"Hard use" Vs Abuse... working definitions

D

dtownknifekid

Joined
Dec 21, 2006
Messages
1,155
After reading a recent thread that I'm sure all of you know and I dont need to reference with much else, I have observed that there are some very heavy opinions on the subjects of hard use and abuse. Many of these posts, however, were devoid of any explanation of what is considered hard use or abuse. I will note that I noticed that more on the hard use camp. So I have decided to try to clarify this a bit and try to form a working consensus on what constitutes hard use and abuse using the opinions of members of this forum. I may well fail but at least i will try.

Here are the definitions and examples for me. (restricted to folders for the most part)

Hard use: Cutting hard to cut materials or materials that would cause expedited dulling. For example: Wood, carpet, thick plastic, wire(could cross over into abuse), sheet rock, rubber hose, thick rope and the like. Light battoning with a well built unlocked folder is walking a fine line between hard use and abuse in my opinion and is one area where I believe the opinions would differ the most. Penetrating materials that will be cut such as thick plastic packaging.

Abuse: Any activity that would apply force to the spine of a knife (with the exception of removing the knife from a bind in a cut, striking a fire steel, and stabbing soft materials). Heavy Chopping with a folder. Batoning a locked folder or heavy battoning on an unlocked folder. Prying. Applying force to the knife with anything except your hand and own muscles (previous exceptions are still exempt).


As far as the need for a strong lock, why do you or dont you need an uber lock? Have you ever had a lock fail during use? If so, what exactly were you doing? Do you consider it hard use or abuse?

I have no need for an uber lock. I never put force on the spine of a knife in the direction of a lock. Even in a self defense situation I don't see how too much force can be applied in that direction with proper use. I have never had a lock fail or even a slip joint close on my fingers.

Please try to keep the comments civil... we shall see if a flame war has been started
 
Yeah, I tried something similar about 133 posts ago....

The knife using community is so large and diverse,

The selection of knives on the market today is so large and diverse,

And the opinions of people are so varied,

That achieving concensus, even within the comparatively small community here on BF, is probably impossible.

But if you're really determined, it might help to start with some numbers, as far as how big the blade should be, spine thickness, how much force the lock should withstand, and so on. I got in trouble here, too, by going with some numbers that people thought were impossible, so if you do, make sure your figures can be backed up with facts!

And good luck!
 
Hard Use vs Abuse has no real defenition as a broad subject. What may be considered hard use on one knife is not neccassarily so on another example; batoning with a large fixed blade(Busse) may not be "abuse", but it certainly would be on a Swiss Army Knife and most(all IMO) folders. IMO the only "abuse" that applies to all knives is prying/twisting/screwdriving with the tip or edge, cutting/chopping/stabbing the following materials outside of destruction testing(which is a different story); brick, stone, and other metals, digging(use a stick or shovel). I also consider a lack of proper mantainance abusive to blades ie; not cleaning, oiling as neccassary, leaving dull, leaving rust, etc.
 
I do not mean to cause a stir or agitate anyone, but what is the fascination with defining these terms?

Simply put, the answer is ALWAYS, "it depends".

"Use" for a heavy duty survival knife (i.e. the sharpened prybar) will often constitute "abuse" for a small slip joint. Everything in between is a point that needs to be considered independently.

I suppose a very interested party could devise a list of knives and propose a list of duties that constitute use and abuse for each, but what would be the purpose for such a list?

What I have learned over the years is a keener understanding of the duties that would be suitable for the tool I happen to have available. Anything beyond those duties might cause damage...then I have to decide what is really important. Labeling it as "abuse" or "use" is immaterial when you take responsibility for your own actions.

When you believe you are acting responsibly and something breaks, consult the manufacture. Notice I said consult (not demand) and manufacturer (not public forums)?
 
We need a new category; "Safe Use". A knife purchased because it's a limited run in some bada$$ steel that will never cut anything because it's locked away in a safe for a future flip. My addition to this thread would be anything really abrasive/tough that I've cut with my knives that may have been better suited for a utility razor, things like carpet, grip tape, and so on.
 
I can't say anything better than Sal...

Sal Glesser said:
I think some clarification of definition might help. This is just my opinion, of course. I’ll try to include some history for the “younger afi’s”. No doubt some will disagree with me. That's ok. My credentials are sound.

The first “Hard Use” production folder was probably Al Buck’s “110” in the mid 60’s.

The intent was to create a folding knife that could take on many of the pressures put on a fixed blade knife but be easier to carry. The knife had the ability to cut harder to cut materials and deal with difficult environments. The blade was thicker than “normal” folders, (fairly fine tip though). The lock was strong and exceptional steel (stainless 440C) was used to be able to cut the harder to cut materials. Pete Gerber followed with his folders, also made with exceptional steel. Al Mar began producing hard use knives with exceptional steels. Al also had a military background which influenced his designs.

