The whole story is 12 pages long so I try to cut it short. It was meant to be a comparison of tactical folders and the tests were the following:
The maximum points that were possible for each test were 10.
1) Cutting (pulling)
They cut an 8 mm rope of polypropylene several times and kept a record of how many cuts were needed to cut through it completely. Then they took the average number of cuts from every knife to the final results.
2) Cutting (pushing)
Again the 8 mm rope. They tried to push the blades through the rope with both hands on the spine of the blade. It was recorded how deep the edge penetrated the rope and how often they had to try until the rope was cut.
Again the average number of trials went to the final results.
3) Lock
They just performed a spinewhack test on the knives. 5 hard smacks whith the spine on a hard surface within a very short time. Nothing really fancy, so it's no wonder that all knives passed this test.
4) Tip
They dropped the knives from the height of 1 m on a sheet of steel and recorded the damages.
5) Pivot / blade play
The knives were clamped in a vise directly under the handle. The a force of 15 kg (in the second run 25 kg) was applied to the end of the handle. Afterwards it was recorded if the alignment of the blade had changed and the differences were recorded in °. The knives were also tested for pladeplay after this test.
6) Bending test
Just like I descirbed in my posting above...
7) Is the handle slippery?
They clamped the blade in a vise and applied oil (Ballistol if you know it) to the handle and the hand of the tester. It was tested how easy the handle slipped out of the hand.
Final Points (max. 10 per category) for the ATR:
Overall cutting: 10
Lock: 10
Stability of the blade: 7
Stability of the handle/pivot/bearing: 10
Overall handling: 6
Quality: 10
Relation of price & performance: 7
TOTAL: 60 (the winner scored 62)
Comments about the ATR:
The magazine said that Spyderco equipped the ATR with modern and good (and pricey) materials, that the Handle looked classy but it was very slippery with wet hands. They also said that the blade was perfectly ground and extremly sharp and that the steel has a great ability in egde retention but that it's more brittle than others what also was proven in the tests (Doh! Why do they have to ruin a perfectly good knife just to prove what they already knew!!! Grrrr...) Overall they said that the ATR is a very high quality and beautiful knife but it doesn't fulfill all requirements to a "tactical knife". In the comments after the tests they said that the ATR clearly had the best cutting abilities but due to the slippery grip and the broken blade it didn't win.
The actual favourite of the author was the Emerson Commander. It had in his point of view the best handle and an excellent blade wich opened smoothly. Why did it score the last place? It had bladeplay, the blade wasn't held securely in the handle while closed, the liner grabbed the blade so firm that it stuck and if you opened the knife fast it stuck so hard that it was almost impossible to disengage. That and the fact that it costs almost EUR 300 on the other hand was too much and therefore it lost too many points wrote the author.
For me the bis question is: Is the ATR really a tactical knife?
I think that if you charge it by the looks - NO Maybe if you let the materials speak for them self but it looks more like a very modern but still elegant and fashionable gentlemens knife.
I also get angry everytime I see tests where good and expensive knives are destroyed. They shoud have sent it to me instead
damn, that was a long post....
Cheers, Robert
P.S.
Sorry if the English seems a bit strange. If I said something funny which cannot be understood - Just ask!
