Initial impressions : Becker C/U7

[Cliff Stamp]

I had a Becker C/U7 coming and wasn't really that interested in it, aside from having a useful benchmark. Combat knives in that class are usually too close to neutral balanced to be useful for heavy wood work (ATAK), and the ones that have enough of a blade heavy balance are often too thick to be able to cut anything (SOG SEAL 2000). However after reading through a couple of recent posts by RokJok, my interest was raised significantly :

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=191387

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=191388

It seems that the level of cutting ability is very good and that it has a decent level of chopping ability for a blade of that length class. The knife arrived Friday and I did some work with it over the weekend comparing it against several other blades I had on hand of similar intent such as the SOG SEAL 2000, TAC-11 and Mission MPK A2 & Ti.

In short, it cut well, easily holding its own against the SOG, even though I had spent about an hour stripping metal off of the latter to convex the primary and secondary blade grind. With both knives at the NIB geometry the cutting performance would not have even been close. The handle on the C/U7 also allowed for a hook grip around the end to be used in chopping far more secure than on the SOG, and far more comfortable than the TAC-11.

I got some numbers for the cutting and chopping but they were only small samples and I was working with the NIB edge on the C/U7 and the edge that I put on the others, so that really isn't a meaningful direct comparison. I was doing it mainly to get a feel for the knife so as to roughly benchmark it, nothing more.

Aside from cutting, I also split up a few dozen rounds of about 1-2 thick, nothing major. These were all 1-2 year seasoned pine, fir and spruce which for the most part were partly frozen as I had just cut up the logs outside. The blade handled the splitting without fault. I was using another round as a mallet and the swedge did tend to cause the mallet to self destruct. The edge remained unaffected and showed no visible deformation let alone chipping, which was a good sign as I had some edge durability problems with a Machax.

In short I was impressed by its ability over a wide range of tasks. I definitely am looking forward to using it more. I would prefer a tip design that was optimized more towards strength over penetration, however that is simply personal preference. I have some issues with the handle, but they are minor and in part can be fixed by the user, such as a more aggressive surface texture (which has drawbacks obviously). The only real stand-out is that I would prefer the curvature to be more extended in the transition regions, more on those issues after extended use.

Some specifics :

The edge on mine was about 0.036 +/- 0.002" thick behind the bevel. This is decent for a tactical knife, more than you would need for a wood working blade, especially one of this size, but this blade obviously needs a bit more strength for harder tasks. I was pleased with the edge angle, as mine came out to 16 +/- 1 degrees, which means I don't have to re-profile this one right away. Combine the decently thin and acute edge with a high flat grind of about 4-5 degrees and the cutting performance is at a very decent level NIB.

Which brings up a small but important point. This blade is actually fairly wide. If you look a little closely you will see that the primary flat grind doesn't go all the way to the top. There is a strip of steel left at full thickness (3/16"). This gives added strength to the knife. Now the blade could have been left more narrow, and the same strength achieved by using a much more shallow primary grind, however this choice by Camillus gives the same strength with a higher level of cutting ability.

However, the sharpness NIB isn't going to impress anyone. It scored 185 +/- 8 g on the thread and 1.1 +/- 0.1 cm on the poly (1000 g load). This is about half that of a truly sharp blade. A few passes to test arm hair shaving (before the above cutting was performed), showed basically scraping ability, which is what I would expect given the poly and thread numbers. A quick check under magnification shows the reason. The edge was sharpened with a coarse abrasive and buffed, and is uneven with a slight burr. The NIB sharpness makes little difference to me, but is critical to some.

Here is a shot alongside the TAC-11 :

http://www.physics.mun.ca/~sstamp/images/becker_cu7_tac_11.jpg

Here is the SOG SEAL reground, along with two MPK's :

http://www.physics.mun.ca/~sstamp/images/mission_mpk_sog_seal_reground.jpg

-Cliff

 

[chad234]

