Chris Reeve knives on (knifetests.com)

kycolonel said:
Noss used to creep me out a little bit with the whole hockey mask thing and all the skulls and sh_t being over the top. Now after revisiting his site I think hes tuned that down a little bit and have come to enjoy it more for what it is. Is it "unbiased"- absolutely not. To rate a Mora Clipper on the same scale as an FFBM is silly. But, to do a truly unbiased knife test would be prohibitively expensive. On the other hand, if someone is going to charge $175+ for a survival knife, there is an implied if not direct claim that that knife will stand up better to abuse than a $15 Old Hickory butcher knife. Makers or fans of those makers should not get upset when someone pushes the envelope of reasonable use.

This reminds me of the endless Bear Grylls threads which always net in the same place: Don't like it? Don't watch it. If Noss wants to invest his time and $$ into the knifetest site then that's his biz and he should go for it.
Click to expand...


Great response.I thought the whole fanboy gang-up on NOSS thing was silly.
 
Owning several of the knives mentioned in his tests,I find them interesting,
not conclusive,I've yet to baton any of my knives into a concrete block.
but knowing which ones can take it without me forking out the dough
to find out gets a :thumbup: from me.Does it persuade me to buy one knife
or another,nope. Rule #1 never use a knife for a prybar or screwdriver
or anything it wasn't intended for. Keep testing CRK and help support Chris
and Ann:thumbup:,keep breaking them they'll make more :D



Tyrantblade
 
The fact is that you make you name and go to sleep. Your become big and then I can sell anything at any price:jerkit:The concept that if it costs a lot is excellent, the people believe it! I don't dress Versace and I'm ok.
Noss, is doing fantastic work... Anyone like him is welcome:cool:
 
tyrantblade said:
Owning several of the knives mentioned in his tests,I find them interesting,
not conclusive,I've yet to baton any of my knives into a concrete block.
but knowing which ones can take it without me forking out the dough
to find out gets a :thumbup: from me.Does it persuade me to buy one knife
or another,nope. Rule #1 never use a knife for a prybar or screwdriver
or anything it wasn't intended for. Keep testing CRK and help support Chris
and Ann:thumbup:,keep breaking them they'll make more :D



Tyrantblade
Click to expand...

cool !
 
ishiyumisan said:
The fact is that you make you name and go to sleep. Your become big and then I can sell anything at any price:jerkit:The concept that if it costs a lot is excellent, the people believe it! I don't dress Versace and I'm ok.
Noss, is doing fantastic work... Anyone like him is welcome:cool:
Click to expand...

i am with you !
do you registered on the site of noss?
i am dingyu1980 there!
you are welcome,man!
 
Roger999 said:
It did not fail, it's made to cut not to be struck with a metal hammer, I doubt it would have snapped if he used a rubber mallet or wood to baton with.
Click to expand...
That should apply to all the knives tested.
But it doesn't.
 
Maybe it would be helpful to set some parameters for these tests?

Assume that:
  • The knife tested is all you've got.
  • You are in a situation where actions like the ones noss4 performs on the knife are actually necessary - as if your life depended on it.
To clarify: If you're not willing to imagine a scenario that involves some form of rather extreme survival demands, then no, these tests are not realistic. If you cannot or will not imagine a situation where you need to cut yourself out of a concrete bunker or a 4-wheel drive, or any situation that might show the ultimate strengths and weaknesses of your knife, then no, the destruction tests are not realistic. If you are certain your knife will never be called upon to act way outside its intended purpose, then disregard the tests.

Someone said earlier that all the knives tested by noss4 would pass 'normal' testing procedures, or something to that effect. I agree with that. I take it as a given that most knives will perform as advertised, certainly with their price in mind.
But it's the knives whose makers claim they are tough, or tougher than most, or in fact toughest of all that I'd like to see pushed and stressed beyond what is reasonable. Can we deduce anything from the results of the noss4 tests? At the very least how all the knives hold up compared to each other... Add prices to the equation and I think it's safe to say, there were quite a few results no one would have prediction! :D
 
This is just something that we are divided on, for a number of reasons. There are people on both sides of the fence with perfectly good arguments in their favor. Some of what gets posted in these threads is just noise, and some of it is as valid as can be.

There's no need to keep saying the same things over and over. We don't all agree. It's okay - really.
 
I've been watching the Noss Knife Tests a lot since this thread and can see a systematic testing method that shows me a Cheaper Than Dirt Rough Use knife is tougher than the Chris Reeve knife at a fraction of the cost. I'll take the CTD Rough Use knife any day over the Chris Reeve knife from what I saw in the video.
 
syltetoy said:
I've been watching the Noss Knife Tests a lot since this thread and can see a systematic testing method that shows me a Cheaper Than Dirt Rough Use knife is tougher than the Chris Reeve knife at a fraction of the cost. I'll take the CTD Rough Use knife any day over the Chris Reeve knife from what I saw in the video.
Click to expand...

The noss tests favor a tough steel, such as 1055, over a steel that will hold an edge, such as S30V.

Choosing such a steel is the prerogative of the individual. Each of us must choose designs and materials that give us the properties we need.

I actually have no problem with the noss tests as long as it is understood that the tests are geared for ultimate toughness at the expense of edge holding. As I said before, I prefer a knife that will retain an edge to one that I can beat on with a hammer. That does not make my choice wrong any more than it makes the choice of a fella that chooses 1055 wrong.

We just each have different needs.
 
knarfeng said:
The noss tests favor a tough steel, such as 1055, over a steel that will hold an edge, such as S30V.

Choosing such a steel is the prerogative of the individual. Each of us must choose designs and materials that give us the properties we need.

I actually have no problem with the noss tests as long as it is understood that the tests are geared for ultimate toughness at the expense of edge holding. As I said before, I prefer a knife that will retain an edge to one that I can beat on with a hammer. That does not make my choice wrong any more than it makes the choice of a fella that chooses 1055 wrong.

We just each have different needs.
Click to expand...

From what I saw during the test Cold Steel 1055 has excellent edge retension, and from my own experience chopping with Cold Steel 1055 the edge holds beyond my expectations and needs. I wish Noss would do some dedication edge retention tests to show if the premium steels really do what they say or is it just another waste of money. I wonder what blade steel the meat and fish "industry" uses? I wonder if they use S30V blades in the comercial meat and fish industry where edge retention is time and money.

I also believe the heat treatment and edge design is more important than the type of steel.

Why does Mora of Sweden and Victorinox not go with the latest super steel, could be there is not enough performance increase to justify the cost.
 
Last edited:
syltetoy said:
I've been watching the Noss Knife Tests a lot since this thread and can see a systematic testing method that shows me a Cheaper Than Dirt Rough Use knife is tougher than the Chris Reeve knife at a fraction of the cost. I'll take the CTD Rough Use knife any day over the Chris Reeve knife from what I saw in the video.
Click to expand...

you are smart! that is the value of D-tests of noss!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top