Chris Reeve and Spyderco made hard use folders in the early 80’s. They were using better steels, strong locks and tough handles, many of these earlier hard use folders are still in service. In the mid 80’s a number of companies also began producing knives intended to go through tougher materials.

(“Hard use” is a marketing term that was created far later than the designs. The same is true of “tactical”).

Chris was using Titanium for his handles and he invented a new type of lock which proved to take impact well. The Reeve Integral Lock (often called a “frame-lock”) has “enjoyed” much attention. These were designed and built for hard use.

Then along comes Mick Strider. Here we have a knuckle dragging knife maker making knives for knuckle draggers. That sounds good to me. He said; What if I have to abuse my knife. What if I have to pry with it, or twist or dig, maybe hammer? Prying, digging and hammering with a knife is no longer “hard use”, it is “abuse”. Mick’s knives were made for abuse.

Another knuckle dragger, Ken onion, chimed in with the ZT line. Again, the knives were designed and built for abuse. Lynn Thompson was another that creates knives to be abused. First he made fixed blades and later with folders. These were also designed and built to take abuse.

It is interesting to note that some of these designers paid special attention to using exceptional steels. They usually used the best steels available at the time. They also used edge geometries that were more abuse friendly. The theory being; if you are going to pry, dig and hammer with your knife, these activities are very hard on the edge and once the edge is gone, what you have left is a folding club. Generally, exceptional steel will perform better and last longer.
Click to expand...
 
I too, have asked and what I got back is always: Proper use: mine, Hard use: stupid guys, Abuse: stupider guys.
 
I do not consider cutting to be hard use. The primary function of a knife is to cut. Knives made for cutting wood, carpet, rubber, etc. are cheap and thin. Utility blades as thin as 0.010" are made to be used for cutting anything and then get put in the trash. Same for plastic handled Frosts and Hultafors.

I like strong locks because there is no downside to them. A stronger lock that doesn't weigh more, doesn't have more parts, and isn't any harder to operate than a weaker lock is in no way inferior. Why settle when there is absolutely no reason? It's perfectly ok to pick G10 over frn, and that preference is constantly stated on BF. Yet G10 is as necessary as a tri-ad lock when frn lockbacks are available and handle everything thrown at them.
 
sometimes guys less than stupid have to "abuse" their knives for reasons most wouldn't consider... that being said, some people are just stupid in general and they'd find a way to abuse a crowbar if you let them, but that's the nature of the beast with knives. you don't need a licence or test to use one and some people just aren't that bright. as stated above, you should approach the subject of buying knife based on the task you have intended to use it for. Afterall, you wouldn't plow a driveway with a ferrari, and you shouldn't expect a swiss army knife to baton your firewood.
 
As probably the primary instigator of a lot of the use/abuse in that other thread, I feel compelled to mention that I'm pretty sure my definition of abuse aligns with most of the people who thought they were criticizing or arguing with me.

To my mind, abuse constitutes putting stress on a knife outside what the knife is designed to do (cutting/chopping tasks). I'm not a believer in prying, twisting, etc. If I want something that will do those tasks, I'll buy a sharpened prybar. I admit that I do like to throw knives sometimes for fun, and that's definitely in the realm of abuse. But most of the knives I have purchased or made can hold up to the stresses of throwing just fine, although the true knife snob will doubtless turn his nose up at the mere thought.

I think aside from throwing, those two I broke yesterday were the only times I've ever abused a knife. And, as much as some people want to complain, there ARE folks out there who like to know what ABUSE a knife can take over and beyond what they'll use the knife for on a regular basis. I'm not sure I'm one of them, but I can at least visualize at least one situation where I might be tempted to use my knife outside of what it's specced for, and I could see it being nice to know for sure that it would be fine to handle that task.
 
My "definitions" are actually quite simple. Ask yourself "Would I do that with a knife that cost as much as my car?" If the answer is "Yes", it's use. If the answer is "Only if I absolutely had to", it's hard use. If the answer is "No", it's abuse.
 
To me, 'hard-use' has more to do with the frequency in which a particular tool is used. I might cut up the occasional cardboard box with my EDC so it can fit in the recycling box, but a shipper/receiver might have to cut cardboard all day long, five days a week. A butcher or chef will use their knives a lot harder at work than I do preparing my own meals at home. The folks who truly use their knives 'hard' are the ones who will reap the benefits of super-steels and will experience more of a pronounced difference: edge-retention, wear/corrosion resistance, etc.