Hi Cliff,
When this knife was first announced I had no interest in it. I have a Busse #7 that basicly dominates everything else in this size range. Recently I got to handle my friend Hoodoo's BK7 though and was very impressed, as you pointed out the primary grind is high enough and the edge angle low enough to provide good cutting performance given the stock thickness.
The handle seemed very secure, (because of its shape) it seemed identical to that on my BK&T Campanion. I have not found a role for the Campanion yet, it is too thick to offer the kind of performance I like out of a 5" blade (a Rinaldi TTKK w/ 5/32" thick stock and a full flat grind offers performance on a whole other level for example)
so I was expecting the BK7 to have similar geometery. I was wrong. It seemed like it will offer a very decent level of performance.
I think there is a sad trend among knife makers to grossly overbuild knives, at the cost of performance. This is especially true of knife makers who use modern, very strong alloys but do not alter the geometery of their knives to take full advantage of the increased strength of the steel by making the knives (or at least the edge) thinner..... I'm glad the BK7 did not fall into this category.
I really don't pay much heed to NIB sharpness (as I know that I'll be reprofiling and sharpening the knife in short order anyways) but it is indicactive of overall quality control. If I see that a knife is not given a decent sharpening (at least by production standards) I assume that other areas of production (most importantly heat treat) are similiarly sloppy.
A BK7 is on my "to buy" list, it is certainly priced at an attractive point.


Take care,
Chad

 

[Cliff Stamp]

chad234 :

[Companion]

... I was expecting the BK7 to have similar geometery. I was wrong. It seemed like it will offer a very decent level of performance.

Yes, it is much more of a cutting tool than the Brute, Machax and Companion.

I think there is a sad trend among knife makers to grossly overbuild knives, at the cost of performance. This is especially true of knife makers who use modern, very strong alloys but do not alter the geometery of their knives to take full advantage of the increased strength of the steel by making the knives (or at least the edge) thinner.....

This pretty much mirrors my thoughts exactly. It is of no great feat to build a very tough knife simply by using a lot of steel. It is when you make a knife that is both durable and can still cut well that you have achieved something of consequence, my 52100-MEUK being an excellent example. Unfortunately as you noted many makers seem to ignore steel properties in design, as you will frequently see a specific model offered in a wide range of steels with no alterations, and the steels can vary by huge amounts in toughness, wear resistance etc. .

I really don't pay much heed to NIB sharpness (as I know that I'll be reprofiling and sharpening the knife in short order anyways) but it is indicactive of overall quality control. If I see that a knife is not given a decent sharpening (at least by production standards) I assume that other areas of production (most importantly heat treat) are similiarly sloppy.

This knife is a good deal sharper than a low end Schrade for example, but no, its not where Spyderco has their edges. It is simply a short cut used instead of polishing with belts it was heavily buffed. This can generate a very high performance edge if you don't overbuff the edge, which was done in this case (and with the Patrol Machete). I have seen the same problem, however even worse with a few of the SOG knives I have handled. If you just do a couple of passes to remove the burr you will be left with an aggressive edge that will still push cut well as you don't remove all the micro-teeth, just get rid of the debris and align the edge. This is how a number of makers sharpen their knives and why you will frequently hear warnings of not to overbuff.

In regards to what it says about quality in general, it is not an overly important aspect, just a finishing step, so I would not place to much emphasis on how it relates to quality control in general, especially not as this price range. I'll know more once I actually do a full sharpening. If the bevels are uneven, or have hollows which are frequent problems with production knives, then this is a real problem as it means that the first time you sharpen the knife you will get blunt spots until you even out the whole edge. This can take some time unless you have power equipment and it can be very frustrating for a novice as unless you have the edge outlined you will not realize why some parts are getting very sharp and why some parts stay very blunt. Evening out the entire edge can take quite some time, 15 minutes to a half hour of steady grinding is not uncommon on the harder high alloy steels. Jimbo has documented these and other problems with NIB edges on many production knives.

... it is certainly priced at an attractive point.

Yes, the first two knives that came to mind as upgrades are the MPK-A2/Ti and Busse Steel Heart, while both I would rank now as being pretty much direct upgrades, they are significantly more expensive. In its price range the CU/7 seems a big standout assuming sound heat treat and materials of course.

-Cliff

 

[Brian Jones]

Cliff,

I have it on good authority that "combat" blades, necessary for many tasks besides cutting, have thicker edges. Also, making those knives shaving sharp means they roll easier in the field during use.

I subscribe to the field-edge theory for a big all-around blade, as it is easier to maintain, and less fragile for heavy work.

So, just to balance out the discussion, I know you find lack of a polished edge to be a problem...my own preference is as stated in this post.

Respectfully,

Brian.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

Brian :

... "combat" blades, necessary for many tasks besides cutting, have thicker edges.

Durability is the critical aspect in choosing an edge profile as if you try gain cutting ability at the cost of functional durability you will have to spend much more time honing the damage out of the edge, or putting up with a lower cutting ability due to the damage. The latter obviously doesn't make any sense at all. The net effect then is to quickly wear down the knife and use it up. The optimal solution is to set the edge at a profile which gives the necessary durability. This will obviously vary tremendously depending on what you want to do with the knife and how you do it (skill / strength etc.). There is no right or wrong edge geometry, just profiles intended for different goals.

