Shecky, steel has a grain structure running through it (doesn't matter if it's forge welded liquid steel or hand forged) just like wood does and there can be impure properties in steel causing flaws in the grain just like an unseen crack in wood. That is what i was talking about. i personally don't care if it did or didn't i thought it did well.
-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is ready to order! See this thread for details: https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/bladeforums-2024-traditional-knife.2003187/
Price is$300$250 ea (shipped within CONUS). If you live outside the US, I will contact you after your order for extra shipping charges.
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/ - Order as many as you like, we have plenty.
Noss beat the Ranger
- Thread starter macgregor22
- Start date
Wow, lots of very strange posts in this thread.
1095 better than 5160 for a 7" chopper? In what world exactly? 5160 is notably tougher than 1095 and holds a better edge in impact work such as chopping, and it isn't exactly expensive, so it makes a better choice for this type of knife than 1095.
I'm not so sure about that surprising part. It wasn't surprising to me. I don't know how many times you have personally put 1/4" thick flat ground knives in a vise and bounced over 200 pounds of load on the handle, but if you should try that, you would quickly notice that most knives break eventually, when you do that. It's not surprising. It shouldn't be. You'll notice that most knives that Noss has tested have failed that test. In fact, I think most of his tested knives have failed that test without the bouncing load.
And people calling the RD7 "brittle" because it snapped while a 200 pound + guy was jumping up and down on the handle? Wow. Now that is surprising. The RD7 didn't tear or excessively chip on concrete - that is not a feature you will find in a brittle knife...
Oh well. Personally, I wasn't surprised by the test, and I continue to use and recommend Ranger Knives. I liked Noss' test, and as far as I'm concerned, it shows the RD7 is a very tough knife that you could rely on, even if you should wish to chop concrete for some reason, or baton on the knife with a hammer. Good enough for me.
1095 better than 5160 for a 7" chopper? In what world exactly? 5160 is notably tougher than 1095 and holds a better edge in impact work such as chopping, and it isn't exactly expensive, so it makes a better choice for this type of knife than 1095.
I'm not so sure about that surprising part. It wasn't surprising to me. I don't know how many times you have personally put 1/4" thick flat ground knives in a vise and bounced over 200 pounds of load on the handle, but if you should try that, you would quickly notice that most knives break eventually, when you do that. It's not surprising. It shouldn't be. You'll notice that most knives that Noss has tested have failed that test. In fact, I think most of his tested knives have failed that test without the bouncing load.
And people calling the RD7 "brittle" because it snapped while a 200 pound + guy was jumping up and down on the handle? Wow. Now that is surprising. The RD7 didn't tear or excessively chip on concrete - that is not a feature you will find in a brittle knife...
Oh well. Personally, I wasn't surprised by the test, and I continue to use and recommend Ranger Knives. I liked Noss' test, and as far as I'm concerned, it shows the RD7 is a very tough knife that you could rely on, even if you should wish to chop concrete for some reason, or baton on the knife with a hammer. Good enough for me.
Hey Noss,
Havent had a chance yet, so I will say it here. Thanks for your knife tests! While not the total reason as to why I buy a knife, knowing your D tests is very helpful. When you are done with a knife, there is no BS about what it can REALLY take!
I frequent "both" sites and have knives from makers on "both" sites. I just appreciate your doing the hard testing. My 2 cents.
Havent had a chance yet, so I will say it here. Thanks for your knife tests! While not the total reason as to why I buy a knife, knowing your D tests is very helpful. When you are done with a knife, there is no BS about what it can REALLY take!
I frequent "both" sites and have knives from makers on "both" sites. I just appreciate your doing the hard testing. My 2 cents.
Any blade that snaps is brittle by definition. The question is whether the blade is too brittle in relation to it's design, marketing, and expectations. There's no doubt it was reasonably durable, moreso than most folks will ever ask of it. But I think many folks honestly expected more from a knife with it's reputation, made from 5160, a quarter inch thick. As I said earlier, that steel is usually specified precisely for it's toughness. But if it wasn't tempered to exploit that toughness, then it makes no sense to use it.
