"Lofty" Wiseman Survival Tool/Knife

GREENJACKET · Jul 12, 2001

I've handled a few BK&T knives but not the Patrol Machete. Will look out for one at the Summer Fairs.

Try an engineering brick next time; that will bring a tear to your eyes. Break bricks with a sharp tap when firmly held flat on soft sand. For some reason the sand makes for a cleaner break. So my bricky tells me.

Cliff Stamp · Jul 13, 2001

Concrete, is fairly weak and shatters easily, what I have seen of it anyway. Take a concrete weight for example, you can chop that up with a Henckels Chef's knife. What can damage the edge are the rocks in concrete blocks which due to their high hardness and high pressure due to the small contact points, will indent and/or fracture any steel. Worse yet because of the random nature of the fracture patterns they can cause high lateral shocks to the sides of the edge.

Greenjacket, on the knives you have that can take a hard rock hit without doing that much damage to the edge that you can't easily restore it, what kind of angle are they sharpened to? Of course the contact area makes a tremendous difference, if I chop into a large flat beach rock it won't do any significant damage to the edge of a decent knife as the contact area is to large, however if the edge hits a jagged fracture I would expect it to make a fair gouge. I would personally be concerned about the extent of fracture, and wanting to see deformation with as little as possible brittle failure as that can cause gross blade failure later on.

-Cliff

GREENJACKET · Jul 13, 2001

Cliff,

Bad objects to hit around me are flint (even when it shatters), granite and hard stone aggregate. I've even done a full force strike against a rusting angle-iron. I do try not to.

Short blades, seven inches or less rarely take much damage at all, unless you pound them in. Damage is useually kept to the cutting edge where upon they are either rolled or broken away leaving a ragged edge. Depth is never more than up to the secondary edge. Result is a full sharpen not just a steeling. Angles are from 20 to 30 degrees. I've reverted recently to a more Moran convex stropped edge, which keeps more steel nearer the cutting/actual edge and so decreases the depth of any real damage. Catastrophic damage have been tip breakages usually caused by some twisting or leverage and the odd tang breakage from pounding. You just cannot generate the power to do too much damage. My CR Project is about the heaviest of this group of knives, as any more I would lose dexterity and control. I'm not much into bludgeons.

Kuhkri's and heavy blades you can damage quite deeply. Blades at the seven inch plus side. Its their weight that does it. Those knives I've damaged at this size have always been on the soft side of the Rockwell scale. Damage again to the secondary edge but dings. Dings are to me when the steel has been pushed away and lost. It leaves a gap and buldged sides. The damage can be quite deep relatively speaking, 1/2 a mill or more. You can get a finger nail to catch easily. A Benchmade Bushmaster, light, gently angled kukri, dinged itself out of use in no time.

Over a foot long and then I can get terminal velocity into a strike. This is real force and where steel is at its limits unless bulked out. Hard steels chip and soft fold. A WWII machete buckled; though it was hard enough and I think of carbon steel. The British Army Golock is soft and difficult to get a keen edge to hold. It dinks but does not break (inexpesive). The Al Mar Pathfinder could be made to chip out but only the actual cutting edge ie: no depth. However, when it did go we had a coin sized cresent chip. The Pathfinder was not only long but well heavy. The early Wiseman had the tip break when hitting some small stone in the ground. My Blackjack Marauder has now seen some heavy work. It takes a good edge which is lost slowly on wood. Deep damage has been no more than shallow dinks, which ought to be removes on a belt as there is just too much metal to remove on such a large blade.

I like to verge on the keener side with quite shallow angles on the primary edges. Depending on the weight of the blade and how deep a cut I'm wanting, are the main criteria for how close I bring the secondary edge up to the primary edge. How much steel I feel I need to carry the primary edge and therefor the actual edge. A stepped Moran or lapped convex. The rest is in the factory grind, be it flat or hollow.

I've only once seen a crack/dink develope, run, into a fracture. This was on a relatively small knife. Usually its obvious after the event.

A dink or crack can hold and not lengthen much. Twisting and flexing actions get then to run whild, to catastrophy.

Cliff, I hope the above adds up. We are talking high tech knives which cost big bucks. Make blades like tractors and they will work; well most of the worlds cutting has been done with inexpensive industrial tools. Thats why I don't like giving high end blades any tech excuses; they either work in the real world or don't.

Cliff Stamp · Jul 16, 2001

Greenjacket :

I've only once seen a crack/dink develope, run, into a fracture.

Generally yes, since the blades thicken as you run back it takes more energy to deform/fracture them. However I have seen it done, if you don't repair the edges. Soft steels can rip, the harder ones usually just get a fracture the size of the dent.

Twisting and flexing actions get then to run whild, to catastrophy.

