Chris Reeve Green Beret Video Desrtuction Test Completed

Status
Not open for further replies.
Maybe you should prove to those of us who prefer a more scientific test by doing another unscientific "test" to verify that another knife will break just like this one did (thought all you guys who insist that anyone who criticizes this test must do our own tests would like this).

Obviously, it would be ideal if a tester could test many samples of the same knife. Just as obviously, there are practical problems with this, for the self-funded, independent tester: testing more knives costs more, and takes more time.

In my opinion, there is a an elegant way for noss4 to achieve an acceptable compromise, regarding this. First, he should ask the maker whether this is the expected behavior of the tested knife. If the maker says "Yes", then we have our answer, that we can acceptably assume that the sample of one is representative, and (in regard to to the sample size issue) the test is valid. If the maker says "No", then noss4 should attempt to make arrangements with the maker for noss4 to send the broken knife to the maker for examination, to determine whether the unexpected behavior was attributable to a defective sample. If the maker determines that the knife was defective, then the onus should be upon the maker to replace the knife. If the maker replaces the knife, then hopefully noss4 will be willing to re-test with the new knife. If the maker determines that the knife was not defective, then we can, again, acceptably assume that the sample of one is representative.

Of course, some makers may not be willing to respond. In my opinion, this would be unfortunate, and would leave one to fairly make inferences about the knife, as well as inferences about the knifemaker's customer service and warranty.

noss4,

I appreciate your tests. While, of course, they (like anything) could be improved, I think they have a lot of merit, and they convey a lot of information. However, I would like it if you would add this step that I outlined to your testing methodology. I think it is a key ingredient missing from your tests (to the best of my awareness), which would further add to their validity and informativeness.

Please take it into consideration. Thank you.
 
that sounds like a very good idea eveolute, but then the maker will probably (if given any response at all) give this whole load of useless information, like why it broke, and how hitting anything with a hammer will break even the best knives and all...
it'd probably be pretty annoying.
this is also considering that the knife didn't do as expected.
the green beret is advertised (so I hear) as a tough knife and it was not looked at as "tough" by most, so I think that would apply.
assuming the maker doesn't flip out.
:D
 
one). If you want to insist that these tests are a definitive measure that the knife is not good enough, then post away

Not a definitive test, but one useful test.
If you'd like to show a more scientific test, hey, I for one would actually like to see it.:) Really.
I just get tired sometimes of criticisms without an alternative to present, one which can be shown rather than suggested.
At least Noss is doing some tests; it WOULD be cool to see other people test knives in other ways so we could make better choices based on what different tasks we had in mind.
 
that sounds like a very good idea eveolute, but then the maker will probably (if given any response at all) give this whole load of useless information, like why it broke, and how hitting anything with a hammer will break even the best knives and all...
it'd probably be pretty annoying.
this is also considering that the knife didn't do as expected.
the green beret is advertised (so I hear) as a tough knife and it was not looked at as "tough" by most, so I think that would apply.
assuming the maker doesn't flip out.
:D

EMF,

That wouldn't be useless information. For example, if the maker was to tell us not to to ever hit his knives with a hammer, that hitting anything with a hammer will break even the best knives, then we have new and useful information about the intended acceptable scope of use of the knife in question, which can help us better inform our knife purchasing decisions. We may not agree with the maker (for example, if someone was to tell me that, I would think "my _____ knives are made to withstand that use, they have survived that use in my own experience, and their warranty covers such use), but we will know useful information about the maker's knives' intended scope of use, and likely warranty coverage.

More information is good. It is OK for a maker to make a knife with limitations (all knives have limitations). It is good when they specify what these limitations are, instead of leaving us to guess and hope for the best.
 
Evolute: Thanks for the suggestion. I will consider this.

As many know many makers will not get involved with this. This will be very difficult. If I did contact a maker and they said "No the knife should not hold up to this test" and I did the test and the knife does hold up well. What then ? I don't know what kind of testing they do. So far only one maker has been willing to work with me before I did a test and after the test.

A maker my come back and say the knife was defective when it may not have been defective to begin with. I do not have the resources to verify a faulty knife.

I have heard from Chris Reeve knives and they are willing to discuses this with me. I'm not going to say any more about this at this time.
 
As always, Noss, thanks for the test. I have bee eying one of these at my local store. I like the look, and it looked like a decent user.....but I would have expected it to hold up much longer than it did. The Strider did better than I expected (although it was thicker right) but the CR isn't a paper thin. I think it is a bit thicker than the 20 GI Tanto by cold steel that did way better.

People who are loyal to any brand are going to be pissed when their babies do poorly.

Just keep on doing what you are doing Noss, and we will continue to appreciate it.
 
What I don't see here are reports from CRK Green Beret knife owners who had them break. There can be 3 possible causes for this:

1. Nobody uses their GB
2. It is not as bad as some here want to believe
3. The tests do not reflect real life use.

Anyway, I've got nothing against the tests, I find them mildly amusing to watch, and while I don't think they reflect real life use, at least Noss4 is testing the knives.
 