In general though, most knives come overbuilt for what they are promoted as being intend to do, and more importantly, beyond what most people need them to do. It is important then that it is clear exactly what type of performance is being lost, and to what extent by the thick and obtuse edges. Which is one of the main points that I illustrate by doing a variety of different things and showing the different levels of cutting performance as well as just what it does take to damage edges, both lightly and seriously. If you want to make a knife that can for example dig in rocky soil with no visible edge damage you can do so, but it will be out cut and out chopped many times to one by a knife that doesn't need to be that durable.

I know you find lack of a polished edge to be a problem

The reason that most production knives edges don't come shaving sharp isn't because they are not polished, as they usually are buffed. The problem is usually that the finish before buffing was left too coarse and/or the buffing was too extensive. This results in an edge that is low in cutting ability on both push and slicing, and weak as its burred. In general the edges on my knives range in the level of grit finish. Some of them are very polished, 0.5 micron CrO, however some of them are very coarse at the level of a 100 grit AO belt. Similar to edge angles, there is no right nor wrong. In general the lower the grit finish the more aggressive the edge will slice and the longer it will stay sharp if you are slicing. The more polished the edge the better it will push cut and the longer it will stay sharp if you are push cutting. I carry many knives usually so I have different blades for different tasks. If I had to just carry one knife, I would sharpen it as Joe Talmadge does with his dual coarse/fine edge and it would be over built. In all cases though the edge should be properly aligned with no burr or debris, and thus even the really coarse ones will shave, although it will be scratchy as the micro teeth cut through more than hair as they stick off to the sides by an amount proportional to the grit finish.

Some more comments on the CU/7 :

I spent some time yesterday with it whittling, first off just getting a feel for the level of ability in raw stock removal and comfort issues. For light work the handle was secure and comfortable and the blade performance was good. However as I really leaned into the cutting a problem quickly became obvious. It was the same problem in fact that I had with the Machax. The tips of my fingers would fall over the holes in the handle and thus generate high pressure points. This of course can be solved by just filling in the holes. The lack of drop or edge curvature was an obvious drawback, as on powerful strokes the blade could slip right through the wood. Compare this for example to the MPK which due to the drop will "lock" the blade into the wood on the cut. On the positive though, really simple profiles like the CU/7 are much easier to sharpen as you can hit all the main edge with a straight push along a hone.

Switching to the hardwood dowels, the performance of the blade was high. It took between 10-11 slices to make a point, putting it slightly above (~10%) the NIB performance of Twistmaster from Cold Steel. This is pretty much what you would expect given that the edge on the CU/7 is just a little more acute and it has a some leverage advantages. I'll repeat this cutting a few more times to smooth out variances in the wood and personal performance issues. However even though the raw cutting ability was slightly in its favor, the ability of the Twistmaster (or MPK with a thinned out edge) to lock the wood in due to its curvature, would have me easily prefer it if I had to do a lot of cutting as its much easier on the wrist.

Moving on to the hemp rope (after sharpening to a high polish, CrO) the blade now showcased a large disadvantage of the lack of curvature in the edge as it took between 36-38 lbs on a push and only slightly better ~32-34 lbs on a slice. The latter showing little slicing aggression at a high polish which you would expect given a low alloy steel. This performance is almost 50% behind the Twistmaster and simply due to the fact that when doing the cutting, since the edge of the CU/7 is straight with no curvature, almost the entire edge comes into contact with the block under the rope and thus the force needed to generate the required pressure is greatly increased.

In regards to sharpening, I outlined it with a marker and used a 1000 grit waterstone to remove the coarse scratches and check the edge for problems. No flat spots or hollows were seen and the metal polished smoothly. I switched to a 4000 grit waterstone and spent a few minutes raising the polish, also seeing no defects, and finished by stropping (~20 passes) on CrO loaded leather. The edge was now at near optimal, scoring ~100 g on the thread and shaving very smoothly with no scratching and could cut free-standing coarse hair. Thus the blade scores very high in "sharpenability".

In the rope slicing cutting, it is obvious that a more aggressive finish would raise the performance, I'll look at that later on as well as do some edge retention work. First off though I want to look at the raw chopping power with the highly polished edge, specifically can it handle limbing out 2-4" trees without excessive effort and some runs against the GB Wildlife hatchet later on for benchmarking. I'll also do some penetration tip work this weekend hopefully. However the higher load work I'll leave to later on as I would strongly bet that the tip will break in the 2x4 digging as the cross section is rather slim, it will be interesting to see the flex points however. The coating by the way has been polished smooth along all contact points, but no bare metal is visible. I'll do some soaks to see how it resists corrosion later on.

