Knifetests.com Project 1 Destruction Test.

Go ahead and abuse all the knives you want to. Just make sure to get it on video. :)

Ok, finished watching. I couldn't hope but notice that the blow that broke it was different from the others. Most of the strikes were far enough forwards on the knife that the impact went right into the wood. The last blow was farther back. This put the impact between the wood and his grip. The blade probably suffered a great deal more from it. I don't think the knife should have broken from that but I would have liked it if Noss had been more consistent with hammer placement if only to appease the CR snobs.

Edit: Disregard this post. See page 6 for clarification.
 
Last edited:
I rarely post on Blade Forums. What kept me away for a few years were the silly name calling flame wars that interfered with the multitude of excellent comments and opinions.
Tired of reading some of the poor comments about KT based nothing more than a dislike of them. I made the following post on KT. I did not read After TFD's comments I did what I loathe. I made the following which I regret. I unreservedly alpologise to you After TFD. My assumption of what your post contained was unfair and unkind. I have copied my original post and my retraction.

Post
"Noss I don't think that will satisy the moron who made that comment. By the time it got to that part of the test they were probably seething with rage anyway, clouding their judgement. They obviously already had determined the test to be false before it commenced.

They should get a life. Get over the fact the knife broke and move on.

You know your tests are true. You know you have no agenda. Anyone with half a brain who bothers to watch all your tests know this.

Thanks you for your time and effort."

Follow Up
"I jumped the gun on this one. My mistake and foolish it is. I read the post on BF . The poster was making a judgement from his perception of the angle of hit. He didn't have a single derogatory thing to say. I apologise to him if he reads this. Not often going to the forums there anymore I've become used to the rubbish that gets dumped on these tests. I will post this over there as flame comments are what took me away from forums for some years."

Sorry AfterTFD. Noss has posted some photographs of the hit in question.
 
I think it's funny that about 7 minutes in, we've got chopping right next to what appears to be some form of compressed (flammable) gas. For a "destruction" test with really hard steel, this may not be the smartest decision in the video...

Noss, I don't put too much scientific thought into your experiments, but I do enjoy and appreciate them.
 
I think the tests have merit.

The CRK Green Beret and Project knives are marketed as "last ditch" or survival-type knives. They are purchased for various reasons, but the buyer assumes (due to price, design, reputation, and marketing) the blade can handle the abuse should that person be placed in a SHTF type scenario.

Neither of the knives passed. Busse's have performed admirably well as did the Gerber LMFII.

CRK should reexamine his heat treating and blade design, among other criteria, to determine why the knives failed.

If Noss's tests result in a better product, everybody wins.
 
IMHO, you hit the proverbial nail on the head in a short and sweet manner. :)

I'm a die-hard CRK fan (primarily folders), and have had several of the CRK fixed blades over the years in pursuit of the one I'll like best (haven't quite yet found it).

In spite of my love of their products (which toward my small Sebenza is undaunted, having torture-tested it myself), I think there is something to be gained or at least learned from these tests. The tests are what they are, scientific or not, and for one, I appreciate the expense and effort that goes into them.

Everything can be improved upon generally speaking, and perhaps this will be a catalyst.

Thanks, Noss.

Professor.
 
You know, Noss gets flack about his tests, but they are meant to be destruction tests and push the knives to the limit! Thats something myself, and alot of others want to see!

When you shell out your 300+ dollars, dont you guys want to know what your getting?

All you blindly loyal CRK fans can close your eyes to this test, and cry "whats the point"
but Noss gets great credit from me, because he goes through the trouble of doing these tests for all of us who want to know what brand "x" knife can take!

To the bitter CRK fans (and not all are bitter, because I was one of them)I'm sure it hurts to know that the 300+ dollars you spent on a knife might be good for just cutting fruit, but I am glad to know if my life depends on a knife, Noss went through the trouble to show us what knife will break, and what knife wont!
 
