Chris Reeve Green Beret Video Desrtuction Test Completed

Status
Not open for further replies.
Great test NossHOG! This was no surprise for me as Cliff Stamp had the same thing a few years back with the GB. But I still love the design of it.:D
 
Wow, I got to see a guy break a $300.00 blade. Learned squat.



Firstly, everything has a breaking point.

Everything has designed purpose.

Everything has compromises: edge retention vs flexibility. There is a host of applicable trade offs, with stainless even more so. Otherwise we would all be sitting with one perfect knife.

Nooooooooooooooooooooooh, Einstein has to ignore the standard yardsticks and dis a maker, respected, when he manages to break a knife. Try some Chinese $3 junk and beat that in a vice, doubt that will break, but by your analogy it is thus better than a CRK????????????????????????//
 
Testing such as this, using non-real world situations is assinine. There is no control group. One test sample. Tests made up because of equipment available.

I will quote an ex Special Forces soldier:
"You realize that the Harsey/ Reeve GB (Yarborough), was tested in field work and beat 150 other knife designs for overall useability in a world wide test - and another reason it won - it was designed and made in the USA. Many of the others were designed by Americans but manufactured overseas, with no guarantee against piracy."

I think I will trust the tests used to select the knife initially versus peeling apples and wacking it with a hammer.
 
The way the test are done, you can not compare the blades to one another, there is no control...HOWEVER....if it is the knife he is testing that you either own, want, need, brag about, or hate, it is very nice to see just what kind of abuse you could subject it to if any type of circumstance ever arose,... I like his tests, and it does help make up a few people minds before they purchase something, and thats always a plus.
 
This quote is from Harsey himself from that thread:

The knife was chosen on the strength of it's blade, sharpness and ultimate strength. The knife has to be able to perform a very broad range of tasks, some of which may be unique to a soldier.
Click to expand...

It seems exactly relevant to the types of tests Noss performed.

I guess green beret knives should stick to vine cutting and envelope opening?
 
At least we know who the big Chris Reeve fans are!:D
Bellyache all you want but I am never buying a green beret.
 
Never bought one, still usefull to know if I ever consider buying one to beat with a steel mallet, just prefer to deal with straight facts on a whole picture.

I have a couple of blades with MS on them and they provide a useful reminder for what we should all strive for and going stainless is a big compromise.
 
I overall, am not a huge fan of the Green Beret. How ever, I love my Project I. It is the only knife that I would trust my life with. I would love to see one tested!
 
HoB said:
I don't see how this is much different from clamping a folder into a vise and put load on the blade with a hydraulic press? And yet this is exactly how all Spyderco folders get tested during the design stage.
Click to expand...

There is a great difference - Spyderco loads it slowly and measures the force required to break it. A measurement of the strength of the design with static loading (lock strength one way and design/pivot strength the other). This test shock loads it and there is no measurement of force or impulse or anything else to failure. No way to be sure what force or impact is being absorbed by the knife to failure. A very easy test to misinterpret, IMO. Destructive testing without force measurements or analysis to determine what caused the failure is just pictures of stuff getting destroyed, and leads to pure conjecture. I don't really care what anyone is going to state as a result of the video, but I do object to comparisons of this and a real destructive test where the results are measured and investigated.

this test as it stands does not tell you anything other than that one knife broke after being clamped to a vice and wacked X times with a steel hammer. You have no idea of the load, stress, or strain encountered, and no idea of the energy absorbed prior to failure (toughness).

I agree that it may give you a very rough idea of toughness of the knife, but without more data any result you come up with is very speculative. There could have been an issue with this one knife. Why hasn't anyone asked what the temperature was? That could be important. One could bias this test by doing this test with a cold knife.
 
Noss, Many thanks for ending my for sale thread!!! Your A &*^#$@:"? Madman, Its all GOOD! Thoroughly enjoy your TESTS!!! JOHN:thumbup:
 
i personally believe stress risers such as the serrations on the GB had alot to do with the failure in this case.
 
Broos said:
And this sums up why I think somebody should point out the problems inherent in trying to interpret too much out of this "testing".
Click to expand...

Perhaps if we had scientific testing results from the makers to work with we would have a clearer picture of a knives capabilities, since we don't I guess we just have to rely on the personal experiences and homebrew testing posted here and elsewhere. I don't think anyone confuses Noss's tests with a scientific approach, but his results are transparent and up for your own viewing pleasure and interpretation or dismissal. But regardless of the accuracy, they're a lot more insightful than statements like "If it's good enough for the Green Berets, it's good enough for me."
 
I pulled this from CRKs site.

Efficient - Tough - Exceptional

Words that describe the men of the U.S. Army Special Forces
Words that describe the knife designed specifically for these men


This knife is known to the U.S. Army Special Forces as "The Yarborough" and to everyone else as "The Green Beret Knife". It is a no-nonsense, hardworking tool, designed by renowned knife maker and designer Bill Harsey, with function and manufacturing input from Chris Reeve. Made in Boise, Idaho by Chris Reeve Knives, 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...

