DOES taking a blade to Destruction PROVE anything??

A

Allen Blade

BANNED
Joined
Oct 29, 1999
Messages
498
Hello,

DOES taking any knife to its destruction really prove anything?? other than that you can make a blade fail.

I mean i have never in my life out in the field ever had to subject one of my blades to anything close to what would be considered destructive, or end its usefullness as a knife that sharpening if needed would not fix.

I mean in 4 seconds in my Shop i can Destroy any knife made on the planet today,
abuse it to do it YES, does it mean its not a good blade NO.

So what is Proven taking a knife to destruction. I can see if a knife performing Dutys a knife is meant to perform
Breaks then that is one thing,but if you subject a knife to somthing it will never see
as an obstacle in use, then this in itself is abuse.

Myself like i said have spent days in the DEEP wilderness and never , ever , have even come close to Destroying one of my knives, using it to Survive with. i guess if i walked up to a ROCK outcropping and started beating it into the rock i might hurt it,but then i would also consider myself a MORON!!
for doing it.

What are yor thoughts and views on Destruction testing

Thanks for your input,


Allen Blade
 
Allen I have had many of the same thoughts. I mean look at how many military men have used the Kabar over the years to great satisfaction. I think that destruction testing has some academic utility but that it needs to be kept in perspective. There are alot of armchair warriors out there that either think that if they own a superknife then it will keep them alive or that they want to have a link to some elite military group for testosterone purposes.
 
tHE FORGERS LIKE TO BREAK THEM TO INSPECT THE INTERNAL STRUCTURE OF THE STEEL. THE MAGAZINES DO IT FOR A MORE IMPORTANT REASON:TO SELL MAGAZINES
 
Yes it proves something. It shows how the blade behaves under a certain stress. How useful this is depends on what stress is being applied, how it is being done and the experience of the person doing it so as to interpret the results. It surpries me at times why there is so much resistance to it here. Not from everyone, but from a lot of people.

About 10 years or so ago when I was more into salt water fishing that I am now I bought about 5 of the top mono lines and a couple of cheap ones and did limit tests on them, slow loading, high impulse (weights dropped from a height) and wear (dragged a weight along rough ground until the line broke). I did this to confirm I wasn't wasting my money . It turns out I wasn't. I then looked at the results as a function of cost and they were strongly correlated, which you would expect. Anyway it did make me switch brands (can't for the life of me remember from what to what) and I did get slightly better results from then on.

Specific to knives, awhile ago I was discussing with Phil Wilson the toughness of 420V. He described to me the results of some limit tests he performed on a blade he had made which pushed 420V to a maximum regarding edge durability. Very basically he made a knife with minimimal edge support and determined what was needed to fail it. Based on this he could figure out what was a good working edge.

-Cliff
 
Hi Allen...

Although I understand (I think) why it's done, I don't always agree how it's done.

I guess if a knife shattered when it hit the floor I'd want to know about it before I paid money for it..

But on the other hand I think that if a knife was that bad and it would come out of the woodwork here, like it has sooo many times...

If the blade has lifetime on it,, I really wouldn't worry about it much,, since it would be returned and replaced anyway...

Just my .02 cents..

Eric. - On/Scene

------------------
Eric E. Noeldechen
On/Scene Tactical
http://www.mnsi.net/~nbtnoel

 
After much thought, I have concluded that "destruction testing" of knives is a distinct and separate facet of our knife collection hobby.I'm absolutely serious here.It is an activity which obviously appeals to a sizeable minority of collectors/users, and which sometimes benefits the rest of us through alerting us to obviously weak or flawed models. I do not abuse my knives (Hell, I hardly get to use them at all!), and certainly don't try to destroy them.That having been said, I do appreciate that some of our compadres do it and have a ball at it! More power to them!Just keep on letting us in on the results, and we will use the part that each of us feels is useful.There's room in here for all of us.

------------------
AKTI Member #A000934
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."-TACITUS (55?-130?)

 
Allen, I think we are missing one simple reason for taking a knife to destruction. Curiosity. Hmm, did I spell curiosity right? Oh well. I think that in this case, thats as good a reason as any. Its like testing a folders lock strength. So what if a folder can support 100 pounds from its handle. It may serve no practical purpose, but its cool to see what it can do. It seems that no matter what tests are done on a knife, somebody says, how come you did that, I never had to do that. I have seen all manner of tests brought into question. Rope cutting, wood chopping, shaving and just about any other test out there. I have seen it stated that realistic tests for knives should be opening boxes and letters, and food preperation. Well, I can go to Wal-Mart and spend 20 - 30 dollars that will open boxes and prepare food with the best knives out there. If I am gonna spend 100 dollars and more on a knife I want it to be shown that it can CLEARLY out perform your average knife. To me it does not matter that a 100 dollar knife can open 6 boxes before its edge goes and a cheap knife can only open 3. Sure I use my high priced knives to open boxes, but I want to know that if for some unforseen reason I have to use my knife HARD that it can handle it.

Richard
 
We spoke last night Allen. But I thought I would contribute.

1) I believe a knife could be made that would test very well in the extremes but potentially fail under normal use, let's call that a "racing knife".

