- Joined
- Sep 5, 2005
- Messages
- 2,826
There are essentially two types of people who delight in these topics: 1) those who like CR knives, their design and quality; and 2) those who enjoy pointing out that high-priced knives don't really offer huge (if any) performance increases over much more inexpensive knives. It really doesn't matter that you can beat any knife to pieces; some people will always expect that more money should translate into higher performance, and that's not always true.
If someone has the chance to buy a Ruger Security-Six or a Colt Python, for more than twice the cost, they can reasonably expect the accuracy (performance) to be greater with the Colt than that of the Ruger. So if they want to enhance their own accuracy through the proper shooting techniques, they'll have demonstrable performance enhancement that can be measured. But in the knife world, this just doesn't hold true. In many cases, a $450 knife isn't going to cut any better or last any longer than far more inexpensive knives. And beating it to death doesn't change things.
Any one of these knives, if cared for, will last a lifetime of fairly hard use, with the exception of folders. I saw a YouTube video of some clown who stuck a Cold Steel Recon Tanto in the ground and shot it with a high powered rifle round—three times. And of course it shattered.
People buy knives for a lot of reasons, but performance isn't always a factor. Some could argue that it's not even frequently a factor. Put someone out in the wilderness and a ten-dollar Chinese fixed blade will perform far better than a $500 folder. That said, you won't see a lot of guys swapping their expensive folders for junk fixed blade knives.
Where these videos might be insightful is, say, when comparing a CS Recon G.I. against a Strider BT. Forget who stole what from whom, not many people are going to want to shell out the extra $$$ for the latter when the latter is horrendously more expensive. Besides, anyone would be better off with ten G.I. Tantos than one BT under any condition or in any situation. (In fact, two G.I. Tantos would be better if these videos are any indication.)
Me, I was impressed with the way the CRK stood up. Using a hammer, a vice and that knife, one could almost build a ship! So I don't think the destruction was in any way a downside to buying the knife...unless, of course, another, cheaper, knife could do the same thing better and for less money, but now you're getting into the finer aspects of performance again. And getting back to the Ruger v. the Colt, some folks (like me) might point out that if you went to a range and shot both guns to destruction, the Colt would be inoperable long before the Ruger.
In the end, people buy products based on beauty, cost, performance, durability and components, and they attach different weights to the above that can't always be determined by beating a product to death.
If someone has the chance to buy a Ruger Security-Six or a Colt Python, for more than twice the cost, they can reasonably expect the accuracy (performance) to be greater with the Colt than that of the Ruger. So if they want to enhance their own accuracy through the proper shooting techniques, they'll have demonstrable performance enhancement that can be measured. But in the knife world, this just doesn't hold true. In many cases, a $450 knife isn't going to cut any better or last any longer than far more inexpensive knives. And beating it to death doesn't change things.
Any one of these knives, if cared for, will last a lifetime of fairly hard use, with the exception of folders. I saw a YouTube video of some clown who stuck a Cold Steel Recon Tanto in the ground and shot it with a high powered rifle round—three times. And of course it shattered.
People buy knives for a lot of reasons, but performance isn't always a factor. Some could argue that it's not even frequently a factor. Put someone out in the wilderness and a ten-dollar Chinese fixed blade will perform far better than a $500 folder. That said, you won't see a lot of guys swapping their expensive folders for junk fixed blade knives.
Where these videos might be insightful is, say, when comparing a CS Recon G.I. against a Strider BT. Forget who stole what from whom, not many people are going to want to shell out the extra $$$ for the latter when the latter is horrendously more expensive. Besides, anyone would be better off with ten G.I. Tantos than one BT under any condition or in any situation. (In fact, two G.I. Tantos would be better if these videos are any indication.)
Me, I was impressed with the way the CRK stood up. Using a hammer, a vice and that knife, one could almost build a ship! So I don't think the destruction was in any way a downside to buying the knife...unless, of course, another, cheaper, knife could do the same thing better and for less money, but now you're getting into the finer aspects of performance again. And getting back to the Ruger v. the Colt, some folks (like me) might point out that if you went to a range and shot both guns to destruction, the Colt would be inoperable long before the Ruger.
In the end, people buy products based on beauty, cost, performance, durability and components, and they attach different weights to the above that can't always be determined by beating a product to death.
And every destruction video I have seen he starts by showing the knife, describing it, the sheath, then cutting veggies or fruit, Rope, then cardboard ect.. So I wouldn't call it simply a destruction test to try to break the knife. He Covers Cutting as well.