The description of the Green Berets is spot on however, I think the knife falls a bit short............
 
I have always admired the Chris Reeves hollowhandled knives, i guess you can call me a bit of a fan boy even though i don't own any. The price was always just a little bit out of my reach. Lately I have especially been lusting after the Mountaineer I, a couple of times i've just about committed to buying one buy but then a bill would arrive in the mail and well there goes my cash surplus.lol.

I am also a fan of Noss's videos. Its a love/hate thing, i love to see knives pushed to their limits but i also mourn the loss of good steel, lol.
I think Noss was fair in his testing, he subjected the knife to the same range of tests he conducts on most of the other knives he has tested.

Really for price the knife should be a lot tougher, especially considering it is marketed as a tough-as-nails military knife.

Noss has tested much cheaper knives that have held up quite well under the destruction testing. Heck even the little 10$ Mora Clipper did surprisingly well and made it into the concrete testing stage.

For me the performance of Chris Reeves Green Beret knife was a little disconcerting.
I'm really hoping this poor performance is just a case of an individual knife with a bad heat treat or at least something traceable just to the Green Beret knife.

Noss I hope you test a regular Chris Reeve hollowhandled knife soon.
I have my fingers crossed that it will fair better.

Has there been any word from Chris Reeves himself?
 
CRK will never answer a test like this. Good luck in getting them to. If you read the GB thread linked above, tells alot.

I don't think it's somehow just that knife was flawed as mentioned Cliff Stamp got very similar results.

So Broos and all the others that bemoan how Noss tests aren't relevant. Be sure to post the results of your relevant scientific tests OK?
 
Everyone is welcome for the tests.


Broos: Do you remember this post of yours ? You were defending Jerry Hossom's his hammer and nail test against Cliff Stamp. You tried this yourself.
http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4845031&postcount=69

I didn't see any numbered results being obtained from this. Nor do I remember reading Jerry saying he obtained scientific data from this. It was a try a see what happens and judge the results destructive test.

The whole thread
http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=493133
 
Broos said:
There is a great difference - Spyderco loads it slowly and measures the force required to break it. A measurement of the strength of the design with static loading (lock strength one way and design/pivot strength the other). This test shock loads it and there is no measurement of force or impulse or anything else to failure. No way to be sure what force or impact is being absorbed by the knife to failure. A very easy test to misinterpret, IMO. Destructive testing without force measurements or analysis to determine what caused the failure is just pictures of stuff getting destroyed, and leads to pure conjecture. I don't really care what anyone is going to state as a result of the video, but I do object to comparisons of this and a real destructive test where the results are measured and investigated.

this test as it stands does not tell you anything other than that one knife broke after being clamped to a vice and wacked X times with a steel hammer. You have no idea of the load, stress, or strain encountered, and no idea of the energy absorbed prior to failure (toughness).

I agree that it may give you a very rough idea of toughness of the knife, but without more data any result you come up with is very speculative. There could have been an issue with this one knife. Why hasn't anyone asked what the temperature was? That could be important. One could bias this test by doing this test with a cold knife.
Click to expand...

I think this is closing your eyes to the obvious. Sure if you break one knife with a single stroke of a hammer and the other one doesn't and you do not do anything more than that, the test is not going to tell you much, maybe you hit one a bit different or used more force. However, if you take a look at the full testing program that Noss is putting the knifes through than it is obvious that the toughest ones are undisputably tougher than those that didn't far so well. The fact alone that you have to hammer one knife probably more than a 100 times to break it, is a measure. Putting your bodyweight on the blade is a well defined measure. Bending will all your strength is a fairly well defined measure. I mean, we are not haggling over a few pounds, we talk about a vastly different performance!

I wouldn't want to distinguish between the knives that fared similarily well. But there is such a vast discrepancy between what some knives can withstand and what others can not, I fail to see where that leaves any room for argument?

And, yes, the logical consequence is that if you want a tough knife and have two of approximately the same price and the performance is that drastically different, that you buy the one that performs well, and not the other one. Again, I fail to see why that would be a problem?
 
First, I am sure Sebenza is the best folder in the world (I am a Spyderco fan).

Second, I like very much the design of GB - was thinking about geting one. However I thought a S30V steel might be not tough enough. Why? Because you expect all possible ways and modes of use in military/survival situation including a heavy abuse.

Noss4's result reminds me of Cliff's result for SOG's Recondo with BG-42 steel hardened to Rc 62.

Noss4's result is the end of the S30V hype as far as toughness is concerned.

I think the A2 steel would be a much better choice for GB.

The best choice IMO would be 3V from Crucible. Because of extreme toughness (and edge retention even slightly better then 154CM (or ATS-34)). Eric Fehrman and Jerry Hossom use 3V in their knives. Just look at the following table I picked up from some thread.

cpmxyuo7.jpg


Franco
 
Which is why I sent $40 to Noss to purchase an A2 model, Pony up people! :)

looking at the above, why would anyone even bother making a tough knife, unless it was S7 or CPM3V or A2?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top