Do You Think Steven Dick Reads TK?

Rev. Pete

Rev. Pete

Joined
Aug 25, 2001
Messages
843
I have the March 2003 issue of Tactical Knives and it is very good. But the editorial makes me wonder if Steven Dick actually reads the magazine (maybe that was the idea). My take on the editorial is that he believes knives should be reserved exclusively for cutting and that modern high quality knives that are large and strong are excessive and unnecessary. According to Steven Dick, if you want to chop, bring an axe. If you want to cut wire, bring wire cutters. If you want to pry, bring a pry bar. He recommends you carry a light 5"-7" knife and reserve it for cutting meat and vegetables.

I thought it was gutsy on his part to run something like that given all the advertisers who highlight the strength and versatility of their knives in the magazine (e.g. Cold Steel on the page immediately before the editorial). However after reading the rest of the magazine I became puzzled at the degree to which the editorial is out of step with the articles in the magazine. There are articles on a number of modern survival and tactical knives. One article on the Buck Recon Scout mentions its thickness. In other articles knives were tested by cutting wire, chopping wood, and opening a can. The article on Mission Knives specifically mentions that the MPS is well suited for prying. In my opinion these are all reasonable tests. Modern knives are bigger and stronger than the "frontier knives" Steven Dick mentions and they can be used for more things. (I believe it is a bit of an arms race as manufacturers make knives bigger and tougher to meet customers demands and customers use the bigger and tougher knives for more demanding tasks always pushing the knives to the limit). In his editorial Steven Dick tell us that this is all unnecessary and knives should be small like they were in the "good old days" and only used for cutting. I do see a pattern to his editorials of trying to push people's buttons but in my opinion this editorial just makes him look out of touch with the tactical knife industry and customers. Of course it did get me thinking, and maybe that was the point. What do you think, does Steven Dick read TK?
 
I have not yet received my March issue, but will reply anyway. Every editorial is based in whole or part on the opinion of the writer, and as Mr Dick has extensive background in the backcountry, his opinion holds alot of water with many readers. Mine included. This is not nearly the first time TK editorials by Mr Dick have conveyed this message. But, I have read articles by him in the past praising BK&T's Magnum Camp Knife and Campanion, TOPS, Cold Steel, Busse knives and a host of others. He often concludes such pieces by saying something like, "while I prefer a small, thin knife and an efficient axe combo, this superthickandheavyasscombat knife would be an excellent choice where one had to rely on a single tool."
I truly believe Mr Dick likes these big knives a great deal, but, in his opinion, the more traditional axe/small knife combo is better suited to him.
Remember, Busse advertises the "toughest" knife on the market, with a warranty to back it up. Nowhere does he say he offers the best slicer of all AND best chopper of all in one knife. Only the best compromise for hard use. Nothing wrong with that, in fact I have just recently fell in love with a few Busse models. However, there isn't one of his models that I would take in the bush over an efficient slicer and a GB axe, if it was going to be a long trip.
Anyway, I personally appreciate the editor giving his honest opinion, rather than being influenced by advertisers.
Besides, like I said, Mr Dick has praised these hard use knives as well, just for different purposes.
That's my opinion, anyway.
 
I haven't read this editorial, but I have read past ones saying much the same thing. Perhaps his reviews and other articles should be taken as follows: "You all know how I personally feel that a light weight knife with 5"-7" blade is all that you should really need to carry as you should use an axe for chopping and wire cutters for that chore, etc., leaving your knife for slicing meat and veggies and/or self defense. But if you do not choose to do this and to carry one large knife to do it all, then ......."
 
The older you get, the less you want to carry, the smaller the guns and knives. :D

You don't need much more than a SAK to enjoy the outdoors. Then again, I like to see someone do trail maintenance with a light weight 5-7 inch knife. Perhaps we should all carry a light 5" knife on our belts and a chainsaw in our packs?

n2s
 
Here's my big beef. I believe it was in one of the last issues of TK, where (I think it was) VanCook doing a review of one of the new BlackJacks. The reviewer actually recommended using a SharpMaker on a convex ground BlackJack. The reviewer and editor should be castrated for this one. That's the same as telling people how to ruin a perfectly good knife. If memeory serves me, the reviewer felt that it was impossible to sharpen a convex grind without power tools. People shouldn't talk about things that thay have knowledge in.
 
Steve Dick has always been out of touch with tactical knives. Anyone familiar with his trademark weed-whacker backpacker knife reviews knows that.

He is right as far as utility knives go, thinner is better. But what he is out of touch with are the needs of the LEO, military, and para-military knife users that tactical knives are used by.

Dick's perspective is more in line with readers of Outdoor Life.
 
