B.C. The Society ofAmerican Bayonet Collectors

NEWSLETTER No. 10 SUMMER 1992

In MemoriamMember Michael Bird passed away April 26. He was 36 years old, and a specialistin bayonet reference books. He will be missed by his many friends the world over.

Phrobis and the M9 Bayonet: Part Oneby Homer Brett

In May of 1985 the Armed Forces Journal(AFf) magazine published an article on (the) "U.S.Army Bayonet: Outclassed and Outdated . . .", anarticle that was outlined, assembled and laid out bymyself for AFJ. Accompanying the article, on its firstpage, was an AFJ editorial taking to task the extremeamount of time it was taking the U.S. Army to developan idea or design and then get it to the field. In manycases it was a five to ten year effort.

In the June issue of AFJ the Army, speakingthrough Major General John Voss (Chief of Infantry),replied that it could and should adopt new equipmentfaster and without gold plating. He added that, bychance, the Army had briefed the Army Under Secre-tary on the need for a new bayonet on the same day asthe May AF/ article was published. The gauntlethaving been thrown down, the Army began drawing upa Letter of Requirement (LR) listing specifications theywanted for the new bayonet/fighting knife. Thesespecifications went through three revisions with thefinal version stating that the new weapons must per-form in the following priority: 1) bayonet, 2) combatknife, 3) field craft knife, and 4) wire cutter.

Once the specifications were established theArmy sent them out to approximately 50 companiesand manufacturers along with a questionnaire on theirexisting or potential designs. The Army's aim was topurchase an "off-the-shelf product which would re-quire no design or development delay, in other words adesign that was ready to go into almost immediateproduction or which was already being produced.

The Army received about 30 replies to itssolicitation and a final group of six competitors wasselected to compete. Each company was required tosubmit 55 bayonets of their design for the Army's"shoot-out' in late 1986. Three designs came fromAmerican firms and three designs came from Europeanfirms (more in a later article). The troop trials tookplace at the home of the Infantry School, Fort Benning,Georgia. The design submitted by the firm of PhrobisIII of Oceanside, California, won the competition. Itwas a hands-down win with Phrobis having a zerofailure rate while the worst design had a failure rate of74% (AFJ). The contract was awarded in October of1986 and the first production M9s were delivered to theRangers in February of 1987.

The winning bayonet was designed by MickeyFinn and his team of design and engineering people, atPhrobis. Although this was their first bayonet designcompetition, Mr. Finn and Phrobis had already suc-cessfully produced the Buckmaster knife, the Skeletonknife and the Folding Titanium knife. All these kniveswere designed with the Naval Special Warfare commu-nity and other special operation units in mind, as wellas the potential commercial market. Phrobis was aresearch and development firm rather than a massproduction manufacturer and so it licensed all three oftheir knife designs to the Buck Knife Company formanufacture and commercial marketing. Phrobis how-ever retained all rights and patents to its designs.

The Phrobis XM9 bayonet was a triad designwith two separate scabbard systems and a single bayo-net. In this article we will cover only two of the legs ofthe bayonets that won the Army's trials. The XM9system is unique in American bayonet design as it is amodular system similar in concept to the Stoner Weap-ons system tested by the Marine Corps in the 1960s.The idea was that all the component parts of the systemare completely interchangeable and thus any combina-tion of parts can be assembled to build whatever par-ticular edged weapon a military service would need.Thus, in theory, a Buckmaster blade would fit an XM9bayonet or a new type of bayonet could be assembledwith a smaller or shorter blade, different crossguard orspecial knife-style pommel cap. The Army was neitherinterested nor appreciative of this concept - they onlywanted a new bayonet. However, by understanding theconceptual idea, the specific features of the XM9 willbecome more logical. Every XM9 bayonet could beproperly assembled and disassembled with a torquewrench, a set of Allen wrenches and a screwdriver;thus, any part that became damaged could be replacedquickly and easily. The bayonet's main sub-systemsare: A) the scabbard with its cutter plate, webbing andsharpening stone, and B) the bayonet, which has ablade, tang rod, grip and latch plate and latch platescrew.

Because the Army had wanted an off-the-shelfdesign, which virtually no one actually had, all but oneof the XM9 designs submitted to the trials were modi-fications of existing knife or bayonet designs. ThePhrobis team took the Buckmaster knife and some of

their earlier prototype bayonet designs and developedfrom them the Phrobis XM9.

The mold for the Buckmaster knife was used toproduce a green-colored scabbard which had the Bucklogo masked off its face. A cut-out was then milled atthe scabbard's tip and a stainless steel cutter plate witha T-lug was mounted with two screws coming throughthe backside. The back of the scabbard had a sharpen-ing stone glued into a recess and a webbing system andfront pouch finished off the scabbard assembly.

The webbing assembly included a FASTEXquick release clip mounted just above the scabbardthroat, and above this was a metal Bianchi belt clip tohold the entire bayonet to the soldier's belt.

