I've steered clear of these threads recently because of the way some people allow themselves into devolving to argumentation via personal attack and get all heated up as if this was a life and death question. It should be obvious to anyone that what Noss does isn't "scientific" nor intended to be that. User reviews on Bladeforums most certainly aren't scientific either, but yet they have
some value beyond entertainment.
Personally, I'm very well aware that knives are cutting tools. Most of my knife use involves relatively small and thin knives optimized for cutting. But sometimes, it is convenient (not necessary) to me to have one knife that is strong enough to use for non-knife tasks such as axe-work and even prying so I don't need to bring another tool. For such knives, why shouldn't durability be of more importance than with knives used only for cutting?
But the really interesting question is this. For all those people who believe knives are for cutting, more precisely
only for cutting:
I am still waiting for the 'knives are only for cutting' crowd to answer a simple question... why are these blades a quarter inch thick? Somebody should tell these guys they're wasting a hell of a lot of steel making these things so damn thick.
That is the question. If knives are only intended for cutting, why would you want to use or advocate a knife that is not optimized for cutting? Knife designs like the Busse Combat Battle Mistresses or Chris Reeve Green Beret with their thick blades are not optimized for cutting. They are clearly a compromise by design, having been made thicker and of less acute edge to sacrifice cutting performance for durability in abusive use. If you just want to cut things, why the heck would you want to do it with a knife that's a quarter inch thick and heavy as all hell? Answer me that, because I would really like to know the answer. Because if it's just basic cutting tasks that we're doing, a 3€ Mora knife sharpened properly will outcut a $ 300 Chris Reeve Green Beret any time, and it will even be more ergonomically comfortable and lighter in hand, especially in the cold. So, what is the justification for thick "combat" "hard-use" knives if it's not durability in abusive use, because quite obviously cutting performance isn't what they're best at compared to other knives. Are they just art knives for display or toys for mall ninjas?
As someone who owns quite a lot of those thick "hard-use" knives, I will say that I own them not because they cut better than my lighter, thinner knives, which they don't. I own them because I can use them heavily for tasks more suited to an axe or entry tool than a knife. In such tasks, durability is important, and for that Noss' test do tell some things, even though they might not be news to you and me.
I will say this. We can all think what we will about Noss' testing and its merits. But for those who like to call him names and say that his tests have absolutely no value at all and that said tests tell absolutely nothing about the knives being tested, answer me one thing: Do you honestly think that the difference in durability displayed in Noss' testing between knives such as the Busse FFBM and the Ka-Bar USMC or the CRK Green Beret aren't real differences? Do you think they are in fact equally durable or even near so? Sure, all will handle cutting thread and wood, but if you get abusive on them for some reason, will there be no difference in durability revealed? Because in reality, anyone with a pair of eyes can tell that there are real differences, and as if by sheer wild coincidence, they reflect the results of Noss' testing that according to some have absolutely no truth or value in them at all.
Of course, a knife shouldn't be judged by its durability in non-knife uses alone. But it's quite ridiculous to claim that said durability should not be considered at all, especially for enormously thick and heavy knives obviously designed and marketed to be used in somewhat abusive tasks instead of pure cutting use.
Why people don't see this stuff I will never know.