Chris Reeve Destrution Test On Youtube?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not trying to add fuel to fire but if I'm doing tests which seeks to determine the limits of a blade (regardless of whether the limits are acceptable to everyone) I'm gonna be attracting some negativity. I'm not too sure I would want my name/face out in that kind of situation.

Not so much of an issue if I"m just doing reviews or moderate field tests. However destructive testing is a controversial issue.
 
In reference to the video above. In case anyone is wondering, there are 7 videos of the whole hour and some odd minutes and it ended with no damage to the knife other than a dented spine.
 
kiahs said:
In reference to the video above. In case anyone is wondering, there are 7 videos of the whole hour and some odd minutes and it ended with no damage to the knife other than a dented spine.
Click to expand...

So? You can watch those as long as you want to, and you will never learn anything about why one knife being beat by a hammer in a semi-random fashion failed. And though we still do not know why they failed, we do know that a whole lot of dillweeds have made a whole lot of posts about how crappy the knives that failed are.

We could come up with other tests, for "hard use" that would turn the tables, and favor a harder, more wear resistant, corrosion resistant stainless steel. Or maybe a test that would favor serrations (instead of a great disadvantage). And the hypothesis for this would be just as realistic or more as the theory that tells you that a "hard use" knife should be able to be beat on with a steel hammer w/o failing.

It all depends on which qualities you value more in a "hard use" knife.
 
Last edited:
At the very least it is interesting to see just what a cutting tool can take before it fails. I would like to see a larger sample of the same model of knife put through the same tests so a trend at least might be found.
 
Wow, that Old Hickory Knife did not break, and TWO CRK knives did? LOL @ u people for spending $300+ :thumbup::thumbup:
 
As stated in earlier posts his knives are marketed to be for tough use.

the Green Beret Knife is a using knife that, just like the men for whom it was designed, is efficient, tough and uncompromising.
Click to expand...

Military special forces are expected to be able to perform "above and beyond the call of duty". I believe the gear they use should also be able to meat those expectations. Most of the knifes working life will probably be spent on fair weather tasks however, If need be "it" should be able to perform "above and beyond the call of duty" like those who it serves. Should we ask any less of it..... NO!

For the money you can buy knives that will perform well under "all" conditions" including those rare times when it's called to preform above and beyond it's designed purpose.

The CR knife clearly "fails" in this respect period. There is not a whole lot more you can say.
 
Last edited:
If a person does not like the way a knife is tested the only valid things are

1. Give some constructive criticism to make it better.
2. Develop your own testing protocol, post it and defend it. And be realistic!
3. Not give a damn and not posting

Getting personal is not acceptable. Getting angry at someone because it made your favorite brand look bad is not acceptable, if you have an opinion it should be discussed in a civilized manner. Noss has always been very polite and respectful I cannot say the same for some of the critics. He has never said that owners of X or Y brand are losers so why the hurt?

Brand loyalty has no place for me, they have to continually demonstrate it.

"Used by X or Y military group" or "Solid reputation" is not an argument
Navy SEAL groups have purchased Cold Steel and Mad Dog knives (talk about opposed ends of a market) and probably many others. The armed forces have used good and bad gear over the years. I only care that if it is advertised as strong, though it should be.

Almost all knife companies have "Solid Reputation" at some point in their life times or with groups of people. Gerber and Buck used to be high end knives in some point in history, now they are not the darlings anymore.

And make up your mind, when Stamp made the testing it was "Techno Babble" or "Too much rocket science for something as simple as a knife" and Noss is "Not scientific enough" ??????????????????????
 
The fallacy under which you operate revolves around the assumption that objecting to completely absurd destruction/abuse tests is done because the person objecting has taken personal offense. This is generally not the case. Rather, the individuals advocating such destructive "tests" and drawing spurious conclusions from them are the individuals who seem to have some personal stake in the argument.

Me, I just hate to see stunts treated as science. I also hate to see ignorant knife users' expectations for a fixed blade or a folding knife adjusted to unreasonable levels by the promulgation of this kind of abuse.

Believe it or not, it's just possible that when someone objects to these "tests," it is not because his or her oxen have been gored.
 
I was not pointing my finger at anyone in particular BUT since you posted I respectfully ask you:

What do you offer better than Noss? Post what would be a good protocol for testing any knife particular considering the marketing scope (hunting, military, skinning, hard use etc...) and let's see if we can find someone who can carry it out. Remember this IS the knife review and testing forum. BTW he never claimed to be super scientific and has said so many times. Car companies crash cars to test how they will perform, the intended use of a car is not to crash but it can happen. I watched a program on how BMW (and probably every company) tested their models to destruction to see where and how they fail, it is not the intended use of the car but you learn from it. Noss niche is destructive testing, nothing bad there.

The getting personal part I don't know, but you made a poll regarding the dressing habits (the mask thing) of Noss and his identity, seem that you have taken this out of a simple testing, why do you need to know his name or see his face? Many respected posters (with 1000 of posts) here don't show their faces and no one seem to care. Nothing to do with the validity of the testing. And this is the Internet, the real ID of people is something that many people might want to keep for themselves.

