Knifetests.com Project 1 Destruction Test.

Bear Claw Chris Lappe said:
I'm not sure what your point is, if that's intended for me, have I said I was pissed over these tests?

:confused:
Click to expand...

I'm not pissed either, nor have I had any myths busted. I think any knife can be broken. I think the tests would be fun to do, if I had the $$$ to spare. I've never complained they weren't "scientific." I think Noss is an amusing and interesting guy in what he does, and wish him all the happiness in the world. I think he has every right to do whatever he wants to do with his own stuff. I fully support his right to free speech, i.e., his right to post his videos of destruction testing on the web. I've never said nor thought that a person shouldn't view Noss' "tests".

Yes, I think a person can learn something from his destruction tests, especially if you're a manufacturer of knives that are supposed to chop through concrete, etc. But his destruction tests just don't tell me much of anything I want to know about a knife. At every point when the knife breaks, he's doing something (or has done something) that I have never done and would never do in real world use.

I'm much more interested in how well the edge stands up to continued use; in whether or not the handle creates hot spots when used; if the sheath holds the knife securely; if the knife is easy to resharpen; etc. In other words, stuff that reflects what I actually look for in a knife I expect to use.

That's it.
 
There seems to be a fairly simple divide here, some people can never see themselves having to hit their knife with anything stronger than wood. Nor can they think of a scenario where they are not carrying the proper tool for every job. Surely whenever they carry this knife they carry a saw, a slicer and an axe along with it.
Other people can imagine a situation where they might have to hit the blade with a rock or something harder, and real world scenarios that would be similar to the test where this knife failed have already been illustrated.

It has been proven that a 10 dollar knife can pass a test that this 300+ dollar knife cannot. Why is this the case and how do you justify it?

Is there anything else other than "that wasn't its intended use"? If that's the only retort there is, then what about all the other knives that passed this particular test (being hammered through wood), would you then claim that was their intended use and that's why they passed?

Being new to quality knives, I am unbiased and sincerely curious.
 
Last edited:
Grampa said:
At every point when the knife breaks, he's doing something (or has done something) that I have never done and would never do in real world use.

I'm much more interested in how well the edge stands up to continued use; in whether or not the handle creates hot spots when used; if the sheath holds the knife securely; if the knife is easy to resharpen; etc. In other words, stuff that reflects what I actually look for in a knife I expect to use.
Click to expand...

Then why are you watching the tests? Except maybe for the train wreck factor, there is nothing there for you. The express purpose of the testing is to break the knife, and compare it with others through posted videos to find out which one is toughest.
 
Grampa said:
Real world: Darn good knife, very successful, did the job for hundreds of thousands of US servicemen. Not the best knife possible, but it has a history of getting the job done.

Destruction test: Not so good.

...


However, I'll bet the WWII Russian soldier who had his throat cut with the older cousin of a Normark fillet knife didn't have a chance to complain that the Finnish soldier didn't use a proper combat knife! ;)
Click to expand...

Good point. Where are the reports of Poject I knives breaking in the real world? Where are the reports of the GB breaking in the real world?

Kind regards,

Jos

PS. I like the part of the Finnish soldier not using a proper combat knife!:D:thumbup:
 
t1mpani said:
I am ashamed
paperbag.gif
and will now commit Sudoku.
Click to expand...

ROFL.gif
ROFL.gif
ROFL.gif
ROFL.gif
 
Bear Claw Chris Lappe said:
I think the majority of Noss4's test are fine and we can learn a great deal from them. The only ones I really question are the ones beating a 3lb sledgehammer on the back of any blade, especially into concrete. If a blade breaks doing that, we are not really learning anything about how a knife performs under normal knife use.
Click to expand...

And that's the whole point exactly. If we're (the whole Bladeforums community, that is) going to continue this discussion, it would be a whole lot productive if we could understand one very simple thing: Noss' tests are NOT intended to teach us anything about any knife's performance in "normal knife use", such as opening letters and cardboard packages or cutting steaks. If you want to see a test that will teach you something about a knife's performance in "normal use", then don't even look at Noss' testing. Stop right there, walk away, forget about them - they're not for you, and you won't learn what you wanted to learn from them. Noss is obviously doing something else - just concentrating on testing roughly how tough certain knives advertised as hard use type knives are.

