Fair Tests of Folders

GatorFlash1

GatorFlash1

Joined
May 28, 2012
Messages
3,189
I recently saw a thread on BF that was about a test of a couple of folders. They were each attached to a vice and weights were hung from the blade until the lock broke, or didn't. The weights were like 75 pounds for the one that broke, and twice that for the other that didn't break the lock. It was an interesting test but my final feeling was, "So What?"

I guess my question is whether or not such a test is relevant to the use of an EDC folder for the average user.

I be curious to know what do you think is a fair test of folders of similar size?

For me a good test would be to see which folder is best at cutting rope, not toilet paper, holding an edge.

I like to see which is best for dressing out a deer or pheasant, etc.

I'd like to see which blade stands up to a rusting salt bath the best.

I'd like to see which handle feels the best after sharpening 20 twigs, or cutting an old leather belt into boot laces.

I'd like to see which holds up to minor twisting of the point of the blade without breaking it off.

I'm thinking that if I need to put 75 or more pounds of pressure on a tool to cut up something, it will be my hatchet, axe, Husqvarna, machete, etc., not my EDC Gayle Bradley.

So what is a really meaningful test for a folder?
 
Years ago, Ken Warner stated that knife testing has gone too far. That was years ago and it's crazier now.
The only test my knife has to pass is cutting things. So far, not one of my knives have failed me.
rolf
 
I think a good portion of folks can't find anything more to open than packages with their knives and live in a dream world where they need ultra tough of everything. Most folks could get by just fine with a slip joint. Heck non knife people make it through life just fine

Good question though
 
Lycosa said:
Years ago, Ken Warner stated that knife testing has gone too far. That was years ago and it's crazier now.
The only test my knife has to pass is cutting things. So far, not one of my knives have failed me.
rolf
Click to expand...

Many of the modern folding knife tests are too extreme IMHO. I guess it all depends on the knife in question's P.O.U though... ;):rolleyes::D
 
GatorFlash1 said:
I recently saw a thread on BF that was about a test of a couple of folders. They were each attached to a vice and weights were hung from the blade until the lock broke, or didn't. The weights were like 75 pounds for the one that broke, and twice that for the other that didn't break the lock. It was an interesting test but my final feeling was, "So What?"

I guess my question is whether or not such a test is relevant to the use of an EDC folder for the average user.

I be curious to know what do you think is a fair test of folders of similar size?

For me a good test would be to see which folder is best at cutting rope, not toilet paper, holding an edge.

I like to see which is best for dressing out a deer or pheasant, etc.

I'd like to see which blade stands up to a rusting salt bath the best.

I'd like to see which handle feels the best after sharpening 20 twigs, or cutting an old leather belt into boot laces.

I'd like to see which holds up to minor twisting of the point of the blade without breaking it off.

I'm thinking that if I need to put 75 or more pounds of pressure on a tool to cut up something, it will be my hatchet, axe, Husqvarna, machete, etc., not my EDC Gayle Bradley.

So what is a really meaningful test for a folder?
Click to expand...


We had a small ranch and we used our knives necessarily hard. There was no getting around it. Locks that fail, like most liner locks, cause serious, and un-needful injury. Lock tests are good because they show which knives will stand up to the rigors of a job like working cattle. I also remodeled houses and worked in a tree nursery in my youth. Knives with weak locks are simply not safe. Yes, a fixed blade will usually be better, but they are almost never as portable. On a ranch, often a job will present itself that is unlooked for and the only tool you have with you is a folding knife. An expensive register Black Angus show cow stuck in the lake, wrapped in bailing wire, stuck on a fence from trying to jump it, or your self being dragged by a horse, or opening bails, and any one of a lot of things make unexpected demands on people and knives. I, for one, am glad to see these types of tests, and more (though they do serve to show what I already knew...friends don't let friends buy liner locks for work).

As to the other tests you mention, I am with you 100%. I expect a knife to cut. The only reason for demonstrating cutting paper, for me, would be if the knife would not cut, or if it were unbelievably sharp. Rope, wood, cardboard, apples, pumpkins, skinning, filleting, and such tests are better.
 
I don't think you understand the logic behind testing. If you were to test a plumbing system installed in a new house, would you test the supply lines with everyday use PSI or a higher PSI? If you were to test corrosion resistance, would you test in everyday environments or subject the item to an extreme corrosive environment?

Why should knife tests be any different? Think about a piercing cut where you apply your body weight to the blade. Think about the difference between static and dynamic forces.
 
After 19 years of knife use I've yet to suffer any serious injury due to knife failure; maybe I'm doing it wrong?...
 
asdf12345 said:
Youtube member vininull's videos of 'hard use testing', I think, are fair tests.
Click to expand...

Agreed; I like his tests--I'll likely never use my knives the way he tests them, but they are used harshly to test their limits. Jim Ankerson's tests (though not as harsh) also are very good. I think with Demko, he is testing his locking mechanism against others--since he did not make the rest of the knife (though sometimes he re-designed it, e.g. AK-47), he takes interest in his craftsmanship/ design. He makes no claims against the other knives he tests in terms of cutting, etc. So, OP has a valid point; those tests would be great to see. At the same time, it's OK for Demko to feel pride and test the limits of his design against others. It is a truly impressive lock; if an Emerson ever came with one I'd be very, very happy.
 
