Green Beret Destruction Test

[Ikarus]

Well here we're going to have to agree to disagree. I'm pretty sure big business does safety testing only because it is mandated by big government. I'm also pretty sure that independent labs exist only because of big government's safety standards, and so they can make a buck by performing comparison testing.

A superior safety rating is a pretty big selling point and will usually make the car more attractive to the general consumer. This doesn't apply to all kinds of cars of course; nobody cares about the safety rating of a ferrari

 

[bulgron]

Oh and as for normal wear and tear bulgron, do you think Green Berets do normal jobs with normal tasks? This is a relatively high end knife not a 'normal' one, it should perform above the normal.

I suppose it's too much to ask that a knife be tested to Green Beret standards by, oh I don't know, being used by Green Berets (hopefully in training exercises where failure isn't critical) so as to see how it stands up?

But having never been a Green Beret, I ask you, is beating on a knife with a 3 lb steel mallet something that you reasonably might want to do in the course of a mission? I ask only because I'm curious. My entire attitude and opinion about these "destruction tests" are driven by the market of which I am a part: the civilian market.

 

[Kiah]

Well here we're going to have to agree to disagree. I'm pretty sure big business does safety testing only because it is mandated by big government.

They also do it for the sake of advertising that their vehicle is in fact tougher than the competitor's similar vehicle. Money is still involved, but most car companies do try to build cars above government standards. I've been in enough collisions that thinking otherwise would undermine my ability to drive .

As for hanging a truck upside down by a single bolt, I also think that's dumb (so at least I'm consistent ). What in the world do they expect to convince me as to drivability, usability and reliability of a truck just because it can be suspended in a way that never will be seen by me or anyone else in nature?

It's sensationalism. There point is, "If we make something as simple as a bolt this strong, think what we've done to the rest of the vehicle." I agree that it's over the top, though. It's really no different than Becker's "Field Stripping a Buick" or many similar knife ads from the past.

Again, I absolutely fail to see how anyone wacking a knife with a steel mallet is going to do anything other than convince me that wacking a knife with a steel mallet is a bad idea. This is because I already know better than to wack a knife with a steel mallet, and I don't consider that particular test to be any indication of how durable the tool will be under normal wear and tear.

Again, I agree. I have no intention of putting sudden extreme lateral stress on my knives. In a military situation though, I can see several circumstances where this kind of thing could happen. Given the mallet would probably be replaced by a palm hit or, at most, a swift kick.

 

[tito]

What about the testing to become a Journeyman bladesmith? I only ask because it was the first thing that came to mind when I read the objection to destruction testing. Wouldn't the 90 deg bend test be even more unrealistic in terms of an actual way a knife might be used?

 

[bulgron]

What about the testing to become a Journeyman bladesmith? I only ask because it was the first thing that came to mind when I read the objection to destruction testing. Wouldn't the 90 deg bend test be even more unrealistic in terms of an actual way a knife might be used?

A 90 degree bend test is somehow required for a Journeyman bladesmith? Fascinating!

Maybe some mastersmiths will come along to explain how come that's a viable test for a journeyman. Seems silly to me, especially since I expect some steels (and not smiths) to be better at this than others.

 

[RoyalM]

I agree bulgron that hitting one of my knives with a sledge hammer is not something I have ever done but it shows me what it takes to break the knife. I've levered some of my knives to their extremes, well past their guidelines.

I just think its an extreme form of battoning. I look at it like could there be a situation where I batton with a piece of metal? Possibly has to be my answer, only last year did I catch my father using a hammer to batton my RTAK through some wood. I explained to him the complete wrongness of his actions, then took the hammer from him and gave him a piece of wood to use instead. The RTAK survived with a little of the coating removed is all. If i had bought a Green Beret and he had done the same thing and it broke I would be massively pissed off at him and at the knife.

As for the market these knives are aimed at I agree that there will be a broad range of people buying these knives from military to civilian. Calling it Green Beret though is kind of leading though isn't it? If I released a knife and called it "The ultimate special forces SAS war knife" I think many may expect it to be an outstanding and robust knife. Either that or cost $10 and be pure comedy.

I'm not meaning to have a rant here and I don't want to come across as having a problem with anyone I just think Noss provides answers to some questions about knives. Not everyone has these questions but many people do.

Just my thoughts

 

[Kiah]

Calling it Green Beret though is kind of leading though isn't it?

It's called the Green Beret because it is given to US Army Special Forces Soldiers upon graduation.

 

[RoyalM]

I understand that kiahs, but the Green Berets have a certain reputation and for me I don't think this knife lives up to that standard. Thats my point, Green Beret to many = excellence. This knife test result = poor.

