Chris Reeve Destrution Test On Youtube?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The knife is a general purpose tool, there is no specific function, specially "Tactical Knives". If a knife is sold as a Kitchen knife or Skinning knife then you have an idea of the limits and typical uses but what is really the definition a tactical knife? Mine is a general purpose tool that can puncture, pry, cut, hack in any situation that contributes to saving lives and getting a job done in the 21st century where there is cable, concrete, sheet metal, webbing, synthetic material, and heavy clothing everywhere. Why does gerber sells the LMF 2 with an electrically insulated handle? Because electricity is everywhere in the modern world. Would I stick my LMF in an electrical outlet on purpose? Hell no. But if I were a LEO or military and had to cut something near an electrical wire I would rather had that one in particular.

I have not seen anywhere that this or that brand should not be purchased because of Noss4 videos. Is up to the user to evaluate the information and the toughness demonstrated in these destruction testing by the different blades. I was impressed by the level of punishment that the Kukri machete can take, if it was not for that video I would have not believed. I have 2 of those, Would I do the same to them? No, but I know i have a though little inexpensive tool that can take some unintended punishment and not break in 2 pieces.
 
All this time and energy wasted on a few argubots......you can't fix stupid nor debate rationally with an argubot. The argubot draws its energy, like a troll, from those that feed it....stop trying to convince the argubot and it will (hopefully) bounce of a wall and go off in a different direction....
 
Christ, I can't believe this thread is over 28 pages. The knife broke twice for crying-out-loud. It's a presentation knife for SF graduates and that is it.

Use of Special Forces insignia does not indicate endorsement by U. S. Army Special Operations Command.
Click to expand...

Read the fine print before buying a bill-of-goods.
 
akadave2 said:
Police use Maglights precisely for the ability to use them as a bludgeon and are taught how to hold one in order to employ it as such when using it for its primary function.
Click to expand...

And people buy 1/4" thick knives precisely for their ability to be used for things besides cutting. I'm not sure if your quote was an attempt to argue against my point or just a random insertion of trivia. If it was the former, then it was a failed attempt.
 
The difference is that nobody's saying Flashlight Brand X is a bad flashlight becuase it can't be hammered through a car hood, a cinder block, or a suspect. You don't evaluate a flashlight as a flashlight on the basis of the gross abuse it takes to break it.
 
Sharp Phil said:
The difference is that nobody's saying Flashlight Brand X is a bad flashlight becuase it can't be hammered through a car hood, a cinder block, or a suspect.
Click to expand...

Backpedaling? Your point has been made repeatedly that these tests are stupid because they promote the use of an item for something other than what it was designed for. Noss doesn't end his videos by saying "brand x" is "bad" or not to buy it. Where did this argument come from.

My point is that some knives are built tougher to do things besides slicing, and some flashlights are built tougher to do things besides shining light. You obviously understand half of that argument, I can't fathom why you don't understand the other half.

You don't evaluate a flashlight as a flashlight on the basis of the gross abuse it takes to break it.
Click to expand...

Then what do you evaluate it as when you evaluate it's ability to hit someone in the skull?
 
The definition of "backpedaling" is not, "an opinion that opposes yours."

theonew said:
Sure you do if it's marketed as a heavy duty flashlight :confused:
Click to expand...

That's the whole point. There are certain reasonable expectations for any tool, within the context of what that tool is designed to do. Unless the manufacturer advertises that the tool will keep on working after you've hammered it through a cinder block, expecting it to do so and declaring it "failed" if it does not is unrealistic. When these unrealistic expectations are created for knives and gross abuse becomes the benchmark for "testing" a blade, a disservice is done to both those within the industry and those who purchase what that industry produces.

The increasing popularity of these absurd destruction stunts is simply the promulgation of ignorance paraded as knowledge. It's disgusting.
 
Sharp Phil said:
There are certain reasonable expectations for any tool, within the context of what that tool is designed to do.
Click to expand...

Because flashlights are reasonably expected to break bones, but a 1/4" knife is not reasonably expected to do anything but slice an apple?

The definition of "backpedaling" is not, "an opinion that opposes yours."
Click to expand...

:)
 
Sharp Phil said:
Nobody has argued that, and you know it.
Click to expand...

What I do know Phil is that you seem to be on some spiteful little mission to insult someone who promotes the use of an object for something other than it's primary purpose, while at the same time doing so yourself. I think there's a word for that.
 
Speaking of flashlights. If someone markets a flashlight and claims it's heavy duty I wouldn't mind to see a video that has someone drop the flashlight on it's head until the bulbs breaks to see how "heavy duty" it is. Another could be attach the light to a rifle and bang it hard against a wall to see if the light will fail. Is that the "proper use" of a flashlight, of course not but it can happen and if some one claims it's a heavy duty flashlight then let's test it. I actually took a 4C-Battery maglite that the batteries leaked out and ruined it from my grandfather and decided to bang it against a steel pipe to see how much damage could take when used as a club, the results were very informative for me.
 