The bayonet blade was made from an originalBuckmaster blade blank with a short threaded tang.Over this was placed a crossguard machined from flatstock with two bottle opener slots in its face. Then thecircular tang rod was threaded onto the end of the bladetang with a torque wrench and the green Zy tel grip wasslid down over the tang rod and held in-place by thelatch plate. The latch plate screw was then threadedthrough the latch plate and into the threaded end of thetang rod. This completed the Phrobis XM9 bayonet,that won the Army's bayonet trial.

Due to the Army's off-the-shelf concept andthe short time between the final LR and the trials thePhrobis XM9, like most of its competitors, was virtu-ally handmade (in the Phrobis machine shop). Inpractical fact the XM9 is a prototype bayonet and anumber of changes were made to it before it was readyfor mass production.

In my next article I will cover more on theproduction M9 bayonet, but suffice it to say that theXM9 is quite distinct in all its parts from the issue M9bayonet that the Army carried into Operations JustCause, Desert Shield and Desert Storm. Using Mr.Cole's XM9 drawing for reference the XM9 latchplates were made from modified M7 bayonet pom-mels. The tang rods were made from normal steelrather than the stainless steel of the production M9 andXM9 and the grip was molded in a round form and thenhad its vertical and horizontal grip grooves machined

into it. The crossguard was machined rather thanstamped from steel and there was no Phrobis logo on itsface.

The blade was made from an unfinishedBuckmaster blade blank with the fuller teeth and theoval T-lug hole machined into it. The blade wasmarked only with "XM9" and below it the number "29"which had been assigned to Phrobis by the Army.During the trials it was discovered that the XM9 bladetip was prone to bending as it was too thin and narrow.This was quickly improved and the production M9shad a thicker and stronger tip.

The XM9 scabbard had to have its toe ma-chined for the cutter plate which had the T-lug weldedin-place and a rectangular protrusion on its back thatlocked it into the scabbard. Notice that the face of theplate is totally flat with no recessed screw holes. Ad-ditionally there is no Phrobis logo molded into thescabbard below the sharpening stone and there areminor variations in the snaps, screws and rivets of thewebbing and Bianchi clip.

Although the parts of the Phrobis XM9 and theArmy issue M9 are interchangeable, they are not thesame bayonet and the XM9 is a benchmark in Ameri-can bayonet design. The issue M9 is at this writingissued only to the U.S. Army and then only to theRanger, Airborne and combat infantry units. The M7is still issued to the remainder of the Army and all of theNavy, Marines and Air Force. The M9 is the UnitedStates' first issue wire cutting bayonet and our firstmodular bayonet. It will probably have some evolu-tionary changes and improvements over time, but it isa piece quite unique in the history of bayonet design.As with all bayonets it was influenced by the eons oldhunting knife and its immediate parents were the XM9and the Buckmaster knife.

I would like to thank Phrobis, Mickey Finn andJohn Holm for their assistance, as well as all thepersonnel at Fort Bragg who have helped me with myresearch. My thanks also to Howard Cole who allowedme to use his excellent drawings from Volume IVof hisbook U.S. Military Knives, Bayonets and Machetes.

"—POMMEL MS HACHINCD FK3M

PHROBIS XM9 BAYONET U.S. BAYONET M9

B.C. The Society ofAmerican Bayonet Collectors

NEWSLETTER NO. 14 FALL 1993

PHROBIS AND THE M9 BAYONET - PART TWOThe "CHEVRON" Bayonet

By Homer M. BrettThis article is the second in the continuing Only 1,200 "CHEVRON" marked U.S.

series on the development of the U.S. Army M9 Army M9 bayonets were ever produced, and itsbayonet that was designed by the Phrobis III Cor- very existence was due to a combination of eventsporation. at the Buck Knife Company, a subcontractor to

In 1986 Phrobis III won the U.S. Army's Phrobis.XM9 trials for a new wire cutting bayonet/combat Buck was contracted by Phrobis to make aknife, vanquishing five other competitors. In Octo- variety of metal parts for the Army's new bayonet,ber 1986 the contract was officially awarded and and this included blades. The Army's Technicalthe newly adopted bayonet was designated the Data Package (TDP) spelled out exactly how the"M9." This was the first new U.S. bayonet since the blades were to be marked (this was done beforeM7 of Vietnam fame. they were hardened). Each M9 blade was stamped

It should be recalled at this point that the 55 on its left side at the ricasso, leaving the right sideXM9 bayonets that Phrobis delivered to the Army ricasso completely unmarked,trials at Fort Benning were virtually handmade on Phrobis and the Army carefully spelled outmachine tools not manufactured on a production the M9s specifications in the TDP and it wasline. The U.S. government requires a formal in- Phrobis' responsibility as the prime contractor tospection of a contractor's facilities, including the ensure that the bayonets delivered to the Army metproduction line, testing equipment and required the TDP. However, just as the Army's bayonet wasrecord keeping systems before formal production going into production, Buck Knife Company be-can begin on a contracted item. The contractor gan instituting a company-wide blade coding sys-must also demonstrate capability to complete the tern. Every blade made at Buck would have a yearcontract on time and to specifications. code stamped on it, which would also show that it

