-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is ready to order! See this thread for details: https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/bladeforums-2024-traditional-knife.2003187/
Price is$300$250 ea (shipped within CONUS). If you live outside the US, I will contact you after your order for extra shipping charges.
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/ - Order as many as you like, we have plenty.
A Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words
- Thread starter Ernest Emerson
- Start date
- Joined
- May 21, 2000
- Messages
- 6,250
I don't think the test really proves anything. Knives are for cutting, not prying.
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2002
- Messages
- 9,948
That was pretty cool! As an ATR owner, I'm disappointed that the test blade didn't survive and then dice all of the other knives, but that was still cool. Too cool.
I believe that the Stryker was the 154CM model as other knives had subtype markings, such as the 880T from Buck.
Semper Fi,
My Chiruwa is maybe only 3/8" thick. Are the thicker spined Chiruwa AKs from back in the day?
I believe that the Stryker was the 154CM model as other knives had subtype markings, such as the 880T from Buck.
Semper Fi,
My Chiruwa is maybe only 3/8" thick. Are the thicker spined Chiruwa AKs from back in the day?
- Joined
- Apr 5, 1999
- Messages
- 460
In Reference to the Comments by Madfast and Electric Zombie
Maybe I wasnt too clear about the point I was making on this post. It was very simple. Always treat data or tests done by a manufacturer with suspicion when it is in regard to their own product. Sorry you missed the point.
Now, since you have made a couple of additional points, Ill lend my view. There were quite a number of tests done on the knives that did include cutting, chopping, etc. etc. etc. so they were not just tested as pry bars.
But Im going to tell you a couple of things that concern me.
1. If you make a knife advertised as a tactical knife, or a rescue Knife then you better believe its going to be used to pry at some point in time. You better hope that tactical knife doesnt break when youre trying to extract a baby from a burning vehicle.
2. Mike was right in his post. Knives in the military are more likely to be used as pry bars than cutting tools. Its the nature of the environment. Ive got to tell you the AK-47 bayonet is one of the toughest tools on this planet (Ive used them) and if you make a folder carrying that name it should live up to at least, a little, of that reputation.
3. Emerson Knives was contacted by the U.S. Navy SBU (Special Boat Units) and Navy SAR (Search and Rescue) teams to develop a Rescue Knife. The reason was due to a terrible accident in which a Marine Helicopter clipped the rigging on the back of a Navy boat and flipped over and into the water. The boat crews in the water were on site in about 45 seconds. The issued knives actually named The xxx Rescue Knife could not cut through the harnesses and actually broke blades snapped when the crews were trying to free the Marines. As a result I believe 8 Marines went down with the helo. We got the call as a result of the after action reports the official words were that the issued rescue knives suffered catastrophic failure.
4. It was determined that the failure of the knives contributed to the death of those Marines. Remember, these knives were actually called the xxx Rescue Knife, by the company that made them.
A knife company can make any kind of knife they want from pen knives to Machetes. But you better call it what it is.
You call a knife a Tactical Knife or a Rescue Knife and youve now stepped into a different ball game. You better understand what those names mean and you better accept the ethical and moral responsibility that you are now accepting. You better know how your knives are going to be used and that someones life may depend on its performance. When its your turn at bat in my world and youre called to task, you better stand tall.
In the end, advertising dollars and cool names do not make a Tactical Knife, (or a Rescue Knife for that matter). The bottom line is this, if youre a lightweight boxer, dont get into the ring with the heavyweights because they will kick your ass. Dont delude yourself or the public.
As far as sharpness and cutting ability are concerned let me say this; I can take a 3 dollar chef knife from the grocery store, sharpen it and cut a one inch free hanging rope. Ive done it.
Would I take this knife into a tactical environment? No. But then, its not advertised as a tactical, or a rescue knife.
Son, you got me a little spun up and this really has little to do with the point of my original post but in the end as I have always said, painting it black and grey doesnt make it a Tactical Knife.
