Chris Reeve Green Beret Video Desrtuction Test Completed

[bearcut]

I don't hit my knives with hammers.
I have never hit a rock while chopping with a blade.
I would never put a knife blade in a vise. That alone could ruin it.
I don't pry things open with knife blades, there is always something else I can use.
I've never needed to cut heavy steel with a knife.

I have subjected my knife edges to corrosive environments.
I do slice things with knives and appreciate a steel that holds a good edge.
I can gather firewood without a knife. Deadwood and sticks work really well.

I can break any knife made if I try hard enough. I can’t break any decent knife by using it for what it is designed for.

The Cliff Stamp type of knife ‘tests’ prove that if you misuse a knife, any knife, you can break it.

Big deal.

Speaking of Cliffy boy, I agree with Harsey, let Cliff start manufacturing knives.
Then let someone test HIS knives.

By the way, I know a couple of Green Berets. They are much too clever and intelligent to subject a knife to any type of abuse such as we have seen here. They laugh at these ‘tests’. They are a lot smarter than their knives though, I guess that’s why they are Green Berets and not backyard hackers.

 

[Lycosa]

Bearcut---You come at this with an Eastern philosophy. I respect that.

 

[3Guardsmen]

I can break any knife made if I try hard enough. I can’t break any decent knife by using it for what it is designed for.

Bearcut,
What exactly is the CRK Harsey Green Beret knife designed for?

On another note, it seems S30V is frequently praised for having "pry bar strength".

From:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_192_32/ai_n24232274/pg_2

"Once again, Harsey chooses CPM S-30V as his steel of choice. According to Bill, "The CPM S-30V has very good edge holding and toughness for both outdoors and military applications because of how it is made and the alloys contained within. The vanadium content allows for the formation of vanadium carbides resulting in edge holding that is independent of what the Rockwell hardness indicates. This steel has quite a range of applications depending on how it is heat treated and has between two and three times the pry bar strength of the old 154CM which continues to be a darn good steel, too.""

From:
http://www.borelliconsulting.com/evals/knives/neilrobertsupdate.htm

"The steel is the same as that used in the Yarborough knife: CPM S-30V, produced by Crucible Specialty Tool Steels. CPM S-30V is reportedly the toughest tool steel ever used to manufacture a knife. The characteristics of the steel make it ideal for holding an edge as well as having high pry bar strength. Why are both necessary? You only have to ask if you've never used a field knife."

Interesting. No failures reported here (check out the second post):
http://http://www.armyranger.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=23327&sid=719a36662cf6e994a4a3e856b733e858

Regards,
3G

 

[CaptInsano]

I quoted someone else that I trust. I do not have the tests at hand. I will google and see what I can find.

I didn't find the test data but I did find a related thread.

From this thread:
Chris Reeve Green Beret?



From the same thread:

IDC about that. Someone has presented test results. You have scoffed at tangible data and instead offered COMPLETELY unsubstantiated hearsay. You touted government testing and then utterly failed to produce the pertinent information. Do you see anything wrong with that?

 

[Cobalt]

I don't hit my knives with hammers.
I have never hit a rock while chopping with a blade.
I would never put a knife blade in a vise. That alone could ruin it.
I don't pry things open with knife blades, there is always something else I can use.
I've never needed to cut heavy steel with a knife.

I have subjected my knife edges to corrosive environments.
I do slice things with knives and appreciate a steel that holds a good edge.
I can gather firewood without a knife. Deadwood and sticks work really well.

I can break any knife made if I try hard enough. I can’t break any decent knife by using it for what it is designed for.

The Cliff Stamp type of knife ‘tests’ prove that if you misuse a knife, any knife, you can break it.

Big deal.

Speaking of Cliffy boy, I agree with Harsey, let Cliff start manufacturing knives.
Then let someone test HIS knives.

By the way, I know a couple of Green Berets. They are much too clever and intelligent to subject a knife to any type of abuse such as we have seen here. They laugh at these ‘tests’. They are a lot smarter than their knives though, I guess that’s why they are Green Berets and not backyard hackers.

you totally miss the point. Sure any knife can be broken and there is no doubt that Noss will break them all. The point is to see how far it will go before it breaks. Think of it this way, all the major manufacturing industries making machines that see use on a daily basis have destructive tests performed on them to see how long they can go before they fail as part of their safety test..

The aerospace industry does it. They test cyclic loading on aircraft structures. They even to stress tests on nose cones

The auto industry crash testing...

Gun manufacturers will double charge their weapons to see what happens. Whether it fails or not they get data and that is the whole point.

this is not unusual. The point is that when a tool is touted as being hard use, it is expected to be able to take hard use. Even the Strider did better than the Reeves and they are the same steel.

