Destruction tests - what can be learned from them, and why?

[Dan57]

I have hundreds of knives. I use Moras, SAKs, Beckers, ESEE's, FBF, Kabars, Bucks, Case's, and on and on and on.

A BK2 offers me alot of confidence in a package that can do most everything, from carve to split to chop, in a 1lb package. Simply put, I know I can't do anything to hurt it, and it will do its job well. Its as close to "The Knife" that I have found, and I been looking pretty hard for a while.

Moose

So a combination of confidence and versatility? Okay. It's true that a BK2 is better at light chopping than a Mora, but it's worse at cutting and heavier. Jack of all trades, I guess.

This is your fantasy: that's not the opinion I know who have actually used those knives. Welcome to real life!

I can see how you could debate chopping ability... There are some knives out there that chop amazingly well, though they all cost at least twice as much as a similarly performing axe. I don't see how you can debate the utility value of a large chopper against a smaller, thinner knife. (The Mora was just an example.) What's your argument there?!?

 

[Dan57]

It's also a mistake to assume that a large chopping knife won't outperform a Mora in slicing. eg

http://www.cliffstamp.com/knives/reviews/mt_151.html
An average of three runs with the edges sharpen slicing cardboard on a draw produced the graph at the right which shows the MT 151 outperforming the Mora 2000 on slicing cardboard by about 2:1

..And the MT151 is sort of a $25 BattleMistress (actually it's a Trailmaster ripoff.)

Btw - good luck clearing undergrowth with an axe!

I don't know where you got that quote, but it wasn't from the link you posted.
"To benchmark the carving ability, the MT 151 was compared to a Mora #1260. The Mt-151 was outclassed by the Mora and had only 45 (2) % of the rough stock removal ability so was out cut almost 2:1."

And clearing undergrowth is what machetes are for.

 

[marcinek]

I don't know where you got that quote,....

He got it from the edge retention section of the "report." Which, of course, has nothing to do with slicing/carving ability.

 

[KennyB]

Can you tell us the reasons, then? I'm not trying to be obnoxious, just genuinely curious. Why use a BK2 when a thinner blade will do almost everything better?
And, just to clarify... just 'cuz I'm not a fan of the BK2 doesn't mean I don't like any other Beckers, or disrespect their designer.

, I wonder what it is peopele are cutting that they need super thin slicers to get through without whining. I'm sure a thin blade will out cut a thicker one, but what if I want to do some heavier tasks at the spur of the moment? Should I just settle on having to go and grab a thicker knife, or should I just buck up and carry one all the time despite it not being as effective of a slicer?

If it gets the job done, it gets the job done. Can't recall my Izula's thickness ever getting in the way. Meanwhile it can pry, chop, bash whatever and be fine. I leave my purists "these are only for cutting" knives in the knife block, my EDC doesn't need to be the world's sliciest knife.

Destruction tests tell you what they tell you. "This knife won't survive being clamped between two blocks and stood on, but it will survive chopping through a concrete block."

To some that information is useful. Take the ESEE 5 for example... Downed pilot survival knife, designed with the thought of having to cut through a plane's cockpit. I would love to see Noss beat on one and see just where it will fail. Though honestly the 5 is such a monster I don't thi nk there would be a point given how well the 4 did.

Anyway, you have ABS tests to give you better ideas on how to make a blade. These tests are there as sort of a "a good knife should do this" tests. That is not what a destruction test is about. Destruction tests show how and when a knife will be destroyed. Realistically, half way through most of Noss's tests, the knives are "ruined" and need heavy restoration work, it's the extra mile showing how much it takes to totally destroy them that is showcased.

 

[BePrepared]

there would be substantially fewer detractors of Noss's work had the CRK knives not broken so early.

Even mentioning Noss on the CRK forum is enough to create a storm of pissed off poo throwing.

Busse people, on the other hand LOVE Noss because every time he tests a Busse, it wrecks shop...

Those who's favorite knife performed well like the tests, while those who's favorite knife broke like a Chinese knockoff do not

This is clearly caused by the overwhelming bias that exists amongst us fan boy types.