Along with the facilities inspections, Phro- was a forged blade, rather than a fine blanked onebis was required to produce a handful of First (the Phrobis XM9 blades were fine blankings).Article Test (FAT) bayonets for the Army's in- As the Army's M9 blades went into pro-spection and to prove that it was able to begin the duction, Buck automatically applied this new mark-production-line manufacture of the bayonet. These ing, but did so without consulting or notifyingFAT bayonets (to be discussed in a later article) Phrobis of the additional "CHEVRON" stamp be-passed with flying colors, and the go-ahead was ing added to the ricasso. Thus, the small "CHEV-given to begin formal M9 production. However, RON" stamp, with its point facing to the right of thelike all contracts, the gremlins of imperfection U.S.A. marking, was placed on the very first pro-were at work, which resulted in the rare U.S. Army duction-line made M9 bayonets.M9 bayonet variation that Phrobis designated the The complete blade marking is as follows:"CHEVRON" model.

M9PHROBIS III

U.S.A. >

Regardless of the seeming innocence ofthis small "CHEVRON," it was in direct violationof the TDP. However, the discrepancy was notinitially caught by the inspectors at Phrobis, and the"CHEVRON" bayonets were almost all in the firstshipment of bayonets that had been tested andquickly delivered to the Army for immediate issueto combat units.

At Phrobis, with the first delivery of bayo-nets to the Army completed and the chaos ofgetting the shipment out now calmed, the inspec-tors quickly noticed the blade marking error. OnJanuary 16, 1987 a Material Review Report, #002was issued notifying Buck Knife Company of theproduction discrepancy—"Unauthorized* 'mark-ing on the blade." The report also noted that the"Marking does not affect form, fit or function."Buck was immediately ordered to cease markingthe Army contract blades with the "CHEVRON."Buck then acknowledged this discrepancy in itsInteroffice Memo of January 20 under a subjectheading of "Non-conforming Material Report."

At this point it should be made clear thatBuck was allowed to keep this year code markingon all of its COMMERCIAL production M9 bayo-nets that were manufactured under a licensingagreement granted by Phrobis. On the Buck com-mercial bayonets the markings and the year stampwere placed on the right side of the ricasso with theleft side of the blade retaining the original Phrobismarkings, but without the "CHEVRON." Thissystem of marking both sides of the blades of thecommercial Phrobis/Buck M9 bayonets continueduntil Buck bought out Phrobis in 1992.

Some other differences should be notedbetween the CHEVRON M9s and the later produc-tion bayonets. These are:

1) Note the distinctive flats on top of eachshoulder of the letter "M" on the "M9" stamping onthe ricasso.

2) The sawteeth on the CHEVRON weremachined, whereas later production bayonets hadthe teeth broached.

3) The CHEVRON latch plate lacks the

two parallel sides of the later production latchplates. Instead, the two sides curve down into theradius of the bottom of the plate.

The fact that the CHEVRON M9 bayonetswere the first and rarest models of the M9s deliv-ered under the Army contract was not lost onPhrobis. The remaining 166 bayonets that hadbeen held back were then numbered from 001 to166 on the blank right side of the ricasso. Phrobisand Buck then divided them with Phrobis keepingthe even numbers and Buck receiving the odd ones.

Phrobis then produced a high qualitywooden presentation plaque, with the bayonetmounted on to a Colt-made, military issue, M16A1.rifle barrel. Only sixty of these plaques wereproduced and #001 was presented to PresidentRonald Reagan, while other low numbers went toimportant civilian and military officials for theiroffices. The remaining bayonets were advertisedcommercially and the CHEVRON M9, mountedon a plaque, was the first Phrobis commemorativepresentation bayonet, as well as the rarest variationof the U.S. Army issue M9.

/ wish to thank the staff of Phrobis and theArmy Ranger and Airborne personnel who assistedme. The Phrobis advertisement is reproduced withthe permission of Mickey Finn.

TheJOURNAL

, •

:

Functions:

« Perfectly balanced combat knife

* Who CU?UT easily ',.*.!!:.> 1(5 ga, douhfcstrand bar'bed wire

« Saw blade slices thiougfi light fnetai(including aircraft, skin)

» Bottle ofx^ner

Phi-obis III. Ltd.. Carlsbad, California OSA

ft

Scabbard provides:

Screwdriver

Pouch for M9T"pisto! magazine

This color print was produced by Phrobis III as part of the publicity for the Army'snewly adopted bayonet. Both full size wall posters and 81/2" x 11" posters were producedand distributed through U.S. Army channels, as well as foreign military missions.

page 13

TheJOURNAL

Phrobis and the M9 Bayonet -- Part ThreeColonel Lewis L. Millett, Congressional Medal of Honor Winner

by Homer M. Brett

At this point in the historical narrative ofPhrobis and the M9 bayonet, Phrobis has won theXM9 trials, completed the First Article Tests(FAT) and begun formal production and deliveryof the M9 bayonet to the U.S. Army. The firstbayonets delivered were the rare CHEVRONM9's of which only 1,200 were produced. Phrobiswas also working on the Army for a potentialfollow-up contract as it was the Army's intentionto arm all the Ranger, Airborne and combatinfantry units with the quantity purchased in theoriginal (1st) contract was insufficient to reachthis goal.