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2007
- Messages
- 402
I have to agree with Elen. I have an RD7 and love it, Nice to see Noss's test though. Now I know I'll never have to worry about it breaking, since I wouldn't ever abuse it in the manner! 
If , because of Noss's test, any of you feel disillusioned with your current Rangers. Please feel free to send them to me, where I'll give them a good home. :thumbup:
If , because of Noss's test, any of you feel disillusioned with your current Rangers. Please feel free to send them to me, where I'll give them a good home. :thumbup:
By what definition? Dictionary? If we go by the dictionary definition, then not only is any blade that snaps brittle by definition, but also any blade lacking warmth or compassion!
Seriously, if we use the dictionary definitions, then all knives are brittle (that is, likely to break when subjected to pressure), and the word becomes meaningless to use in the context of knives. But hey, I'm just saying...Now, who has said Ranger Knives don't temper their blades to exploit the toughness of 5160? No one that knows about how those knives are actually tempered, it seems to me. So, I wonder where all this speculation about tempering comes from.
Good test Noss!
:thumbup:
Just watched your test of the cheaper than dirt knife as well, very surprising.
I just noticed something weird though, in the last second of the last part (part 8) of the test the cheaper than dirt knife
suddenly becomes a broken Chris Reeves hollow handle knife, at around 3:25.
:thumbup:
Just watched your test of the cheaper than dirt knife as well, very surprising.
I just noticed something weird though, in the last second of the last part (part 8) of the test the cheaper than dirt knife
suddenly becomes a broken Chris Reeves hollow handle knife, at around 3:25.
Cool! I look forward to seeing that test as well!
A material that snaps when lateral forces are applied is more brittle than a material that bends. A piece of peanut brittle is, well, brittle, whereas a piece of taffy is not. Knives run a range of brittleness, usually a tradeoff between hardness (correlated with brittleness) and toughness depending on the intended application. The Ranger test shows performance that was not necessarily expected, and a surprising level of brittleness.
There is no speculation. The blade snapped. That would indicate the blade was tempered more for hardness than toughness. Generally, that's a good thing for knives. In the case of a Ranger knife, that's often described in superlatives like "indestructible" or "bulletproof", toughness is probably a more important consideration than most knives.
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2006
- Messages
- 9,684
That's just depressing, man. Seeing a $10 stainless China knife "out-tough" a Ranger...
You thought some folks were upset after the RD7 test? You better sign up for the Witness Protection Program after that CTD test, Noss...
As always, :thumbup::thumbup:
Now this is getting a little silly. I know of practically no knife that doesn't bend at all when subjected to lateral pressure - very few snap "instantly", without bending. As I said, all knives are brittle by this type of definition: they all eventually snap when you subject them to enough lateral force. The differences are in how much pressure is required and how much they bend before they snap. And that, then, depends largely on how much edge-holding you want on the blade. On a knife? You'll probably want some edge-holding, at least...
I'm not sure exactly what was unexpected about the results of the test. But, again, those who were surprised by it, might find it interesting to try something similar with similarly thick, flat ground knives. Those results might be surprising, too, if one is easily surprised.
All knives worth anything are tempered more for hardness than for toughness. A knife that doesn't hold an edge isn't really something people will want to buy these days, when we have actually invented the crowbar. I wouldn't buy a knife that has been left so soft it won't hold an edge, even if it was the toughest knife in the world because of that. The RD7 seemed tough enough for me - it did take over 200 pounds of load on the handle, bouncing up and down, for quite a while before it snapped, and this was after chopping concrete and being hammered through wood with a steel mallet. That does require a lot of toughness, especially considering it sprang back to true after the first try in the vise.