-Cliff

 

[Brian Jones]

Cliff,

Thanks for expanding on your viewpoint in response to my post. I don't disagree with anything you said. Good stuff. ANd thank you for your further descriptions of the testing and performance.

Cheers,

Brian,

 

[SALTY]

I am also a very happy Busse Basic #7 owner and agree as posted above that the Basic #7 dominates everything in the size catagory. With that said, I am also a happy C/U-7 owner. It is somewhat unfair to compare the two given the price difference.

When you consider the price, the Becker C/U 7 is a great knife. If given the choice of only one, it's the Basic #7 (which resides in my truck along with my just-in-case gear. But the C/U-7 is a good value and one of my most favored knives with that consideration.

Put another way, I have seen a lot less capability for more money!

 

[Cliff Stamp]

The price point is a strong point, no doubt. It would be interesting to see it compared to some other similar intended designs in that price range such as the classic Ka-Bar piece or something from Cold Steel like the Bush Ranger. A fairly stand out piece would be the S&W HRT :

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=171244

http://www.1sks.com/images/smithandwesson/sw-hrtdr.jpg

Similar price and very close design. A quick visual inspection shows the HRT has many advantages such as a lack of choil notch, nice edge sweep to enhance cutting ability, and what looks like a slight handle drop. Grip could go either way depending on the individual. The steel in the HRT though isn't what I would want in that kind of knife, but there are lot of people very positive about high carbon stainless in such blades. The edge geometry could be the deciding factor for the NIB performance.

I'd be interested in hearing any comments from people who have handled both knives, or even just extended use with the HRT.

I have done a lot more wood splitting in the past few days with the CU/7. Small wood, only 2-3" thick mainly, but well seasoned and frozen. Takes ~12 heavy hits to split one small piece of wood. The tip has taken a lot of pounding with no problems. Still no edge damage even though it is cleaving right through 1/2" knots at times. The coating is smooth in all contact areas (basically the whole blade), but no bare patches. It is definately a much different experience than I had with the Machax.

I forgot to mention in regards to edge preference is heavily influenced by style/method. For example someone using a machete with a draw stroke on soft vegetation will prefer a very aggressive edge, however on dense and thick woods, you are just doing push cuts and will favor polished edges. In any case the optimal path is for the individual to experiment with both angles and various grit finishes and see what happens. You want to find the edge that cuts as well as possible with the necessary level of durability and overall edge retention and ease of sharpening.


-Cliff

 

[chad234]

I forgot to mention in regards to edge preference is heavily influenced by style/method. For example someone using a machete with a draw stroke on soft vegetation will prefer a very aggressive edge, however on dense and thick woods, you are just doing push cuts and will favor polished edges. In any case the optimal path is for the individual to experiment with both angles and various grit finishes and see what happens. You want to find the edge that cuts as well as possible with the necessary level of durability and overall edge retention and ease of sharpening

I think this is an excellent and often overlooked point. People often are disapointed with the performance they are getting from a product, or even more specific, with an edge finish or angle, but in fact the poor results come from not matching the design to application or technique. Thus people who try to slice through heavy rope are confounded that their highly polished hair flinging edge does poorly as it is sliding and gliding but not biting, but had they tried a push cut seen entirely different results.
This is true for the edge holding as well, a highly polished edge may not seem to offer a severe level of performance advantage over a courser, but highly aligned edge during chopping (which is really just an extreme pushcut) at first, but as impact and stress cause tearouts and rapid misalignment in the course edge the polished edge will really stand out for that specific application....

I am impressed with the reported durability of the Becker #7, but as I've already indicated the Busse #7 dominates this class for my uses, the steel is better so that I can have a thinner edge, yet retain a thick spine, for ultimate strength and cutting performance. I normally prefer thinner blades, and applaud Cammilus for the thinner stock, but using a superstrong and tough steel allows Busse knives to have unchallenged toughness and still outcut the competition . It is at a much higher pricepoint however.

Take care,
Chad

 

[Bladeandbarrel]

"I normally prefer thinner blades, and applaud Cammilus for the thinner stock, but using a superstrong and tough steel allows Busse knives to have unchallenged toughness and still outcut the competition . It is at a much higher pricepoint however."



You are taking Busse print ads as gospel.

Cmon, test the two knives, draw conclusions from that. bend them with a pipe. Cut rope.
Slice frozen tundra...whatever.