Ernest R. Emerson
14 May 2004
Maybe I wasnt too clear about the point I was making on this post. It was very simple. Always treat data or tests done by a manufacturer with suspicion when it is in regard to their own product. Sorry you missed the point.
Now, since you have made a couple of additional points, Ill lend my view. There were quite a number of tests done on the knives that did include cutting, chopping, etc. etc. etc. so they were not just tested as pry bars.
But Im going to tell you a couple of things that concern me.
1. If you make a knife advertised as a tactical knife, or a rescue Knife then you better believe its going to be used to pry at some point in time. You better hope that tactical knife doesnt break when youre trying to extract a baby from a burning vehicle.
2. Mike was right in his post. Knives in the military are more likely to be used as pry bars than cutting tools. Its the nature of the environment. Ive got to tell you the AK-47 bayonet is one of the toughest tools on this planet (Ive used them) and if you make a folder carrying that name it should live up to at least, a little, of that reputation.
3. Emerson Knives was contacted by the U.S. Navy SBU (Special Boat Units) and Navy SAR (Search and Rescue) teams to develop a Rescue Knife. The reason was due to a terrible accident in which a Marine Helicopter clipped the rigging on the back of a Navy boat and flipped over and into the water. The boat crews in the water were on site in about 45 seconds. The issued knives actually named The xxx Rescue Knife could not cut through the harnesses and actually broke blades snapped when the crews were trying to free the Marines. As a result I believe 8 Marines went down with the helo. We got the call as a result of the after action reports the official words were that the issued rescue knives suffered catastrophic failure.
4. It was determined that the failure of the knives contributed to the death of those Marines. Remember, these knives were actually called the xxx Rescue Knife, by the company that made them.
A knife company can make any kind of knife they want from pen knives to Machetes. But you better call it what it is.
You call a knife a Tactical Knife or a Rescue Knife and youve now stepped into a different ball game. You better understand what those names mean and you better accept the ethical and moral responsibility that you are now accepting. You better know how your knives are going to be used and that someones life may depend on its performance. When its your turn at bat in my world and youre called to task, you better stand tall.
In the end, advertising dollars and cool names do not make a Tactical Knife, (or a Rescue Knife for that matter). The bottom line is this, if youre a lightweight boxer, dont get into the ring with the heavyweights because they will kick your ass. Dont delude yourself or the public.
As far as sharpness and cutting ability are concerned let me say this; I can take a 3 dollar chef knife from the grocery store, sharpen it and cut a one inch free hanging rope. Ive done it.
Would I take this knife into a tactical environment? No. But then, its not advertised as a tactical, or a rescue knife.
Son, you got me a little spun up and this really has little to do with the point of my original post but in the end as I have always said, painting it black and grey doesnt make it a Tactical Knife.
Ernest R. Emerson
14 May 2004
Mr Emerson, i respect you and your knives, but my point is very simple: it doesn't take a genius or a 12 page german article to tell me a commander is going to last longer than an ak47 or ATR, etc. just hold them in your hands and you'll know which is going to take more abuse.
people in the knife community don't buy into all that marketing crap. if company A wants to say knife A is "tactical" but we enthusiasts KNOW that it's NOT then can we really fault the knife? or should we fault the manufacturer? or the marketing team?
the article in question IMO is useless. it pits real "tactical" knives with "nominally tactical" knives. besides the CRKT holding up so well, is anybody really surprised about the result??? We already knew emersons and striders were tanks, do we really need a 12 page article to tell us that?
people in the knife community don't buy into all that marketing crap. if company A wants to say knife A is "tactical" but we enthusiasts KNOW that it's NOT then can we really fault the knife? or should we fault the manufacturer? or the marketing team?
the article in question IMO is useless. it pits real "tactical" knives with "nominally tactical" knives. besides the CRKT holding up so well, is anybody really surprised about the result??? We already knew emersons and striders were tanks, do we really need a 12 page article to tell us that?
What's really interesting is how some other knife fans are trying to spin the results already!
Despite the fact that the knife that some claim came in second place on points broke at the tip!
