nyefmaker
Gold Member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2008
- Messages
- 6,257
Put a mask on and find out !!! ( that way no will know who you are )....lol
-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is ready to order! See this thread for details: https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/bladeforums-2024-traditional-knife.2003187/
Price is$300$250 ea (shipped within CONUS). If you live outside the US, I will contact you after your order for extra shipping charges.
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/ - Order as many as you like, we have plenty.
CRK fixed blade question
- Thread starter coldsilence55
- Start date
Put a mask on and find out !!! ( that way no will know who you are )....lol
pvicenzi
Basic Member
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2008
- Messages
- 6,665
I gave it a try. My department store special took 2 more wacks to break in half than my brand name did. Must mean the cheapies are better watches.
It may not bother you but its clear that there are many people out there that are bothered, or at the very least curious. As you said, going just by the numbers the knife didn't perform well. Putting all of their statements about hard use and virtual indestructability aside, a quarter inch of tool steel should be able to easily withstand being hammered into wood.
Why make a knife that thick which comes at the expense of cutting ability if its not going to withstand some abuse? Thats the reason so many people, including myself, are wanting to hear an explanation from CR because this doesn't add up.
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2007
- Messages
- 761
Tool steel on tool steel is my explanation; always a stupid move. If he'd used another piece of wood, or maybe even a rock, instead of that deadblow sledge of his, the knife would have been fine.
Then why didn't we see the same result on other knives of the same hardness with less "tough" steels.
Does anyone here think that the hollow grind may have played a role? Since hollow grinds have more thin points on the blade, perhaps a small fracture began at a thin point and propagated across the knife. The hollow grind combined with serrations may factor into it.
Also, CRK responded to these "tests." The response has been posted. It looks like they basically said their knives aren't designed to be beat on with hammers (not in those words, though). Oh well. Doesn't bother me. If you need to survive, using your brain is far more important that being able to pound on a knife with a hammer.
As for the price, I think you're paying for a pretty dang good knife with excellent fit and finish and a high quality sheath. It may not be the toughest knife in the world, but it's plenty tough for me because I don't plan on hitting any of my knives with anything harder than wood.
Also, CRK responded to these "tests." The response has been posted. It looks like they basically said their knives aren't designed to be beat on with hammers (not in those words, though). Oh well. Doesn't bother me. If you need to survive, using your brain is far more important that being able to pound on a knife with a hammer.
As for the price, I think you're paying for a pretty dang good knife with excellent fit and finish and a high quality sheath. It may not be the toughest knife in the world, but it's plenty tough for me because I don't plan on hitting any of my knives with anything harder than wood.
Thats not entirely correct. CRK hasn't said anything about the breakage of the one piece.
Thats the essential problem here because then CRK is contradicting themselves. These knives are marketed directly towards soldiers. As many people know, soldiers are terrible on their equipment. A knife isn't just a cutting tool, its a can opener, a cable cutter, a scraper, a wedge, a crate opener, etc. Since Reeve is a former soldier he knows this. As a result, its expected that these knives will be used for all sorts of things, not just cutting.
Nonsensical statement. A survival situation may very well require you to use a hammer to baton. Is it unlikely, yes. Is it totally beyond reality, not at all.
I keep hearing this from people defending CRK. Namely, the attitude of "its fine because I wouldn't do it." What a particular individual does or doesn't do is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether the product performs as advertised and as expected. From any objective analysis the CRK doesnt do this.
The same applies to it being a "pretty dang good knife". As I said before, these are thick hunks of steel. They aren't razors by any stretch of the imagination. The only reason to sacrifice cutting ability for thickness is to have a very tough knife. If you don't have a tough knife, then youve given away something for nothing.
True, CRK hasn't come out with anything about the one piece knives. I assumed the previous response was sufficient.
CRK is not contradicting themselves. I just looked at their website and read over the guarantee card that came with my Shadow IV and they don't have anything in either place that makes it sound like you can beat the crap out of their knives with a steel mallet and expect all to be good. In fact, the warranty is void if the knife breaks from throwing (a sharp impact scenario) and the guarantee states that the knife is designed for a specific purpose (I'd guess cutting, which is fine by me).