With its bayonet deliveries to the Army onschedule, Phrobis was also making a great effortto get both public and military publicity for itsrevolutionary bayonet design. Dozens of articleswere written in military publications, knife andgun magazines, newspapers and even in suchpopular magazines as PEOPLE and TIME. It washoped that this increased flow of information anddata would assist in boosting sales to U.S. allieswho had already adopted the M16 rifle, as well asinfluencing the three remaining U.S. militaryservices to purchase and issue the M9 bayonet.

As part of the publicity effort, Phrobis en-gaged Colonel Lewis L. Millett, U.S. Army,retired, as its point man to the Army's infantryunits. This is the same Colonel Millett who hadwon the Congressional Medal of Honor duringthe Korean War by leading his troops in a histori-cal bayonet charge.

The Colonel was tasked with making a num-ber of goodwill trips to various U.S. Army com-bat units to introduce the new bayonet and toexplain its features and capabilities. These tripsincluded one to Korea where Colonel Millettinstructed members of the 2nd Infantry Divisionon the M9, assisted in boosting support for a jointU.S. -Korean War memorial (now in the planningstage) and visited hi l l 180.

It is on this hill that there stands a bronzeplaque in both Korean and English that namesthis Korean hill "Bayonet Hill" and also explainsthe significance of this honor. ••

Colonel Millett was quite pleased to havebeen asked to be Phrobis' ambassador to theArmy for the M9 bayonet. However, before ac-cepting this assignment he chose to conduct hisown private tests on one of the bayonets. Thesequite strenuous tests were conducted withoutsupport or compensation from Phrobis, and theresults and the Colonel's comments are as fol-lows.

The first test involved 2,500 thrusts, made bythree individuals taking turns into "tough, dried,hard, white oak timber," The results were that "atthrust 886 the point of the bayonet was broken.Less than 1/16 of an inch was broken off with noappreciable change on subsequent penetrations."He went on to say, "Due to the continuous natureof the testing procedure and the thrust or stab,twist and withdrawal, the blade became notice-ably warm from the point to 2 inches from thepoint." (My research shows that the Colonel hadbeen given an XM9 bayonet to test and this weakpoint problem had already come out during theArmy's trials. It was then eliminated by makingthe point thicker.)

The second test Colonel Millett adminis-tered was the "slash or cutting stroke deliveredfrom different angles for a total of 2,500 strokes."His final test was the cutting of commercial andheavy duty link fence as well as cutting of con-crete nails, with thirty cuttings for each of thedifferent materials. Incidentally, it was this abil-ity to cut through chain-link fencing that allowedan Army Ranger unit, which had been pinneddown under fire in Panama, to successfully cap-ture its objective during Operation Just Cause inDecember of 1989.

page 14

TheJOURNAL

This accurately covers Colonel Millett's workfor Phrobis, but leaves us with the even moreinteresting story of how he won his Medal ofHonor using his bayonet, a weapon some techno-warfare people consider obsolete.

Colonel Lewis L. Millett's military career isthat of a classic soldier as well as a gung-ho, hell-bent-for-leather individual, who has fought inWWII, Korea and Vietnam. Even now retirementhas only slowed his pace modestly.

Lewis Millett graduated from high school in1940 and immediately enlisted in the U.S, ArmyAir Corps. However, shortly after this, PresidentRoosevelt announced that the U.S. would notbecome involved in the World War, leaving hard-charging Lewis with little choice but to go AWOLto Canada and enlist in a Canadian unit headed toEngland.

Still in England at the time of Pearl Harbor,Millett requested and was granted a transfer to theU.S. forces (this was normal policy for U.S.citizens serving in Allied units after the U.S.joined the war). Just before transferring, ourerrant youth chose to complete an experimentalcourse in Commando training to see if the "aver-age" soldier could survive it.

Assigned to an artillery unit in North Africa,Millett won a silver star for climbing into burningammunition half-tracks and moving them beforethey could explode in the midst of his unit. Lateron he also shot down a German ME-109 with apair of .50 caliber Browning machine guns thathis unit armorer had rigged together. For this acthe received a stiff chewing out as his CO wasupset that he had exposed their concealed artil-lery position, but he was advanced to private firstclass anyway. During WWII, PFC Millet earneda field commission to 2nd Lieutenant and devel-oped himself into a first rate artillery forwardobserver (FO), a group of elite artillerymen wholive among the front grunts.

After WWII, Millett left the service for col-lege and then rejoined the Army just in time forthe Korean War. As part of the 25th Division,Millett's 8lh Field Artillery supported the 27th

In ranlry (the Wolfhounds), and our intrepid Cap-la in rapidly expanded his reputation.