Knives with 1/4" thick spines and thick blade coatings obviously aren't intended for normal knife use, because they're obviously not optimized for it. For a pure cutting, slicing knife, you don't want a thick spine and blade coatings. For some manner of combat knife, you may want that. And there's the difference, and why Noss' tests aren't about normal knife use.
 
I guess you're joking, Hawkings, because Noss just tested a $10 China made knife before the Project, and it did much better in Noss' style of testing.
 
Jos said:
Good point. Where are the reports of Poject I knives breaking in the real world? Where are the reports of the GB breaking in the real world?

Kind regards,

Jos
Click to expand...


Frankly, I would find the idea of a brittle combat knife kinda scary. You see, the soldier stabs the knife deep into the chest of the enemy (typically an "insurgent" of some kind) and then takes a 3lb mallet and WHAMMO, breaks off the blade. This leaves a kind of Green Beret calling card not to mess with the USA.
 
Elen said:
Knives with 1/4" thick spines and thick blade coatings obviously aren't intended for normal knife use, because they're obviously not optimized for it. For a pure cutting, slicing knife, you don't want a thick spine and blade coatings. For some manner of combat knife, you may want that. And there's the difference, and why Noss' tests aren't about normal knife use.
Click to expand...

Right. Maybe a clearer way to state this would be to say that what Nos shows *is* normal use for this sort of knife.

Combat knives are general tools. They are not delicate slicing tools. They have lots of applications that don't even involve cutting.

All sorts of non-military applications exist for these knives. SAR, SWAT, carpentry, etc. Individuals purchasing these knives for legitimate hard-use applications have a very reasonable interest in seeing how they might perform. Given how the knives are advertised, I think they also have a reasonable expectation that the knives will perform well.

A knife of this type that can't take a good beating is not well designed. Take the beating out of the equation, and a lighter, more refined knife will work better, for a broader range of tasks.
 
We just need CRK to say what their inteded purpose of these knives are.

Its not fair for them to say they are intended for hard use, last ditch, combat and survival applications, design them to look like they can handle anything, then say 'well they're not made for that..."

Also there are not reports of GB's failing in the field, but from everything I know they arent actually used in the field. The only instance I've seen one was on a discovery channel show about SF. And SF guys cant really post on a forum if their knife failed. As far as I heard they were presented to the guys at graduation and mostly kept as a keepsake as anything that would so readily identify them usully isnt wanted or aloud in the field. And I've had the distinct privelage of working with guys who would know.

If people know otherwise, I'd love to know how this knife holds up in the field, as I've seen no real hard use testing on it. CRK makes beautiful knives that I'd love to get if theyre up to the task...
 
LOL, noss seemed like he was about to cry when the project1 broke. I think the only reason he tested this knife so soon after the GB was because he thought it would do really well and make all the people who got pissed off at the GB test happy. Of course it failed really easily so noss is a bit scared to post in this thread (I do not blame you, I probably wouldn't even put that test up on the internet). It just shows that you don't almays get what you pay for and in some cases, (CDT knife, GI tanto) you get alot more than what you pay for. And like someone said above, if the project1 isn't a good slicer or very compact and handy, it had better at least be a good abuser knife and a good chopper, it miserably fails at everything. Noss, if you are reading this, can you torture test a bark river (bravo-1?)? I would really like to see how they hold up, being A2 and all.
 
I think the geometry and heat treat had way more to do with this than the steel choice.
 
3wolves said:
LOL, noss seemed like he was about to cry when the project1 broke. I think the only reason he tested this knife so soon after the GB was because he thought it would do really well and make all the people who got pissed off at the GB test happy. Of course it failed really easily so noss is a bit scared to post in this thread (I do not blame you, I probably wouldn't even put that test up on the internet). It just shows that you don't almays get what you pay for and in some cases, (CDT knife, GI tanto) you get alot more than what you pay for. And like someone said above, if the project1 isn't a good slicer or very compact and handy, it had better at least be a good abuser knife and a good chopper, it miserably fails at everything. Noss, if you are reading this, can you torture test a bark river (bravo-1?)? I would really like to see how they hold up, being A2 and all.
Click to expand...