(i am aware that these generalizations do not apply in every case)

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

I'd be really interested to hear which of the similar sized knives that you sell will out-perform a Battle Mistress, the Keffler "Monster" or Skinny Ash, even leaving toughness out of the equation...

Yes, I know your prices are lower - and the price performance is probably generally excellent - but I think you should be a little more cautious in handing out blanket condemnations of competitors.

For the record I was reading the post as a general statement of personal opinion and preference rather than a literal one. The VISP class of knife (good acronym) DOES have its uses. But those uses are comparatively limited to those that focus on cutting/chopping performance rather than indestructibility. Price has nothing to do with it, nor does competition. Personal uses and preferences do.

I think that it's great that VISPs exist. Some folks genuinely need them, many many more enjoy them. I personally am in neither of those categories.

Just curious, though--has anyone done a destruction test on an 18" Imacasa Pata de Cuche or similar?

 

[meanwhile]

I can see how you could debate chopping ability... There are some knives out there that chop amazingly well, though they all cost at least twice as much as a similarly performing axe.

Read Cliff Stamp's test of the 151: it chops 85% as well as a hatchet of similar weight and costs less.

Beyond this, the axe vs big knife thing is a lot less clear than you think - or so people who regularly clear lots of brush and limb forests full of trees tell me. An axe is optimal for cutting down a 12 inch thick tree, but maintaining woodland usually involves rather little of this but a lot of limbing and woody brush clearing - and the Busse and Keffler are said, by people who have used them and who know and use axes well, to be much better tools for the job. (Traditionally these were never axe jobs btw - the billhook, the Battle Mistress of the 15th Century, would have been the preffered tool.)

I don't see how you can debate the utility value of a large chopper against a smaller, thinner knife. (The Mora was just an example.) What's your argument there?!?

That the Mora 2000 is a pretty good slicer, but the 151 out slices by a large margin: slicing is one of the main things you do with a knife when you're not chopping, yes? And the 151 is a messed up design compared to those Busses - it inherited an idiotic choil/guard combination from the Trailmaster for one thing. (But a dremel will cure this.) The only thing a knife in this size won't do well is carve with the tip, but this far inside my "I don't give a damn" zone. If you want to do the classic baton and make feathersticks thing, then a knife like the 151 will exceed a Mora's performance in both phases by quite a margin - and I'm sure the Ash would surpass it by a good margin.

 

[MajorLonghorn]

Despite some (okay, maybe more than "some") juvenile bickering, this is actually a great thread with some lively debate on a topic that matters to many of us. I hope what comes of it is a consensus as to which hard use/abuse tests to put knives through. Let's call it the BladeForums Endurance Test or something to that effect.

 

[marcinek]

That the Mora 2000 is a pretty good slicer, but the 151 out slices by a large margin: ....

Where are you getting this? Read Cliff Stamp's test...the one you referenced when you accused a member of living in a fantasy world.

"To benchmark the carving ability, the MT 151 was compared to a Mora #1260. The Mt-151 was outclassed by the Mora and had only 45 (2) % of the rough stock removal ability so was out cut almost 2:1. However the lack of performance was not due to the geometry of the blade but simply due to the inability to choke up effectively due to the heavy double guard. The grip is thus so very far behind the point of contact and so there is a strong counter torque and wrist strain is very high. Of course though for heavy stock removal it is more effective to chop with the Mt-151, not actually carve but the cutting ability can be extrapolated for other similar work."

 

[BePrepared]

Despite some (okay, maybe more than "some") juvenile bickering, this is actually a great thread with some lively debate on a topic that matters to many of us. I hope what comes of it is a consensus as to which hard use/abuse tests to put knives through. Let's call it the BladeForums Endurance Test or something to that effect.

Interesting as that might be, consensus is unlikely to be reached among such disparate viewpoints. Many believe that ANY form of abuse to a knife is pointless

but hey, anything's possible.

