Only Bark river passed knife tests !!!

asfried2 said:
Actually, BRKT did publish the results. Check out the original post.
Click to expand...

Reading is indeed a helpful skill in online communication. I stated very clearly that a post on an internet forum is NOT a publication in my opinion, especially not when the forum is vaguely knife related at best. Not even do you seem to have trouble reading my post, you also seem to have trouble identifying on what webpage you are on. Mike "published the results" on "JerzeeDevil Forums > Voodoo Economics > The Bizarre Bazaar". Yeah, that would be the place where I'd publish my serious "results", on the "Bizarre Bazaar" especially when I would want to hype my knife products :rolleyes:. And even in that post Mike didn't publish any "results" per se.

Please take the time and actually read my posts before you quote me.
 
I think the problem is, we're all looking for different information here. The story starts with BRK&T enthusiasts, happy that their knife looked good to people who also need a tough outdoor tool. Then others looked in -- were invited to look in -- and expected somethiong more technical than a celebration.

Not right to publish results. The test was for specific use under specific circumstances and projected circumstances, not to evaluate sharpness, toughness, maintenance, or whatever, but the best overall mix out of a bunch of knives they thought might do it AND they could afford. Of course Busse, and some other high-end competitors, would have been a top contender, but it may have been priced out of their bracket.

To say the test or the report was somehow lacking misses the point, which is that BRK&T got input they valued on the Gameskeeper, and help in developing the Bravo-1, which will be another top seller, AND they got a contract which will more than justify developing that new model.

I apologize if I sounded like I was snapping at anyone. These discussions can get competitive themselves. :)
 
Esav Benyamin said:
Broos, reading skills are an asset in online communication.

They tested them as individuals working together, not under a government/Marine Corps procurement program. They were originally looking for whatever knives they felt their people could rely on. Of the knives they tested, only one "survived", only one qualified.
Click to expand...

OK, I concede a point made in jest about a knife test announced by a knife manufacturer, testing unknown knives using unknown methods by just a group of guys, who all happen to be marines, and all work for the government. Good grief.

If less emphasis was put on the unknown "test" I don't think anyone would object, and everyone could just appreciate the knife for the fine knife it is instead of arguing over a test no one knows much about. I just blanche when I see the hype "and only one survived", when we all know good and well that there are many fine knives available that can compare to BRKT. And that is not a slam on them.
 
Cliff, those questions are still hanging over your head when do we get the answers?
 
Well for one, I certainly took a look at the Bravo-1 after reading the original post and before this all became very interesting. So I guess hype or no hype, it still tweaked my interest and had me looking at Bark River products where I wouldn't otherwise. For some reason I had it in my mind that BR's were all small knives. Now I've been educated and have become more familiar with their product line. For the record I don't feel as though I've been duped or mislead into exploring this product line. Given the public behaviour of a couple of other popular companies in the forums staking claims about uses of their tactical lines, it seems to me that the BR post was very tame and certainly doesn't smack of gorilla marketing.

Cliff seems to be pre-occupied with the objectiveness of the test alluded to in the original post, while others seem to be pre-occupied trying to discredit Cliff. Personally, I really like Cliff's website and knife reviews and tend to respect his opinion when it comes to describing the knives he has experience with. I'd be interested in reading Cliff's actual evaluation of the bravo-1 if he gets around to it. Having read the wide number or reviews he's performed so far I somehow don't buy that he has an agenda against a given knife company. That said, I think attacking a test that nobody knows anything about is not very fruitful. Just another scientist's (whose field has nothing to do with knives or metallurgy) opinion...
 
What ever,I fall for things like this all the time.I had to have a SOG Seal 2000 just after they did the Gov. test and it was 2 or 3 years later that somebody told me it was a POS. I was really hurt.Can you imagine all that time I thought I had the best and then found out I had been lied too? Am I gullible or what? Last night after I read this thread I bought I bought a Bark River Bravo-1.I hope I don't get hurt again.
 
kgd said:
Well for one, I certainly took a look at the Bravo-1 after reading the original post and before this all became very interesting. So I guess hype or no hype, it still tweaked my interest and had me looking at Bark River products where I wouldn't otherwise. For some reason I had it in my mind that BR's were all small knives. Now I've been educated and have become more familiar with their product line.
Click to expand...

