CS Recon Scout Fails Miserably

[Cliff Stamp]

A stress risor is something which causes the stress (the load applied to the blade basically) to concentrate in one place and thus drastically weakens it. Sharp corners, notches and deep scratches can all act as stress risors. Even with this however the blade should not have failed.

-Cliff

 

[klattman]

A stress risor is something which causes the stress (the load applied to the blade basically) to concentrate in one place and thus drastically weakens it. Sharp corners, notches and deep scratches can all act as stress risors. Even with this however the blade should not have failed.

-Cliff

Thanks.

Then it seems to me that it was a fluke that was tempered too hard (not tempered enough?). Especially since the second one was fine.

It would be interesting to clamp the blade in a vice and pull laterally on the handle with an inline scale and measure the breaking force... but I don't suggest that anyone do this to their nice knife, and it's extremely dangerous too.. (blade chunks flying around).

I do hope CS will replace under warranty.

 

[Josh Muller]

Some people have posted that outward appearances of a knife don't count....But I disagree, I believe that the inner design nature should come forth in the outward appearance of the blade.

Some people don't seem to think the design intents of the maker are important to take into account when useing a knife in the woods....I disagree. I think that the intentions of the maker for his knife are key to understanding how the maker came to make the knife he did.

Some people still dont think contacting a maker about a knife that failed is needed, ,,,I disagree, I would hope that the first person contacted about a failed knife would be the maker so that questions can asked and answered, and any problems with knife construction can be addressed.

If a Recon knife is declared by the maker to have been specifically designed and manufactured with certain types of work in mind, and should the owner of that knife attempt to do this type of work and experience a blade breakage.....then the knife is at fault and the maker should become aware of this failure.

However if any knife is abused in manners not intended for it's use, then the knife can not be held to blame for all of our decisions...

its called reverse engineering. you are given a tool, a design, a situation, a problem, and that is all you are given. you work backwards to come to a conclusion on both why the tool, design, situation, or problem came to be, how it works, why it worked like it did, what can be done to make it better, what it is good for.

no information is required to understand the item if the reverse engeneering is done throuroughly and correctly.

but, forgetting reverse engeneering for a second, lets go back to what i said on a previous post that covers this topic

I have kept saying that the only person who has any right to answer that question is the maker....

Now I have my point of view, based on my own gut feelings when I look at the photo, notice how deep it's stuck in the wood, , notice the banged up handle, the Huge guard that must have been sticking up in the way,,,

And noticeing that Im not sure this is a "Camping" knife in the first place!....

It is my point of view that based on what I know of camping, that this knife was NEVER designed to be thought of as a camper....To me it looks like a fighter....the huge guard,,,,the handle,,,,the point,,,,all say, "Fighter" to me,,,not "Log splitter"

But I could be wrong,,,,,If you guys can find anything writen by the maker or get an email from him (or them) that says the broken knife is a camp knife, or a survival knife, or a hunting knife, or whatever....and that it's made to split wood as shown in the photo,,,,,then you got an air-tight case against this knife,,,,

when you look for something that is capable of handleing a certain task, there are a set of criteria that must be met first in order acheive the given task without failure.

in the case of a log splitter,
-the knife must have an edge that is capable of initiating a cut into wood
-must not be so brittle that it shatters upon impact with a soft heavy object
-must not be so brittle that it shatters, breaks, or chips excessively upon contact with a rock or other imbedded objects
-must be long enough to accomidate a log hitting it and a hand holding it while splitting the log
-must have a proper heat treatment and geometry to handle the sudden shocks that occur when hitting it with another soft object *wood will give way before steel does, hence a soft object compared to the knife*

if it has all of these traits, the knife should be able to successfully split logs all day long without failure.

it has absolutely nothing to do with what the knife looks like, or what the manifacturer calls it, or what the manifacturer originally designed the knife to do. if it has all of the traits required of a knife to accomplish log splitting, it is a suitable log splitter. he can say that he only designed the knife to spread butter - and anything else is abuse, and it wont matter, because it meets the criteria of a log splitter.

in the case of the recon scout, it is a 5/16" thick fully flat ground knife using carbon v steel. carbon v is known to be a decent high carbon steel that is capable of taking abuse without immediate failure. it is long enough to accomidate a person holding the handle, and hitting the tip with a log to force it into another log in order to split it. the tip is not so thin that it will be immediately damaged by a log or heavy sudden force on it.