 

[Jack Black]

It's been a few years since I watched any of Noss's tests, but I always found them interesting to watch. Many years ago I reviewed knives for various English outdoor/gun magazines, never tested any of them to destruction, I tested them for what they were designed for. However, if I'd received a knife that was being sold as capable of being hammered through concrete blocks, that's what I'd have done with it. When I designed my first knife many years ago, it was designed as a practical utility knife, but I subjected it to some extremely severe abuse during the testing phase, and would have been very happy to send Noss a knife to test.

 

[meanwhile]

Where are you getting this? Read Cliff Stamp's test...the one you referenced when you accused a member of living in a fantasy world.

"To benchmark the carving ability, the MT 151 was compared to a Mora #1260. The Mt-151 was outclassed by the Mora and had only 45 (2) % of the rough stock removal ability so was out cut almost 2:1. However the lack of performance was not due to the geometry of the blade but simply due to the inability to choke up effectively due to the heavy double guard. The grip is thus so very far behind the point of contact and so there is a strong counter torque and wrist strain is very high. Of course though for heavy stock removal it is more effective to chop with the Mt-151, not actually carve but the cutting ability can be extrapolated for other similar work."

I've added bold as you seem to have problems reading and understanding: i.e. the Mora was outsliced by a factor of 2 to 1 by the larger knife ***and the one problem the larger knife had was NOT because it was big but badly designed.*** I even referred to this and said how to cure it! (I.e. with a dremel.) And, no, it is not a problem the Skinny Ash or Battle Mistress share - both have choils and guards that weren't designed by idiots for knife fighter wannabes. (The 151 choil is too small for a finger and the upper guard would make putting a finger in the choil painful and awkward anyway.) In fact the only generalization you can make from this applies to small and large knives - which is designing a choil that can't be used is idiotic and will really reduce performance: either take a blade all the way to the handle, or make the choil usable.

 

[marcinek]

I've added bold as you seem to have problems reading: i.e. the Mora was outsliced by a factor of 2 to 1 by the larger knife ***and the one problem the larger knife had was not because it was big but badly designed.*** I even referred to this and said how to cure it! (I.e. with a dremel.) And, no, it is not a problem the Skinny Ash or Battle Mistress share - both have choils and guards that weren't designed by idiots for knife fighter wannabes. (The 151 choil is to small for a finger and the upper guard would make putting a finger in the choil painful and awkward anyway.)

But thank you for your input!

No.

"To benchmark the carving ability, the MT 151 was compared to a Mora #1260. The Mt-151 was outclassed by the Mora and had only 45 (2) % of the rough stock removal ability so was out cut almost 2:1. However the lack of performance was not due to the geometry of the blade but simply due to the inability to choke up effectively due to the heavy double guard. The grip is thus so very far behind the point of contact and so there is a strong counter torque and wrist strain is very high. Of course though for heavy stock removal it is more effective to chop with the Mt-151, not actually carve but the cutting ability can be extrapolated for other similar work."

The MT-151 was outclassed by the Mora. The MT-151 had only 45 (2) % of the rough stock removal ability of the Mora so was out cut almost 2:1 by the Mora. However the lack of performance of the MT-151 was not due to the geometry of the blade but simply due to the inability to choke up effectively due to the heavy double guard on the MT-151.

 

[Dan57]

meanwhile- That's an interesting point with the brush clearing. Sounds like the people are using them as beefed-up machetes, basically?
But, you're confusing slicing ability with edge retention. The 151 outperformed the Mora by 2:1 in that category, which makes sense, seeing as the 151 has over twice the blade length. I assume Cliff used the full lengths of both blades, thereby spreading dulling over a larger area on the 151 than on the Mora.

KennyB- I think you'd be surprised at the amount of strength a thinner blade has. One of the worst things about this super thick blade fad is that it makes people think that any blade under an eighth of an inch in thickness will shatter if you look at it the wrong way. The truth, at least in my experience, is that an eighth of an inch thick is more than enough to get through a fair amount of abuse, and 1/16 or so will easily stand up to hard use, while still being an amazing slicer.

BePrepared- I'm not interested in the kind of knives that Noss tests- I don't have any stake in this, one way or another. Neither a Busse nor CR fan.