Bigfattyt: your welcome and thanks.


Jos: Real life use varies from user to user. I don't do many of the things to my knives I do in the tests. I just haven't had to. I would if the situation arose since now I have seen some of these knives capabilities beyond just cutting.
 
I just don't see how some people just can not understand this.
No these tests are not scientific, but at least their is someone showing you something.
Car tires are tested for mud, snow, rain, different terrain and sold stating what its for,
Kitchen knives are tested for slicing, chopping, poking ability, and sold stating what its for.
Big rig semi trailers are tested taking corners at 60 miles per hour and try to hold the road, when it fails, the suspension is changed and they try it again. If the GB was advertised as tough, it damn well better be. What I'm getting at is everything is tested in one way or another that we the consumer purchase, those that care enough probably test more than anyone to make their product better, and please don't bring up about smacking metal to metal, of course it can be dangerous, the warning labels are for lawsuits that may arise, nothing more, if metal to metal contact was a no no, the the automotive industry wouldn't survive, presses, punches and cutter shears wouldn't exist as we know, hell I have a knife in my shop that splits wood really well, and guess what I use.. the back of a metal axe to baton it with, if it breaks, slips or hurts me, thats on me. these tests that you view are independently funded to give the consumer a look at how much abuse the knife he or she might want to purchase can actually hold up to, no where does it state that you should try this for yourself, you can only draw your own conclusion, whether a knife he tested lasted long enough to do the jobs you intend it to do, simple as that.
 
The test is interesting. I like this kind of stuff on someone elses dime.

Again, what data. There is no data. There is a comparison to be made and conclusions can be drawn. Hard data is lacking.
Explain why this information is not data.

Can someone take this "test" and 100% duplicate it in another "lab"?
No. It would probably be more like 98 or 99% duplicated.

I have said I do not have any data from the other tests. I have read from sources I trust that the knife in question beat out many other knives in repeatable, real world testing.

I have no data and these tests provide no data only observations.
Observation is data.
 
, you can only draw your own conclusion, whether a knife he tested lasted long enough to do the jobs you intend it to do, simple as that.

Do your on video test before writing crap Tales:D
Do that before people begin to think you are starting to lose money:thumbup::D
 
Do you read any warning labels.:confused:
Destruction is flawed from the get go ...donot strike "any" metal with a higher than 40 HRC ....there is a reason for this warning.
It can happen at any time.
He could have used razor blades for the same destruction and spent less money.....no "real" knowledge of any of the knives destroyed is learned.

not true at all. The way the tool fails tells you a lot. Failure analysis is it's own science. Of course, the testing will not be consistent since it is a human doing it not a machine. However, in this case, noss was going relatively easy on the reeves knife, almost like he had sensed that this thing was going to grenade. And it did. As Tony said, not a negative mark on the maker, just the type of steel used. Also, this test corroborates, Cliffs Stamps test of same knife. So there is more than one sample tested here.
 
Observation is data.

As has been shown by this thread what two people observe is subjective.

Hard repeatable data is objective.

If two or more of these tests can be done and someone can show how much, how hard, what force, how and where it was clamped and it then I would call it data. Even the tester can not tell you how hard he strikes with the hammer. He says something along the lines of "I start out with light blows and increase to see how much it takes"

Observation of a video on the internet is open to speculation and interpretation.
 
Hard H2O: Visual observation is what I offer. If you are looking for a comparison to make. I suggest watching the Strider BT test and the Cold Steel
GI Tanto test. For me it's very clear how tough they were compared to the GB.

If you do watch them or already have then I will be glad to discuss them with you.:)
 
Hard H2O: Visual observation is what I offer. If you are looking for a comparison to make. I suggest watching the Strider BT test and the Cold Steel
GI Tanto test. For me it's very clear how tough they were compared to the GB.

If you do watch them or already have then I will be glad to discuss them with you.:)

A few questions noss4.

Did you use the same hammer in all of the destructions.
Did you clean and or resurface the hammer between destructions.
 
Evil Eye Earl: In the beginning I used a ball pein hammer with the 3ld hammer. I only use the 3lb hammer now and I have been doing this for while.

No I do not resurface the hammer after a test.
 
Evil Eye Earl: In the beginning I used a ball pein hammer with the 3ld hammer. I only use the 3lb hammer now and I have been doing this for while.

No I do not resurface the hammer after a test.
Can you scan or take a picture of the striking surface of the 3 # hammer.
Thanks!
 
Was the wind blowing out of the east when you tested the GB? Can you photograph the wind for us?

My reasoning is that an east blowing wind contains fine super hard particles and acid rain nuclei, the east blowing wind would therefore severely degrade performance of the knife.

:jerkit: <- Sarcasm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top