So either the knife is wrongly named, the Green Beret reputation is over-rated (i've worked with them and couldn't disagree stronger on this one) or whoever decided to give these knives to the guys on graduation has made a mistake.

The Seals have a knife named after them and it performs to their rep, I just ask the same for any knife bearing some other organizations name and therefore rep.

 

[tito]

A 90 degree bend test is somehow required for a Journeyman bladesmith? Fascinating!

Maybe some mastersmiths will come along to explain how come that's a viable test for a journeyman. Seems silly to me, especially since I expect some steels (and not smiths) to be better at this than others.

I'm sorry - your sarcasm is lost on me. As is your point - I thought you didn't expect any knife should be tested to destruction (or more correctly, such testing is stupid)? Are you qualifying your objection to destruction testing to S30V and similar (i.e. it's okay for SOME types of steels)?? Steel bigot

 

[3wolves]

Woah! The reason noss4 tests these knives is to see which is the toughest. It just shows that a cold steel, gerber or falkniven at a fraction of the price of a green beret is simply a much tougher knife. I mean come on, even a Smith and wesson "Chinese POS" beat the CRK by alot. I don't see any reason to get all worked up and start flame wars because the CRK isnt very strong.

 

[bulgron]

I'm sorry - your sarcasm is lost on me. As is your point - I thought you didn't expect any knife should be tested to destruction (or more correctly, such testing is stupid)? Are you qualifying your objection to destruction testing to S30V and similar (i.e. it's okay for SOME types of steels)?? Steel bigot

No sarcasm here. I think it's truly fascinating that (apparently) you have to be able to pass a 90 degree bend test as a part of your journeyman test. I'm truly curious as to what this test is measuring.

As for steels, my layman's understanding is that some steels are soft and springy, while others are hard and brittle. So I would therefore expect some steels to do better at a 90 degree bend test than others. Is it steel bigotry to expect this?

My expectation is that S30V is going to tend towards the hard & brittle end of the spectrum because it is a stainless steel. So I would therefore expect S30V to, for example, break easier when pounded on with a steel mallet than if a high carbon steel was in use.

On the other hand, if I was living in a very humid environment, I would expect S30V to stand up better over the long run than that high-carbon steel. So if you live in, say, Hawaii or Louisiana, then a knife like the Green Beret might be for you!

In the end, you have to purchase the tool that works best for your intended application. I wouldn't expect there to be any surprises there.

I've mentioned up-thread that I don't own a Green Beret, nor do I have any desire to own one. One reason is because it is made out of S30V, which I shy away from in a bigger knife simply because it IS a stainless steel. I live in a very arid environment, and so I can't imagine a reason why I would want a knife in this format made out of stainless steel, unless I was going to use it a lot for food prep.

In other words, I am not at all surprised that you can get a S30V blade to break by beating it with a steel 3 lb mallet. It's a stainless steel, and so I don't expect it to stand up to that kind of abuse in the same way as a non-stainless steel might.

As to whether the Green Beret is truly "Green Beret tough," I suspect the right way to find that out is to go ask a bunch of Green Berets if they use their graduation gift on actual missions, and if so what they think of them. The fact that the Green Beret is still being handed out to Special Forces Qualification Course graduates, and has been since 2002, tells me that either the knife is doing well at it's assigned task, or graduates aren't using their graduation gift on actual missions. Again, in order to know how tough the knife actually is, one should ask people who are actually using it for the task that it is designed to perform.

I think it would be most telling if you asked 100 Green Berets if they were using a Green Berek Chris Reeve knife on an operational basis. If the answer is 'no', then the follow-on question ('why?') well tell you all you need to know about the knife.

 

[ToyKnife]

I appreciate the testing Noss does. Relevance of the testing he does is up to each person to decide for themselves. I would like to see an A-2 model tested though, my expectations would be it would do better.

This would be interesting.

Oh and as for normal wear and tear bulgron, do you think Green Berets do normal jobs with normal tasks? This is a relatively high end knife not a 'normal' one, it should perform above the normal.

It's called the Green Beret because it is given to US Army Special Forces Soldiers upon graduation.

I think the question is can someone confirm that the individual does USE this knife for missions. Second, if they do use this knife then I would assume that one may run into a situation were the knife would be used for something more then normal wear/tear. Maybe chances are slim, maybe not. I would hope that their chance for life doesn't come down to the quality of a knife.

 

[noss4]

In other words, I am not at all surprised that you can get a S30V blade to break by beating it with a steel 3 lb mallet. It's a stainless steel, and so I don't expect it to stand up to that kind of abuse in the same way as a non-stainless steel might.

Again look at some of the tests. Stainless can be very tough. Check out the fallkniven A1 test look at the Buck Nighthawk test look at the Gerber LMFII test. And of course look at the Strider BT test made of S30V. They performed very well for stainless steel knives they didn't give in easily.