Pushing an object meant for rough use to its breaking point is a perfectly valid test of its ability to live up to its marketing. Whether or not the tests are done in a vacuum is irrelevent. Imprecise testing gives an idea or a generalization not hard numbers for the precise limit of a things ability to survive harsh treatment.

Again, a larger sample would help the naysayers at least admit that a certain knife is unable to take similar rough treatment as another regardless of the casual nature of the test.
 
One problem I have with these tests is the obvious endorsement of the "Bomb-Proof 3": Busse, Swamp Rat, and Scrapyard. The three not only share the same structural characteristics and pop-culture cults but they are indeed familial, with two of the companies spin-offs of the 1st.

When Noss tests the Ranger RD7, which no doubt gets mentioned in various forums concerning toughness and in the same breath as the Bomb Proof 3, he eventually destroys the knife and then sermonizes for several minutes how the Rangers are not as tough as the Busses and Scrapyards. And in case you missed it the first ten times, he says it again.

Based on the attitudes of the tester that are obvious throughout these trials, I am beginning to have my doubts that they are 100% valid, and not biased.

It doesn't make sense to me that a chunk of tool steel heat treated to less than 60 would snap in half by hitting it with a mechanics hammer and into a piece of pine.

I have my suspicions.
 
Historically, car motors that tend to take abuse and neglect better (run on lower oil levels, handle higher temperatures, etc.) are far more forgiving in regards to engine failure than poorer designs.



I think the auto analogy is worthwhile. :)
 
komondor said:
One problem I have with these tests is the obvious endorsement of the "Bomb-Proof 3": Busse, Swamp Rat, and Scrapyard. The three not only share the same structural characteristics and pop-culture cults but they are indeed familial, with two of the companies spin-offs of the 1st.

When Noss tests the Ranger RD7, which no doubt gets mentioned in various forums concerning toughness and in the same breath as the Bomb Proof 3, he eventually destroys the knife and then sermonizes for several minutes how the Rangers are not as tough as the Busses and Scrapyards. And in case you missed it the first ten times, he says it again.

Based on the attitudes of the tester that are obvious throughout these trials, I am beginning to have my doubts that they are 100% valid, and not biased.

It doesn't make sense to me that a chunk of tool steel heat treated to less than 60 would snap in half by hitting it with a mechanics hammer and into a piece of pine.

I have my suspicions.
Click to expand...

Please point me to the Swamp Rat test, as I don't see it. As for eventually destroying the Ranger, he eventually destroyed the Busse family knives too.

Also, are you questioning the integrity of just Noss or are you calling Busse's integrity into question here too? Just curious.
 
komondor said:
One problem I have with these tests is the obvious endorsement of the "Bomb-Proof 3": Busse, Swamp Rat, and Scrapyard. The three not only share the same structural characteristics and pop-culture cults but they are indeed familial, with two of the companies spin-offs of the 1st.

When Noss tests the Ranger RD7, which no doubt gets mentioned in various forums concerning toughness and in the same breath as the Bomb Proof 3, he eventually destroys the knife and then sermonizes for several minutes how the Rangers are not as tough as the Busses and Scrapyards. And in case you missed it the first ten times, he says it again.

Based on the attitudes of the tester that are obvious throughout these trials, I am beginning to have my doubts that they are 100% valid, and not biased.

It doesn't make sense to me that a chunk of tool steel heat treated to less than 60 would snap in half by hitting it with a mechanics hammer and into a piece of pine.

I have my suspicions.
Click to expand...

Actually it was a lousy $10 machete by Cold Steel the one that has survived to tell.
 
Please point me to the Swamp Rat test, as I don't see it.
Click to expand...

I didn't see one either. I thought I would throw them in there in case I missed an actual test. You have to admit the three are a clique, though.

As for eventually destroying the Ranger, he eventually destroyed the Busse family knives too.
Click to expand...

Of course. But he destroyed the Ranger much earlier and then proceeded to sermonize about how much less tough the Ranger was than the Busse and Scrapyard. He broke the tip of the Ranger in that sheet metal.?????

How is one going to break the tip of that knife into a piece of sheet metal?? How??

Also, are you questioning the integrity of just Noss or are you calling Busse's integrity into question here too?
Click to expand...

I have no idea. I've got some gut feelings. That's all I can say. It doesn't mean I'm right, though. My sincerest apologies if I'm mistaken.

It's important to question things. I would expect anyone to question me if I presented similar tests online.

I originally was fully accepting of the tests. But certain things nagged at me. Details. Attitudes. My own knowledge of some of the knives.

I also know, as does everyone else on these forums, there is a certain level of hysteria fashioned around these companies and their products. In addition to the hysteria is a bombastic attitude against all the other competitors.

I question things. If I'm wrong I apologize.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top