On one occasion as a un i t forward observer,Captain Millett had a ba t ta l ion of North Koreantroops move through his company-sized unit dur-ing the night. Despite his numerical inferioritythe Captain was able to keep his unit calm untilthe enemy had finally passed through. He thencommanded the company while the Koreans were"cut to pieces."

On a second occasion, while flying as anartillery spotter, Captain Millett and his aircraftpilot landed behind enemy lines to assist a downedfighter pilot. As there was insufficient room forthree people in the aircraft, Millett immediatelygave up his seat. He followed this courageous actby proceeding to hold off a large communistpatrol with only his Ml carbine until his pilotcould return and pick him up.

With this developing reputation, our Captainrequested a transfer to the command of an infan-try unit and was given E Company of the 27thRegiment. From the beginning he insisted that histroops drill strenuously with bayonets and carrythem at all times (something many units ignoredin Korea). This emphasis on using the bayonetwith skill as well as the aggressiveness and con-fidence it instilled into his company was later topay off in saved lives and an accomplished mis-sion.

Moving northwards during Operation PunchEasy Company had to contend with entrenchedNorth Korean and Chinese troops and the souland bone wearying bitter cold and snow of theKorean winter. They were also angered by aChinese combat bulletin the Captain had found,which stated that American troops were afraid ofclose combat and especially the bayonet — prefer-ring to rely on arti l lery and air power to do theirwork for them (actually a very sensible tactic, butonly when appropriate).

The aggressive leadership provided by Cap-tain Millett and the weapons discipline and train-ing he had instilled in his men came to fruition on7 February 1951. Approaching a hill on the map

page 15

The JOURNAL

that was simply labeled #180, they came underfire from well-entrenched Chinese troops. Thehill (actually a series of three knobs) overlookedthe march route of the entire I Corps, and had tobe taken. Using his third platoon for fire supportand suppression, Captain Millett ordered his sup-porting tanks to shell the hill and the entrenchedenemy. However, the gutsy and stubborn Chi-nese laid down an accurate fire from their pro-tected positions and the two platoons were re-quired to advance under fire across the openground to the base of the hill.

Upon reaching the base of the hill CaptainMillett led his troops up the steep incline througha hail of grenades and bullets. The Captain per-sonally charged an entrenched "buffalo gun" (anantitank gun turned on his troops) and leaped intoposition bayoneting all three of its crewmen,while his troops followed behind emulating histactics and clearing the Chinese out of their fox-holes with bullets and cold steel. It was not untilthe fighting had died down that the Captain sud-denly realized he had been wounded by grenadefragments in his back and legs, and that this hadeven occurred before he had jumped into the gunpit. The Chinese, to their credit, had stubbornlyresisted his overwhelming assault with more than50% of their 200 plus troops being killed orwounded before retreating.

It was for this action that Captain Millett wasawarded the Medal of Honor. His citation states"...and with fixed bayonet, (he) led the assault upthe fire-swept hill..'.his dauntless leadership andpersonal courage so inspired his men that theystormed into the hostile position and used theirbayonets with such lethal effect that the enemyfled..." Incidentally the citation also reads, "whileurging his men forward shouting encouragement."What the Captain actually shouted was "Come onyou sons-of-bitches and fight," an expression histroops distinctly remembered with some shockduring the after-action interviews, as this was notCaptain Millett's normal way of addressing them.

Captain Milieu's bayonet charge was at thetime called by historian, and later General, S.L. A.Marshall, the "greatest bayonet attack by U.S.soldiers since Cold Harbor in the Civil War." Itshould be noted that General Marshall's proseshould not be taken as in any way detracting fromthe heroism of any other U.S. units that wouldchallenge his use of the words "the greatest." Thedesignation of the last and greatest bayonet chargehas still not been settled, even among veterans ofVietnam, and certainly the future may yet holdsurprise.

Colonel Millett continued to serve throughthe Vietnam War, trained Vietnamese Rangers,served during the '68 Tet crisis and generallyavoided anything that looked like a desk or chair.As with many such officers, he was heartbrokenwhen we withdrew from Vietnam, deserting ourallies and the many Vietnamese who had riskedtheir lives by siding with us. The Colonel finallyretired from the Army in 1973.

As an aside, it should be noted that the MlGarand bayonet, seen in the illustrated photos ofColonel Millett, is the one with which he earnedhis Medal of Honor. Like many junior officers inthe Korean War, he had taken to carrying themore powerful Ml rifle, rather than depending onhis 1911A1 pistol or the Ml carbine, with itsmuch less powerful cartridge.