In my mind, 'abuse' is using a particular tool for anything outside the realm of its intended function (which may lead to damaging the tool itself or the material it is used on.) I'd consider it 'abuse' to use a flat-head driver on a Phillips screw--it can be done, but it is not recommended. Same thing with knives. Baton with a Becker BK-2? Sure, why not. Baton with an Al Mar Eagle? Not a good idea. You may get away with abusing a knife for a while, but sooner or later failure will result.

Anyway, that's my two-cents... :o
 
Last edited:
To me hard use is actual use of the knife, in a real world environment. Hard use isn't a backyard knife test. Hard use is using a folding knife for something other than cutting, or cutting materials where another tool may be more appropriate but not available. Doing that when another tool is available is abuse.

That said, people spend their hard earned money on knives and are free to do with them what they wish. However, the information garnered from "destruction tests" or abuse of knives is specious at best and should not be taken into account when someone is looking for a knife to purchase. I use my knives hard. I do things with them that they probably weren't meant to do. I know that Yablanowitz does too. (good answer by the way, Jack :)) There are probably hundreds of tradesmen on these boards that do the same thing.

I used a delica, to cut through wire impregnated heavy rubber hose. I probably could have used a hacksaw, and it probably would have been the right tool for the job, but when hundreds of gallons of water are pouring into the engine room of a boat and you have to fix it quickly, you don't have time to wade through shin deep water looking for a hacksaw. That is hard use IMO.

In the above story, the serrations were blunted, bent and chipped, and the knife was dulled beyond my repair capabilites of the time. I don't think there was any play even after several minutes of twisting and torquing the blade in the cut. I still have the knife and managed to repair the edge several years later. Edited to add: the tip didn't break off, the lock didn't fail and I still have all of my fingers :D
 
This is what it means to me...

Hard Use: Use of the knife up to or near the limits of what stresses the knife can handle without significant damage. Insignificant damage is cosmetic or easily repaired with minor effort (like a dulled edge.)

Abuse: Use of the knife beyond what the knife can handle without taking significant damage. Significant damage is any damage that is not easily repaired and/or causes loss of or diminishes function.

Naturally what constitutes as either is going to depend on the knife in question. The key with this approach is that it considers the specific knife in question first, and then evaluates tasks based on the design and build of that knife, rather than deciding first that a task is inappropriate for ANY knife.
 
I agree with what some have said and disagree with others. One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that to me, repetitive "hard use" equals "abuse" as well. So even if you were to have a hard and fast definition of these terms it would still be situational.
 
All very good points. I'm glad we were able to handle this topic civilly. It has become clear to me that a consensus probably wont be met, but in my mind using a tool for something it was not intended constitutes abuse no matter the reason. If it works good for you, if it doesn't don't be surprised. It can be and often is argued that unless explicitly stated by the manufacturer the only purpose of a knife is to cut. That would make hard use cutting excessively difficult and/or overly dulling things hard use and any prying abuse.

I like strong locks because there is no downside to them. A stronger lock that doesn't weigh more, doesn't have more parts, and isn't any harder to operate than a weaker lock is in no way inferior. Why settle when there is absolutely no reason? It's perfectly ok to pick G10 over frn, and that preference is constantly stated on BF. Yet G10 is as necessary as a tri-ad lock when frn lockbacks are available and handle everything thrown at them.
Click to expand...

I see what you mean, but with the way I use knives there is no reason to make lock strength the deciding factor in choosing a knife when other factors such as aesthetics or ergonomics differ. For example I'd take a BM 615 mini rukus over a 275 Adamas any day because the stronger lock on the Adamas does not outweigh the better qualities of the 615 design. I do not mean to call strong locks inferior, merely unnecessary and unimportant to me. As I have stated many times I dislike the triad lock because of its difficulty to disengage and bear trap closure.

And good post Kreole I was hoping for a maker's view on this matter.
 
Noctis3880 said:
Abuse = Whatever isn't covered by the knife's warranty:thumbup:.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

What we expect from a knife is one thing. What we wind up with if our expectations are not met is something else. Like very possibly an expensive, and worthless, broken knife that won't be replaced by the manufacturer.

Unless a person doesn't mind paying out of their own pocket to replace a broken knife, I'd say the manufacturer has the only opinion that matters when it comes to what constitutes hard use or abuse. After all, it's up to them wether or not they give you a replacement if your knife breaks.

Most manufactures have e-mail (and many have their own sub-forum here), so it's easy enough to contact them and ask if they consider a particular activity to be abuse and what their waranty will cover.

Personally, according to my own definitions, the term "hard use" never applies to folders. And I hope I'm never in a situation where it must. I use a folder for simple cutting tasks (rope, twine, plastic packaging, wood carving). If a cutting task requires me to actualy exert myself, I use a fixed blade.
 
If you agree with what's being done, it's use or "hard use".

If you want to make someone feel like an idiot, then whatever they did was abuse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top