Yes, which is why while I don't believe you have to grind out all damage done to large blades, you should make every effort to restore them as much as possible. I lightly tap dents back into place and grind the sides flat to reduce the lateral stresses they take. If there is a large fracture I will round out the inside to prevent growth. And I keep a close watch on heavily damaged areas and if they start to grow, grind them out.

most of the worlds cutting has been done with inexpensive industrial tools

Yes, because that is all they have usually, not because they are the best tools for the job. Most manual labor jobs, especially in very rural areas can pay next to nothing. You ask someone who is making 0.50 $ an hour if he wants to buy a $500 blade and he is going to look at you like you are insane. However does that mean that a custom $200 fillet knife (machete / whatever) doesn't offer any advantage over a $10 one - no.

That being said, I don't think traditional tools are of low quality. While I don't think they of of the same quality as the higest end blades you can buy, they are far from junk. And for good reason as they are bought by serious users who can't afford to replace them, nor struggle with poor performance. I have discussed QC with traditional bladesmiths (Malyasia) and the user feedback can be very dramatic on poor quality blades.

Last time he stopped by he had brought over a dozen traditonal large blades of various design, they were all siezed in I think China, which was a tremendous loss. It would have been interesting to work with them and compare them to "modern" takes on the same blades.

Thanks for the details, one thing that bothers me about accidental impact results is that the nature is inherently random. It is thus difficult to guage the relative performance, especially when the results can be so far apart time wise, not to mention the difference in target composition and swing.

For example, I generally avoid knotty wood due to the difficulty of the cut, as well as the forces it can generate on the blade. However I do like to know how a blade will perform on wuch material as sometimes is has to be cut. So often I will pick out ten sections of so of the worst cases and chop them up going through the knots with the test blade and a bunch of reference blades. This is artificial in the sense as it serves no functional use, but does allow me to guage the durability much more accurately.

In regards to the really high accidnetal impacts like you mention, do you have some kind of standard to compare to or just judge by experience based on past performance when they do happen naturally?

-Cliff

GREENJACKET · Jul 16, 2001

Cliff, I'm a lot less technical than you when testing a blade. First impresions, the first time I hold and pick up a knife, generally hold true. It shouldn't be like that, but I'm rarely wrong.

My swordmanship is not that skilled as I tend to "get on with it"; which often means a butchered piece of wood. There are those who make working with a knife an art form. Those who can carve a figurine or those who can cut an acre of cane. Unfortunately, blades that come my way have to withstand my hackings. Most of my impressions of a knife come from using them over time. This usually include some heavy,long sessions, working at whatever I'm doing at the time. Its add hock and not scientific but I have a good idea by the end. Few knives I've broken intentionally. They failed during normal expected work. Use a thin blade for thin blade jobs and then push them a little bit further. If they hold up then they are good enough for me. Trouble is some break when they ought not too.

I've been impressed with some of the older traditional tool which are often very well made. Steel, heat treatment and finish of a very high standard even when they were only export quality. Local products also seem to come up to scratch as they are made by those using them. Not always, but often.
My only gripe is too many modern products are made to a cost that just isn't up to the intended job description. They have no staying power. These products seem to flood the maket and are doing nobody any favours. However, I think more and more people are catching on and not been caught out as often.

Two blades that hold the standard in my mind are SAK's with their stainless blades and Opinels with their carbon steel. Both inexpensive and take some beating. However, they are both short blades. Longer Blades: the Martindale's are also great value and not all soft like the MOD Golock. (We would often take a hammer to our issue Golocks to beat out the dings a bit before resharpening them). I think a lot of how a knife performs is in the experience of the user.

High end knives are a joy. However, its the long, over 10 inches, where they have stuggled most to warrant their prestigious place. Added value of a custom, or higher end manufacturer, comes unstuck if the blade goes and breaks. Us whacking them into notted wood doesn't inspire the makers much either. Too soft they ding, too hard they snap, bulk them out and they are too heavy so you may as well take an axe. You can only do so much with steel; or can you? Thats where the challenge is and I take my hat off to those who try. On our (end user) part we should encourge makers by not being over critical and expect some damage where damage is due (money/price/value has to come into the trust circle somewhere).

For the moment mid prced choppers can give the best compromise of higher performance with affordable replacement when necessary.

If the Lofty Wiseman had had a straighter handle, and I hadn't broken one before, then one of them might well have been my hard wood chopper rather than the Marauder. Then again the Marauder only cost me $80 ($60? States side). But when away from my knives just give me something thats sharp and works.

Cliff Stamp · Jul 20, 2001

Greenjacket :

Unfortunately, blades that come my way have to withstand my hackings.

I think that this is the ideal way to evaluate a blade, the only drawback is that the time it takes can be tremendous. For example a few years ago I had used a blade for many months with no problems and was becoming quite impressed with it. Then one day while clearing out and old fence the edge encountered several knots at just the right angle and the blade dinged badly (dime sized dents). I then proceeded to hack at several knotty pieces of wood at bad angles and mangled the rest of the blade, it could not take it at all. Judgement, if I was really careful with a decent amount of luck the blade would be fine, if I was not, then it would get functionally damaged.