2) I believe that knives can be overbuilt, that the potentiality of some knives is overkill, and that 99% of users need only 33% of the potential, but people like overbuilt knives.

To address #1- A proper test structure will show normal use that progressively builds to create failure, this will weed out "racing knives".

To address #2- Who knows why some people buy what they do. or Why not.

But I agree with you, I will never need to mine myself out of a stone quarry with my knife. Or skin three tanks a day for a fortnight.

There are some manufacturers and makers that feel that the information gained from destructive testing will be viewed by those who do not understand the context and the destructive testing will hurt their product. From our conversation last night I know that is not you, but I thought I would bring up as much of the issue as I possible. This issue is a bedrock one.

------------------
Marion David Poff aka Eye mdpoff@hotmail.com
Coeur D'Alene, ID
http://www.geocities.com/mdpoff

An interesting business oppurtunity... http://www.geocities.com/selouss

"We will either find a way, or make one." Hannibal, 210 B.C.
 
In my own tests, I emphasize straight cutting performance most of the time. I do always include some *reasonable* limits tests,e.g., I do some stabbing tests to check out the sturdiness of the point. I don't stab a lot in my everyday use, but I do occasionally jam the point into something, so testing the limit here seems very reasonable to me, and I try to make the limit test to be, say, 20% harder than what I think I'll do in real life.

One of the issues here is "reasonable" limits tests. One man's limit test is another's purposely-destructive testing. Cliff is usually singled-out as a guy who is doing purposely destructive tests. But if you talk to Cliff and ask him what he really does with his knives, you'll find that at least some of those tests are as reasonable for him as stabbing tests are reasonable for me.

It also is always interesting to see how things fail. Cliff's tests and subsequent analyses of the failure modes have given us all a lot of insight into what metals do and how they work.

Lastly, as Cliff has maintained all along, it is perfectly reasonable for someone to look at his tests and say, "well, *this* particular test means nothing to me, but *that* one is interesting." In fact, Cliff's tests demand a smarter reader, who can pick and choose what is relevent to him. One example, Cliff did some tests with an 18" Ontario machete and busted it to pieces. I've used Ontario machetes for years and know them to be rock solid. Cliff is perfectly comfortable with me ignoring his tests, because his test does not reflect what I really do with a machete. However, I'm happy the tests were done -- now I know if I ever head into hardwood country, I should bring something other than my machete.


Anyway, in general, you should always be smart about how you read and interpret the results of someone else's testing, is the bottom line.

Joe
 
it proves the knife can be broken.

Watching Mike break a Busse battle mistress and TrailMaster by CS was really sad. I'm like "NOO, RUN AWAY LITTLE MISTRESS!"
 
If we take a look at the automobile industry for a moment, then a few parallels can be drawn. Any kind of motorsport (NASCAR, Indi, Formula 1...) are certainly circuits for enjoyment, but also for testing automobile parts under extreme circumstances. Brakes, tubro chargers, tires... The results of those test actually benefits production cars/trucks. We run crash tests. That's extreme, but it mimiks a worst case scenario for the vehicle and certain conclusions will be drawn from the results, improvements made.
Extreme tests on knives are not that much different. Yes, most likely, you will not be clinging to the side of a cliff hanging by the butt of your trusty folder, but the manufacturer can make improvements based on those tests. Where does the lock fail, how much force did it take, did the blade brake because there was too much carbon in the steel, why did the tip deform after a relatively low drop...?
If you keep a knife for 10 years and the blade breaks, you can call the manufacturer, but will they be able to be certain then, that it failed because of the way it was manufactured or because you abused it or what have you.
Extreme tests are usually test that are supposed to simmulate forces that will happen over a normal lifespan in a time compressed format. Ever see how they test shock absorbers? They stick them in a machine that
bounces them really fast for a certain period of time, which they then equate to be the same punishment that those shock absorbers would be submitted to during a 75,000 mile car ride.
Well, that's my take on it and I could be wrong (it has been known to happen
smile.gif
)
 
Let's continue with the automotive anology. The people that drive cars/motorcycles at 'normal' civilian speeds probably don't know or care where the 'edge of the envelope' is. However, if you're interested in your machine's performance and mannerisms at high speeds and loads, you need to deliberately experiment with driving at the edge - otherwise how do you know where the edge is?

Destructive testing exists for the same reason. If you test something to mechanical failure, you have at least one known point on the performance curve. No failure, no point, therefore no real (provable) data.

To say that you have never been even close to breaking a knive... How do you know? Can you increase the load by 1# or 100#s without damaging the knife? Would you rather read about stresses leading to failure here, or find out for yourself in the high mountains, the desert, or in the middle of a firefight?

db
 
Dave B,

Well said. I like the analogy and the line of reasoning you used. It is actually nice to know what it will take in the extreme to cause failure in the blade, that way I know how far I can push it etc...in an extreme scenario.

------------------
The vague and tenuous hope that GOD is too kind to punish the ungodly has become a deadly opiate for the conscience of millions.