I assume there are costs (and perhaps time) constraints on these tests. I also assume that the intent of this kind of testing, demonstration, or whatever your point of view is, is to have it done by human hands as a human might in the real world, rather than machine test. While the reception of these tests range from being seriously regarded, to totally disregarded, to entertainment only, etc., it sure would be helpful to have more than one data point ("test") per knife. I'm thinking of at least two identical knives being similarly tested (perhaps by two different people), and perhaps a third with some actual material science-type testing and calibration.

While not dismissing the obvious results of specifically what each knife is subjected to, in the case of the Chris Reeve Knives for example, due to all the vaiables that come into play, one really can't extrapolate that ALL Chris Reeve Knives will do this, any more that one can extrapolate that ALL Busse knives with perform like the ONE Busse knife tested. Even the assumed correlation that the Chris Reeve Knives broke in the same spot (research "Correlation vs. Causation", or "Faulty Causation Fallacy"...humans seem to be inclined to assume that events which are closely connected either spatially or temporally are also connected causally.)

What WOULD be an interesting long term outcome would be some kind of industry-wide, purpose driven, human-hands-on ("accepted or imposed) testing protocal for knives that are meant to perform certain narrow or broad functions. Sort of a Noss-turned-ASTM kind of thing. This is the sort of thing that outside entities do when an industy has not common performance protocal.

I see TV shows where they "test" guns by sticking them in mud and shooting them, or deliberatly load the wrong ammo, or shoot underwater, etc. Are these "tests"? I dunno, but like a train wreck - I keep watching. However, the gun industryf or example, can benchmark and test many things. Knives are still spaning the gap from old mystical swordmaker to new metalurgical science.

Just thoughts. YMMV.
 
randyha said:
While not dismissing the obvious results of specifically what each knife is subjected to, in the case of the Chris Reeve Knives for example, due to all the vaiables that come into play, one really can't extrapolate that ALL Chris Reeve Knives will do this, any more that one can extrapolate that ALL Busse knives with perform like the ONE Busse knife tested. Even the assumed correlation that the Chris Reeve Knives broke in the same spot (research "Correlation vs. Causation", or "Faulty Causation Fallacy"...humans seem to be inclined to assume that events which are closely connected either spatially or temporally are also connected causally.)
Click to expand...

You should be able to assume all knives you get from a well known manufacturer will perform the same. Especially a company like CRK that has built their reputation on their QC, which is partially a meassure of uniformity. They have built their following on the premise that all their knives will perform as advertised and are suitable to be used in life or death circumstances. Its wishful thinking to hope that only applied to the good and not the bad...

As for the serrations, I'm not sure why you mentioned causation v correlation. Two different types of knife out of two different steels failed at two different points in testing in the same spot.

I think its a logical assumption that both the commonalities should be used in forming a hypothesis: CRK knives weakest point seems to be at the serrations. The cause is obviously the pressure put on the knife.

But what about the common elements makes them seemingly weaker than their competitors? The Heat Treat or the Serrations?
 
Industry standard destruction tests would be an interesting development. I'm not sure many knife companies have much incentive to either participate or publicize the results, though. Particularly since most knives are not really intended for extreme hard use, not promoted that way, and not used with such expectations.
 
The specs say it's A2 at 55-57 RC. Take a look at this spec sheet for A2: latrobe steel A2

Anyone else notice what happens to the toughness curve right as the hardness curve crosses 55 Rc?
 
shecky said:
Industry standard destruction tests would be an interesting development. I'm not sure many knife companies have much incentive to either participate or publicize the results, though. Particularly since most knives are not really intended for extreme hard use, not promoted that way, and not used with such expectations.
Click to expand...

I agree.

Even those companies that do produce "hard use" knives wouldn't publicize testing results without priorto agreed upon contingencies.

Even "disinterested third party/independent testers" hired by knifemakers couldn't be trusted. I work with (and do a bit myself) consulting firms, a majority will print up on pretty paper pretty much anything you need them to.

I see the same thing in archery, firearms, etc... I've never read a magazine article that didn't need to sell adspace. As a result, most reviews are nothing more than adcopy "cut and pasted" in a poorly written article.

As long as Noss confines his destruction tests to hard-use/survival type knives...I don't see the problem.
 