I should like to credit the staff of the formerPhrobis III Corporation, General Mike Michaelisand the old Collier's Magazine for their assis-tance. I should wish to thank Colonel Lewis L.Millett for his time, assistance and patience dur-ing my research for this article.

page 16

The S.A.B.C. JOURNAL

Phrobis & The M9 Bayonet—Part Four

The Army M9 and the Phrobis-Buck Commercial M9by Homer M. Brett

I n my last article on Phrobis and the M9bayonet (S.A.B.C Journal No. 7), Phrobis IIIhad won the U.S. Army XM9 Bayonet Trials

and been awarded the M9 bayonet contract. Thecompany then produced the required FirstArticle Test M9s, which the Army approved,allowing Phrobis to begin production of the M9bayonet. The first production bayonets madewere the 1,200 "Chevron" marked models; andafter these, there followed the balance of thecontract's bayonets, finally reaching a total of315,600 Phrobis-made M9s.

At the same time the production bayo-nets were beginning to come off the manu-facturing line, Phrobis was also planning itscorporate expansion based on the Army's ex-pected future delivery of an additional "100%add-on" contract option. Phrobis was also devel-oping a number of new knife designs for theU.S. Navy SEALs, and for future commercialproduction. Also in its early design stage was

an improved M9 bayonet, the future M9-A1.This fourth article in the continuing

series, Phrobis & the M9 Bayonet, will cover thebayonets of the Phrobis U.S. Army M9 contract,as well as the commercial M9 bayonets pro-duced under license from the Phrobis III by theBuck Knives Corporation.

Illustrated in this article are the blademarkings of the Army's XM9, the "Chevron"M9, the non "Patent Pending" marked M9, andthe "Patent Pending" marked M9. Also shownare the markings of the Phrobis-Buck commer-cial bayonets.

What is often not understood is that thePhrobis M9 contract was not a U.S. Army"developmental" contract. The Army's publiclystated aim, and its plan from the very begin-ning, was to conduct a competitive bayonet trialfor all the submitted designs, from which itwould select the best bayonet based on thetrials results. The Army also specifically stated

page 4 VOLUME 21, FALL 1997

The S.A.B.C. JOURNAL

that while price would be a consideration in thebayonet's selection, it would not be the majorselection factor. The U.S. Army wanted the bestbayonet that it could afford in an "off-the-shelfpurchase".

Once purchased, this new bayonet de-sign would be rapidly deployed to all Armyfront-line combat units. The challenge put to theservice was to provide its combat soldiers witha modern multi-use bayonet, and to do so inless than the normal ten year developmentalcycle. In fact, the first Phrobis M9 bayonets weredelivered to the 1st Battalion, 58th Rangers atFort Benning, less than fifteen months after the10 December 1985 date which formally es-tablished the Army's official bayonet re-quirement.

The phrase, "off-the-shelf" was the mostimportant description applied to the soon-to-be-purchased M9s, and its use haunted and influ-enced the M9's lack of changes and improve-ments throughout the entire Phrobis contract. Infact, of the six competitors who submittedbayonet designs for the XM9 trials (and a sev-enth company which was unable to submit itsbayonets in time), only one bayonet design wasactually in military-commercial production atthe time the Army sent out its manufacturer'squestionnaire in 1985.

Only the German firm of A. Eickhorn,successor to Carl Eickhorn of Solingen, actuallyhad their KCB-77 (Knife, Cutter, Bayonet-1977)in commercial-military production. All of theother five designs (Phrobis, Imperial, S-Tron,Marto, and Royal Ordnance) were in theirdevelopmental stages even as the 1986 Trialsdate was officially announced.

The submission of their various designsand competitive bids by the six companies wereheld in the shadow of the Army's on-going andextremely acrimonious competitive trials for itsnew pistol, the Beretta 92 (finally adopted as theM9 pistol). Beretta had won the official Armyshoot-out in 1984, but problems in the testing,and a tremendous amount of Washington poli-tics had intervened to push for a retrial of allthe pistols involved. Some of this pressure andinfluence was from important officials from theNew England state involved, and the Army wasultimately forced to repeat the pistol trials at agreat expense in time and money in 1987-88.

The Beretta 92 again won, but the Army'sprocurement system kept finding its fingers con-stantly in the fire.

This on-going political firefight made theArmy extremely reluctant to allow Phrobis tochange any major feature on the M9 bayonetthroughout the entire contract. In fact, thephysical changes that were approved by theArmy involved only such features as blademarkings, the reduction in length of the web legtie-down loop by 60% (its original length inter-fered with the wire cutting function), replace-ment of the brass rivets that held the Bianchiclip to the webbing with (magnetic) stainlesssteel rivets, and some additional very minorchanges.

During the length of the contract, Phro-bis offered the Army a number of serious designimprovements at no additional cost to theArmy. This even included an integral blade stopfor the bayonet. Despite this, the Army procure-ment bureaucracy, worried about potential law-suits from the other trials competitors, con-tinued to reject any major alterations to the M9.