If the Becker breaks at 90 degress and the Busse breaks at 100 degrees, what have you gained for your money?????

You are assuming that the INFI or Modified INFI is MUCH TOUGHER than 0170-6C

Without comparing the two side/side.....except for visually,
How can you make that statement?

Is it a Guess?
Is weight a factor for you?
For a GI it is.
Which knife weighs more?

I have used both brands side to side at similar edge bevel/thicknesses.

I "guess" that Busse INFI (not modified) holds an edge about 10%-15% better than 0170-6 and be about 10% better at edgeholding than same.
It is also better at rust resistance.

Is a Busse Basic worth 2.5x that of the CU7?
REALLY?

Maybe for you.

If the steel was really THAT MUCH BETTER, why is it so thick at the spine?

Food for thought. If it were twice as tough as lets say 1095 it could be .100" and be just as tough as a .200" thick 1095 knife(pretty tough).

For me the Basic handle was too small and the asymmetrical edge was a loser, although factory sharpening was excellent.

The very blunt tip of the BB7 seemed unnecessary on a 7" knife. I would much prefer a finer tip like the CU-7. I will take full-tang with GV-6H scales over a RUBBER sleeve stick tang knife any day for a hard work/hard use knife. After all, if the GV6H scales ever come offmy BK7, at least I can wrap the Becker handle and have a functional knife. After the rubber melts/tears/pulls off your BASIC 7, what do you have left?

Outcutting is based mostly on edge geometry and possibly on edge carbide size.

I reckon geometry is really about 90%+ of the equation.
Sharpen a BK7 and a BB7 to equal symmetry. Then test the knives.

Report back.

 

[chad234]

Hello Mr. Lombardo,
I have read many of your TK articles and have enjoyed them, I particularly enjoyed your article in on the William Henry line (Tuxedo Folders) in the July, 2001 issue.

You are taking Busse print ads as gospel

Actually, just the opposite. My opinion off the Busse #7 comes from using mine hard. I pretty much hate the usual "hype" in the cutlery industry, and usually it is just salesmanship and appeals to the imagination. I have used my Busse #7 during several home remodeling projects and for a week long camping trip in the hills of eastern KY it was my primary blade. I have batoned it through sizeable pieces of wood, pryed boards out of a deck and cabinets off walls, it has cut drywall, fiberglass insulation, a ton of food, electical wire, plastic tubing, roofing shingles and a piece of gum out of dog's fur.....

Cmon, test the two knives, draw conclusions from that. bend them with a pipe. Cut rope.

When I test a knife I perform tasks that I use a knife for in everday life, I've never cut frozen tundra, but I've cut a lot of apples.....

You are assuming that the INFI or Modified INFI is MUCH TOUGHER than 0170-6C

Nope, I haven't assumed anything about the properties of the two steels, I own and use knives made of both. I own, and have owned, several Busse knives in both INFI and M-INFI and I own a BK&T Campanion, which has the same thickness as the Busse #7, is of very simliar dimensions to the Busse #5 that I had used quite heavily before giving to a friend.

Without comparing the two side/side.....except for visually,

I did make assumptions on the relative performance of the two knives without using the BK7, and that is a valid critisism.

Is a Busse Basic worth 2.5x that of the CU7?

As I wrote, the BK7 is being offered at a very attractive price and is a bargain, the Busse is worth every penny I paid for it. Is it 2.5 times the knife, no there is a diminishing return, but gain in overall performance is worth it to me. Have I really lost anything, I could sell my Busse for pretty close to what I paid for it, after having used it very hard for a couple of years. In addition owning the Busse has stopped me from buying other knives in that size range, so I have saved money in that regards (or at least spent it on other knives )
There is no doubt that the entire BK&T line is a great value and all exhibit excellent design qualities.

If the steel was really THAT MUCH BETTER, why is it so thick at the spine?

Because I can have the edge very thin, thus compensating for the thick spine, giving me a massive amount of lateral strength and retaining a high level of cutting performance. This is made possible by the high impact resistance of INFI, which allows it to be tough (thus not chip) at levels of hardness (and from the hardness comes resistance to deformation) at which other, lesser, steels would be brittle. In addition to the materials themselves, there is also the matter of heat treatment, while I am sure that that BK&T line are well heat treated and have good quality control, it has been my experience that Busse offers a great heat treat and super high quality control, that is part of the reason for the higher price of Busse knives (although I am sure that part of the reason Cammilus is able to offer such a low price is economy of scale and a commitment to providing a good product at a reasonable price)

I will take full-tang with GV-6H scales over a RUBBER sleeve stick tang knife any day for a hard work/hard use knife. After all, if the GV6H scales ever come offmy BK7, at least I can wrap the Becker handle and have a functional knife. After the rubber melts/tears/pulls off your BASIC 7, what do you have left?