*A. W. Tozer

2 Cor 5:10
 
I seldom use my knives up to their limits and when I do it will only be in certain select stress areas. 98% of the time my testing is seeing how long it takes to sharpen, whether I can make it sharper than a straight razor, and how well it cuts meat. Any other testing is for a knife that I consider more special purpose.

On the other hand I consider myself a student of cutlery steel and its treatment. I always appreciate test results and sometimes perform tests up in the overstress arena to learn something about the materials and designs.

My most recent overstress test was on a Buck Vanguard hunting knife with a Buckcote blade. The underlying steel is 420HC at around 57 RC while the buckcote is something like 90 RC. The mildly hollow ground blade is only sharpened on one side of the edge. There is about a 5-degree angle on the unsharpened side and something like 25-degrees on the sharpened bevel. I know that it will stay sharp an extremely long time if I just use it for cutting meat and hide. My question was what would happen if I cut through bone.

I bought some beef ribs and was very happy with how the knife performed stripping meat off bones. Then I went to overstress. I started chopping at the side of a rib until I cut out about a 1/2-inch notch. The blade cut well but it got several deep dings in the edge. It was interesting to see how an almost chisel edge rolls over to the smaller angled side. I did what I could with very heavy steeling and some honing on the blade. The result is that I'll have to send the knife back to Buck to get the edge fully restored.

So I learned that I wouldn't want to hunt deer using only this knife without something to split ribs and pelvic bones.
 
I love reading all these tests. For me it has had a bad efect though. I now baby my blades more than I ever did before.
 
Well, calling it destructive testing makes it sound pretty dumb, but if you don't intend to break the knife, it is not destructive testing...until after it breaks at least. In some ways, breaking a knife is the only way to find out what it can take, or what it can't. It would be nice of all knife makers, and particularly knife manufacturers put up performance information based on their own testing, like that of Phil Wilson's described above, but almost none do unless it is something ridiculous like the Cold Steel Proof video.

But you would never know the difference in tip durability between an ATS-34 AFCK and a High-speed Steel AFCK unless you did some prying with them and found out how much it takes to break their respective tips off. And you would never know that there isn't much difference in the edge durability of a bunch of knives made out of the same steel if you didn't drive them through some coat hanger wire and see that they all chipped about equally when they had the same edge geometry. If I hadn't ripped the edge off of a very expensive custom knife while cutting through a plastic beverage bottle, I would never have known that Talonite has no place on hard use knives with thin aggressive edges. But all the above were accidents. I never set out to destroy them. It came as somewhat of a surprise.

So, while I would never intentionally set out to destroy a knife, I do sometimes try to imagine what the worst thing I would do to a knife might be, and see if it survives the attempt. You can really learn a lot that way. Sometimes it's worth it and sometimes it isn't.

That's another good thing about crusty old knife makers. They've been around long enough to know what their knives will do, both from their own testing, and from the experiences of their customers.
 
Hello,

Well ive only been making knives FULL TIME
for like 12.5 yrs so im only partly Crusty.


LMAO,

Allen Blade
 
I broke pieces out of a machete recently, just hacking away at ivy in a 'rough suburban environment' :^), and have seen a fair number of broken knife tips over the years. A brother ended up with chips in the edge on his Benchmade, a friend ended up with a broken tip on his Benchmade, but that seems to be kind of a common problem with ATS-34 that is too hard. I don't think that much is gained by seeing how easily a collectable Case whittler can be broken, but when people start pricing knives they way that they often do because of the special steels and heat treating and grinding and such that is required to make such a tough knife, it invites seeing if one is getting one's money's worth. I thought that the chin ups using a knife and a 140lb and a 200lb person in one test were well done, as it also simulated the prying that is done with some knives. One test that I don't see much of that I think a knife being advertised as tough should stand up to is cutting by hammering against the spine, and using it as a chisel by hammering on the handle. I don't expect knives to do well if a ball peen hammer is used but a wood mallet of some sort seems resonable, considering that $10 and less chisels seem to hold up for years with such treatment.
 
Marion :

There are some manufacturers and makers that feel that the information gained from destructive testing will be viewed by those who do not understand the context and the destructive testing will hurt their product.
Click to expand...

For the most part I think this is an excuse to protect overhyped blades. However to be fair to the makers/manufacturer you should give them the ability to respond to what you say and make sure there is a reference to their comments in the review.

Joe :

[my work with the Ontario machetes]

Cliff is perfectly comfortable with me
ignoring his tests, because his test does not reflect what I really do with a machete
Click to expand...

On the money. I generally just say what I did, what the results were and what I think this implies from a materials standpoint. It is up to the reader to figure out how to use this information and it has to be based on what they do.

Tuff :

Watching Mike break a Busse battle mistress and TrailMaster by CS was really sad.
Click to expand...

Mike snapped the point off of a Basic #9, not a BM.

Jeff :

[bone cutting]

So I learned that I wouldn't want to hunt deer using only this knife without something to split ribs and pelvic bones.
Click to expand...

One of the benefits, sometimes you just confirm the obvious, however sometimes you get surprises which is what leads to a better design. If limits were never pushed then they obviously would never change.

-Cliff

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top