It reminds me of when a certain knife company submitted knives for evaluation to Naval Special Warfare Group and even though these knives failed, the fact that they were submitted and evaluated made for alot of marketing hype back in the 1980's!
What's more interesting is the politics that go on at some Service evaluations. A certain maker's knives were submitted, tested, passed with flting colors but never made "official" because the Brass thought they were too radical! Bright side of the story is the men who needed the knives saw the results and privately purchased the maker's knives out of their own pockets.
I did the same as a Marine when my issued blades were insufficient for anything but spreading peanut butter on MRE crackers!
Despite the fact that the knife that some claim came in second place on points broke at the tip!
It reminds me of when a certain knife company submitted knives for evaluation to Naval Special Warfare Group and even though these knives failed, the fact that they were submitted and evaluated made for alot of marketing hype back in the 1980's!
What's more interesting is the politics that go on at some Service evaluations. A certain maker's knives were submitted, tested, passed with flting colors but never made "official" because the Brass thought they were too radical! Bright side of the story is the men who needed the knives saw the results and privately purchased the maker's knives out of their own pockets.
I did the same as a Marine when my issued blades were insufficient for anything but spreading peanut butter on MRE crackers!
Cliff Stamp
BANNED
- Joined
- Oct 5, 1998
- Messages
- 17,562
Madfast while it can be obvious to an experienced knife user that the performance came out as expected, not everyone buying those knives could readily make those predictions.
You can find a lot of knives promoted as "tactical" with large variations in geometry, tests like the above show that there is a corrosponding difference in strength. Thus an individual can look at the work, see what they want and buy the correct knife.
How to judge the review depends a lot on how the results were interpreted. It seems a decent effort was made to use the knives for both cutting and prying, as the heaviest made knife didn't dominate the work.
What surprises me is that Emerson readily promoted the review which has his knife outperformed by one of the cheaper brands on the market. You would expect as the much greater price point to be able to get a directly superior product, but you have to consider of course different optomization goals.
For those interested 1 N.m is 0.738 ft.lbs, so the torques of 150 and 250 N.m's, were 111 and 185 ft.lbs respectively. These are fairly large torques. For perspective, ~100 ft.lbs will break the Fallkniven F1, and ~200 ft.lbs breaks the S1.
It is also difficult to apply such forces to folders as the piviot distances are typically small unless you artifically pipe the end of the handle. Using your actual hand, piviot distances outside of focused tip work are ~6", so you would want ~200 and ~400 lbs respectively to get those torques.
The latter really isn't possible unless your cousin is a low land silverback gorilla.
-Cliff
You can find a lot of knives promoted as "tactical" with large variations in geometry, tests like the above show that there is a corrosponding difference in strength. Thus an individual can look at the work, see what they want and buy the correct knife.
How to judge the review depends a lot on how the results were interpreted. It seems a decent effort was made to use the knives for both cutting and prying, as the heaviest made knife didn't dominate the work.
What surprises me is that Emerson readily promoted the review which has his knife outperformed by one of the cheaper brands on the market. You would expect as the much greater price point to be able to get a directly superior product, but you have to consider of course different optomization goals.
For those interested 1 N.m is 0.738 ft.lbs, so the torques of 150 and 250 N.m's, were 111 and 185 ft.lbs respectively. These are fairly large torques. For perspective, ~100 ft.lbs will break the Fallkniven F1, and ~200 ft.lbs breaks the S1.
It is also difficult to apply such forces to folders as the piviot distances are typically small unless you artifically pipe the end of the handle. Using your actual hand, piviot distances outside of focused tip work are ~6", so you would want ~200 and ~400 lbs respectively to get those torques.
The latter really isn't possible unless your cousin is a low land silverback gorilla.
-Cliff
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2000
- Messages
- 3,794
Mick Strider and Duane Dwyer ENCOURAGE it. Mick, himself says,"If you break it I'll be impressed."
For one I do doubt Mick or Duane are "encouraging" as you say. I remember Micks post couple or so years ago, about knives broken on purpose by abuse. According to Mick replacements were marked so they they knew it was an abuser and I guess second time he wouldn't get the replacement. If you dig the archives that info will be there and a lot more.
