The association between a military lineage and tactical knife sales cannot be denied. It is the single most important marketing factor in the all-important "tactical" segment, period. The interesting thing is that most buyers are really thinking more about personal defense use than true military applications when buying these knives. After all, the primary purpose for a knife is to cut, and for a self defense knife it is to cut and stab. In contrast, a military knife needs to be able to cut, be used in self defense (or offense), and at the same time be able to serve 90% of the time as a utility/skinner/survival tool, and part time pry bar, digger, and tree trimmer. Given that disparity, how can the enormous size and sway of the tac folder market's infatuation with military connections be explained?
Even more odd, why do knives designed by well known martial artists rarely reach the successes of the military endorsed knives? A great example of this is Bram Frank's Gunting knife. Bram is a great practitioner of martial arts and an extremely gifted teacher of his style of SE Asian arts. (He is also a great guy to know.) He designed a superbly well-thought out 'tool' for use in self defense that permits a spectrum of responses - mildly non-lethal, non-lethal, or lethal - depending on how its deployed. The Gunting (made by Spyderco) has every possible strength if actual use is the goal: designed by a MA master, clear SD applicability, able to withstand hard use, adopted by many police depts, vey high quality production, reasonable price (~$110), practice trainer knife available, and so on. Yet, its been discontinued by Spyderco having failed to spark the fire of huge demand by 'tactical' folder buyers. At the same time, a very well known and hugely successful producer of "tactical" knives, most of which share none of these traits, now relies on incredibly bogus 'endorsements' made by anonymously nicknamed military personnel's comments in its very successful marketing program. The eponymous maker even explicitly stated, if obliquely, that he goes "overseas on ... missions" himself, to further this seeming (if entirely untrue) military connection.
To their credit, there are top notch makers, like Bob Terzuola and Kit Carson for example, who do not trade on their genuine bona fides, nor copy the latest tac fad, despite (or because of) the fact that they have tons of real world experience in the tactical theater. At the far extreme other end is the child genius who has absolutely zero personal military experience, but once had a contract to sell knives to one of the services, and has traded on that slim connection ever since. He's joined by the hapless English maker who made a strikingly similar copy of a classic tac folder, but whose knives are so overbuilt and bulky as to be unusable. The best way to consider most of these knives is to picture it being used in the dark, on a wet and muddy field, while wearing gloves and shivering. Thats why folders get short shrift in the service. But that military connection still persists in the selling of tac knives, and folders especially.
All of which is to say there is no rhyme or reason to it, but Military Matters.
Even more odd, why do knives designed by well known martial artists rarely reach the successes of the military endorsed knives? A great example of this is Bram Frank's Gunting knife. Bram is a great practitioner of martial arts and an extremely gifted teacher of his style of SE Asian arts. (He is also a great guy to know.) He designed a superbly well-thought out 'tool' for use in self defense that permits a spectrum of responses - mildly non-lethal, non-lethal, or lethal - depending on how its deployed. The Gunting (made by Spyderco) has every possible strength if actual use is the goal: designed by a MA master, clear SD applicability, able to withstand hard use, adopted by many police depts, vey high quality production, reasonable price (~$110), practice trainer knife available, and so on. Yet, its been discontinued by Spyderco having failed to spark the fire of huge demand by 'tactical' folder buyers. At the same time, a very well known and hugely successful producer of "tactical" knives, most of which share none of these traits, now relies on incredibly bogus 'endorsements' made by anonymously nicknamed military personnel's comments in its very successful marketing program. The eponymous maker even explicitly stated, if obliquely, that he goes "overseas on ... missions" himself, to further this seeming (if entirely untrue) military connection.
To their credit, there are top notch makers, like Bob Terzuola and Kit Carson for example, who do not trade on their genuine bona fides, nor copy the latest tac fad, despite (or because of) the fact that they have tons of real world experience in the tactical theater. At the far extreme other end is the child genius who has absolutely zero personal military experience, but once had a contract to sell knives to one of the services, and has traded on that slim connection ever since. He's joined by the hapless English maker who made a strikingly similar copy of a classic tac folder, but whose knives are so overbuilt and bulky as to be unusable. The best way to consider most of these knives is to picture it being used in the dark, on a wet and muddy field, while wearing gloves and shivering. Thats why folders get short shrift in the service. But that military connection still persists in the selling of tac knives, and folders especially.
All of which is to say there is no rhyme or reason to it, but Military Matters.
)