by all standards and criteria or the end users - this knife, the recon scout, should be able to split logs all day without failure (unless it hits a very large rock in the process). it does not matter in any way shape or form to the end user what the maker of the knife designed the knife to do, because it fits all the criteria of a log splitter.


now, as far as the makers warranty for replacing their blades, then what they state is the designated use is very very important. but not to the end user, unless the warranty comes into play.

if a fighter fits the criteria of a camp knife, it should be able to handle being used as a camp knife. if a boyscout knife fits the criteria of a fighter, then it should be able to handle the task of a fighter. if the knife is called the "little miss pony muffin cutting feather knife" and fits the criteria of a deer skinner, it should be able to handle that task.

it is true that in some instances it is unacceptable to use certain knives for other tasks - such as a 68rc m2 blade meant solely for the purpose of skinning, that is 1/16" thin (for an example, im aware that it would rust like crazy). were you to use that in any activity that created sudden shocks or impact to the blade, it would most likely shatter and cause you grevious injury. so, in that case, a skinner is not a camp knife, nor is it a fighter. but thats because it doesnt fit the criteria of a camp knife or a fighter - not because the maker says he didnt design it to be one.

let me give another example. ive said before tha tone of the reasons i dont buy striders is because i can make them myself. what i mean by this is that if i get a fully functional machineing lathe, and the correct equipment (or just a really steady hand with some hand files and a drill press), i can make a perfect replica of the strider mt out of any steel i want.

that is not far fetched, its just a matter of correctly copying the grind lines and general geometry.

if i then send it to paul bos to be heat treated - i have the exact same knife (given that it is made of the same steel).





lets say that i think that the strider mt is meant for log splitting, but strider says its meant for "combat" (wich means use in a combat zone - not physical altercations). so i make the knife, i am then the maker of the knife. instead of putting a paracord wrap, wich i feel is better suited for "combat" rather then log splitting, i put micarta slabs on the handle.

because i "designed" this knife to be a log splitter (i felt the original mt design had all the correct criteria for it) does it make it any more of a log splitter then the original striders mt because of the design changes i made in it (the micarta scales wich makes it "look" more like a log splitter)?

no. in any way shape or form. it is the same knife. what i think makes a good log splitter, and what strider makes a good log splitter in no way effects the performance of the knife. regardless of wether or not we both designed it to do different things - it has no effect on the performance of the knife.


i completely stand behind what i said about basic criteria of a knife determining its ability to perform a task. because it has a pink coating on it has no effect on wether or not the steel will do what it has been shown to do on other non pink knives, it in no way effects how the 1/4" low saber grind geometry will perform as it has been shown to perform on other non pink knives.

the steel, the heat treat, and the gemeometry are what make a knife (performance wise). not what the maker "designed it to be" or wether it "looks like a fighter".

a 1/4" saber ground "fighter" with a full tang and a minor tip taper should perform the same as a 1/4" saber ground "survival knife" with a full tang and a minor tip taper if they are made of the same steel.

 

[Thomas Linton]

Seth, a question. Does Paul Bros. in fact do the heat-treating for whoever makes the Recon Scout to be sold by CS?

 

[Josh Muller]

i can almost gaurentee he doesnt, but im not sure.

i was using it to illustrate the point that two very similar knives given a good heat treat and similar quality steel will perform very similarly, regarldess of what style is applied to them.

perhaps its going a little to far, but the notion that "style" effects performance over geometry really gets under my skin, and i posted it before really trying to come up with a better example. personally, i think my original post was good enough to illustrate what i was trying to say, but since the notion that style and... i guess some past theoretical idea attached to the blade (?, how exactly to explain how a makers notion of what a blade is capable of determining its real world performance beyond its given materials excapes me) go before geometry steel and heat treat in the performance arena was brought back up, i tried to give another example of what i was saying.


all of wich sounds very confusing to me as i write it, but its really not. if the recon scout has a decent heat treat (by who ever performed it), it shouldnt matter wether the maker made it to be a "fighter" a "filet knife" or a "survival knife" - the knife should be judged by its geometry and how that gemoetry should perform (given past examples). in the case of the rs, 5/16 is very very thick. title means nothing (fighter, combat, survival), it shouldnt break.

