CS Recon Scout Fails Miserably

[Josh Muller]

i concede that if cold steel is selling their knife under the title combat knife when in reality they mean fighting *there is a very, very distinct difference.* knife, then my argument on what the majority of the people who read the title "combat knife" on their site is somewhat moot.

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....

okay... so...

we know that if you take a knife and make it 3/16" of an inch thick, make it out of a good carbon steel, and heat treat it to around 58rc, it will be a reletively strong knife (fully flat ground). it will not be unbreakable, but it will be able to do a decent amount of heavy use tasks without breaking, including the ocasional hit on a rock, dropped on cement etc.

if you take that knife, and make it 1/4" thick, same design as the previous knife, it will be stronger, because there is more steel supporting it under stress.

if you then make it thicker, to 5/16" thick, it will be stronger still.

by geometry, the knife that is 5/16" is stronger then the same knife at 3/16". this is a very basic peice of structural theory.




however, from what youve said, if a maker says that knife a) that is 3/16 is meant to take very heavy abuse, all you can throw at it, and that knife b) wich is 5/16" is only meant for lighter tasks, and it may break under heavy strain

makes it okay for knife b to break? makes it logical for knife b to break where knife a wouldnt???



it seems like your saying that the makers notion of what his knife should be able to do supersedes what the basic structural design of the knife describes it to be able to do.




seriously, its not possible for the rs to be weaker then the srk unless the rs was intentionally built to be weaker (esentially boobytraps set into the knife to make it fail). the geometry of the rs is twice that of the srk, same steel, same heat treat.

 

[DaQo'tah Forge]

it seems like your saying that the makers notion of what his knife should be able to do supersedes .....

That is correct....only his point of view matters here....

When I look at the photo of a blade used in such a manner, and the result that happend, (that I would have told you was going to be the likely result of useing the blade in that manner*)...I have a point of view.

However another guy, (say the guy defending his use of the blade in that manner) has a totally different point of view...well?...fine..so what?.

The end result is we have a broken blade and a question to the maker....Thats the end of the story,,,Thats what I have been saying all along:,,"Ask the maker "Whats the deal with this blade?"..."Show him the photo, and tell him the story behind the broken blade"

The maker will not have to make a guess,,,the maker will KNOW right away where the problem rests.

__________________________.

* I told a story once on this topic:,,,,I pretended that I owned such a big knife and my brother asked to use it to help him start a fire. Then a while later he calls me over to help with the blade that is now stuck in a huge log

....I see the stuck blade in the log,,,
I see the spine of the blade driven down even with the top of the log,,,
I see that there was no room left to hammer on the spine,,,
I see the huge guard sticking up in the way making the next hit on the handle farther out along the handle...

From this information I would naturally warn my brother that he has now entered an area where there is a danger of damage to the blade with any more hits.

and,,,,if after one more hit the blade does fail, I would say , "I told you so...".

----------------------

Once at work I was helping a young man Jack-hammer into the side of a wall.

well, I had warned him about getting the jackhammer stuck in the wall and how to avoid that happening, but he got it stuck anyway.

He asked me to get him a sledge hammer while he removed the jack hammer from off of the stuck bit.

I got him the hammer, but I gave it to him with the warning that he should be carefull hitting the jack hammer bit because they can snap on you.

He laughed, telling me that Jack hammer bits are designed to take a beating , and with that he aimed and smashed the hammed down onto the side of the stuck jack hammer bit. The stuck bit snapped off flush with the wall....

life lesson learned....

 

[ras]

That is correct....only his point of view matters here....

When I look at the photo of a blade used in such a manner, and the result that happend, (that I would have told you was going to be the likely result of useing the blade in that manner)...I have a point of view.

However another guy, (say the guy defending his use of the blade in that manner) has a totally different point of view...well?...fine..so what?.

The end result is we have a broken blade and a question to the maker....Thats the end of the story,,,Thats what I have been saying all along:,,"Ask the maker "Whats the deal with this blade?"..."Show him the photo, and tell him the story behind the broken blade"

The maker will not have to make a guess,,,the maker will KNOW right away where the problem rests...

The only problem I can see with that thought is that Cold Steel isn't a "Maker" or even a manufacturer, they are a marketing company -- somebody else made the knife. The name on the knife is a marketing tool, not a description of the knife's attributes.

If you look at Cold Steel's line you see the Recon Scout, basically the same knife as the Trail Master but shorter. One's a "combat" knife and the other is a "trail?" knife. The RS is 2" shorter than the TM which means there's less leverage to break it, and yet it broke doing what a TM should be able to do. So what's in a name? In Cold Steel's case, the name is pure marketing hype. My opinion, worth $.02.