 

[he who say]

the tests maybe over the top, but when a buck nighthawk beats a greenberet, thats saying something

 

[Jos]

 

[theonew]

In other words, I am not at all surprised that you can get a S30V blade to break by beating it with a steel 3 lb mallet. It's a stainless steel, and so I don't expect it to stand up to that kind of abuse in the same way as a non-stainless steel might.

Actually I was surprised, I had full faith and confidence that CRK was doing just what it needed to do to create an exceptional, tough knife. I figured that CRK was heat treating it to a lower hardness to compensate for S30V's brittleness.

 

[bulgron]

Again look at some of the tests. Stainless can be very tough. Check out the fallkniven A1 test look at the Buck Nighthawk test look at the Gerber LMFII test. And of course look at the Strider BT test made of S30V. They performed very well for stainless steel knives they didn't give in easily.

OK, let me try this another way.

Please tell me what your conclusion is with this test.

Are you saying that the Green Beret is an unreliable knife that will fail under normal usage?

Are you saying that the Green Beret is a reliable knife that may fail under certain abusive situations?

Are you saying that the Green Beret is a poor quality product? Is a high quality knife? That you can make no statement about the Green Beret's quality from this test?

What exactly is your conclusion with this test?

If I wanted a general-purpose outdoors knife in this format, I should/should not buy the Green Beret. Please pick one and explain your answer.

 

[Kiah]

I figured that CRK was heat treating it to a lower hardness to compensate for S30V's brittleness.

They are. It's only treated for 55-57 RC.

 

[noss4]

First I never tell anyone to buy a knife or not buy a knife that I perform a destruction test on. NEVER EVER !

Normal usage comes down to the individual user. One my just collect another may chop concrete and consider it okay. What I'm saying is just because you don't does not mean another won't. I'm not the first to do so and I won't be the last. Usage can be very simple as cutting rope to punching holes in oil drums or ammo crates these are just examples.

You may be surprised but I don't chop concrete with my user knives just the ones I destruction test.

I can not say for certain the Green Beret will fail under your definition of normal use. People do many things with their knives.

If you want my opinion Okay.

I fully believe a combat hard use fixed blade knife needs to be tough first.Based on many of the knives I have tested the Green beret was to fragile to
meet the requirements for a tough knife. This is based on many I have tested.

You can have the sharpest blade. The best chopping blade. If it's prone to easy breakage then it no longer is the sharpest nor the best chopper. It's
just a broken knife.

The Green Beret may fail very easy under an abusive situation. As if failed my test. This is very possible If it did it once it can do it again. The Busse FFBM went the distance and kept going. It did it once it can do it again.

For me I would not buy one for outdoor. First it just is not what I want. I'm very rough on my knives outdoors. I don't worry much about digging and chopping and batoning my knives hard. Cutting open cans or whatever I need to. I do not baby my outdoor knives.

In answer to your question I would say buy a Busse or a Scrapyard. These are two knives that are just about inscrutable and functional as you can get or at least that I have tested.

For me toughness is a big factor in choosing a rugged outdoor knife.

If I didn't answer your questions let me know. I'm tired I've been up to long. :yawn:

OK, let me try this another way.

Please tell me what your conclusion is with this test.

Are you saying that the Green Beret is an unreliable knife that will fail under normal usage?

Are you saying that the Green Beret is a reliable knife that may fail under certain abusive situations?

Are you saying that the Green Beret is a poor quality product? Is a high quality knife? That you can make no statement about the Green Beret's quality from this test?

What exactly is your conclusion with this test?

If I wanted a general-purpose outdoors knife in this format, I should/should not buy the Green Beret. Please pick one and explain your answer.

 

[sketchbag]

Good stuff Noss, interesting as usual.

Based on your experience, do you suppose the knife would have held up any better had you batoned it with a heavy piece of oak instead of the hammer? My guess is it would have still failed, and that there would still be people complaining about you doing something as outrageous as batoning a knife with a piece of wood.

I dont see why people get so worked up over these tests like they have some personal stake in the results. I dont try to wreck my knives, but it's good to know how one would hold up if you were to say...chop something and followed through to hit a rock, or pry with it (I guess I'm the only one who doesnt EDC a pry bar :jerkit. I want to be confident that the knife I'm choosing wont chip out or loose its tip under those less than ideal, but quite realistic circumstances.

Frankly the results make no difference to me, just one look at that knife and I knew I'd never buy that one, the handle design looks just terrible. Why the hell would anyone want the tang sticking out beyond the scales anyway? Am I missing something? Does that design serve any purpose beyond making the knife uncomfortable to use?