BTW Mick didn't like when his knives were called sharpened prybar either. So, I doubt he'll promote his knive as such.
I've received the same type of coverage from Strider, Reeve, Microtech, Allen Elishewitz,Spyderco, and to their credit, Cold Steel in the old days.
Have you broken any of the above in the manner used in that test?
I think CS would never replace a knife if U said U broke it torqueing in the wise, they clearly state it.
but how do you account for the Benchmade breaking so far from the tip?
Because BM was at least 2 hrc(or more) harder than other blades? I myself don't like 154CM steel blades from BM, and in older days it was overhardened, though the word is they've fixed the problem by now.
And blade geometry perhaps. Never had 910 myself, tantos are not my preferred style, so I might be wrong on that one.
I don't care what you say about the steel...fact of the matter is that they held this knife up to replace the CQC7 when the 970 was removed from the lineup.
Well, if you look from prybar perspective, yeah you shouldn't care about the steel, any steel bar will do. Although knife in general is a cutting tool first, and then something else.
Obviously it was better if it hadn't broken, I agree.
Looks like they need to go back to the drawing board.
What for? To meet your criteria, or in general that test criteria all thay would have to do is use softer and tougher steel, would be a lot cheaper for them too. Most of the 5$ flea market POS blade won't break in that test anyway, just bend
Anyway, to me that test doesn't really provide any new or useful info. And I don't quite understand what sort of cutting was done that the results are that close. Was it factory edges? What were they cutting?
For one I do doubt Mick or Duane are "encouraging" as you say. I remember Micks post couple or so years ago, about knives broken on purpose by abuse. According to Mick replacements were marked so they they knew it was an abuser and I guess second time he wouldn't get the replacement. If you dig the archives that info will be there and a lot more.
BTW Mick didn't like when his knives were called sharpened prybar either. So, I doubt he'll promote his knive as such.
I've received the same type of coverage from Strider, Reeve, Microtech, Allen Elishewitz,Spyderco, and to their credit, Cold Steel in the old days.
Have you broken any of the above in the manner used in that test?
I think CS would never replace a knife if U said U broke it torqueing in the wise, they clearly state it.
but how do you account for the Benchmade breaking so far from the tip?
Because BM was at least 2 hrc(or more) harder than other blades? I myself don't like 154CM steel blades from BM, and in older days it was overhardened, though the word is they've fixed the problem by now.
And blade geometry perhaps. Never had 910 myself, tantos are not my preferred style, so I might be wrong on that one.
I don't care what you say about the steel...fact of the matter is that they held this knife up to replace the CQC7 when the 970 was removed from the lineup.
Well, if you look from prybar perspective, yeah you shouldn't care about the steel, any steel bar will do. Although knife in general is a cutting tool first, and then something else.
Obviously it was better if it hadn't broken, I agree.
Looks like they need to go back to the drawing board.
What for? To meet your criteria, or in general that test criteria all thay would have to do is use softer and tougher steel, would be a lot cheaper for them too. Most of the 5$ flea market POS blade won't break in that test anyway, just bend
Anyway, to me that test doesn't really provide any new or useful info. And I don't quite understand what sort of cutting was done that the results are that close. Was it factory edges? What were they cutting?
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2003
- Messages
- 1,321
Simply some rope.
Factory edges, yes.
For me, there is a difference between the frame of the Commander and CRKT (both are flexible against side pressure) and the frames of the others, which are fixed by a third screw.
I wish that fact were mentioned in the ratings of that test.
Factory edges, yes.
For me, there is a difference between the frame of the Commander and CRKT (both are flexible against side pressure) and the frames of the others, which are fixed by a third screw.
I wish that fact were mentioned in the ratings of that test.