 

[DaQo'tah Forge]

The only problem I can see with that thought is that Cold Steel isn't a "Maker" or even a manufacturer, they are a marketing company -- somebody else made the knife.

All we need to worry about is the question, was the knife sold as being "new", or "used"?

If I understand the story behind the knife in question, it was sold to the owner as being "new".....so thats all we need to know to allow us to address our questions to the seller....

 

[Thomas Linton]

Sir, the maker does not "have the answer" on what a "combat knife" should be able to do. In practical terms and in the law, the knife should do what a product with that description should reasonably be able to accomplish - here, baton wood. Very specific language, that does not appear on the CS site, is needed to avoid this obligation. On the contrary, CS makes this knife out to be a beast.

"Only people who are afraid to look things up" disagree with your emphatically minority position on reasonable uses for a "combat knives" ?

I looked "combat" up in three dictionaries. I also reviewed several books that discuss "combat" use of knives. This tool, if used properly and absent a manufacturing defect, was not the "wrong" tool.

That is correct....only his point of view matters here....

Pardon me, but the customer's point of view has some significance when we discuss a product sold in commerce, not to mention the point of view of experts. Indeed, the point of view of the "reasonable consumer" defines the capacity of the tool absent express disclaimers ("Whatever you do, do not use this Combat Beast to chop firewood.")

When I look at the photo of a blade used in such a manner, and the result that happend, (that I would have told you was going to be the likely result of useing the blade in that manner*)...I have a point of view.

There is a question raised by other posters about misuse. Unless you have access to some source of infomation that the rest of us do not, you do not know any more than discussed above: cold; batoning; wood striker; broke; looks like the picture after it broke. Many facts are not known.

Again, every thing you say is based on the assumption that a knife of these dimensions, geometry, and material, properly heat-treated, should not reasonably be used to baton wood. In that regard, you are having a "dialogue of the deaf" with virtually everyone here at BF and elsewhere, including makers. You keep repeating what virtually everyone thinks is unsupportable. They keep disagreeing. You may very well get the last word if that is your objective. You will not convince or be convinced.I
. . .

The end result is we have a broken blade and a question to the maker....Thats the end of the story,,,Thats what I have been saying all along:,,"Ask the maker "Whats the deal with this blade?"..."Show him the photo, and tell him the story behind the broken blade"
The maker will not have to make a guess,,,the maker will KNOW right away where the problem rests.

The maker's opinion is irrelevant in the law and practical terms to any issue other than whether the maker will voluntarily replace the knife. This thread has gone far beyond that narrow issue.

As for CS "knowing" "where the problem rests," I still believe we lack enough information to either condemn this knife, as a design or individually, or conclude if, or how, it was misused. (There are theories of possible misuse that would explain the failure, as noted above.) I doubt that CS or any other mass marketer would spend a tiny fraction of the time on the question that has been spent here and elsewhere.

Answering that question of why this knife broke would be educational for us all if we wish to avoid breaking knives and/or make knives.

 

[DaQo'tah Forge]

I looked "combat" up in three dictionaries.

I looked it up too!...and I actually took the time to post the meaning here...

(for the ones still in the dark about it's meaning)

 

[DaQo'tah Forge]

You may very well get the last word if that is your objective.

Why do I have to have an "objective"?.....

 

[WadeF]

When I first checked this topic the picture wasn't loading. Now I see the image, nice clear picture BTW. Could the guard have been a factor in this? It looks like a big metal guard. What if that guard made contact with the log as the knife was being hit?

 

[Josh Muller]

http://www.fas.org/news/reference/lexicon/dec.htm


you use of the term combat as solely refering to physical altercations is archaic. the term has come to be used more prolifically as a definition of armed conflict in the modern world. the modern world (above 3rd world conditions) does not rely on physical altercations to destroy enemy troops - they rely on ballistics. a combat knife no longer refers solely to a "fighting knife"

there is a definitive difference. the american language is changed by its common use, and in this case, the common use of the term combat just is not what you say it is.

if you defined said knife as a "close quarters combat knife" then you would be deliniating between long range combat (ballistics combat) and physical altercation combat (physical fighting, anything goes)

yes, combat can be used to describe physical altercations - but it is, by modern definition, more then that. a "combat knife" is something you take into a warzone, not just something you use to fight with.




http://usmilitary.about.com/library/glossary/c/blglossary4.htm =

“ combat zone”
Glossary

from Department of Defense

Definition: (DOD) 1. That area required by combat forces for the conduct of operations. 2. The territory forward of the Army rear area boundary. See also combat area; communications zone."

http://cmrlink.org/WomenInCombat.asp?docID=233 =

"COMBAT, COHESION, AND INVOLUNTARY SERVICE


The definition of combat is key to an understanding of the issue of women in combat.


