BOSS1
Gold Member
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2008
- Messages
- 1,700
Greetings all,
So I traded a Busse for a new (well, 'unused' as technically I'm not the original purchaser) CRK Pacific...Alas, my conscious will be keeping me from filling out the blank registration card.
I've done a little searching here on the forum, and there's not an overwhelming amount of input on this knife here, so I thought I'd add a bit to the limited resource.
Pacific--as for the technical specs, check out CRK's webcite. All the stuff is there. Short version: 6 x .22" S30V Full Tang Construction, KG Gunkote'd, Micarta Handles, Spec Ops sheath.
My impressions: In the hand, the Pacific is very, very ergonomic and confortable in about any grip position. The micarta grips are well shaped, provide traction without being abrasive, and the knife overall is well balanced. It balances just about the guard, maybe slightly behind. The grooves/jimping are nicely functional. The blade is quite sharp out of the box with good edge geometry--you shouldn't need to have it convexed, etc. to cut well. The clip/swedge grinds lead to a very fine point which should allow for detailed/precision work. The fit and finish are befitting the CRK reputation. It is IMHO, 'right' sized, meaning in the 5-7 inch range that stikes a winning balance between size and utility--not too small, not too big
The sheath is the known Spec Ops unit. It appears quality constructed and it fits the Pacific well. The accessories pouch is large enought to accommodate probably a medium sized multi-tool and a firestarter and/or sharpening device. The color scheme matches the Pacific nicely.
I've used/carried knives, both professionally and recreationally for about 25 years. Unfortunately, I haven't had as many opportunities to do the whole 'survive in Siberia w/ your knife and a pack of gum for a week+' stuff (work/family obligations, etc), but I am an outdoor enthusiast--I do get out from time to time-- and live in one of the best places in the good ol' US of A for wilderness adventure. It is my plan in the not too distant future to increasingly take advantage of the opportunities that are literally within sight of my home.
With all the recent controversy over the CRK and the destruction tests, I'll throw my hat in the ring. The Pacific not my first/only CRK. Additionally, I own several other top brands. I've had the pleasure of dealing with CRK knives personally--IIRC I met Mr & Mrs. Reeve at a show several years ago. When I picked up an older version of the Project I, the Reeves were kind enough to send me info and a letter detailing the history of the knife.
OK, my $.02 cents:
I'm not a scientist and I don't work in a lab, so that kind of testing is pretty irrelevant to me unless its just for technical FYI--practical applications are much more informative. Basically, will the knife perform as intended by the average target user in the field.
The destruction tests--are they worthless? No, not completely. They do provide some insight in how knives will perform in a DESTRUCTION test. If you plan on destroying your knife, they show you pretty well how to do it. Are there corrolations between the destruction tests and real world applications? I'd say yes to a degree--if you abuse your blade BEYOND normal knife usage (you expect to have to cut through tubes, cinder blocks, etc) then the info will be benefical. But the flip side is the ability to survive certain types/amounts of abuse is not necessarily the end-all, be-all measure of performance for a CUTTING tool. I am sure there are many good knives out there that would 'fail miserably' in those tests because they're fine cutting tools, not sharpened prybars. There are lots of mangled misused tools out there. Chisels for screwdrivers and vice versa, wrenches for hammers, pliers for wrenches, etc etc etc. A professional will use the correct tool for the job when possible. I've never broken a knife, but I've never used a knife as a prybar. I get a prybar or something that will work better than a nice knife (which is a poor choice for prying). Bottom line, if you're going to use your precision torque wrench as a hammer, don't expect it to work too well afterwards (if at all). Back in the day, a GMC Syclone beat a Ferrari in a very specific test or two--that didn't hardly make the Ferrari crap.
I think others have said it, but I'd agree, the destruction tests would be greatly more informative if, prior to destroying the knife, they performed more real world tests. Cut more materials, more woodscraft stuff, food/game prep, use around a normal outdoor/camp setting--the stuff most of will typically encounter. Then if they want to start pounding on it with sledge hammers, go ahead. Personally, that doesn't do much for me, as I don't hit knives with sledges (they don't fit in my pack to well either).
To me it boils down to this. CRK has been making knives for about three decades. I'm willing to bet they've served in some of the harshest conditions/environments to be had. They build knives designed to honor and wind up in the hands of military folks. They've collaborated with one of the best custom makers out there (Harsey). If they were suffering catestrophic failures frequently, they wouldn't have the reputation they do. I'd be willing to bet Reeve wants to put out the best products he can considering those good folks that use his blades, and if they were as fragile and substandard as is alleged, he'd improve them. A couple Youtube videos showing abusing knives with sledgehammers doesn't take that history of performance away.
