Alright, so here's the deal.
I have always heard about Emerson knives and how awesome/tough/tactical/operator they are. When I was younger, and didn't have expensive knives I would look through Mr. Emerson's website and lust over his blades. I always thought they were interesting, particularly with the supposed connection to our SF brethren, and the fact that the 'wave shaped feature' originally came from Emerson (the story Emerson tells on how this came about is suspect, but whatever).
Time wore on, I got out of college, started my career, etc., and as I was making more money, I eventually bought an Emerson blade. I bought a CQC-8, because I like the design, and it doesn't have a tanto or a wonky recurve. Based on the reputation and marketing, I expected it to be a super-tough knife. What I found was less than impressive.
Basically, I don't see anything about this knife to convince me that it is any tougher than my Spyderco Military, BM Rift, Brous T-4, ZT0560, or my Microtech DOC. On top of that, the finish is nowhere near the level of these other knives, and it came with an off center blade and gritty action, and as it has worn in, it has developed significant lock-rock. If I were forced to use one of these knives as a weapon, I certainly wouldn't choose the Emerson. However, I do love the look and feel of the CQC-8. Just seems poorly executed.
So this brings us to the questions: Why are Emerson knives regarded as such tough, hard-use blades? Is mine an anomaly, and the others are all just that much better? Do any of you truly feel that they are tougher than ZT, Cold Steel, Brous, Microtech, etc?
One final note - I am a Marine, and I do use my knives in the field, so I'm not just cutting tape and whining that my knife isn't hard-use. I actually thump them pretty good.
I have always heard about Emerson knives and how awesome/tough/tactical/operator they are. When I was younger, and didn't have expensive knives I would look through Mr. Emerson's website and lust over his blades. I always thought they were interesting, particularly with the supposed connection to our SF brethren, and the fact that the 'wave shaped feature' originally came from Emerson (the story Emerson tells on how this came about is suspect, but whatever).
Time wore on, I got out of college, started my career, etc., and as I was making more money, I eventually bought an Emerson blade. I bought a CQC-8, because I like the design, and it doesn't have a tanto or a wonky recurve. Based on the reputation and marketing, I expected it to be a super-tough knife. What I found was less than impressive.
Basically, I don't see anything about this knife to convince me that it is any tougher than my Spyderco Military, BM Rift, Brous T-4, ZT0560, or my Microtech DOC. On top of that, the finish is nowhere near the level of these other knives, and it came with an off center blade and gritty action, and as it has worn in, it has developed significant lock-rock. If I were forced to use one of these knives as a weapon, I certainly wouldn't choose the Emerson. However, I do love the look and feel of the CQC-8. Just seems poorly executed.
So this brings us to the questions: Why are Emerson knives regarded as such tough, hard-use blades? Is mine an anomaly, and the others are all just that much better? Do any of you truly feel that they are tougher than ZT, Cold Steel, Brous, Microtech, etc?
One final note - I am a Marine, and I do use my knives in the field, so I'm not just cutting tape and whining that my knife isn't hard-use. I actually thump them pretty good.
