Extreme but legitimate uses for knives

Provided that done with enough cautions...

Shaving frozen meat
Breaking hard ice with tip
Opening cans
Cutting wire

Done with blades made by myself.
 
Digging holes, wood splitting, smaller branch/tree chopping, skinning game, fire striking, flint knapping, spear point, food prep, carving/finer wood working, glass/ice breaker. My RC5 can do it all, and the finer stuff the Koyote Leuku does superbly. I have a dynamic duo goin on for field use right now, these two knives will last me a lifetime. a serrated karambit for SAR and my brand spankin new HEST for edc etc
 
making a sandwich...IN SPACE!!!
opening a letter...IN A VOLCANO!!!
cutting the cheese!!!
 
I want my hard use knives to be able to whack through a deer pelvis and stay sharp. Also when using my climbing treestand sometimes I need to chop off small limbs on the way up. So far the ones I use for that are up to the task.:thumbup:
 
I think any use that the user deems necessary is "legitimate", as long as he doesn't have unrealistic expectations of the knife, or of the maker to stand behind it.

A knife is a very simple tool, that can be adapted to a very broad range of uses. All use causes wear to the knife; some uses cause wear at greater rates than others.

The sorts of knives we typically discuss on this site are generally field tools - they are meant to be carried around on one's person. This would be as opposed to bench tools or components in a large kit of tools carried to a jobsite, etc. So an EDC/field knife is an inherently *general* tool. The whole point of such a tool is for it to be adapted to the task at hand.

I am not arguing that all knives need to be able to withstand abuse, or even that the ability to withstand abuse makes one knife better than another. What I am saying is that there are situations where “abuse” becomes simply “use”; and in those situations a knife’s resistive capacity is an important attribute. It is just another layer of utility.
 
I think any use that the user deems necessary is "legitimate", as long as he doesn't have unrealistic expectations of the knife, or of the maker to stand behind it.

A knife is a very simple tool, that can be adapted to a very broad range of uses. All use causes wear to the knife; some uses cause wear at greater rates than others.

The sorts of knives we typically discuss on this site are generally field tools - they are meant to be carried around on one's person. This would be as opposed to bench tools or components in a large kit of tools carried to a jobsite, etc. So an EDC/field knife is an inherently *general* tool. The whole point of such a tool is for it to be adapted to the task at hand.

I am not arguing that all knives need to be able to withstand abuse, or even that the ability to withstand abuse makes one knife better than another. What I am saying is that there are situations where “abuse” becomes simply “use”; and in those situations a knife’s resistive capacity is an important attribute. It is just another layer of utility.

:confused:
 
I think any use that the user deems necessary is "legitimate", as long as he doesn't have unrealistic expectations of the knife, or of the maker to stand behind it.

So there seems to be an unsaid set of expectations on what's "reasonable" for a maker to stand behind his knife, under certain types of uses and extremes and that users should know when they've crossed that line. But this can vary depending on what one deems an action as "necessary", which can be heavily influenced by one's ignorance or specific philosophical position on reasonable knife use. That leaves a whole lotta gray area.

A knife is a very simple tool, that can be adapted to a very broad range of uses. All use causes wear to the knife; some uses cause wear at greater rates than others.

The sorts of knives we typically discuss on this site are generally field tools - they are meant to be carried around on one's person. This would be as opposed to bench tools or components in a large kit of tools carried to a jobsite, etc. So an EDC/field knife is an inherently *general* tool. The whole point of such a tool is for it to be adapted to the task at hand.

I am not arguing that all knives need to be able to withstand abuse, or even that the ability to withstand abuse makes one knife better than another. What I am saying is that there are situations where “abuse” becomes simply “use”; and in those situations a knife’s resistive capacity is an important attribute. It is just another layer of utility.

Here you're blurring the lines between "use" and "abuse" and appear to be taking almost relativistic position on what constitutes as "reasonable." It appears you're saying that "It's reasonable because I think it is." Okay then, do we still attempt to create some kind of normative approach to determining use vs abuse/ expectations of users for knife makers to back up their product vs knife maker positions on the subject/etc? If what the users deems necessary is the generalization we're going to work with, where do we begin?

Nice post, btw.
 
-
- treating a full game like a moose ( that requires a lot from knife )

Last season my friend/hunting partner downed a cow elk, but forgot his knife. I lent him my new Spydie Street Beat. (VG10) We completely gutted/skinned and boned all the meat out. I told him that it was very sharp, but he still cut himself about 3/4 way thru.

As soon as he got back to town, he went to the Spyderco factory and bought one. He wears it at work every day.
 
Last season my friend/hunting partner downed a cow elk, but forgot his knife. I lent him my new Spydie Street Beat. (VG10) We completely gutted/skinned and boned all the meat out. I told him that it was very sharp, but he still cut himself about 3/4 way thru.

As soon as he got back to town, he went to the Spyderco factory and bought one. He wears it at work every day.

The Street Beat is a great knife.
 
Back
Top