DocT said:
We had a small ranch and we used our knives necessarily hard. There was no getting around it. Locks that fail, like most liner locks, cause serious, and un-needful injury. Lock tests are good because they show which knives will stand up to the rigors of a job like working cattle. I also remodeled houses and worked in a tree nursery in my youth. Knives with weak locks are simply not safe. Yes, a fixed blade will usually be better, but they are almost never as portable. On a ranch, often a job will present itself that is unlooked for and the only tool you have with you is a folding knife. An expensive register Black Angus show cow stuck in the lake, wrapped in bailing wire, stuck on a fence from trying to jump it, or your self being dragged by a horse, or opening bails, and any one of a lot of things make unexpected demands on people and knives. I, for one, am glad to see these types of tests, and more (though they do serve to show what I already knew...friends don't let friends buy liner locks for work).

As to the other tests you mention, I am with you 100%. I expect a knife to cut. The only reason for demonstrating cutting paper, for me, would be if the knife would not cut, or if it were unbelievably sharp. Rope, wood, cardboard, apples, pumpkins, skinning, filleting, and such tests are better.
Click to expand...

Just sounds like for those serious issues, I'd find a way to carry a sheathed fixed blade
 
I would think any test is fair, as long as the testing criteria and methodology is the same for each knife.

Which tests are meaningful to you is fairly subjective.

What I'd like to see more of?

Some of it is just objective data, thickness behind the edge, angle or radius of the primary grind, things like that.

I think another good test is measuring how much force is required to push cut and slice through a fairly consistent cutting media.

Edge retention testing both with the factory edge and with the knife resharpened.

I like lock strength tests just fine, though I don't find them incredibly meaningful. But they need to test both knives to failure and give the numbers in inch pounds, not pure weight.
 
Lycosa said:
Years ago, Ken Warner stated that knife testing has gone too far. That was years ago and it's crazier now.
The only test my knife has to pass is cutting things. So far, not one of my knives have failed me.
rolf
Click to expand...
This^^^. If you're using a folder and you're afraid it might fail and injure you as a result, you're using the wrong tool. Your mind should be focused on the job at hand, not the instrument you're using to perform it.
 
Last edited:
When I watch videos of folders I just like to see them being used in general cutting tasks from cutting cardboard to whittling. If the locking mechanism holds up to edc use, then I'm satisfied. Most of my friends that own knives are not exotic steel fanatics and don't even think much about lock strength. When they see some of the extreme testing videos they just laugh, shake their heads and ask why.

While I don't think there is anything wrong if a person wants the biggest, strongest or most exotic that the knife industry has to offer. I do feel "hard use" has become a parody of its self. Folding knives have been around a long time and excelled without ridiculously strong locking mechanisms. Besides there are a number of great sub 4" fixed blades on the market now.
 
To be fair really across the board certain things have to be put into perspective.

  • What the actual knives being tested are designed to do by the manufacturer and has to be kept realistic along with the expectations
  • Geometry and other variables have to be taken into consideration
  • The actual purpose of the testing needs to be stated before the testing begins
  • A repeatable method has to be used for testing
  • Any bias needs to be removed or taken to a min
  • Testing needs to be an apples to apples comparison when possible to keep things honest
 
In the end too, I think you would also need multiples of the same knife. Yes that would be expensive, but heat treats could vary lock interfaces, blemishes..... you get the idea
 
bobnery said:
In the end too, I think you would also need multiples of the same knife. Yes that would be expensive, but heat treats could vary lock interfaces, blemishes..... you get the idea
Click to expand...

A lot depends on what one is testing for.

Sometimes testing more than one is good, other times it can be redundant, I have found over the years it's redundant most of the time.
 
Ankerson said:
A lot depends on what one is testing for.

Sometimes testing more than one is good, other times it can be redundant, I have found over the years it's redundant most of the time.
Click to expand...

We will have to disagree there, unless you can eliminate variables and have every knife perfect then test will vary. Maybe only minutely but nonetheless variation exists. Will it translate into something the end user will notice? Who knows, but if we are designing fair tests, I would think we want to have them consistent. Take an extreme example of the infamous "lemon" the tester gets that one knife, and it fails miserably, thus what was a fair test becomes invalid
 
bobnery said:
We will have to disagree there, unless you can eliminate variables and have every knife perfect then test will vary. Maybe only minutely but nonetheless variation exists. Will it translate into something the end user will notice? Who knows, but if we are designing fair tests, I would think we want to have them consistent. Take an extreme example of the infamous "lemon" the tester gets that one knife, and it fails miserably, thus what was a fair test becomes invalid
Click to expand...

It's the method that needs to be consistent, repeatable.

Everything else is a variable. ;)

Doing things by hand we have to work in the percentages.

Getting a lemon as you say happens, when it does and it will be apparent that happened if the method is consistent so another knife would be tested in those cases.

That's when the tester gets in contact with the company rep and has another knife sent out and the test is ran again.

But then all of that comes with actual experience and that is what I do, I am a consultant, I do R&D and testing professionally.

So I have a huge database to look at and I can notice problems early on normally.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top