 

[Dr. Thor]

What I dont get is this: The SRK, which is thinner, shorter, and lighter, is a Survival Rescue Knife so it can be used to survive and rescue, which involves batoning wood and prying. But the Recon Scout, which is longer, heavier, and thinker, is a Combat Knife so it can only be used to cut people up? Can someone explain this? Just because Cold Steel calles it a "combat knife" doesnt mean it cant split wood. Just look at the thing, its a beast. Bill Bagwell, who most definitly knows about fighting knives, said that any good combat knife should be able to split wood. If it can split a log, I would depend on it to save my a$$.

 

[shpshooter]

Forget about the name, there is nothing in a name. Cold Steel could call a 2" plastic knife a log splitter, but that doesn't mean it should be used to split logs. Combat knife and Survival knife have no difference other then that is what Cold Steel chooses to call two different style knives. A warentee is a warentee, if batoning voids the warentee on any of their fixed blades, it voids it on all of their fixed blades (if not all of their products, depends on how the warentee was written)

The big question is, should a knife of the specs listed break when performing this action? The answer most people say is no, it should be able to handle that. It did break however. Therefore If you say yes, that knife should have broke because the action was too stressfull/abuse, then the knife did break and it performed exactly to your expectations. Now, if cold Steel says that voids the warentee, then they agree with the Yes group, if they replace the knife, then they agree the knife can be used for batoning. I don't see what the big argument is here.

 

[Dr. Thor]

shpshooter, I agree with you 100%. My question was mostly directed towards DF, who seems to think that the RS was a "combat knife" and could not be used for survival activities like batoning.

So DF, what up with that?

 

[biogon]

Now, if cold Steel says that voids the warentee, then they agree with the Yes group, if they replace the knife, then they agree the knife can be used for batoning. I don't see what the big argument is here.

shpshooter,

Hell, I asked this exact question in #339

Is CS replacing it under warranty or not?

If they are, that would imply that this type of cutting is approved, implicitly, regardless of what the legal department and the paperwork says. This would be good for the user and a bad precedent for their W&R department.

If they are not, well then, then their marketing is complete hype and here's the evidence to that effect.

That is why I've been waiting for an answer.

-j

 

[DaQo'tah Forge]

My question was mostly directed towards DF, who seems to think that the RS was a "combat knife"

"Seems to think".....actually what I KNOW is only what I have seen put out by the maker of the knife in question.

If you remember the maker in his ad to sell this knife, said that it was a "combat" knife,,,,so I don't have anything to do with that FACT,,,

I didnt make this knife, nor name it nor sell it,,,

But I can read.....

 

[The General]

I was overly forward with some of my comments. For that I appologise. We all have a bad day. Sorry. :footinmou

 

[ras]

I'm not sure apologies are necessary General, you just said what others were thinking.

 

[Thomas Linton]

"Seems to think".....actually what I KNOW is only what I have seen put out by the maker of the knife in question.

If you remember the maker in his ad to sell this knife, said that it was a "combat" knife,,,,so I don't have anything to do with that FACT,,,

I didnt make this knife, nor name it nor sell it,,,

But I can read.....

The point several have made, guy, is that the label tells us nothing about the physical characteristics of the knife or its suitability for batoning or "combat." I agree. Labels do not create "facts" about the physical characteristics of a knife -- just claims. ePrey is full of knives with, let us say, "interesting" labels.

Moreover, I have heard over and over from vets, as noted here by several posters, that a "combat" knife is mainly used for tasks other than "fighting." So even the label "combat knife" is not useful to analysis here.

 

[Dr. Thor]

But DF, how is the Recon Scout less suited to "survival" tasks than the SRK?? Because of its name? I dont think so. If an SRK had broken in "combat" would you call that abuse??

 

[DaQo'tah Forge]

I have heard over and over from vets, as noted here by several posters, that a "combat" knife is mainly used for tasks other than "fighting.

Yes, as I have said time and time again.....The human hand is a very clever item,,,it can learn to use whatever is at hand to do the work it needs to get done.

Ed Fowler once wrote that all that is actually needed to dress out a large game animal like a elk of bear is a knife with a 1 or 2 inch blade.....His point was that if a person needs to get a job done, he will use the tools at hand to get that job done if thats what he's got to work with.