S30V is just not a hard use knife blade material and passing it off as such is not a good idea, no more than passing off other stainless steels is. Tool or Carbon steels are the only way in a hard use fixed blade. Well, except for Falkniven and their laminated stainless steel knives.

To the collector this makes no difference and that is fine. To the user, this test does tell a lot.

 

[CaptInsano]

I don't think the true value of noss's tests is in what he does (though I feel it's informative), because a lot of the stuff he does is "abusive." He plays rougher than most would with their knives, but I don't doubt some other people out there do the same.

Anyhow, the value in his tests is the comparison between knives. He does pretty much the same rough tests to everything he gets his hands on. Sure there will be variation in the force he uses and in the manufacturing of the knife, but I don't think it can't be argued that valid information can be gathered from comparing the tests to each other. Can you really argue that hitting one knife on the spine with a steel hammer is significantly different than hitting another knife on the spine with that same steel hammer? I think it would be hard to argue that.

Pretty clearly there is information to be gained about how different knives compare to each other, and their breaking points (whether or not you ever reach them).

I agree 100%

 

[hardheart]

either the knife broke due to design, or it broke due to bad QC. since Noss hits other knives with the same mallet in the same vice, you expect a level of consistency to develop. and guess what, it doesn't have to be too precise. if you are never going to hit your knife with a hammer, then what is the point in even commenting. anyone that will hit their knife with a hammer for whatever 'practical' application sure as hell isn't going to have accelerometers hooked up to it.

I can't believe the argument in favor of CRK is that this was a crappily built knife. they win industry awards on a regular basis.

 

[Cobalt]

"Once again, Harsey chooses CPM S-30V as his steel of choice. According to Bill, "The CPM S-30V has very good edge holding and toughness for both outdoors and military applications because of how it is made and the alloys contained within. The vanadium content allows for the formation of vanadium carbides resulting in edge holding that is independent of what the Rockwell hardness indicates. This steel has quite a range of applications depending on how it is heat treated and has between two and three times the pry bar strength of the old 154CM which continues to be a darn good steel, too.""Regards,
3G

I am glad you posted that. That is such a crock of shizle. It is quite untrue. the difference in toughness between 154cm, s30v, and 440c at the same Rc is so negligeable that it is not worth mentioning.

 

[Cobalt]

either the knife broke due to design, or it broke due to bad QC. since Noss hits other knives with the same mallet in the same vice, you expect a level of consistency to develop. and guess what, it doesn't have to be too precise. if you are never going to hit your knife with a hammer, then what is the point in even commenting. anyone that will hit their knife with a hammer for whatever 'practical' application sure as hell isn't going to have accelerometers hooked up to it.

I can't believe the argument in favor of CRK is that this was a crappily built knife. they win industry awards on a regular basis.

well, between noss and cliff it is quite apparent that this knife was not designed for hard use.

Also winning an industry award means nothing to the toughness of a knife. there is no doubt that Reeves knives have excellent attention to fit and finish and this is what wins awards. Much like AKC dog shows giving awards to the best LOOKING hunting dog. Wowee, too bad that great looking hunting dog can't hunt.

 

[Broos]

Can you really argue that hitting one knife on the spine with a steel hammer is significantly different than hitting another knife on the spine with that same steel hammer? I think it would be hard to argue that.

My recollection of doing the charpy test in college does give me the experience to argue that. In a charpy test a precisely sized and prepared standard specimen is hit by a large hammer swung from the same height going the same speed with the same energy every time. The measurement you make is how far the pendulum/hammer swings up after breaking the specimen (end result is total energy absorbed by the specimen = toughness). The other observations that are part of the test is to observe the fracture mode and measure specimen temperature. The specimens used have dimensional and finish tolerances comparable to high quality knives.

From the tests I did years ago, the measurements we got for toughness from this ASTM caliber testing machine varied wildly. So wildly we could not even come up with any reliable measure of toughness from 7 or 8 test runs of these meticulously prepared specimens. The lab Professor didn't even reduce our grade due to our failure to achieve any good toughness data, because our results were typical. The only thing we could determine was a rough idea of the transitional temperature (the temperature a steel goes from ductile to brittle mode fracture), which was determined by observing the fracture mode at different specimen temperatures.

If anyone else here has done any charpy testing, maybe they can offer an opinion of how difficult it is to get consistent and good toughness testing results using any of the standard tests. There is also much disagreement about how useful toughness as a measurement is.

So from remembering the results of my Charpy testing, which is probably a little more precise and consistent than Noss's test, I will say that yes I can argue your point.