I have learned more from Cliff Stamp (sadly gone for reasons beyond what we are discussing here) and Noss than the typical "it's a great blade made by X maker" "feels good in hand" "opens boxes nicely" "removed some staples with it and point held up" "this thing is a cutting dynamo" "a solid buy" "batoned a log and held up fine" "indestructible knife" "it's a chopping monster" "it would do good in a survival situation". I actually learned from these videos that most knives (hell even CR knives) are stronger than I would have believe, for me I dig the information and if I find a small nugget of information I'm happy, if not I'll look elsewhere.
 
Sharp Phil said:
The fallacy under which you operate revolves around the assumption that objecting to completely absurd destruction/abuse tests is done because the person objecting has taken personal offense. This is generally not the case. Rather, the individuals advocating such destructive "tests" and drawing spurious conclusions from them are the individuals who seem to have some personal stake in the argument.

Me, I just hate to see stunts treated as science. I also hate to see ignorant knife users' expectations for a fixed blade or a folding knife adjusted to unreasonable levels by the promulgation of this kind of abuse.

Believe it or not, it's just possible that when someone objects to these "tests," it is not because his or her oxen have been gored.
Click to expand...

Why repeat again and again like mantra nonsense about "absurd destruction" - it is absolutely clear that in no any destruction were done and knife fail during non destructive tests procedure conducted carefully with respect to this knife, real life wood batoning - step which many other knives pass without too much troubles. I research this video I point exact description what and how it was done I provide exact timing and links to the footage.

Everybody who like - can see this without too much effort. All this cry about abuse and destruction has no logical basis.

Problem is the name - "Destruction test" or even worse "Hummer of truth". This is too graphic name and trigger some to generate fantasies which are so strong that can overcome real life. This fantasy so big and bright that some too artistic personality blinded and can not see simple reality - which is again to my opinion is "Test for outdoor knife" or if you like "Test on knife toughness" - you may see transcript with all stages Noss have for knives - pealing aplles, slicing, cutting belt, chopping wood etc...

Thanks, Vassili.
 
Broos said:
So? You can watch those as long as you want to, and you will never learn anything about why one knife being beat by a hammer in a semi-random fashion failed. And though we still do not know why they failed, we do know that a whole lot of dillweeds have made a whole lot of posts about how crappy the knives that failed are.

We could come up with other tests, for "hard use" that would turn the tables, and favor a harder, more wear resistant, corrosion resistant stainless steel. Or maybe a test that would favor serrations (instead of a great disadvantage). And the hypothesis for this would be just as realistic or more as the theory that tells you that a "hard use" knife should be able to be beat on with a steel hammer w/o failing.

It all depends on which qualities you value more in a "hard use" knife.
Click to expand...

Well spoken, sir. Beating on a knife with a hammer favors a knife with tough steel (on the order of 1050) rather than a knife with steel that retains an edge (as in 1095).

I don't care what you are doing, if you need a "knife" the desire is to be able to cut. That calls for edge retention of some sort. If you need something to use as a "pry bar", then edge retention is not an issue. Since these actually are knives, edge retention is more important than the ability to be used as a pry bar.

If Noss wishes to test items as pry bars, he should advertise that he is performing "pry bar testing" rather than "knife testing". This would eliminate annoyance for the knife cognoscenti and eliminate confusion for the newbie.
 
knarfeng said:
If Noss wishes to test items as pry bars, he should advertise that he is performing "pry bar testing" rather than "knife testing". This would eliminate annoyance for the knife cognoscenti and eliminate confusion for the newbie.
Click to expand...

+1:thumbup:

The information may very well be useful, the question is to who, and for what?

If a person is looking for a knife that can be defined as the "toughest", they should have an idea of what that definition is in reality, and what they give up in the process.

I always found the CRK to be a very good general purpose knife, holding up to any needs that I have(probably defined as "moderate" hard use),so breaking a knife in a vise or with a hammer is not very useful for me....might be more interested in how easily it loses a shaving edge, and how hard it is to bring back up.....all valid criteria.

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson
 
Like the tests or not if you choose to shrug them off then don't complain when your designer knife "fails" when it's asked to preform above and beyond it's designed purpose....even though that purpose is clearly stated as tough and uncompromising.
 
Then again I ask, what can we do to standardize some BF testing? We have 24 pages of nothing.

Can we produce some standard testing for "Hard Use" Knives for example, and post it and when any one wishes to test they can have a reference.

Does chopping concrete do? Many people encounter hitting rocks (or a rusty nail) when chopping but they are so random that there is no way to replicate each situation, so hitting a cinder block is the same as chopping wood and hitting stone. If a blade can take let's say 10 full force hits on a cinder block and not chip then we can give some merit to a statement like "a shock steel designed to withstand chipping". If you have something better to test this claim don't take it on me just write what you think is better. If you don't want to test the validity of the claim and want to take the manufacture's word then what are you doing here in this sub-forum?

What worries me its that the negative criticism will detract a person who wishes to write a testing by fear of being ridiculed or made fun of.

One thing is to say "you know if you would have done this .... or that ... it would have shown better X or Y" the other is to try to demean the person CONTRIBUTING to the forum.
 
Just look at the Noss work as a "taste test" and all is good!

It is simply a test of personal preference. A guy beats a bunch of knives-some last longer than others. Choose the one you like! Or not!

Or design and perform your own tests. Or anything else that might actually be constructive and not a lame personal attack.

Or just buy loads of BUSSE knives and don't worry about a thing!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top