I'm a big fan of Barkies, and have a small collection, from the large Rogue bowie to the tiny Micro Slither. They have all gotten real use and some quite a bit, and still in regular service.

So I am happy to see people getting acquainted with Bark River. I strongly suggest looking through the whole range of what's available, not just the currently popular offerings.

For example, the Bravo-1 is being sold as a heavy-duty bushcraft knife, but the Fox River is a great light-weight bushcraft knife, probably more useful to the occasional civilian hiker and camper. And neither of them could replace the Highland Special for me.

Yes, I guess this is advertising. I don't own stock in the company, though. I'm just very pleased with all the knives I've gotten from them.
 
HoB said:
Reading is indeed a helpful skill in online communication. I stated very clearly that a post on an internet forum is NOT a publication in my opinion, especially not when the forum is vaguely knife related at best. Not even do you seem to have trouble reading my post, you also seem to have trouble identifying on what webpage you are on. Mike "published the results" on "JerzeeDevil Forums > Voodoo Economics > The Bizarre Bazaar". Yeah, that would be the place where I'd publish my serious "results", on the "Bizarre Bazaar" especially when I would want to hype my knife products :rolleyes:. And even in that post Mike didn't publish any "results" per se.

Please take the time and actually read my posts before you quote me.
Click to expand...

No need for that sort of a post, dude.

Responding to your meaning, not your insulting behavior, I will try to be more explicit. Whatever your opinion, what Mike Steward did was publication. Be it a magazine, the radio, newspaper, or just standing on a soap box, he made the situation public.

And you can quote me on that.
 
speed01 said:
This is the most astounding thread I've read in quite a while. Some Force Recon Marines buy a bunch of knives, use them the way they use knives, and decide on the one they like the best, which apparently included "surviving" what they put it through (can you imagine?!), and ask BRKT to make some more for them...that's really all that has happened. Mike at BRKT tells some of his friends about it, and makes the same knife available, through nothing more than word-of-mouth--basically a fancy chat-room for anyone interested.

This is the most un-controversial series of events I can think of; somewhere, there is a bunch of Force Recon Marines laughing at people who argue about knives on the internet.
Click to expand...

well said.....
 
asfried2 said:
No need for that sort of a post, dude.

Responding to your meaning, not your insulting behavior, I will try to be more explicit. Whatever your opinion, what Mike Steward did was publication. Be it a magazine, the radio, newspaper, or just standing on a soap box, he made the situation public.

And you can quote me on that.
Click to expand...

When you misquote me there is absolutely the need for this sort of post, but I will refrain from calling you a dude and I'd appreciate it if you would do the same other than in jest.

And I assume you wanted to say that "your opinion" is that Mike Steward "published" something. I doubt that you are the authority to decide what "published" means so I am most certainly not going to quote you on your opinion. But since I am the authority neither, I have no problem with you disagreeing with me. However, I want to point out that your view of things prevents any business owner from expressing any personal story or opinion on any public forum without it being view as "published" which in turn will very likely make people like Mike Steward be very wary of what he says even casually on the forums, which in effect will greatly reduced the information flow from the manufactures to the knifenuts, which is hardly in our interest.

I strongly believe that even a representative of a company should be able to share a personal success story on a forum of his choice, and the post in question was nothing but, without it being construed as being "in print" or company propaganda.