Even without any of the suggested al-terations, the Army had already dealt with anumber of lawsuits filed to protest the awardingof the M9 contract to Phrobis III. The ImperialSchrade Corporation of Rhode Island filed aprotest, but the Federal court threw its suit outbecause it had been filed after the legal filingdeadline. The Ontario knife Corporation of NewYork also protested, but the court ruled that itsXM9 bayonets were submitted too late for theTrials; and as clearly stated in the Army's Trialspaperwork, this was proper grounds for Ontar-io's rejection. Even the German firm of A.Eickhorn seriously considered filing a lawsuit,but the company that represented it in the U.S.felt that this was not a cost-effective action, sothe potential suit was never submitted.

Both Imperial and Ontario were fromstates with a great deal of political clout inCongress, and this made the Army very skittishabout making any changes to its "off-the-self"purchase. These political problems also ul-timately resulted (unofficially) in Phrobis III notreceiving the originally promised 100% add-onM9 contract, and the loss of that contract wasone of the major causes of the financial demiseof the corporation.

VOLUME 21, FALL 1997 page 5

The S.A.B.C. JOURNAL

Phrobis delivered on its M9 bayonet con-tract, as specified, and ahead of its requireddelivery schedule, completing the contract inSeptember of 1989. The company was also pre-sented with a U.S. Government achievementaward for its exemplary performance in com-pleting its contract. Despite this, Phrobis wasunable to overcome the Army's caution aboutthe possible political repercussions of the con-tract. This was not dissimilar to Beretta's prob-lems in having to reshoot the Army's pistolstrials.

Sadly, before the next U.S. Army M9contract was offered out for public bidding, thefirm of Phrobis III had ceased to exist.

Please note that all Phrobis-made U.S.Army XM9 through M9 bayonets have theirblade markings stamped on their left ricassos.No Phrobis-made U.S. Army bayonets were everstamped on their right ricassos.

The Phrobis Trials XM9 bayonet was en-

'•...

M9

XM9

M9PHROSIS IE

Army "Chevron"

graved (not stamped) with a 2-line marking onthe blade's left ricasso. The "XM9" was theBayonet Trial designation, and the number "29"was the individual Trials number assigned toPhrobis.

The "Chevron" M9 bayonet had a 3-linestamp on the blade's left ricasso, and includedthe illustrated Chevron marking immediatelyafter the "U.S.A."

The first of the post-Chevron M9 bayo-nets were stamped on the left side of the blade'sricasso with a similar 3-line marking. Thissecond 3-line marking is not often seen, as itwas only used until the fall of 1987, whenPhrobis requested, and received from the Army,authorization (on 16 September 1987) to markthe bayonets with a 4-line marking:

M9PHROBIS III

U.S.A.Pat. Pend.

The 4-line marking was the final Phrobisblade marking of the U.S. Army M9 contract,and was used on the majority of the bayonetsmade during the contract.

A careful look at the early Phrobis ricas-so markings reveals some variation in the actualstyle of the letters used on the die stamps. Someof the early 3-line stamps had letters with theirtops a bit more squared, rather than intersectingat sharp angles. This was probably not a pur-poseful design, but simply the way the stampswere made by the die stamp manufacturer.Since the variation is fairly minor, it may noteven have been noticed on the production line.

Of special note is that the Army 3-linestamped bayonets will always have a long webleg tie-down loop, and brass rivets retaining theBianchi clip. Some of the earliest of the 3-linestamped bayonets will also have the earlyproduction M9 latch plate, which has sides thatgently curve down (i.e. more rounded) to the

Army 3-line

M9PHROBISII

U.S.A.

Army 4-line

bottom of the plate, as you look at the rear ofthe bayonet.

The 4-line bayonets can be found withboth lengths of web leg tie-down loops, andeven occasionally with brass webbing rivets.However, neither of these early features lastedvery long on the 4-line bayonets. The 4-linebayonet also has a latch plate whose sides aremathematically parallel, and a circumferencethat is less rounded than is the early latch plate.

The Phrobis-Buck Commercial M9 BayonetAs part of their contractual agreement

with Buck Knives, which served as a sub-contractor to Phrobis on the Army M9 bayonetcontract, Phrobis agreed to license Buck toproduce a commercial version of the M9 bayo-net. This bayonet would then be sold underBuck's name, with Buck alone paying to marketand advertise it. The agreement also stipulatedthat the bayonet would be marked with Phrobis'name, exactly as stamped on the U.S. Army

page 6 VOLUME 21, FALL 1997

The S.A.B.C. JOURNAL

M9s.

Commercial MarkingThis commercial bayonet was to be of

the same pattern and design as the Army M9,but it was not required to be totally milspec.Additionally, after an extremely heated ar-gument between the two companies, Buck wasfinally permitted to equip the commercial M9swith a circular pin-style blade stop on the cutterplate. This was done at Buck's request in orderto lessen the company's risk of liability if any-one was injured while using the bayonet's wirecutter function.

Because of this modification, it alsobecame necessary to modify the axis of the com-mercial bayonet's cutter plate T-lug; otherwise,the added blade stop would have prevented theuse of the bayonet in its wire cutter function.For this reason alone, the T-lug on the Phrobis-Buck commercial M9 has its horizontal axis par-allel to the top edge of the cutter plate. On theArmy issue bayonet, the T-lug runs from an 8o'clock, to a 2 o'clock angle on the cutter plate.