I agree that the BK&T line offers a very ergonomic, secure and durable handle. It is really the strongest point of the line. Ethan Becker is a genius of design, everything he has designed from back packs to knives is designed to last. I have a great amount of respect for the man and his work.

What I have left after the Busse #7 handle falls off, or even if the knife is completely destroyed is the strongest warranty in the knife industry. That is part of why I am willing to pay a higher price for a Busse knife, part of what makes a Busse knife a bargain in its own right.
I have also been impressed by the customer service that I have seen Will Fennel provide to customers, it has been great by all accounts.

Outcutting is based mostly on edge geometry and possibly on edge carbide size.

While I agree that edge geometery (especially if you are including alignment in this classification) is critical to cutting performance, the geometery of the blade itself will have a very high impact on the cutting performance, especially on thick,binding materials.
Indeed, here is where the BK&T C/U7 shines becuase of the geometery afforded to it by virtue of its high grind and thin stock. It is also why in general I greatly prefer thinner blade stock on my knives, the simple Mora knife is a great example of high cutting efficiency stemming from it thin stock.

Sharpen a BK7 and a BB7 to equal symmetry. Then test the knives.

O.K.


Take care,
Chad

 

[bensano]

Originally posted by Anthony Lombardo
" If it were twice as tough as lets say 1095 it could be .100" and be just as tough as a .200" thick 1095 knife(pretty tough).

I think that type of strength goes by the square of the thickness, so it could be .14+ not .1

Ben

 

[RokJok]

Originally posted by Anthony Lombardo
After all, if the GV6H scales ever come offmy BK7, at least I can wrap the Becker handle and have a functional knife. After the rubber melts/tears/pulls off your BASIC 7, what do you have left?

Hi Anthony,

To address just this one issue from among the many raised, here's a picture of a Busse Basic tang (courtesy of Mike Turber) that shows what was left after he cut the handle material off. FWIW, note the radiused corners between the tang and the ricasso, thereby reducing stress vector concentration in that transition area.

IMHO it looks like a Japanese wrap job with paracord would render this tang into a servicable handle. Or a person could do multiple layers of straight spiral wrapping of paracord if time was short. The talon hole on the guard and the thong hole might be used as anchoring points for the cord if you choose to use them. Or for quick & dirty, wrap the tang with duct or 100mph tape, with small sticks on the sides of the tang for rounding the overall profile as an option.

My opinions on the value and functionality offered by the BK&T Combat/Utility BK7 and Busse Basic 7 are contained in the two links Cliff was kind enough to include in his original post. To summarize them:
- Get the BK7 if you are on a budget to get a lot of cutting and some chopping bang for your buck.
- Get a Busse Basic 7 (or Battle Mistress even more so) if your main priority is a super durable blade at a commensurately premium price.

Yours in appreciating many handle options,
Greg

 

[Jerry Busse]

"You are taking Busse print ads as gospel." - Anthony Lombardo

Mr. Lombardo,

You certainly do not have to take our print ads as gospel. . . or our video. . . .or what hundreds of over-satisfied customers have posted about Busse knives on these forums, or what we might tell you over the phone, but you DO have to take our LIVE performance demonstrations as gospel. That’s why we have done them. It is also important to note that our live demonstrations surpass our print ad’s claims. If, and when, the day comes that another manufacturer in our industry attempts to duplicate our performance tests with one of their knives in front of a live audience, then you will be able to take their results as gospel also. Of course, there is NO OTHER MANUFACTURER who has done this, or even attempted to do this, as of this date. Do you wonder why? We don’t. We have tested plenty of our competitor’s blades and we completely understand why they choose not to do live performance testing.

I admit that I’m a bit confused by the tone of your post. You seem to be fairly irritated that someone might prefer our knife over the one that you have recommended. Why is that? As a writer for Tactical Knives, do you think that publicly showing your bias is a good thing? You clearly do not enjoy what could be deemed to be typical consumer anonymity. If you did, you could say anything that you wanted and it would be of a lesser consequence. However, to make statements of this sort while being recognized as a writer and contributor to one of the leading publications in our industry, not only undermines your credibility, but does little to bolster the credibility of Tactical Knives Magazine. Your opinions, carry with them a certain level of clout due to your relationship with the magazine. It is a fact, that being a published author on knives, your statements carry with them a greater ability to either lead or mislead those who read your posts. It is because of this that I am responding to what you have written.