Doubt all you want, I don't go by posts...I go by what the man said to me! Mick showed me a knife at the SHOT Show and said those words to me. I'm not a regular on Blade Forums, but I have seen the same mentioned elsewhere on the net. I will not violate the forum policy by cross posting, but you are more than welcome to look around and find the same testimonials.Gator97 said:
Well, considering I don't speak German...how can I know how they tested each knife?Gator97 said:
I've screwed a few knives up in my day...when you're a Marine Grunt that's what happens...tips break, blades tweak, you sharpen on a whetstone in the field, etc. I've never had anything break like the BM did in the test if that's what you're asking...but I have had blades bend, edges chip, lost screws, etc.
The Cold Steel of yesteryear used to bend over backwards for us guys in the Military, i don't know if they still do or not. I graduated from CS knives a long while ago and due to LT's comments have gotten rid of every piece I had in my collection that had their name on it. To their credit they have sent me replacement knives, parts, and fixed things for me with no charge.
To the rest of your post, I'll say this...the Stryker was to replace the CQC7. One of Mr Emerson's knives never would have broken that way...this one did.
They obviously have gone back to the drawing board as this knife is no longer in their lineup.
We're getting way off the subject though. Bottom line...after seeing translations of the test here and on the Spyderco forum fans of one brand are spinning it how they want.
It brings to mind the saying: Statistics don't lie, but liars use statistics! No I am not calling you or the spyderco fans liars, I collect and love spydies, myself! I also appreciate what you are trying to say.
Try this experiment...pick any 2 knives from the test at random...at random again make one the "winner" and write an ad copy supporting it. Then point out how the "loser" failed.
Case in point try the Strider vs the BM. A good Ad man can make that BM the "winner" and the Buck Strider the "loser".
I like Spyderco knives, but I think this was good test and it shows what it shows. Under the conditions tested, based on the point system, I would readily declare the Emerson comander as winner and not the CRKT and that is really the end and bottom line of the test.
On a different note though I would like to add, that you really have to read the test carefully. Do I think it is sensible to test a knife with a 4mm blade against 3mm blades in a lateral break test? No. And I am not saying this in favor of any brand as both the Commander and the ATR are about 3mm while the Stryder is 4mm. I think you just have to know what you compare. Also there is no mentioning of distal taper, so you don't even know what the effective blade thickness is. The same goes with blade width. Both the Boker and the Spyderco broke where the blade is substantially less wide than the Commander and the Stryder, and it is quite obivious that a blade that has less width will break sooner than a wide blade. I would very much like to know were the load was applied. Every blade design is a trade of between different parameters, and simply by visual inspection it should be obvious that the ATR and the Stryder were not designed for the same lateral loads. Lastly this still doesn't address the question, what kind of strength is enough. Is it really necessary for a knife to sustain a load that a human hand can not generate (see Cliff Stamp's post). I guess that is a question everybody has to decide for him or her self. I personally think that Cliff's tests are more informative than this one.
But while keeping the things mentioned above in mind, information can be gained from almost every test and I don't think that this test was a particularly bad one. Also a test has a winner and sometimes also a looser which may even be much more pronounced than the winner. And I think that this test had both, and they should be aknowledged. The winner being the Emerson Commander, the looser the BM.
On a different note though I would like to add, that you really have to read the test carefully. Do I think it is sensible to test a knife with a 4mm blade against 3mm blades in a lateral break test? No. And I am not saying this in favor of any brand as both the Commander and the ATR are about 3mm while the Stryder is 4mm. I think you just have to know what you compare. Also there is no mentioning of distal taper, so you don't even know what the effective blade thickness is. The same goes with blade width. Both the Boker and the Spyderco broke where the blade is substantially less wide than the Commander and the Stryder, and it is quite obivious that a blade that has less width will break sooner than a wide blade. I would very much like to know were the load was applied. Every blade design is a trade of between different parameters, and simply by visual inspection it should be obvious that the ATR and the Stryder were not designed for the same lateral loads. Lastly this still doesn't address the question, what kind of strength is enough. Is it really necessary for a knife to sustain a load that a human hand can not generate (see Cliff Stamp's post). I guess that is a question everybody has to decide for him or her self. I personally think that Cliff's tests are more informative than this one.