As for what you think is nonsensical, I don't. My sister and her husband have both taken several primitive survival courses and even were counselors at outdoor therapy courses where all they had were Frost Moras. I'm certain that both of them could survive without any problems with their Moras. The primary difference I've noticed between them and knife nuts (myself included) is that they have been trained to use knives for cutting tasks to make other tools. They don't view their knives as the do all survival tools that some knife nuts do. Sure, the knife helps to make other tools, but their knife use consists of cutting and possibly, light batoning. So from my perspective, my statement is not nonsensical.
As for relevance of what "I would do" with a knife, what I would do with a knife is extremely relevant for me. It may not be relevant for you, but that's fine. From my browsing of the CRK site and reading my guarantee card, CRK advertising seems fine. Oh, the guarantee doesn't cover abuse. As far as I know, not too many manufacturers will say that multiple hammer blows is not abuse. There are some out there that might, but the majority won't. Oh, as for what I would do with my CRK one piece, I must state that owning only a Shadow IV, the thinner blade of the Shadow IV makes it a knife for smaller tasks, which is why I bought it. I have plenty of big knives that I know can stand up to hammer beatings (but I still won't ever subject them to that).
CRK is not contradicting themselves. I just looked at their website and read over the guarantee card that came with my Shadow IV and they don't have anything in either place that makes it sound like you can beat the crap out of their knives with a steel mallet and expect all to be good. In fact, the warranty is void if the knife breaks from throwing (a sharp impact scenario) and the guarantee states that the knife is designed for a specific purpose (I'd guess cutting, which is fine by me).
As for what you think is nonsensical, I don't. My sister and her husband have both taken several primitive survival courses and even were counselors at outdoor therapy courses where all they had were Frost Moras. I'm certain that both of them could survive without any problems with their Moras. The primary difference I've noticed between them and knife nuts (myself included) is that they have been trained to use knives for cutting tasks to make other tools. They don't view their knives as the do all survival tools that some knife nuts do. Sure, the knife helps to make other tools, but their knife use consists of cutting and possibly, light batoning. So from my perspective, my statement is not nonsensical.
As for relevance of what "I would do" with a knife, what I would do with a knife is extremely relevant for me. It may not be relevant for you, but that's fine. From my browsing of the CRK site and reading my guarantee card, CRK advertising seems fine. Oh, the guarantee doesn't cover abuse. As far as I know, not too many manufacturers will say that multiple hammer blows is not abuse. There are some out there that might, but the majority won't. Oh, as for what I would do with my CRK one piece, I must state that owning only a Shadow IV, the thinner blade of the Shadow IV makes it a knife for smaller tasks, which is why I bought it. I have plenty of big knives that I know can stand up to hammer beatings (but I still won't ever subject them to that).
How could it be? The one piece is an entirely different knife with entirely different steel. To say that the letter for one is sufficient for both is no different than saying that an explanation for a sedan performing poorly in a crash test applies to a truck.
Again, not quite correct. Their website excludes throwing and "heavy levering" which seems to imply that light levering is acceptable. It does not say that the knife is for cutting only. Quite the contrary, CRK themselves state that the knife itself can be used as a hammer on the website. Thats advocating metal on metal contact, so the idea that it is a "cutting only tool" is dispelled by CRK themselves.
Again, this is totally irrelevant. What someone somewhere is comfortable doing has nothing to do with the fact that an emergency situation may call for a knife to perform outside its traditional role.
If you are going to market your knife as virtually indestructable, state that it can be a hammer in a pinch, tell people that it is in service with soldiers and survivalists the world over, it should perform similar to other knives in this category. If you are going to make a knife out of 1/4" tool steel it should perform better than thinner 1095 of the same hardness every time.