One critical job for a heavy knife is chopping and battoning. Both CRKs could survive this, but just barely. The hammer impacts are just slightly beyond what may be done with a rock to get an emergency shelter together. I'm sorry, but this knife is a total failure. Why carry a big blade(this thing looks at least 1lb) on my belt that can't be trusted to chop hard? I would rather have a folding saw and a small knife in my backpack. I wish the best for CRK. Their blades are beautiful. This is just a wakeup call to do some testing and evolving like we all must.

As for knifetests.com, it may be unscientific but a clear picture is developing. Big bucks do not mean you get a great knife. Also, Cold Steel dominates the cheap, tough knife niche. Many complain about CS marketing but they deliver some tough stuff. CR makes some bold claims and testing has shown nothing to back it up. So who has the worse marketing? BTW, I am not a CS fanboy and would like Noss to put Sanmai III to the test.
 
sirahren said:
... I'm not sure why you mentioned causation v correlation. Two different types of knife out of two different steels failed at two different points in testing in the same spot.

I think its a logical assumption ...The cause is obviously ...

...what about the common elements makes them seemingly ...
Click to expand...

I think you may have demonstrated the point here of "Non Causa Pro Causa" (causation v correlation), thinking that one can extrapolate ("assume", as you say) that because "Two different types of knife out of two different steels failed at two different points in testing in the same spot.", that all CRK knives HAVE this weakness. I am only saying that with two data points, and all the variables involved, it isn't' proof.


HOWEVER, I do like, and wholeheartedly agree with you when you say "I think its a logical assumption that both the commonalities should be used in forming a hypothesis: CRK knives weakest point seems to be at the serrations." This is clear and goes right to the point. What Noss's test do for me is create a question - a hypothesis, but not an answer. An answer would require much more rigor (standardization and repeatability) of the test benchamarking, analytical rather that anecdotal measurement, multiple data points, etc.

I'm not in the anti, or pro, column on Noss's tests. Just noting how we tend to think about things.

I agree that there is little incentive for the industry to self impose this sort of thing. That's why this typ of thing ususally either comes from the outside (as Noss is doing in his way), or from one entity in an industry that steps up and uses it as a challenge and a competetive advantage to set itself apart.

Anyway, good thoughts and discussion. Thanks.
 
mark2600 said:
One critical job for a heavy knife is chopping and battoning. Both CRKs could survive this, but just barely. The hammer impacts are just slightly beyond what may be done with a rock to get an emergency shelter together.
Click to expand...


I would think it an extreme situation where batoning with a rock would be necessary. I've always been able to find some piece of wood to serve as a "hammer". Which works wonderfully, and is much less abusive to the knife.
 
J33psru1e said:
I am not sure what can be taken from hitting the knife with a steel mallet repeatedly and seeing it break other than, don't hit your knife repeatedly with a steel mallet or it might break.
Click to expand...

Well, the test are not scientific. They are considered hard use test to show you what a knife can do relative to other knives. Like the $15 Cold Steel Machete passing the Mallet test and just about everything else with flying colors.
 
I really don't think this is beyond what should be expected from this type of knife. There's a great deal of resiliency built into the action.

Sure, the impact tool is metal, but the target is very soft wood. It's also cantilevered from a vice. Lots of impact being absorbed along the way.

If he were beating the knife into concrete, that would be different.

A knife of this type should not fail under these circumstances.
 
From the possum...

"The specs say it's A2 at 55-57 RC. Take a look at this spec sheet for A2: latrobe steel A2

Anyone else notice what happens to the toughness curve right as the hardness curve crosses 55 Rc?"

If I am reading the chart correctly, as the hardness drops below 55, the toughness goes up. Should this surpirse anyone? In other words, there is a minimum toughness "trough" at around 55 HRC. However, look at the toughness curve in the range where HRC is 57-59. There is a peak in toughness (~145 ft/lb) at HRC 57-59 (tempering temperature of 316C). So, according to latrobe, if CRK is doing the heat treat correctly, maximum toughness should be attained at the HRC they are running their blades. Should this surpirse anyone?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top