Noss beat the Ranger

sdt11670 said:
It's spring steel but it's not a spring it's a knife. Although it uses spring steel it has a tempering for a cutting instrument. You want edge holding abilities? Well you gotta give up some of the toughness. I think the flat ground blade did very well! If he had tested one of the older grinds the rangers had it would have never broke under those circumstances. But you have to realize that noss is a fairly big guy and that is a lot of stress bouncing on that flat ground blade. Everyone knows that not only the tempering affects the toughness it also loses strength when you use a flat grind. I like the flat ground blades better however since it is far tougher than needed and will cut better.
Click to expand...

This is true, but it doesn't relate to the notion that 1095 is better suited to such a knife.

Furthermore, it's still surprising that it broke in the way it did. Even for a full grind blade, it's still quite thick and widely believed to be among the "bulletproof" knives out on the market. If the steel is hardened and tempered to the point that it's so brittle, there's little reason to use 5160, as such treatment negates the main reason to use 5160 in the first place. Which would be toughness.

The bottom line is that it failed in a way that is surprising, and mildly disappointing, considering the construction and reputation the RD series enjoys.
 
I'm not gonna chop a concrete block with my RD-7, so I don't think I'm gonna worry about these tests, either.
 
DutchV
"I'm not gonna chop a concrete block with my RD-7, so I don't think I'm gonna worry about these tests, either."



But isn't satisfying to know that if you accidentally drop or chop your knife on concrete, edge on, it will handle that with flying colors?
Noss' RD7 chopped that concrete block with gusto! (with very little denting and chipping, to be precise)
 
To anyone who thinks Noss sounded angry during the test (I don't think he did). One thing to keep in mind is that he was most likely exhausted. He did this test very late, and right after the CS Machete test.
 
Awesome test! I was surprised as hell with the results.

People make alot of claims about certain knives being bomb proof, I think it is great the someone is out there testing them. I always thought 5160 would be bomb proof.

Makes you wonder.

I am still curious how AUS8 would hold up???

Thanks
 
I think he will be testing a grunt, the 10cr one though.

On what he does with the old blades, I believe he has a bin full.
He used the old scrapper 6 tang for a vid in reply to what some ranger fans were saying so it does come in handy.
 
macgregor22 said:
I think he will be testing a grunt, the 10cr one though.
Click to expand...

I have one of those. It'll be interesting. Mike Stewart said that the 10cr steel used in these should b closer to AUS-10 than AUS-8.

The next posted tests will be one of those Cheaper Than Dirt Rough Use Knives, and a CRK Project II. I think the tests are done, so they should be available soon.
 
I alway thought the Rangers were on par with Busse's for an unbeatable price. I'm a little dissapointed with the tests, but the knife held up well enough. I liked the "his old knives never would have broken like that" comment. How the heck can we possibly know that?
 
Black Jack Grunt, yeah! I almost bought one of those. That will be interesting. I held it at a gun show. I don't think it is a full tang.

Can't wait.
 
shecky said:
Furthermore, it's still surprising that it broke in the way it did. Even for a full grind blade, it's still quite thick and widely believed to be among the "bulletproof" knives out on the market. If the steel is hardened and tempered to the point that it's so brittle, there's little reason to use 5160, as such treatment negates the main reason to use 5160 in the first place. Which would be toughness.

The bottom line is that it failed in a way that is surprising, and mildly disappointing, considering the construction and reputation the RD series enjoys.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I was amazed that a 1/4" thick 5160 blade in that hardness range seemed so laterally brittle. I figured it would either spring right back or possibly take a minor set (at the worst). I find myself in the odd position of being both a Noss fan and a Ranger fan, so I had two dogs in this fight, one on each side. :D While Noss' test didn't shake my faith in Rangers as tough, heavy duty field knives/choppers, and I can't see myself EVER breaking my RD9 under any sort of normal or even mildly abusive usage, it did bring to mind some questions about the heat treat methods used in this line and just what qualities Justin's going for in his blades.

Thanks once again, Noss, for a thought-provoking test. :thumbup:
 
shecky said:
This is true, but it doesn't relate to the notion that 1095 is better suited to such a knife.

