Ozark Trails D2 Review

I would not necessarily go into this level of detail for a $10 knife, but that is me. I know that there are folks out there who live for the minute details, but someone who buys this budget knife doesn’t usually care.

I also would not spend so much time on measurements, just give the sizes overall length, blade length, width, thickness, weight, that you have already measured. Maybe show a graphic?

Up tempo, up tempo, up tempo!! Look at the Project Farm guy.

Here is the knife, compare it to others in the category, how does it perform, do you like it. Is it worth the price?
 
Last edited:
Daniel said:
I would not necessarily go into this level of detail for a $10 knife, but that is me. It know that there are folks out there who live for the minute details, but someone who buys this budget knife doesn’t usually care.

I also would not spend so much time on measurements, just give the sizes overall length, blade length, width, thickness, weight, that you have already measured. Maybe show a graphic?

Up tempo, up tempo, up tempo!! Look at the Project Farm guy.

Here is the knife, compare it to others in the category, how does it perform, do you like it. Is it worth the price?
Click to expand...
Thank you
 

My general thoughts are these:

Good on you for providing a review for a knife most non-knife people will likely see, some of whom will just as likely purchase, and some of whom may want more information before purchasing. But the long video hides useful information behind boring presentation.

Good reviews discuss the item in question and its own merits, but also contextualizes it against its intended use as well as its competitors. Why is context necessary? Context provides audiences with reasons to understand whether or not something is good or useful, and for what intended purpose. Putting that another way: how is this thing that is unknown to me (a new product) comparable to something I do know? The more thoroughly those things are explained, the better understanding the audience will achieve, and the more capably they will be able to judge the new thing and whether or not it is any good, or right for them. This review leaves some of that out.

My more specific thoughts are these:

The knife reviewed isn’t mentioned until about 50 seconds into the video. I think you likely get about ten seconds (at the most) to set that hook before losing your audience.

Although the back story about the “meme” knife is mildly interesting, providing that information as a voiceover while the video shows the knife -- or some of those memes -- would vastly improve things. People look at video reviews to see the product first, and to get useful information second. (Well, hopefully both at the same time.)

The narrative summary of purchasing problems isn’t interesting as is because it’s clinical, so it could be cut without loss. If it’s to be included, humor, irony, or, at the very least, pictures of the knife and its various features might keep viewers watching.

It’s not until about 4:35 into the video before the knife is ever shown. Few viewers will last this long. Pictures! Pictures! Pictures! rule visual media.

A few enumerated details:

1. The inset photos comparing two versions of the same knife which do not show the differences in clip placement options, D2 indicator and other markings on the blade, are far too small to be useful. Larger images, side by side, for instance -- whether stills or video -- would greatly improve your discussion of these features and differences.

2. Cut tests are not shown (catalogue paper cuts, half-inch manilla rope cuts, grinding off finish, hardness file testing). Sure, showing too much of this can be tedious and boring, but showing some of it, as well as providing commentary about that experience, particularly when contextualized, would help a lot.

3. You show and mention sharpness testing with a device, mention numbers, but do not contextualize those numbers for your audience who will likely not know what number, for instance, represents decent sharpness -- or how that is defined -- and how the knives compare to that “decent sharpness” number, or other factory knives, for that matter.

4. Showing thickness-behind-edge measuring takes time onscreen (making it ripe for omission or reduction) and is less interesting than the results. Explain why this matters by contextualizing it for viewers. For example, what is a good slicey thickness? What makes for a more robust edge? Where does this knife fall within that spectrum? How does this knife compare to, say, Benchmade’s Bugout, or other likely competitors?

5. Measuring the pressure needed to actuate the axis-type lock is a good idea, but once again, the results are more interesting than showing that footage yet it lacks context. How does this compare to any other axis-type lock? Or, say, any other type of lock, for that matter?

6. Camerawork could be improved. Maybe use a two camera setup for some shots to reduce setup time and to provide different camera angles and closeups, or at least move the one you use to get those different shots.

7. Ease-of-sharpening and hardness commentary provides one to ten rating, but again lacks context.

8. Commentary doesn’t explain or contextualize the reviewed knife’s intended purpose, or how good it's likely to be at that.

Summary:

Show, don’t tell. And if you’re telling, do that while showing good, clear pictures or video.

You’ve included some interesting ideas I’ve not seen before, like the, “will it pop open if dropped while closed” test, and the, “will the blade get dinged up if dropped while open” test, both of which I’ve experienced in real life (yes, Boker’s Kalashnikov 74 will pop open if dropped, and from way less than four feet, but Microtech’s Cypher will not). And speaking of those two knives, I’m curious what your pressure-to-activate-the-lock test would show on them because, (a) I’ve never seen anyone test that before, and (b) the Boker is nothing compared to the callous-inducing Microtech. I imagine this measurement, alone, could produce an interesting array of data on many different knives.

Those things said, good luck with your channel, have fun, and take these comments as appreciation of your effort.
 
Weiss said:

My general thoughts are these:

Good on you for providing a review for a knife most non-knife people will likely see, some of whom will just as likely purchase, and some of whom may want more information before purchasing. But the long video hides useful information behind boring presentation.

Good reviews discuss the item in question and its own merits, but also contextualizes it against its intended use as well as its competitors. Why is context necessary? Context provides audiences with reasons to understand whether or not something is good or useful, and for what intended purpose. Putting that another way: how is this thing that is unknown to me (a new product) comparable to something I do know? The more thoroughly those things are explained, the better understanding the audience will achieve, and the more capably they will be able to judge the new thing and whether or not it is any good, or right for them. This review leaves some of that out.