I am waiting for the noss test on bravo-1 before buying one. He may test soon Mission MPK in A2
 
tsiloics said:
Right. Maybe a clearer way to state this would be to say that what Nos shows *is* normal use for this sort of knife.

Combat knives are general tools. They are not delicate slicing tools. They have lots of applications that don't even involve cutting.

All sorts of non-military applications exist for these knives. SAR, SWAT, carpentry, etc. Individuals purchasing these knives for legitimate hard-use applications have a very reasonable interest in seeing how they might perform. Given how the knives are advertised, I think they also have a reasonable expectation that the knives will perform well.

A knife of this type that can't take a good beating is not well designed. Take the beating out of the equation, and a lighter, more refined knife will work better, for a broader range of tasks.
Click to expand...

tsiloics:thumbup:

Regards,
3G
 
Well I have a Bravo-1 three of them to be honest. But I don't want to eat 140 dollars to find out. However if enough folks wanted to chip in. say 5 bucks each.... I would cover the first 40 dollars and send Noss a Bravo-1

Jim
 
shecky said:
Does anybody even know what it [non-scientific] means?

I have a feeling if Noss broke knives with easily quantifiable, verifiable, and repeatable tests, offended parties would still get their feelings hurt by the results. Lets face it. Folks get really upset when their myths get shattered. And that's exactly what lots of knife nuts have invested in the hobby.
Click to expand...

Not that I am taking issue with Noss' tests, because I find them interesting, but a sample size of one is among the better known hallmarks of non-scientific testing. I do agree that there would be some crying over sacred cow slaughters no matter how scientific the tests were.

As for looking for the ultimate tough knife through such testing, I have my doubts as to the rationale behind such a quest. I like knives like the Ka-Bar USMC and the traditional puukko. I'm not sure I'd count on a "fighter" like the USMC to do anything more extreme than general utility tasks, but by design it is probably better for sticking humans than almost every other knife tested by Noss. Breaking metal crate straps? Used correctly, a Buck 110 will pop them all day using leverage, not hammering.

The USMC is not, and to my knowledge never has been, marketed as a be all-end all survival knife. It was designed and adopted as a Fighting/Utility knife with the fighting up front. If someone needs stabbing to death "right now" the USMC is still a very admirable choice for such a task and the double guard and stick tang that limit it's Judgment Day appeal were, and remain, non-factors in dispatching infiltrators in relative quiet. The CR problem lay in the fact that the advertising and the testing do not mesh, because the expectations for rough and tumble for the GB and the P1 are raised compared to what one reasonably expects from a USMC.

Knives like the USMC, puukko, or the Mora demand that they be intelligently used within their design constraints. One would hope folks don't have a problem with that and don't expect those cutting implements to be serious bangers.

I have yet to see a serious banger that was also a great cutting tool. Despite what their proponents may argue, big and tough choppers are not really adept at many common cutting tasks. It's all good. I don't have any expectations that massive .25 inch thick flat ground blades are going to be able to do precision work at productive speed.

I do have to admit to a failure of imagination though. Even while watching the testing of the Busse FFBM, I couldn't come up with a scenario in which I would attempt to hammer any knife through a metal pipe using a sledge.

Maybe it's just me and I am not scaring myself vividly enough.:D

As a final note, Bear Grylls bangs on his knives with rocks. I have yet to encounter anyone who respects Bear's knife handling skills.;)
 
Justabuyer said:
Well I have a Bravo-1 three of them to be honest. But I don't want to eat 140 dollars to find out. However if enough folks wanted to chip in. say 5 bucks each.... I would cover the first 40 dollars and send Noss a Bravo-1

Jim
Click to expand...

I'm in! :thumbup:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top