I read Mr. Dick's editorial and found nothing wrong or out of place about it. I have subscribed to TK for a number of years and Mr. Dick's editorials and articles have always made no bones about his preference for medium sized knives and their use as cutting tools. I think that before any judgement is passed on Mr. Dick or Tactical Knives one should look at the complete body of work.

I find that TK offers something for a wide variety of knife enthusiasts, collectors and users. Every issue I receive carries articles covering production and handmade knives. Every issue carries something on the topics of survival, defense, sharpening, collecting, maker profiles and many others. There is even a section for letters to the editor, some of which question the editor on various subjects including his editorials(and he responds to those queries). I find that the TK approach to covering the world of knives is very balanced. It will never be possible for any knife magazine to suit everyone's interests perfectly, but I think TK does a pretty good job.
 
Rev. Pete,
According to Steven Dick, if you want to chop, bring an axe. If you want to cut wire, bring wire cutters. If you want to pry, bring a pry bar.
Click to expand...
Yes, indeed, if you want to dig get a shovel etc. and not according to Steven Dick only :) Is it some kind of heresy?
The fact that big knives with thick overbuilt blades exist and some people like them – should it cause all people to like them as well and to have the same equipment conception? Editor publishes in his magazine an article but he is not obliged to agree with author’s statements.

I’m wondering about another thing. If my eyes and my mind do not fail – you are speaking about March issue, I guess March 2003... Hmm, today is just December 6, 2002...
Now tell me please in what issue Tactical Knives (not available here) should write, say, about Shot Show what – if I remember well – should be in January?
Maybe in July issue... :confused:
Or this report was already published in, say, January issue two months ago? :rolleyes:
 
"I find that the TK approach to covering the world of knives is very balanced" Very good point TAutry...One mark of a good publication is that there is room within it for opposing opinions. An editorial is by definition an opinion and should be treated as such. Steven Dick is not preaching gospel, he's just offering his thoughts. Take 'em or leave 'em.
 
Thank you everyone for your thoughtful comments. I especially appreciate the civil tone of every single response. I want to make it very clear that I have nothing against Steven Dick or Tactical Knives. I enjoy reading the magazine and eagerly get my copy as soon as it is shelved at my local Barnes & Noble. In my opinion his issue-oriented editorials are better than the typical candy-coated "we have a great magazine this month" fluff.

When I started this discussion I was puzzed at how contrary (in my opinion) his editorial was to the rest of the magazine. Some of the posters have put his comments into the big picture for me and with the additional perspective Steve Dicks's comments make more sense to me. Maybe I watched too many Rambo movies as a kid but I just like big, bad, do-it-all "tactical" knives :D!
 
The more I learn about cutlery the more I agree
with Steve. To a point.

I know there is no one knife or type of knife for
all to use. BUT the mechanics of the blade do make
a huge differance. TK has the job of telling all
about this new blade or that new blade, all with
out offend an advertizer.

At the end of the day tho it is the balance that Steve bring to the magazine with well praticed woodsman's skill that the advertizers don't want the novice to learn before they buy a bunch of thick prybar blades that they will never really use.

My best knives are the least gee whiz of the
bunch I own. What I've learned from Steve is
simpler is better.....really.
 
I like the diversity that the magazine offers in its writers. I remember an article by Steven Dick where he said if he and Mr. Larsen went into combat, they'd each choose different knives (IIRC, Mr. Larsen would have a larger knife, Steven said). I think it is important to know where the authors are coming from (their perspective) and then you can really enjoy the magazines.

I know that Jerry CanCook's articles, along with Janich's, will be fighting first, utility second. Jeff Randall's articles were about 100% utility. Steven Dick mixes the two a bit, but is something like 80+ percent utility, and the rest considering fighting needs. Sometimes I want to learn more about utility knives, so I go back and look for artickes by Jeff Randall in my magazine stack. Then I get the fighter bug, and I look for Kasper, VanCook, Janich, etc.

It is the same on the board here. If you ask what you should carry for EDC, you'll get recommendations from small carbon steel slip joints to large fixed blades. Why? Because people have different ideas about EDC. And when your EDC needs change, you can look at forumites here who share your needs and see the solutions they come up with.
 
It all depends on what type of "tactics" you are practicing.
My preference is for thin and simple.

Paul
 
It is helpful to remember that knife magazines are first and foremost a business enterprise. Only Knife World, to my immediate knowledge, is privately owned. The rest are owned/operated by publishing corporations of which the title is merely one of a line-up of often diversified $$-making interests.

TK falls into this catagory.

The reality is that if a title fails to make the profit margin determined for it, or if the publisher elects to sell it off or close it to either make $$ or to reroute investment funds into another title deemed to have a greater profit potential if invested in, then no matter how good (or bad) the title is it will be handled as merely a business decision.