 

[Cobalt]

My recollection of doing the charpy test in college does give me the experience to argue that. In a charpy test a precisely sized and prepared standard specimen is hit by a large hammer swung from the same height going the same speed with the same energy every time. The measurement you make is how far the pendulum/hammer swings up after breaking the specimen (end result is total energy absorbed by the specimen = toughness). The other observations that are part of the test is to observe the fracture mode and measure specimen temperature. The specimens used have dimensional and finish tolerances comparable to high quality knives.

From the tests I did years ago, the measurements we got for toughness from this ASTM caliber testing machine varied wildly. So wildly we could not even come up with any reliable measure of toughness from 7 or 8 test runs of these meticulously prepared specimens. The lab Professor didn't even reduce our grade due to our failure to achieve any good toughness data, because our results were typical. The only thing we could determine was a rough idea of the transitional temperature (the temperature a steel goes from ductile to brittle mode fracture), which was determined by observing the fracture mode at different specimen temperatures.

If anyone else here has done any charpy testing, maybe they can offer an opinion of how difficult it is to get consistent and good toughness testing results using any of the standard tests. There is also much disagreement about how useful toughness as a measurement is.

So from remembering the results of my Charpy testing, which is probably a little more precise and consistent than Noss's test, I will say that yes I can argue your point.

When we did the Charpy tests with notching (20 years ago, I can't even remember what steels we used) the results were close enough for government work

But trying to perform the same test without the notch gave varied results.

You also have to take into account that Nos is not a machine and cannot hit a spine the same way every time. The slightest hit off center increases the stresses dramatically since you are now including an applied impact moment.

But what it does tell is if there are any induced stresses within the blade or risers that have not been properly relieved.

 

[hardheart]

seems the difficulty in repeatability and accuracy is the obvious selling point for overbuilding your knives. want to make sell a knife design that can handle an advertised 20 hammer whacks... make sure every one you test takes at least 100, no matter what temperature or type of mask the tester is wearing. I know all the US built lifting hardware we used had a 4:1 rating. a 5 ton shackle better damn well hold 20 tons without failure, they didn't get put to work in a controlled environment.

 

[CaptInsano]

well, between noss and cliff it is quite apparent that this knife was not designed for hard use.

I think you could probably stab and slash people pretty hard with it. It just isn't a very robust tool, which is a shame since that seems to be the way it is marketed and probably why some people are upset.

 

[3Guardsmen]

I think you could probably stab and slash people pretty hard with it.

Maybe, but what if said stabee or slashee was wearing gear (think of war/battle/combat), and that gear included hard, metallic objects?

Regards,
3G

 

[1kimo4u]

clearly, this knife is for cutting, and mostly poking (felt it when i first held it). i better not chop. i own one, and i won't be chopping with it. i must admit that i am not pleased with the results of this test.

however, i do like noss's testing. these videos are fun to watch! if i need to chop or do narly stuff, i'll use my ffbm!

 

[CaptInsano]

Maybe, but what if said stabee or slashee was wearing gear (think of war/battle/combat), and that gear included hard, metallic objects?

Regards,
3G

Honestly, you aren't going to pierce a metallic armor plate (with a knife) if it has something as soft as a human supporting it. Likewise, it probably isn't going to break the knife. I guess you'd just have to skewer his head.

 

[theonew]

if i need to chop or do narly stuff, i'll use my ffbm!

I'd be careful there, you are dangerously close to admitting intent to commit KNIFE ABUSE

 

[1kimo4u]

guilty as charged!

 

[PatriotDan]

Someone mentioned 5160,L6,O1,S7,A2,3V,... and then S30V. And that the toughness of S30V doesn't come even close. True. But there's one bigger difference between them that might exclude the first group of steels alltogether.

 

[Torm]

I don't hit my knives with hammers.
I have never hit a rock while chopping with a blade.
I would never put a knife blade in a vise. That alone could ruin it.
I don't pry things open with knife blades, there is always something else I can use.
I've never needed to cut heavy steel with a knife.

I have subjected my knife edges to corrosive environments.
I do slice things with knives and appreciate a steel that holds a good edge.
I can gather firewood without a knife. Deadwood and sticks work really well.

I can break any knife made if I try hard enough. I can’t break any decent knife by using it for what it is designed for.

It seems you may be missing the point. Other knives marketed for hard field use have surpassed the GB in Noss's tests by a large margin. You may not abuse your knife but personally, when paying $300+ for a blade, I expect it to handle whatever I can throw at it whether its abusive or not. Some knives do that and if they ever happen to fail the warranty covers it. The Busse family, Rangers, and RAT cutlery are a few. That said, CRK makes some great knives and I really hope to own a Sebbie and possibly a Pacific one day but this particular destruction test has me reconsidering the GB. Each to their own though.