1. Official definitions of combat for all the services make it clear that direct combat is more than the experience of being shot at or being in danger. All of the definitions stress physical proximity to and violent conflict with the enemy, combined with an inherent risk of capture in contested territory, waters, or airspace.



■ The Department of Defense currently defines "combat mission" as "A task, together with the purpose, which clearly requires an individual unit, naval vessel or aircraft to individually or collectively seek out, reconnoiter and engage the enemy with the intent to suppress, neutralize, destroy or repeal that enemy." (CF 1.5)


■ The Army definition adds: "Direct combat takes place while closing with enemy by fire, maneuver, or shock effect in order to destroy or capture, or while repelling assault by fire, close combat, or counterattack. " (CF 1.6)


■ The Navy definition adds: "The normal defensive posture of all operating units is not included in this definition." (CF 1.7)


■ The Air Force definition of aerial combat adds: "Delivery of munitions or other destructive material against an enemy, or aerial activity over hostile territory where enemy fire is expected and where risk of capture is substantial." (CF 1.8) "

 

[Josh Muller]

the objective to win an argument at all costs is not an all to uncommon one. to some degree it doesnt matter in this case, even if it were your objective, it helps to bring out smaller details in the argument by dragging it out longer.


its the idea that the makers opinion is all encompassing in regards to the performance of this knife that is part of the major argument factor with me. it says you cant take a set of materials that have broken, and through scientific method, experience, and logic figure out why it broke unless you talk to the maker.

in essence, without contacting the original airline designer, you cant figure out why the plane crashed and how to keep it from happening next time. same goes for this knife, it simply isnt true.

 

[DaQo'tah Forge]

Could the guard have been a factor in this? It looks like a big metal guard.

very good point....the big guard is totally out of place for a type of kinfe that was actually needed for this job...

The knife is sunk down into the log,,so much so that thje next hits with a hammer would do little...so this means you have to switch positions and hit some place else....

The big guard is in the way, and so to avoid hitting it you would aim farhter away from it,,,perhaps farther down the handle....

 

[Josh Muller]

there is plenty of room in that image to hit the knifes tip to baton it through the log. dont know what your talking about as far as the handle is concerned

 

[DaQo'tah Forge]

you use of the term combat ...

My use????
,,,LOL,,,what a joke,,,,I looked the word up in the webster's dictionary,,,,,it's not my meaning, thats what the word is listed as,,,I only posted what it says,Im not the gujy making stuff up. Im not inventing what I thought it "should" mean...LOL

 

[Josh Muller]

5) FALSE: The log was too big for the knife. Not true. Look at the picture: you can see the take on the log is to the side so as to have some of the blade tip showing where the baton could hit. As I have previously said and some others have correctly noted the user would hold the handle firmly and push the blade through as the blade is batoned through the wood. I'm sorry but many of the comments about how this shouldn't be done, or it's abuse, or dangerous are just ignorant. Just because you perhaps haven't done it or seen it done doesn't mean it isn't a commonplace survival technique. Also Daqotah Forge said he could tell from the photo that the handle had been hit as well. That is a perplexing and entirely false observation. All hits, as all who have done this before know, are on the protruding blade. Come on!

Some chose to ignore my previously posted information and often invented outlandish plots and happenings and assigned unfounded blame for a breakage on which you made yourself expert despite your conspicuous absence (like the 'he hit the handle' plot' ).

just a few words from nutnfancy regarding hitting the handle or the gaurd

 

[DaQo'tah Forge]

in essence, without contacting the original airline designer, you cant figure out why the plane crashed and how to keep it from happening next time.

yes, thats what Im saying

,,,that the person who made the tool should be asked whenever a tool fails,,,,The maker must be allowed to see the tool that failed, to understand how it was being used at the time, and to give us the answer as to if the tool was the problem, or was the tool being used in a manner not designed for it to do....

So, when a airplane crashes, I would expect that the maker is made aware of the situation, and is able to be asked about the different design areas in question...

It would be foolish and pointless not to bring the maker in on the search for answers,,,as is so easly talked about here with this knife by so many,,,,foolish and pointless...