My more specific thoughts are these:

The knife reviewed isn’t mentioned until about 50 seconds into the video. I think you likely get about ten seconds (at the most) to set that hook before losing your audience.

Although the back story about the “meme” knife is mildly interesting, providing that information as a voiceover while the video shows the knife -- or some of those memes -- would vastly improve things. People look at video reviews to see the product first, and to get useful information second. (Well, hopefully both at the same time.)

The narrative summary of purchasing problems isn’t interesting as is because it’s clinical, so it could be cut without loss. If it’s to be included, humor, irony, or, at the very least, pictures of the knife and its various features might keep viewers watching.

It’s not until about 4:35 into the video before the knife is ever shown. Few viewers will last this long. Pictures! Pictures! Pictures! rule visual media.

A few enumerated details:

1. The inset photos comparing two versions of the same knife which do not show the differences in clip placement options, D2 indicator and other markings on the blade, are far too small to be useful. Larger images, side by side, for instance -- whether stills or video -- would greatly improve your discussion of these features and differences.

2. Cut tests are not shown (catalogue paper cuts, half-inch manilla rope cuts, grinding off finish, hardness file testing). Sure, showing too much of this can be tedious and boring, but showing some of it, as well as providing commentary about that experience, particularly when contextualized, would help a lot.

3. You show and mention sharpness testing with a device, mention numbers, but do not contextualize those numbers for your audience who will likely not know what number, for instance, represents decent sharpness -- or how that is defined -- and how the knives compare to that “decent sharpness” number, or other factory knives, for that matter.

4. Showing thickness-behind-edge measuring takes time onscreen (making it ripe for omission or reduction) and is less interesting than the results. Explain why this matters by contextualizing it for viewers. For example, what is a good slicey thickness? What makes for a more robust edge? Where does this knife fall within that spectrum? How does this knife compare to, say, Benchmade’s Bugout, or other likely competitors?

5. Measuring the pressure needed to actuate the axis-type lock is a good idea, but once again, the results are more interesting than showing that footage yet it lacks context. How does this compare to any other axis-type lock? Or, say, any other type of lock, for that matter?

6. Camerawork could be improved. Maybe use a two camera setup for some shots to reduce setup time and to provide different camera angles and closeups, or at least move the one you use to get those different shots.

7. Ease-of-sharpening and hardness commentary provides one to ten rating, but again lacks context.

8. Commentary doesn’t explain or contextualize the reviewed knife’s intended purpose, or how good it's likely to be at that.

Summary:

Show, don’t tell. And if you’re telling, do that while showing good, clear pictures or video.

You’ve included some interesting ideas I’ve not seen before, like the, “will it pop open if dropped while closed” test, and the, “will the blade get dinged up if dropped while open” test, both of which I’ve experienced in real life (yes, Boker’s Kalashnikov 74 will pop open if dropped, and from way less than four feet, but Microtech’s Cypher will not). And speaking of those two knives, I’m curious what your pressure-to-activate-the-lock test would show on them because, (a) I’ve never seen anyone test that before, and (b) the Boker is nothing compared to the callous-inducing Microtech. I imagine this measurement, alone, could produce an interesting array of data on many different knives.

Those things said, good luck with your channel, have fun, and take these comments as appreciation of your effort.
Click to expand...
You have a lot of good points. Thank you for taking the time to respond.
 
I lile the Ozark Trails stuff. Got one in the tackle box, boat, camper and clipped to my visor.
Good for doing things I don't want to use my carry knives for. If I chip an OT knife prying or something then oh well, it was $8.
 
SimplyMinded said:
I lile the Ozark Trails stuff. Got one in the tackle box, boat, camper and clipped to my visor.
Good for doing things I don't want to use my carry knives for. If I chip an OT knife prying or something then oh well, it was $8.
Click to expand...
This ^^^. I’ve got several nice knives, CRK, Demko, Medfords to name some but I carry an Ozark D2 most of the time because I won’t hesitate to use it for possible “edge damaging” kind of cutting like I would one of my more expensive knives. I did some ocean fishing from a pier a few weeks ago and guess which knife I took to cut up my bait, the Ozark. If I accidentally knocked my knife into the ocean I sure didn’t want it to be something expensive.
 
vwb563 said:
This ^^^. I’ve got several nice knives, CRK, Demko, Medfords to name some but I carry an Ozark D2 most of the time because I won’t hesitate to use it for possible “edge damaging” kind of cutting like I would one of my more expensive knives. I did some ocean fishing from a pier a few weeks ago and guess which knife I took to cut up my bait, the Ozark. If I accidentally knocked my knife into the ocean I sure didn’t want it to be something expensive.
Click to expand...

I'm with you on this. Although I did pick up one of the OT bugout clones just to see what the fuss is about, and was surprised that, despite the poor fit & finish, the blade performed much better than expected, I still prefer a good old Opinel for such uses. Proven cutting performance on a budget.
 
SimplyMinded said:
I lile the Ozark Trails stuff. Got one in the tackle box, boat, camper and clipped to my visor.
Good for doing things I don't want to use my carry knives for. If I chip an OT knife prying or something then oh well, it was $8.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if they own the brand also but Outdoor Products is remarkably similar and is very high quality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top