Busse knives are virtually indestructable. Scrapyard knives are virtually indestructible. Swamprat knives are virtually indestructable. RAT and Fallkniven dont make any such claims and are still damn tough. CRK states their one piece is virtually indestructable and it didn't come anywhere near the performance of these knives.
Does anyone think that the serrations played a large role in the failures? I thought they broke at the little cutout at the choil like on my Shadow IV, but I just looked at closer pictures and realized that the serrated models don't have that. It makes sense to me. The serrations are stress risers and the breaks seem to start in the middle of a serration.
Thats not the point. You said that CRK intended this knife to be only used for cutting. Thats not remotely the case. One doesn't talk about the indestructability of a knife if all they intend to do is cut with it.
I would really like you or anyone else to explain to me why an RC-4 can withstand being hammered into a cinderblock while the CRK can't take being hammered into wood. This isn't a dig but a genuine question.
That is a legitimate question. I would personally like to know how a Reeve One Piece would do without serrations. I realize that serrations were indeed part of the knife design, but most of the one piece line up doesn't have them, so I wonder how much of a role, if any, they played in the breakage.
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2007
- Messages
- 761
Hmmm...good question, but the answer isn't necessarily that the knife is inferior. I still trust mine.
It's possible that I spoke too soon, but a bunch of other things are possible too.
Who knows. I wish this thing would just die.
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2008
- Messages
- 251
and Dead.
Didn't mean to create such a commotion and debate (again apparently). I appreciate all the input, but was specifically just asking if they ever mentioned anything about tweaking their heat treatment processes and such. It seems they have not... which is ok, but because of that I will most likely stick with other manufacturers for fixed blades. Thanks everyone-
Didn't mean to create such a commotion and debate (again apparently). I appreciate all the input, but was specifically just asking if they ever mentioned anything about tweaking their heat treatment processes and such. It seems they have not... which is ok, but because of that I will most likely stick with other manufacturers for fixed blades. Thanks everyone-
nyefmaker
Gold Member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2008
- Messages
- 6,257
I believe this is the Only Reason the knife failed. I have believed that the serrations caused the failure since I first saw the video early last year. Your the first person I have seen that has seemed to pick up on that. Both of the CRK that failed had serrations. I stated from the very beggining that I believed this was the cause of the breakage.
I remember seeing someone mention it, but I didn't remember who. The serrations are easily the thinnest parts of the blade and do indeed act as stress risers, so it makes sense to me. I personally don't like serrations and as such avoid buying knives with them any more. For me, even if it were proven that the serrations largely contributed to the breaks, I wouldn't care because I wouldn't buy any knife with serrations. Good thing there are plenty of one piece knives without them!
nyefmaker
Gold Member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2008
- Messages
- 6,257
I have never been a fan of serrations, on any knife. I love the pacific and green beret, but have not bought them because of the serrations. Not only have I always felt they weaken a blade, I have always felt they take up the most heavy duty part of the blade. They may serve their purpose in the military, but for me, a knife that I will be using for edc or in the woods can do without them. I sold my project II because I did not like the serrations. I know they make them plain, when funds allow, I will get them. The only CRK I have left with serrations is the pachmayr. I will keep it because its so rare, but it will basically be a safe queen.
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2007
- Messages
- 761
I never really gave it a lot of thought, but I suppose I don't either. Makes sense enough.
Serrations constitute a geometric irregularity that might disrupt the flow of kinetic energy throughout the blade. If you're prying with it or pounding on it, serrations seem the most likely area of failure...
Serrations constitute a geometric irregularity that might disrupt the flow of kinetic energy throughout the blade. If you're prying with it or pounding on it, serrations seem the most likely area of failure...
Two questions then. Even if serrations are the weakest part of the blade, shouldn't a 1/4" thick piece of A2 still be able to withstand this treatment.
Second, the Schrade knockoff that was tested had serrations as well and took far more abuse despite the fact that it was inferior steel. Since the dimensions are virtually identical and the CRK has the advantage of a much tougher steel, doesn't this illustrate that the performance of the CRK cannot be blamed on serrations alone.