With this in mind, and I speak from experience, an editor's opinion on anything under such circumstances / conditions is irrelevant where the Big Picture is concerned.

From the readers' standpoint an editor's observations / opinons on the subject at hand - in this case bladeware - are pretty much conversational at best. Some agree, some disagree, and some could care less:)

Steve (Dick) has always been primarily an outdoorsman in his approach to bladeware. In this realm there's probably no one more prolific or reliable than Steve. His interest in combat/fighting knives is more inclined toward the historical than the present, although he enjoys dabbling with "tactical knives" every now and then. To my knowledge Steve has declined to aggressively participate in knife training although he's been offered the opportunity by some fine instructors. It's simply not his bag.

TK's editorial line-up and focus is determined by Harris Publications. Steve oversees this and serves as a known and reliable editorial cornerstone which every publication must have. Remember, knife magazines serve to make $$ for the owner and to do this they must reflect a certain style, content, voice, and - primarily - bill paying advertising base. Magazine sales are likewise critical so broad appeal - which often means a safe or "vanilla" approach to presentation and marketing - is Priority #1 and is driven by professional magazine gurus...not frontline editors.

Any editorial if it is presented as such is simply that, an editorial. Steve's views reflect his very personal enjoyment and belief in what HE feels best works and is necessary for him, and perhaps others who may agree with his thought process. He could easily offer otherwise and appeal to the marketing scheme behind TK ("Tactical" knives). In some ways this would be an easier and safer position for him to take where the $$ makers are concerned. However, he voices his own opinion and is clearly given official leeway to do so.

TK's author line-up reflects a stable, carefully agreed upon round-up of cutlery writers who present - as noted in previous posts - a fairly broad range of bladeware and applications. Sure, ever so often someone goofs in their technical presentation but this is normal and forgiveable...and almost always caught by someone if not the copy editor / editor before publication. Half the fun is pointing out an "expert's" errors:footinmou

Personally, and I've said this before in the public realm, my preferred knife publication was always Houston Price's KNIFE WORLD. Privately owned, and cared for by as honest and kind a gentleman as Houston Price represents, there was and is no better mix of stories, evals, reviews, and editorial than Knife World.

Editors of knife magazines come and go regardless of the title's owner / publisher. There is no safety net, and one's job depends on the whims of the publishing world which are most often frantic and reactionary. Here today, gone tomorrow is an editor's lot...and this can be seen in the turn over of editors over the past decade at Fighting Knives, Knives Illlustrated, and Blade. Steve will be around in his position only as long as TK is profitable for the publisher, or until he is deemed due to be replaced by little more than a management decision for reasons which - to the average reader -would be beyond comprehension.

Or until he gets bored with the program and moves on.

Business is business and publishing is a business.

So take Steve's thoughts and expertise for what they are and in most cases they are pretty darned enjoyable as well as "to the point":D

He probably wakes up every day just delighted to still be in the editor's chair, a cup of good coffee in his hand, his property spread out before him on a cool Washington State morning, and a good knife nearby just waiting to be worked with out on the Back Forty;)

V/R
GW
Kuwait

PS: Steve, did you get the letter and small US shoulder flag I sent about a month ago:confused:
 
very thoughtful intelligent criticisms.

we all go through our evolutions of tastes.
 
Mr Walker,

I still own all the issues of fighting knives. I miss it!

How do I get a hold of Knife World?
 
From the editor's perspective, it must be difficult to come up with an editorial angle that has not been touched on before. Loyal readers would know if Steve Dick went down a path he's already written about.

It was the same thing in computer magazines I would read voratiously. Eventually, I'd see articles that touched on subjects of years past.

I figure that Mr. Dick is wanting to try and put a fresh spin or point of view in the editorials, some that would spur thought, discussion or dissent. People would come away learning something, testing their own knowledge or affirmation of same, or some would disagree with outright.

It's all good. It's keeps the empasis on the knives and the discussion rolling.
 
He is right as far as utility knives go, thinner is better. But what he is out of touch with are the needs of the LEO, military, and para-military knife users that tactical knives are used by.
Click to expand...

When I read his editorial, I thought an article along the lines of "how did we get here from there" would be interesting. I think the quote above basically sums it up. The transition from "better cutting" to "strong enough to do it all" is, it seems to me, primarily a response to the requirements of soldiering and sometimes law enforcement. A mountain man could take along his knife and axe (or at least hatchet). A soldier often can not, and must make do with one tool.

The real problem (if you want to call it that) is not with Steven D's editorial opinion, but with us. Why is it that we who are not soldiers or SWAT officers insist on carrying knives designed for soldiering when thinner smaller knives combined with other tools (like small saws or hatchets), which we all can carry into the woods if we so choose, work better?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top