But while keeping the things mentioned above in mind, information can be gained from almost every test and I don't think that this test was a particularly bad one. Also a test has a winner and sometimes also a looser which may even be much more pronounced than the winner. And I think that this test had both, and they should be aknowledged. The winner being the Emerson Commander, the looser the BM.
- Joined
- May 6, 2001
- Messages
- 458
This really has been a fantastic thread so far.
I have to point out that the rescue knives mentioned that cost the lives of a helicopter full of marines weren't just called rescue knives by the manufacturer, they were also called rescue knives by the Navy's purchasing department. Someone behind a desk probably saw a deal and thought he could be a hero by making numbers look good. I've heard other examples of equipment, materials, and other supplies brought in via military purchase departments that really didnt' cut the mustard, and seen a few myself. I don't blame the manufacturer for that... I blame the guy who decided the knives were good enough to be issued for the task. He made the judgment, and he paid out our tax dollars on a knife that would be used to come to the aid of one of our soldiers. Had the decision been left to the men doing the job, I have no doubt they'd walk into a knife shop and look around, and make an educated decision based on their own experiences. With all due respect Mr Emerson, it's not your words, your arguments, your viewpoints, or your warranty that have made your knives a success. They're all fine and good, and in your world (and mine) they count for a lot. But it's the results that count.
If I had to pick the best knife for personal defense in the city, I'd go with a big folding knife... why? Because (and I'm paraphrasing Bob Terzuola here) the most important quality in a knife used for personal defense, (I would say tactical, but semantics seem to have bogged down the issue) is that you HAVE IT WITH YOU. And in most day to day cases, that means a one handed folder. It's just not practical for me to walk around boston with a Ka-Bar or a gurkha attached to my belt. The chosen folder would probably be an emerson. I'm generally not too worried, becuase usually there's a wine bottle, baseball bat, pool cue, wrecking bar, or something else really big with a good reach on hand. I don't claim to be a skilled martial artist, so whatever hits hardest and ends the fight the fastest will do for me. They all make lousy prybars, (with the exception of the wrecking bar) so I suppose that makes me an outcast.
If I was a soldier, who needed a dual purpose tool, I'd find me a big sheath knife like an old, cheap imported gurkha, which is only heat treated on the edge, so there's no chance of the whole thing snapping. If I wanted something nicer that held a finer edge for much longer, a strider, Busse, Emerson, or...? And a good, lightweight sharpening stone. Something with no moving parts to worry about, no screws, etc. There's no possibility of lock failure if there's no lock. And I'd bet dollars to donuts a piece of 3/16" blade steel stock with a point and a decent edge probably doesn't even have one of whatever it is that would break on most folders, and would cut someone out just fine, for less money, and with more reliability. And if a Naval purchasing officer supplied my troops with an untested knife that snapped in half, I'd put him on the next helicopter to that ship, to let him explain to them men why they lost their buddy.
Would I generally use a big folding knife as a prybar from day to day? No, probably not. I don't like nails and screws f***ing up my edge, and since, as a civilian, I live close to things like a hardware store, I have the luxury of being able to buy a $5, 8 inch prybar that fits in my pocket, and can be carried around in my truck, and then use my knife as a knife. If you're really that finicky, get a foot of 3/16" stock, turn one end into a knife, and heat treat that end, having the other end formed into a prybar. But there's really no real need in any paved society to use a $200 folder like an $5 tool, even though you could. Can you use a folding knife like that? Sure. Is there something better?
I'll quote CRKT. From what I've read, they made an outstanding knife that did well in this test, and as the manufacturers of a knife that held its own, I'll count their word as much as I would Ernie's. "A knife is the most expensive and least effective prybar you'll ever own."
A soldier who carries everything on his back has an excuse to want one thing to do it all. It saves on space and weight. I, on the other hand, have a truck.