 

[Josh Muller]

My use????
,,,LOL,,,what a joke,,,,I looked the word up in the webster's dictionary,,,,,it's not my meaning, thats what the word is listed as,,,I only posted what it says,Im not the gujy making stuff up. Im not inventing what I thought it "should" mean...LOL

you stated that the maker defined his knife as a "combat knife" and not a "survival knife"

from your description, you were talking about a "fighting knife" when refering to the original makers (or marketing ply from cold steel) use of the word combat, and in that regard the knifes original intent was to kill another person, so it should not be expected of it to perform heavy use tasks.

you then stated several times over that this knife was originall intended to be a "combat knife" (fighting knife by your description) so it should be used for things like knife batoning.


you have defended the meaning of the world combat in the use of a knifes description, being a major facet in its inate ability to perform a given set of tasks. you have also said that when a makers says that his knife should only be used for a certain set of tasks, it is essentially okay for a knife to fail at anything heavier, or different, from what the maker suggests, regardless of what the knife actually is, be it an ax, a 2" thick 40" long khukuri, or a filet knife.


that is all fine, IF the only definition of "combat" is to physically attack someone with your hands, feet, body, or small short range weapon (withing physical striking distance). to disregards what the military states combat as meaning (their definition) as well as what the common knife industries definition of combat is is to disregard both the opinions of experts (those who spend their lives doing the task that you define narrowly), and those who use the term most often as it regards to this topic.


im not making up what a word "should" mean, i gave examples of what the military defines the word to mean - wich is more encompasing then your definition (a websters use). chances are, even if you went with the full etymology of the word using the oxford dictionary, it would go with your view, because until modern times (when the use of manned vehicles and ballistics has taken over the majority of combat weapons), people did indead to do "combat" mostly by short range weapons used in physical altercations.

when a new word is invented, or a new meaning of a word becomes common enough - merrian webster, as well as the oxford dictionary, iether changes or adds a new definition to that given word. in essence - the common vernacular defines a word by its most common use.


i say all of this because you originally stressed the use of combat in the description of the knife by cold steel rather then the use of the word survival.

and i state again, that combat is not so narrily definied as a physical altercation between two people using hand weapons. it is much, much more then that.

 

[Josh Muller]

yes, thats what Im saying

,,,that the person who made the tool should be asked whenever a tool fails,,,,The maker must be allowed to see the tool that failed, to understand how it was being used at the time, and to give us the answer as to if the tool was the problem, or was the tool being used in a manner not designed for it to do....

So, when a airplane crashes, I would expect that the maker is made aware of the situation, and is able to be asked about the different design areas in question...

It would be foolish and pointless not to bring the maker in on the search for answers,,,as is so easly talked about here with this knife by so many,,,,foolish and pointless...

so if the maker is dead the research team is sh-- out of luck.... the opinions of other makers as well as those who have researched plane design and aviation theory are worthless without the designers opinion.

ya, he should be notified, but his opinion is not a requirement to understanding the nature of the failure, or the proper procedures and manifacturing changes to prevent it later on.

 

[DaQo'tah Forge]

From time to time people seem to get easly confused as to what this or that knife is meant to do....to help them out I have posted the meaning of a word as found in the Dictionary....I also have pointed out the "interesting" thing that are found within the design of the knife in question,,,,things that tend to support it being called a "combat" knife...

Thus I dont for a moment believe that the maker of the knife just "accidently" named this knife for sale with the term ":combat"....

then too, I toitally reject the arguement that the name of the knife in this case is moot,,,I believe the maker has made pains to name his knife as is in fitting with it's design......This is a combat knife....

and as the maker also points out,,,,,this is a cheap combat knife.....thats not just my view,,this is the Facts as given us by the maker in his sales ad about the knife.....Thus, the user is armed with the FACTS and a far better understanding of what he can and can not expect for the knife,,,and thus, we know now how to treat the knife....(.treat it as it was designed as a cheap combat knife.)

 

[Josh Muller]

i really gotta ask this, are you talking about a combat knife or a fighting knife?


difference - combat knife = something used in a comb at zone, possibly for hand to hand combat
fighting knife = something meant only for hand to hand combat

 

[Josh Muller]

ive said it several times now, so im gonna try not to say it again after this because all it does is add to the post count.


for the sake of literary consistency, i'll just post the definition of fact as it refers to my argument that the knife in question holds more information then the maker can tell us. the idea that you can learn more about what a knife is capable of doing fomr the knife itself, the geometry, the steel it is made of, and the quality of the heat treat, then what the makers notion of its ability is


"Main Entry: fact
Pronunciation: 'fakt
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin factum, from neuter of factus, past participle of facere
1 : a thing done: as a obsolete : FEAT b : CRIME <accessory after the fact> c archaic : ACTION
2 archaic : PERFORMANCE, DOING
3 : the quality of being actual : ACTUALITY <a question of fact hinges on evidence>
4 a : something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a fact> b : an actual occurrence <prove the fact of damage>
5 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality
- in fact : in truth "


"<a question of fact hinges on evidence>" - not on an opinion (in this case, of the maker). the evidence lies in the knife, not in the makers opinion. yes his opinion is important, but the knife and what information it holds for people who understand the nature of knives, steel, structural geometry, and heat treating far outways it.