In that situation It dont really matter what the tool in question was designed to actually do,,,,

If a pen knife was designed to open letters, but in a combat situation you used it to kill?..."Good for you!",,But this does not mean that all pen knives should be designed with killing in mind.....It just shows how clever humans are with tools,,,even the wrong tools...

As for the meaning of the term "combat" and the question as to what it means?.....look it up.

 

[DaQo'tah Forge]

But how is the Recon Scout less suited to "survival" tasks than the SRK?

Thats a good question to ask the maker,,,I didnt make this knife, I didnt make a big deal in that sales ad to make sure everyonbe understands that this is a "Combat knife"...And, he makes a big deal about the fact that this is a cheap combat knife.....The maker did that...He felt is was important to point this out to us...

Once you understand what the knife is sold as, (as a cheap combat knife) then you understand a bit of what it was designed to handle, and how you should treat it....

This is the same for every knife we see for sale...

 

[TLM]

I doubt that RS was designed to DO anything, it was designed for the LOOKS.

TLM

 

[DaQo'tah Forge]

I doubt that RS was designed to DO anything, it was designed for the LOOKS.

TLM

perhaps.....

 

[Josh Muller]

As for the meaning of the term "combat" and the question as to what it means?.....look it up.

do a poll on what the majority of the people on bladeforums beleive the word "combat" means in "combat knife". there is a complete difference between "combat knife" and "fighting knife" in the general publics eye. the english language is often changed to suite the common vernacular, in this case combat meaning in a combat zone (basically 0 physical fighting, all ballistics). the websters definition does not apply in this case.


"Once you understand what the knife is sold as, (as a cheap combat knife) then you understand a bit of what it was designed to handle, and how you should treat it...."

so you are saying that cold steel designed this knife to fail after a certain level of hard use? batoning a knife though wood with wood as a mallet is not excessively hard use. wood is a reletively soft material, and as cliff pointed out, wood should always give before steel does.

again, as thomas linton stated, the apperent physical characteristics of this knife indicate that it should be able to handle the task of batoning without failure. it is 5/16 and made of a high carbong steel.

the only way that the opinion of the maker matters, is if he specifically designed this knife to be weak after a certain level of stress, such as doing an intentially poor job of heat treating, and putting the square tang junction their so that it would fail under stress. then his opinion matters, because he might say something like "if you hit my knife with a peice of wood while it is wedged in another peice of wood, it will break off at the tang junction. i designed it to break off their under stress because i feel that it is not meant to take this kind of knife. it is meant to be used in a combat zone (mostly ballistics minimal physical altercations (common vernacular usage)), and not in survival tasks"

thats really the only way i can imagine the makers opinion making any difference, and its a really, really rediculous example. no maker will make fail points in their knives so they will fail after a certain amount of stress. you ant to safegaurd against shattering and things like that, but not intentionally have your knives break.




to overbuild something so that it fails earlier then a lesser built model, is completely and utterly rediculous. (rs vs. rsk)

 

[DaQo'tah Forge]

do a poll

again,,,,the person to ask is the maker,,,people can have all kinds of ideas, but the maker has not just an idea, he has the answer...

the websters definition does not apply in this case.

Only people who are afraid to look things up would think such...

so you are saying that cold steel designed this knife to fail after a certain level of hard use?

What I'm saying is WHAT THE MAKER OF THE KNIFE HAS SAID, in his sales ad for the knife in question....the maker points out two things very clearly to us,,,the maker makes a big deal about the two most important things about his knife,,,,THAT BEING:
1- that this is a "combat" knife
2-that this is a cheap combat knife

Thats what the maker has told us,,,and this forms the foundation for what we know this knife was designed to be able to handle...

the only way that the opinion of the maker matters,

Only the point of view of the maker matters here,,,,If the maker designed a tool to do job "A"....and if the knife breaks doing this job "A"...then the maker knows that the tool failed doing something he aimed for it to be able to do...

However, if the maker created a tool and clearly sold it as a tool that is meant to be able to do "B" types of work,,,,and then finds out that the tool broke while being used to do type- "A" work, (Something he never designed it to do ) then the maker knows that the user abused the tool trying to do a job meant for a different type of tool to do....