One really should consider the primary purpose of a knife when viewing tests like this. It's worth noting that it wouldn't be difficult at all to make a knife that would easily take anything Noss throws at it out of cheap 1055 or 420J2, left so soft it won't hold an edge for three minutes but will out-tough practically all other knives. But would you use this kind of "knife"? I know I would not. The RD7, while a hard use knife, is in fact intended to be a knife, that is to say a cutting tool. A cutting tool isn't worth much if it doesn't hold an edge well.
- Joined
- May 28, 1999
- Messages
- 2,606
What was unexpected was that it broke at that point in the test 
5160 is the defacto "tough knife" steel and most folks seem to think Ranger knives do it right. I for one figured it would get to the flex test at least and hit around ~60 degrees before snapping the tip off.
5160 is the defacto "tough knife" steel and most folks seem to think Ranger knives do it right. I for one figured it would get to the flex test at least and hit around ~60 degrees before snapping the tip off.
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2005
- Messages
- 210
I wonder how much longer the Ranger will keep its edge compared to the cheap Chinese knife (CTD) Noss tested. I agree that a very soft steel will survive longer (see the CS machete and CTD tests) but for the expense of cutting performance.
Noss,
Thinking about softer but uber tough blade. I wonder if you plan on testing the Mission MPK? It is made of titanium so you can bounce on it all day, keeps edge less well than steel knives but has very effective serrrations.The titanium is practically 100% corrosion resistant thus MPK is particularly suitable for sea use. So how about underwater test 2?
What was unexpected was that it broke at that point in the test
Quite frankly, in my opinion, there are some problems in the expectations of some people here.
225 pounds is a lot of weight to put on a knife's handle. If you expect a knife to take that load bouncing up and down on it, then you're expecting quite a lot. Few knives will survive something like that, and fewer still will survive it and still have the ability to actually hold an edge worth a dang. Practically none of these knives that can survive that test are full flat ground...I'll say, though, that if Noss had done the flex test before the body weight test, you would've most likely seen some nice flexing from the RD7 before failure. I've seen some good flex from my RD9 while prying apart logs for firewood among other things.
I wonder how much longer the Ranger will keep its edge compared to the cheap Chinese knife (CTD) Noss tested. I agree that a very soft steel will survive longer (see the CS machete and CTD tests) but for the expense of cutting performance.
Noss,
Thinking about softer but uber tough blade. I wonder if you plan on testing the Mission MPK? It is made of titanium so you can bounce on it all day, keeps edge less well than steel knives but has very effective serrrations.The titanium is practically 100% corrosion resistant thus MPK is particularly suitable for sea use. So how about underwater test 2?
I would bet that the RD7 will hold its edge a whole metric crapload longer than the CTD tested by Noss-hog. In fact, I'll eat my hat if the RD7 doesn't soundly beat that CTD knife in edge-holding, both in abrasive cutting work and impact work. Unfortunately (well, not quite) I don't have a CTD knife to test that with, but then again, I've used a lot of cheapo knives that had been left soft and as a result were extremely tough but couldn't hold an edge worth anything. I'm sure someone around here has both one of those CTDs and a Ranger RD of some sort to test that for themselves. On the upside, the CTD should sharpen extremely easily, being so soft.
I will second the Mission MPK request! Should make a fun underwater test.
Noss said it came dull - I'm not surprised, as chopping type knives rather often do. But nothing's stopping a man from sharpening it - and then, the edge will last a lot longer than the edges on knives that were left too soft just to make them tough enough to bounce a large man on.
This may be true. However I addressed this point in an earlier post. If it is true, then it didn't, in fact, survive the earlier abuse as well as has been perceived. All the claims of it's toughness under hammering/batoning are wrong. It would mean that it was doomed damage prior to being stepped on by Noss.
No. Machetes are routinely tempered down to the range of Rc high 40s to low 50s. They cut well enough, and are trivially easy to sharpen, even when suffering serious damage.
This may be so. However, I don't think Noss ever even pretended to test such characteristics of knives. The last guy that did was banned.