 

[meanwhile]

I don't know where you got that quote, but it wasn't from the link you posted.
"To benchmark the carving ability, the MT 151 was compared to a Mora #1260. The Mt-151 was outclassed by the Mora and had only 45 (2) % of the rough stock removal ability so was out cut almost 2:1."

You were too silly to use the Find On Page, weren't you?

And clearing undergrowth is what machetes are for.

Machetes are great for a certain type of undergrowth. If you try using them for the woody temperate undergrowth I specified, much less so - which is why a billhook is such a different design. You really never have used one of these things have you? Anyway, I'm sure that the entire population of Nepal will be glad to hear from you that they've been using the wrong tool for centuries...

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

I'd be more interested in tests like how big of a ding is made in the edge when chopping into various gauges of mild steel wire against a pine backing and batoning (with care) through gnarly wood (lateral pressure combined with impact/shock) using a deadblow hammer (NOT steel) and chopping bone before the jump is made to cinder blocks and the like. Again, I feel that if you're going to destroy it you might as well do it incrementally and in a controlled manner so you can determine how far the blade may be pushed until the point of failure is reached.

 

[Dan Keffeler]

If a knife is advertised as being a virtually indestructible sharpened prybar, then I think it's perfectly reasonable to see if the knife actually is a virtually indestructible sharpened prybar. Almost all the knives Noss tests are being advertised as virtually indestructible sharpened prybars, so I don't see a problem with him verifying or debunking a manufacturer's claim. That being said, I'd never buy a virtually indestructible sharpened prybar, (VISP?), because such knives have very limited uses. (Read: they're useless.)

great point!!

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

Machetes are great for a certain type of undergrowth. If you try using them for the woody temperate undergrowth I specified, much less so - which is why a billhook is such a different design. You really never have used one of these things have you? Anyway, I'm sure that the entire population of Nepal will be glad to hear from you that they've been using the wrong tool for centuries...

You're making a blanket statement about machetes without allowing for different patterns. There are many machetes out there that do exceptionally well for chopping woody targets. Others won't cut anything but grass. Just saying. Oh--and billhooks are awesome and I love them, but they're a totally different tool.

 

[meanwhile]

meanwhile- That's an interesting point with the brush clearing. Sounds like the people are using them as beefed-up machetes, basically?

A Busse BM can clear a campsite; an axe can't can't. You could carry an axe and a machete, but then you'd still get stuck with dense woody undergrowth.

But, you're confusing slicing ability with edge retention. The 151 outperformed the Mora by 2:1 in that category,

Nope. That's not what Cliff says: if you don't get the English, just look at the graph. (Or read on.)

which makes sense, seeing as the 151 has over twice the blade length. I assume Cliff used the full lengths of both blades, thereby spreading dulling over a larger area on the 151 than on the Mora.

Nope. Cliff was very clear: "the MT would require 1-2 mm on a draw and the Mora 2-3 mm" - i.e. the 151 was cutting the same thickness of material using half the amount of blade the Mora was.
This is how Cliff always measures slicing ability, I think. Blade length is irrelevant.

KennyB- I think you'd be surprised at the amount of strength a thinner blade has. One of the worst things about this super thick blade fad is that it makes people think that any blade under an eighth of an inch in thickness will shatter if you look at it the wrong way. The truth, at least in my experience, is that an eighth of an inch thick is more than enough to get through a fair amount of abuse, and 1/16 or so will easily stand up to hard use, while still being an amazing slicer.

This is one of the reasons d-tests are valuable: they often show that cheap small knives are much tougher than people think.

(However I have to add that you're making a mistake: it is not blade thickness - quoted as it is at the spine - that makes a good slicer but the grind and thickness at the edge. This is probably why the 151 (an FFG) out-sliced the Mora and is one reason why the big-knives-can't-slice meme is silly.)

 

[meanwhile]

You're making a blanket statement about machetes without allowing for different patterns. There are many machetes out there that do exceptionally well for chopping woody targets.

Actually that depends on your definition of a machete, which is a pretty hard thing to nail down. It certainly doesn't alter the point that some of these so called sharpened pry-bars can chop and slice extremely well.