I think a lot of how a knife performs is in the experience of the user.

Yes, skill of application as well as the ability to generate maximum power, both can cause very different results. I often wonder about this when I am describing a blades durability, if I am very careful I can usually avoid damage even during really hard work, however if I relax or just work when I am irritated and/or fatigued, the blade can see damage on work that it could easily handle if I was using it correctly. The range of effects can cut a wide swath indeed. It would be of optimal benefit if reviews could be done by multiple people of different body types and different skill levels so we could see the effects they could make.

You can only do so much with steel; or can you?

I think the problem is that there is a desire to have too much of too many things. For long blades just stick to the very high shock resistant steels. They will have a very high impact toughness at a hardness level that will impede excessive compaction. Now they will wear much quicker than alloys like A2, but how much of a functional effect is that really going to make. On most vegetation you will want to stop and take a rest long before you wear out the edge. And of course they will take surface corrosion readily, but again, if you are using the blade heavily this will not be a factor.

-Cliff

GREENJACKET · Jul 22, 2001

Cliff,

Long term testing is no guarentee to a correct assesment. I once bought what I thought was the Cold Steel Master Tanto. I carried it around southern Africa for three months. Not only did I get some good use from it, but I also gained needed confidence believing I had a half decent defence weapon if needed. The second week I got home to Britain the tang snapped

I'd been done

I then went out and bought the real macoy, and a very good knife it is too. Given time anything can happen. My best knives are the ones that have done the time.

Multiple players testing often produces some interesting results. I used to be able to lend out knives to my soldiers for an exercise or two. I wouldn't tell them how much the blade cost as anything over $100 they would pussy foot with them. The boys, allowed to let rip, would garantee to give me hours of sharpening. A knife could go weeks with no more than cutting up some camo netting. Then in an hour it could be shredded when digging bricks out of a wall for a fire position. Trip wire is hard and rolls an edge in seconds, the trick is to smash the wire. Infact there are so many fasteners in the military that smashing them is as often as not the best way. End result is that brawn over brains rules. For knife tests this doesn't allow for a too objective conclusion. The knife faired well, faired badly, broke; edge damage was light, heavy, catastrophic. There is strong arguement why the Martindale issue Golock is on the soft side of the fence: they survive because they are soft enough remain in one piece.

I think you are absolutely right when you say we look too hard for that SAK of blades that can do all things to all men. I'm as guilty as any of that, especially on the forum. At home, in reality, I just use whatever is closest to hand most of the time.

Back yard Shed testing is as good a test system as any; so long as you keep to the script. You also need a steady supply of subjects to keep the momentum and some depth of comparison. You can put five years use on a blade over a weekend. Cliff, whatever some people say about your test reports, you are at least getting through a good few blades and are in the position to compare. I have to be very careful about commenting on blades that I just haven't used. All testing is subjective, and thats no bad thing at all. Life would be dull if there was only one type of lightsaber.

Sometime it would be good to make a list of best of type and what parameters should be expected from that class of knife. Though don't volunteer me to write the book.

Cliff Stamp · Jul 24, 2001

GREENJACKET :

Multiple players testing often produces some interesting results.

Yes, exactly as you have noted it is quite interesting especially if the people using the knives have no idea what they cost and thus have no bias at all. What is ideal is to contrast how the opinion changes when it is used by a group of people with less skill/experience than you, as well as those with more.

For knife tests this doesn't allow for a too objective conclusion.

Yes, the problem is that the sample size is too small. What would be ideal is a very large group of individuals who would give their experience with after a years use. They could comment on number of times it needed to be sharpened, frequency of major/minor damage, as well as rank the cutting ability, grip security/ergonomics, corrosion resistance, sheath issues, etc. . While the latter would be subjective, if the sample size got very large your rankings would start to become very stable.

Of course how realistic is the above, not very. How many makers can generate, for example, 1000 knives for an evaluation, none. Even the small shops can't take that much of a hit without really hindering production. So you would be left with just low quality mass produced blades and thus the reports would be skewed as the baseline performance is going to be really low. If all you have used is KaBar then that is going to be your "high end", optimum blade standard.

Back yard Shed testing is as good a test system as any; so long as you keep to the script.

Yes, this is the critical factor, you need to be able to relate the results of one blade with past work. The main problem is not getting too abstract and ending up with something that you can do in a very rigerous manner and get results that can be easily ranked - but are not easy to apply to actual usage. If you keep doing actual work outside of any controlled tests it will keep you grounded in reality as you will see how they relate.

Sometime it would be good to make a list of best of type and what parameters should be expected from that class of knife.

I have been thinking along those lines as of late. Too many questions I need to answer first though even on really basic issues, but that of course is the part that is most enjoyable.

-Cliff

recondoc1 · Jul 26, 2001

It looks like a solid tool. In a lot of ways, it reminds me of my Blackjack Simba. Same size but the BJ back edge is a bit longer.
recondoc