On a side note: Many accademic institutions begin to adopt the policy of rejecting *any* internet material as citable reference as long it is not from a directly verifiable source such as a company webpage or the online subscription of a printed journal, newspaper etc. Because these days, anybody can write anything on the internet, whether it be in a blog, myspace site, a forum etc. It is probably much more correct to view a forum post as a form of verbal communication because most of us don't weigh their words when they post (I know that most times I don't) as well as when preparing a printed document. Of course, that doesn't absolve you from lying on a forum for example, and a forum has a searchable collective memory, but it hardly makes a post published material. It seems to be a not uncommon delusion to think that any webpage is published material.

By its very definition a verbal communication is not published material as long as it is not a *formal* announcement. If you don't believe me, try the Webster or the Oxford Dictionary.

I think speed01 said it best, the turn that this thread has taken makes me shake my head in disbelieve. Where have we gotten to that some people seem to think that other people are not entitled to carry on a casual internet conversation without delivering "proof" and detailed information on any statement they make. Makes me quite mad actually, because in particular this forum has I think suffered because of it. THESE ARE INTERNET FORUMS, NOT THE NEW YORK TIMES NOR SCIENCE MAGAZINE!
 
I don't know about the US but here in Canada an internet site is "published". It is still before the courts how this will actually work when people are being sued for libel or slander.
In Canada you have two years to sue for libel and slander after something is published (or you become aware of it). With a book or magazine article it is easy to determine the date however the courts have yet to decide if the "published date" was when the information was first posted or when the information was last access by a reader.

I think this arguement is way overblown here however the information was posted by a company official that was acting as a company official, so at least here in Canada (and I believe the US as well) this would clearly been seen as published.
I am not part of that site however I did read the thread and it is quite clear that the original anouncement was done by someone who was acting as an agent for the company.
 
For the record, I could care less how the tests were done, and if the process was ever released at all.
A group of people needed a knife, they tested a bunch of different knives and bought the ones they liked.
They also bought a knife made by a known maker of high quality knives, good on them
 
APPROVED.jpg



Cliffy,

Time to give your incoherent ramblings a rest.
 
znapschatz said:
Adopting the 9 mm round had nothing to do with "humane," nor the UN. It was for the purpose of standardizing NATO military ammunition and 9 mm was almost universal pistol fodder for the other NATO members. AFAIK, the only regulations about ammunition was from international treaties, long before the UN was formed, that specify metal jacketing for bullets. The US is a signatory to that. Otherwise, the US armed forces are free to slaughter any designated enemy with whatever caliber they like. One reason that 45 caliber has been well regarded is that it has plenty of punch despite lack of expansion in full metal jacket rounds, a drawback with 9 mm, which is substantially more effective with hollow point ammo.

Several elite units prefer 45s, and don't have to be concerned about law suits because of it.
Click to expand...

That makes a lot of sense, thanks for clearing that up for me. I was told it was a mostly political change.
 
HoB said:
When you misquote me there is absolutely the need for this sort of post, but I will refrain from calling you a dude and I'd appreciate it if you would do the same other than in jest.

And I assume you wanted to say that "your opinion" is that Mike Steward "published" something. I doubt that you are the authority to decide what "published" means so I am most certainly not going to quote you on your opinion. But since I am the authority neither, I have no problem with you disagreeing with me. However, I want to point out that your view of things prevents any business owner from expressing any personal story or opinion on any public forum without it being view as "published" which in turn will very likely make people like Mike Steward be very wary of what he says even casually on the forums, which in effect will greatly reduced the information flow from the manufactures to the knifenuts, which is hardly in our interest.

I strongly believe that even a representative of a company should be able to share a personal success story on a forum of his choice, and the post in question was nothing but, without it being construed as being "in print" or company propaganda.

On a side note: Many accademic institutions begin to adopt the policy of rejecting *any* internet material as citable reference as long it is not from a directly verifiable source such as a company webpage or the online subscription of a printed journal, newspaper etc. Because these days, anybody can write anything on the internet, whether it be in a blog, myspace site, a forum etc. It is probably much more correct to view a forum post as a form of verbal communication because most of us don't weigh their words when they post (I know that most times I don't) as well as when preparing a printed document. Of course, that doesn't absolve you from lying on a forum for example, and a forum has a searchable collective memory, but it hardly makes a post published material. It seems to be a not uncommon delusion to think that any webpage is published material.