Furthermore, it's still surprising that it broke in the way it did. Even for a full grind blade, it's still quite thick and widely believed to be among the "bulletproof" knives out on the market. If the steel is hardened and tempered to the point that it's so brittle, there's little reason to use 5160, as such treatment negates the main reason to use 5160 in the first place. Which would be toughness.

The bottom line is that it failed in a way that is surprising, and mildly disappointing, considering the construction and reputation the RD series enjoys.
Click to expand...

I don't see where you can come up with brittle or anyone else who has used the term? If the blade was brittle it would have chipped at the edge for the full length of the knife... and since it's edge proved tougher than the scrappers.... does it not stand to reason that the entire blade is in fact tougher? well it should. As far as it breaking the way it did it might not have had anything at all to do with the flat grind and since the edge proved so darn tough i am inclined to believe that there may have been a hairline flaw in the grain structure at the breaking point... I mean come on the edge was way to tough for that blade to be brittle.
 
Yep, I'm betting there was an inclusion in the steel, or another flaw. You should be able to stand on 1/4 thick 440C with no problem.
 
My neighbor is a blacksmith and he uses 5160 for his metal cutting chisels. Of course they are not heat treated the same way but damn.
 
I love it when people get all butt hurt when their knife of choice doesn't perform as well as expected.

I also love it when knifemakers throw in great words like "bombproof" and "indestructible" and then start whining and hedging when someone actually puts it to the test. I'm not saying this happened in this specific instance, but there have been several in the past including the owner of BRKT.

To the "knives are for cutting and this is ridiculous" crowd, heres some food for thought. Cars aren't for crashing, but we still do it. In fact, we not only do it, but its mandated by law and is a major selling point for vehicles that perform well.

This isn't any different.
 
Thanks everyone.

The blade did not have the needed flexibility to survive the second position. It did not flex much before it broke. The Red Six predator was 440c and it broke the same way in the second position. Was the Ranger flawed ? I don't think it was. Unfortunately I didn't get to do a flex test to see just how flexible the blade was. The knife was not brittle it was just very ridged and not elastic enough.
 
sdt11670 said:
I don't see where you can come up with brittle or anyone else who has used the term? If the blade was brittle it would have chipped at the edge for the full length of the knife... and since it's edge proved tougher than the scrappers.... does it not stand to reason that the entire blade is in fact tougher? well it should.
Click to expand...

The way it broke indicates a certain amount of brittleness. You correctly pointed out that edge holding ability (hardness) generally comes at the cost of toughness. In fact, the test seems to indicate the blade was run fairly hard, with the chipping and minimal deformation. While that would indicate a relatively tough blade, it isn't necessarily tough in the way the term is usually used to describe steel.

sdt11670 said:
As far as it breaking the way it did it might not have had anything at all to do with the flat grind and since the edge proved so darn tough i am inclined to believe that there may have been a hairline flaw in the grain structure at the breaking point... I mean come on the edge was way to tough for that blade to be brittle.
Click to expand...

I agree. The break may have had nothing to do with the flat grind. But that wasn't my theory, so I can't really defend it. As far as a hairline flaw in the grain structure at the breaking point, I'm not really sure what that means. If you mean a pre-existing structural flaw, I suppose it's possible. But it's still a flaw, and would likely have been a flaw if the knife were made from half inch stock. If that isn't what you mean, then it again points to a certain degree of brittleness, since hairline flaws are not characteristic of blades tempered for toughness.

It could be argued I think that the failure could be a result from the abuse immediately before the failure. Chopping cinder blocks, hammering the spine, etc. It's too bad Noss didn't do the fatal test first to see if it was capable of surviving the lateral stress before being subjected to hard use. Even so, if this is the case, it would indicate that the knife suffered more significant damage at an earlier point than was initially apparent, not quite as durable as it looked.
 
noss4 said:
Thanks everyone.

The blade did not have the needed flexibility to survive the second position. It did not flex much before it broke. The Red Six predator was 440c and it broke the same way in the second position. Was the Ranger flawed ? I don't think it was. Unfortunately I didn't get to do a flex test to see just how flexible the blade was. The knife was not brittle it was just very ridged and not elastic enough.
Click to expand...

440c is known as a brittle steel and 5160 is not. by the way noss we talked a while back about you destroying an sk-5 trail master when can we expect to see this? Have you decided against this test? still don't see it in upcoming tests.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top