Commercial (left) and Military Cutter Plates

On the left side of the commercial bayo-net's ricasso, the 3-line Phrobis military bladestamp was first used, and later the 4-line Phro-bis military stamp. In addition to the Armyblade stamp on the left ricasso, the Phrobis-Buckcommercial bayonets also had an added BuckKnives commercial stamp on their right ricassos:

Buck188

U.S.A.>The #188 was Buck's model designation

for the commercial M9, and to the right of the"U.S.A." there was also a small, year-of-manu-facture symbol. Buck Knives had adopted this

dating system on all its products in 1986. Thefirst commercial-year symbol used on the Phro-bis-Buck commercial M9 bayonet was a "che-vron" with its apex pointing to the right (1987),with the following year's chevron (1988) poin-ting upwards, and the 1989 chevron pointingdownwards. The last Phrobis-Buck commercialbayonet had the year marking "x" for 1990. Buckhad already generated the symbols for theproduction years of 1986 to 2006, and after 1990all Buck marked M9 bayonets were of post-Phrobis production.

By checking the year date stamp on anyBuck M9 bayonet blade, the collector can ascer-tain the exact year of manufacture (but not nec-essarily the year of assembly), starting in 1987.

It should also be noted that all of thedata collected to date indicates that the Phrobis3-line military blade stamp was used only onBuck commercial M9 bayonets that are alsomarked with Buck's 1987 year symbol (>). Allsubsequent years' production have the Phrobis4-line blade stamp on them. The Phrobis-Buckcommercial M9 was produced both with theArmy's light gray, bead blasted, stainless steelblade, and also in much smaller numbers witha commercial-only black oxided blade. Both ver-sions of the Phrobis-Buck bayonet were deliv-ered to the commercial market in an attractivetwo-piece box, with a medium green colored topembellished with white lettering on all of its fivesides. The bottom half of the box was made ofwhite cardboard.

Of additional note is that, like the Armybayonets, the Phrobis-Buck bayonets had thePhrobis dolphin logo stamped on the face oftheir crossguards, and also molded into thescabbard body, just below the sharpening stone.

Although collectors will occasionallyencounter commercially marked Phrobis-BuckM9s in U.S. Army units, it needs to be clearlystated that no U.S. Army Phrobis contract M9bayonets ever had "Buck" blade markings, ormarkings on the blade's right ricasso (exceptingthe engraved serial numbers of the presentation"Chevrons").

Also former U.S. soldiers (and oc-casionally Marines) are sometimes encounteredwho swear that they brought back what isobviously a commercially marked M9 from theDesert Shield-Desert Storm campaign. While it

VOLUME 21, FALL 1997 page 7

The S.A.B.C. JOURNAL

is often difficult to guarantee the provenance ofbayonets such as these, it should not be auto-matically presumed that the bayonet's owner ismistaken, or is exaggerating the bayonet'shistory. Many of the Army's combat units didnot receive the M9 bayonet in time for theirdeployments to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, soour ever-resourceful soldiers (and some Mar-ines) cleaned out their local knife and surplusstores that were anywhere near a military base.This also happened to the M9 stocks of themajor mail order military equipment companiessuch as U.S. Cavalry, Brigade Quartermaster,and Ranger Joe's.

Commercial Phrobis-Buck M9s have alsoleaked into the U.S. supply system from soldierswho purchased a commercial bayonet to replacea lost, broken, or stolen issue M9; this in orderprevent their being fined or otherwise dis-ciplined.

In some of the Army's airborne units,when the "loss" of bayonets during parachutejumps began to dramatically increase (a greatexcuse to "glom" on to your bayonet), the in-dividual paratrooper was required not only toreplace the bayonet, but he would also be de-moted one rank as well. This quickly reducedthe loss of M9s during parachuting, as it madethe loss of a bayonet so expensive that it wasmuch cheaper to buy one on the commercialmarket.

Commercially marked Phrobis-Buckbayonets were never purposely included in anyU.S. Army bayonet delivery from Phrobis; andgiven their separate production cycles, it ishighly unlikely that any slipped into the supplysystem in this manner.

The Phrobis Army M9 contract wassuccessfully completed in September 1989, justin time for December's "Operation Just Cause"in Panama. It was there that the Phrobis M9received is first baptism of fire, an experiencethat it came out of with a number of publiclyprinted military kudos.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSI wish to thank Lieutenant Colonel Greg

Lngieman, and the many members of the Wist Air-borne (Air Assault) Division, and the 82nd AirborneDivision for their cooperation and assistance incollecting the data for this artide.n

H.M.B., Phrobis Corporate Historian

HICKJ88

Illustrating the single blade fuller on the right sideof Phrobis and Phrobis-Buck commercial bayonets.The Buck Knives reicasso marking shows that thisis unquestionably a Phrobis-Buck commercial bayon-et.

page 8 VOLUME 21, FALL 1997