By its very definition a verbal communication is not published material as long as it is not a *formal* announcement. If you don't believe me, try the Webster or the Oxford Dictionary.

I think speed01 said it best, the turn that this thread has taken makes me shake my head in disbelieve. Where have we gotten to that some people seem to think that other people are not entitled to carry on a casual internet conversation without delivering "proof" and detailed information on any statement they make. Makes me quite mad actually, because in particular this forum has I think suffered because of it. THESE ARE INTERNET FORUMS, NOT THE NEW YORK TIMES NOR SCIENCE MAGAZINE!
Click to expand...

Hob, you can't restrict the definitions of a word to what is written to the Webster and Oxford dictionary.

You're defeating your own argument by demanding the original, literal, and only the original literal definition of a word (Published) then going on to say people are entitled to a casual internet "entitled to carry on a casual internet conversation without delivering "proof" and detailed information on any statement they make."

Pick one, you can't have both!

I for one, happen to like Bark River. I own two of their knives, and will probably own more. But, from a consumer point of view, it's always irritating to hear broad, blanket statements about products, with large amounts of information left out.

For instance, the Cingular commercials that proclaim they have the "Fewest dropped calls." They leave out where or how they have fewer dropped calls, and have refused to make their 'independent research studies' public. (http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2006/04/23/the_fewest_dropped_calls/?page=2)

It's just frustrating as a consumer. I understand why a military choice of tools isn't a double-blind scientific study or anything, but you can't blame people for wanting to know all the details of an 'unusual' claim.
 
Boats said:
I'd be willing to bet that BRKTs with full or mostly convex grinds kick some serious tail when it comes to field spreading cheese whiz or MRE peanut butter. The curvature of the grind almost assures an easy and uniform flow of spread over a given cracker area compared to the difficulty in maintaining a consistent angle of attack for a flat ground blade when it comes to this task.:p

That the Bravo-1 also appears to be a very credible non-mega chopper bush knife is just a bonus.;)

Just how would one measure the relative performance of knives for the smearing of ductile food products?
Click to expand...

Ah! This would also explain their preference for uncoated knives. Very hard to clean peanut butter or cheese whiz out of those little wrinkles while in the field. -Thanks Boats
 
Ender: I fail to see the contradiction in my argument? My argument was that a post on an internet forum is in most cases not a public announcement, and therefore is hardly to be taken as something published. That follows one meaning given Webster and Oxford dictionary. The other meanings are even more restrictive and it should be very clear that according the the other possible meanings of the word an internet post is not a published document. I may not be right, but I am pretty sure I am selfconsistent in my argument. I also think that clamoring for proof and documentation at every turn in a casual conversation impedes the conversation, but that is just me. And personally I don't pay enough attention to advertisments to be frustated by unsupported claims (and since I am a Cingular customer I have first hand experiences of how bogus that claim really is ;) ).
 
Wow. So the Bark River Knife & Tool knife outperformed the other knives in what would have been a very complete test of knife performance and durability. More importantly a test by men who know a knife as a tool, and not some sort anthropomorphized thing to be a fan of, like some kind of a religion. Way too much 'I'd rather push a Chevy than drive a Ford' type silliness on these various knife forums. I mean just look at this thread for instance, i bet MY brand of knife wasn't in that group or IT would have won, nonsense like that. Is a knife maker or knife company a religion or political party to be so personally associated with and defended? I bet the Marines picked quality knives to test, and were the list known, it would speak very highly of the knife that simply outperformed the others.

That must be a great knife that Gameskeeper, as i have heard so many in so many different places singing it's praises.

I bet the modified Bravo-1 version would be one of the best knives out there. What a strange thing this thread is with all the 'experts' weighing in and arguing about stuff in rather adolescent ways, and for no other reason than to try and appear knowledgeable and important.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top