I have to point out that the rescue knives mentioned that cost the lives of a helicopter full of marines weren't just called rescue knives by the manufacturer, they were also called rescue knives by the Navy's purchasing department. Someone behind a desk probably saw a deal and thought he could be a hero by making numbers look good. I've heard other examples of equipment, materials, and other supplies brought in via military purchase departments that really didnt' cut the mustard, and seen a few myself. I don't blame the manufacturer for that... I blame the guy who decided the knives were good enough to be issued for the task. He made the judgment, and he paid out our tax dollars on a knife that would be used to come to the aid of one of our soldiers. Had the decision been left to the men doing the job, I have no doubt they'd walk into a knife shop and look around, and make an educated decision based on their own experiences. With all due respect Mr Emerson, it's not your words, your arguments, your viewpoints, or your warranty that have made your knives a success. They're all fine and good, and in your world (and mine) they count for a lot. But it's the results that count.
If I had to pick the best knife for personal defense in the city, I'd go with a big folding knife... why? Because (and I'm paraphrasing Bob Terzuola here) the most important quality in a knife used for personal defense, (I would say tactical, but semantics seem to have bogged down the issue) is that you HAVE IT WITH YOU. And in most day to day cases, that means a one handed folder. It's just not practical for me to walk around boston with a Ka-Bar or a gurkha attached to my belt. The chosen folder would probably be an emerson. I'm generally not too worried, becuase usually there's a wine bottle, baseball bat, pool cue, wrecking bar, or something else really big with a good reach on hand. I don't claim to be a skilled martial artist, so whatever hits hardest and ends the fight the fastest will do for me. They all make lousy prybars, (with the exception of the wrecking bar) so I suppose that makes me an outcast.
If I was a soldier, who needed a dual purpose tool, I'd find me a big sheath knife like an old, cheap imported gurkha, which is only heat treated on the edge, so there's no chance of the whole thing snapping. If I wanted something nicer that held a finer edge for much longer, a strider, Busse, Emerson, or...? And a good, lightweight sharpening stone. Something with no moving parts to worry about, no screws, etc. There's no possibility of lock failure if there's no lock. And I'd bet dollars to donuts a piece of 3/16" blade steel stock with a point and a decent edge probably doesn't even have one of whatever it is that would break on most folders, and would cut someone out just fine, for less money, and with more reliability. And if a Naval purchasing officer supplied my troops with an untested knife that snapped in half, I'd put him on the next helicopter to that ship, to let him explain to them men why they lost their buddy.
Would I generally use a big folding knife as a prybar from day to day? No, probably not. I don't like nails and screws f***ing up my edge, and since, as a civilian, I live close to things like a hardware store, I have the luxury of being able to buy a $5, 8 inch prybar that fits in my pocket, and can be carried around in my truck, and then use my knife as a knife. If you're really that finicky, get a foot of 3/16" stock, turn one end into a knife, and heat treat that end, having the other end formed into a prybar. But there's really no real need in any paved society to use a $200 folder like an $5 tool, even though you could. Can you use a folding knife like that? Sure. Is there something better?
I'll quote CRKT. From what I've read, they made an outstanding knife that did well in this test, and as the manufacturers of a knife that held its own, I'll count their word as much as I would Ernie's. "A knife is the most expensive and least effective prybar you'll ever own."
A soldier who carries everything on his back has an excuse to want one thing to do it all. It saves on space and weight. I, on the other hand, have a truck.
- Joined
- May 6, 2001
- Messages
- 458
By the way...
The issue of heat treating has come up, so it is perhaps the manufacturer. I'd be curious to see how a benchmade-maufactured CQC-7 held up in the same test. If heat treating is in fact the culprit, I'm afraid the Benchmade CQC-7 is likely as much a tactical knife as the striker. Still a win for Emerson, but because of manufacturing process, not because of design.
The issue of heat treating has come up, so it is perhaps the manufacturer. I'd be curious to see how a benchmade-maufactured CQC-7 held up in the same test. If heat treating is in fact the culprit, I'm afraid the Benchmade CQC-7 is likely as much a tactical knife as the striker. Still a win for Emerson, but because of manufacturing process, not because of design.