Not only are many of your statements unsupported but they are irresponsible as well.

For example, here’s gem from your keyboard,

"Food for thought. If it were twice as tough as lets say 1095 it could be .100" and be just as tough as a .200" thick 1095 knife(pretty tough). " --- Anthony Lombardo

Are you serious? How do you define tough? Did you consult a metallurgist before making this statement? This does not appear to be a very well informed statement to make on your part.

Here’s more:

"If the steel was really THAT MUCH BETTER, why it so thick at the spine?" – Anthony Lombardo

What are you talking about?. . . I am unable to ascertain what being “THAT MUCH BETTER” has to do with how thick the stock is. Do you know? Can you explain yourself? Again, I must inquire as to whether you are serious? If so, then why don’t you post something like this on one of the gun forums, “If a .460 Weatherby Magnum was really THAT ACCURATE, why is the bullet so heavy?” Does this make any sense to you? I hope not.

There’s more:

“After all, if the GV6H scales ever come off my BK7, at least I can wrap the Becker handle and have a functional knife. After the rubber melts/tears/pulls off your BASIC 7, what do you have left?” --- Anthony Lombardo

What you have left is a large, integral tang that runs the full length of the Busse Basic handle, within ¼” of the butt, that can be wrapped as easily as the Becker. In fact, we have done extensive field testing with the bare tang on the Basics to make sure that the knife could still be used effectively without a handle and without being wrapped. That is why our blade handle juncture is radiused and not sharply angled like so many other hidden-tang knives. We have also, never had a Busse Basic returned for a replacement handle. If, however, a handle does need to be replaced, our warranty covers it. We are the only manufacturer who puts an unlimited lifetime warranty on a rubber handle. Resiprene C (Busse Basics handle material) is NOT kraton. We would not use or guarantee a kraton handle. It is also important to point out that the Busse Basic handles are sealed around the tang. They are not hollow and they do not take on water because of this feature.

I cannot for the life of me see where you think that irresponsible and misleading statements like those made in your post can be anything less than a complete disservice to your good friends Ethan Becker and Will Fennel. I also cannot see where Camillus would be very excited about being promoted in this way.

If you want to say great things about the Becker line, feel free to do so. I think they are a great value. I like the knives and I like the man who designed them. However, if you must degrade the Busse Basics in order to try and build up the Beckers, then perhaps you should reevaluate your approach.

I am often asked why Busse Combat is overlooked and not written about in Tactical Knives Magazine. Hmmmm. . .. After reading this kind of tripe, can anyone really wonder why we are just not that anxious to send our knives in for “objective evaluations”?

If you have “issues” with either our knives or myself, I would be glad to discuss them with you off-line. You can reach me at (419) 923-6471. These public confrontations on the forums are like car accidents where everybody has to take a look. Some try to help out those who are a part of it, but most just sit back and feel lucky that they weren’t involved. I’d like to be one of those who is not involved. If Busse Combat is misrepresented publicly, we will respond publicly. Let’s do the gentlemanly thing, and take this off-line.

Regards,

Jerry Busse

 

[RokJok]

Originally posted by Anthony Lombardo
Cmon, test the two knives, draw conclusions from that. bend them with a pipe. Cut rope. Slice frozen tundra...whatever.

Hi again Anthony,

Couple more quick Busse Basic pics that "bend them with a pipe" reminded me I had archived. The blade in the vise is a Basic 9. The 38-degree bent blade returned to true, the 85-degree bend did not. I must admit I haven't tried this with the BK7 yet, because I have great enough affection for the knife to not destroy it empirically trying to prove a point. But given what I know of M-INFI's toughness when the edge rolls & gets realigned and what I know of typical performance in high-carbon steels (which the BK7 steel is), I would reasonably suspect the BK7 blade would not make it to that 85 degree benchmark.

FWIW, cutting rope is one of the areas where Busse blades excel, so it's kind of you to include that as a proposed test for the blades. I totally concur with your incitement and encouragement to people that they test vigorously the blades they may bet their lives on in a moment of dire need.

Yours,
Greg

 

[RokJok]

And here's the other one.

 

[RokJok]

To bring this thread's focus back to the Becker knife, I've included my favorite picture of the BK7 as posted by Will Fennell on the Camillus forum.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

Chad :

People often are disapointed with the performance they are getting from a product, or even more specific, with an edge finish or angle, but in fact the poor results come from not matching the design to application or technique.

