzard, out.
"...Whoever kills with the sword must be killed by the sword... "
- The New Testament, Revelation 13:10
I read this info in the strider forum and is going to offered a a DD custom only, i have no idea when this will be out but in the post it says it will have the AR15 attachmnet so that it can be used as a bayonet. I don't know the price point but would figure around 750. I have one of Mick's 7.5 customs and if this one is like it, it will be a gtreat piece.Hope this helps, will have to do a search and see where i saw it at.
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2001
- Messages
- 16
I definitely think that Duane's D9 will be the way to go for anybody serious about their bayonet. It's something I will add to my toolbox as soon as it's available. Unfortunately I'm deploying in a few weeks, so will have to wait a while to get it.
In the meanwhile, I'm experimenting with the Ontario M9. It's 420 stainless, and feels a lot more stable (and heavier) than the previous Buck M9s. Any reviews of the Ontario M9 out there?
In the meanwhile, I'm experimenting with the Ontario M9. It's 420 stainless, and feels a lot more stable (and heavier) than the previous Buck M9s. Any reviews of the Ontario M9 out there?