Yes, this is why I think that Mike Swaim and Joe Talmadge have done a great service for the ELUs by promoting the difference in performance made by altering the edge angle and grit finish. It is an issue I have tossed around many times when doing a review as with some grinding work you can really raise the performance of even poorly designed knives. Right now I am just including everything; NIB, sharpened, and minor and major grinding work, and letting the reader decide for themselves.

Anthony :

You are taking Busse print ads as gospel.

It has already been said, but it bares repeating, it is really poor form to just assume that Chad is just a blind follower at the alter of Busse. A simple search of his recent posts will show that not only does he use his knives often, and speaks of their performance in a comparative manner, but he has a sound understanding of materials issues and blade geometry.

If the Becker breaks at 90 degress and the Busse breaks at 100 degrees, what have you gained for your money?????

The Becker is much slimmer with more tip taper, and thus the induced elongation of the outside facing side would be proportionally much less than on the Basic when flexed through a similar radius of curvature. If it still failed at a lower angle as indicated in the above you could predict that the steel had a *much* lower ductility (<40%).

Is weight a factor for you?

This is a valid point, the extra weight and more forward balance (from memory) of the Basic have drawbacks as well as advantages. Which overall is "better" comes down to what the user prefers.

Is a Busse Basic worth 2.5x that of the CU7?

By the same logic you would pick a cheap 7" chef's knife over the CU/7 as on a linear price comparison the chef's knife wins easily (being about 1/10 the price). This argument is only used when the promoted knife is the least expensive, showing an obvious and clear bias.

If the steel was really THAT MUCH BETTER, why is it so thick at the
spine?

To get the necessary strength, which is quadratic in the dimension through the bend, and proportional to the dimension across it.

If it were twice as tough as lets say 1095 it could be .100" and be
just as tough as a .200" thick 1095 knife

There is more to durability than impact toughness. For example while a 1/8" L6 knife would be very difficult to break by impact, it would be useless for prying because it would be too weak. There are also issues with chopping, splitting etc. .

... the asymmetrical edge was a loser

This is so vague is it useless and just serves to degrade. The incorrect assumptions about the Basic tang isn't a strong argument either.

The very blunt tip of the BB7 seemed unnecessary on a 7" knife.

There is always the strength penetration issue, with edges as well as with tips, it is a matter of personal preference, nothing more. You have to consider the intended use of the knife of course, it would be fairly odd on a fillet knife for example.

Anyway back to the CU/7 :

I got to work with it some more yesterday, I had it along with a half a dozen other blades and a couple of axes in the woods doing some comparative work, felling and limbing some small trees two to four inches thick. It doesn't have the chopping ability to take down even a small tree, however combined with a small quality saw, you have a solid tool base :

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=195322

The saw can take down even 3-4" tree in well under a minute and the CU/7 easily limbs them out and will split them readily with a baton. It sticks more so than a thicker knife (Basic #7), and the swedge doesn't help either, but a few extra hits and you can get the job done. I finally started to see some coating wear, so it is definately doing much better than the Machax in that regard.

I also got around to the hardwood dowel cutting and the CU/7 made the points in 9 to 11 strokes, very solid performance. Better for example than the NIB Mission MPK, and many times to one over the SOG SEAL. However a full forward choked up grip was uncomfortable, but unless you want to go puukko style with no guard, this is something you have to live with. More specific cutting comparisons later after some rope cutting and edge retention.

The blade sharpened easily after the recent splitting and chopping, 20 per side on CrO leather and it was back to a fine shaving finish. I also greatly prefer cordura over Kydex (low impact toughness), so the sheath suits me well. I was wearing it while using the axes and other larger blades and actually forgot about it as I could not feel it at all.

-Cliff

 

[backpacker]

I took the C/U 7 out last weekend. It took 106 whacks, but, it cut though a 4-1/2" hardwood tree. I would rather work a lttle harder chopping a tree down for an emergency shelter, than carry a blade twice as heavy all day long. In the reality of wilderness survival, chopping would not be used that much. The C/U 7 does split wood very well and performs the other major wilderness chores with great ease.

 

[Brian Jones]

Cliff,

After you have tested so many blades, I have a question for you...

In the 7" class of blades you have worked with, can you list, in order of priority (first choice through last) which blade you would take into the field as an all-around survival knife, if all you were able to bring with you to survive was a knife and no other gear?

I'm thinking of the environment being deciduous and pine forest, mountainous or at least hilly terrain, all seasons.

Just wanted your gut feelings, based on your many years of testing, and leaving out any price v. performance, or custom v. production considerations. Again, just the 7" class of blades. Maybe this question should be in a new thread?

Thanks,

Brian.