Put yourself in any reputable makers shoes--you've been making knives for decades, with a fraction of a percent failing, probably when pushed beyond use into abuse, and some character puts a video out destroying a couple of your knives. What, you gonna go 'Hey, he broke two my knives with a sledge, lets stop everything we've done sucessfully for 25+ years and completely change it.' Probably not. If you make a good product, you continue making a good product, and possible alter/improve it if necessary.
So in conclusion--if you want a knife that can take the ultramaximum amount of destructive abuse, then maybe CRK shouldn't be your first choice. Abuse tolerance doesn't necessarily make them the better overall performers in real world field conditions however. But if you use a knife as a knife, then CRK is a very, very solid choice.
BOSS
So I traded a Busse for a new (well, 'unused' as technically I'm not the original purchaser) CRK Pacific...Alas, my conscious will be keeping me from filling out the blank registration card.
I've done a little searching here on the forum, and there's not an overwhelming amount of input on this knife here, so I thought I'd add a bit to the limited resource.
Pacific--as for the technical specs, check out CRK's webcite. All the stuff is there. Short version: 6 x .22" S30V Full Tang Construction, KG Gunkote'd, Micarta Handles, Spec Ops sheath.
My impressions: In the hand, the Pacific is very, very ergonomic and confortable in about any grip position. The micarta grips are well shaped, provide traction without being abrasive, and the knife overall is well balanced. It balances just about the guard, maybe slightly behind. The grooves/jimping are nicely functional. The blade is quite sharp out of the box with good edge geometry--you shouldn't need to have it convexed, etc. to cut well. The clip/swedge grinds lead to a very fine point which should allow for detailed/precision work. The fit and finish are befitting the CRK reputation. It is IMHO, 'right' sized, meaning in the 5-7 inch range that stikes a winning balance between size and utility--not too small, not too big
The sheath is the known Spec Ops unit. It appears quality constructed and it fits the Pacific well. The accessories pouch is large enought to accommodate probably a medium sized multi-tool and a firestarter and/or sharpening device. The color scheme matches the Pacific nicely.
I've used/carried knives, both professionally and recreationally for about 25 years. Unfortunately, I haven't had as many opportunities to do the whole 'survive in Siberia w/ your knife and a pack of gum for a week+' stuff (work/family obligations, etc), but I am an outdoor enthusiast--I do get out from time to time-- and live in one of the best places in the good ol' US of A for wilderness adventure. It is my plan in the not too distant future to increasingly take advantage of the opportunities that are literally within sight of my home.
With all the recent controversy over the CRK and the destruction tests, I'll throw my hat in the ring. The Pacific not my first/only CRK. Additionally, I own several other top brands. I've had the pleasure of dealing with CRK knives personally--IIRC I met Mr & Mrs. Reeve at a show several years ago. When I picked up an older version of the Project I, the Reeves were kind enough to send me info and a letter detailing the history of the knife.
OK, my $.02 cents:
I'm not a scientist and I don't work in a lab, so that kind of testing is pretty irrelevant to me unless its just for technical FYI--practical applications are much more informative. Basically, will the knife perform as intended by the average target user in the field.
The destruction tests--are they worthless? No, not completely. They do provide some insight in how knives will perform in a DESTRUCTION test. If you plan on destroying your knife, they show you pretty well how to do it. Are there corrolations between the destruction tests and real world applications? I'd say yes to a degree--if you abuse your blade BEYOND normal knife usage (you expect to have to cut through tubes, cinder blocks, etc) then the info will be benefical. But the flip side is the ability to survive certain types/amounts of abuse is not necessarily the end-all, be-all measure of performance for a CUTTING tool. I am sure there are many good knives out there that would 'fail miserably' in those tests because they're fine cutting tools, not sharpened prybars. There are lots of mangled misused tools out there. Chisels for screwdrivers and vice versa, wrenches for hammers, pliers for wrenches, etc etc etc. A professional will use the correct tool for the job when possible. I've never broken a knife, but I've never used a knife as a prybar. I get a prybar or something that will work better than a nice knife (which is a poor choice for prying). Bottom line, if you're going to use your precision torque wrench as a hammer, don't expect it to work too well afterwards (if at all). Back in the day, a GMC Syclone beat a Ferrari in a very specific test or two--that didn't hardly make the Ferrari crap.
I think others have said it, but I'd agree, the destruction tests would be greatly more informative if, prior to destroying the knife, they performed more real world tests. Cut more materials, more woodscraft stuff, food/game prep, use around a normal outdoor/camp setting--the stuff most of will typically encounter. Then if they want to start pounding on it with sledge hammers, go ahead. Personally, that doesn't do much for me, as I don't hit knives with sledges (they don't fit in my pack to well either).
To me it boils down to this. CRK has been making knives for about three decades. I'm willing to bet they've served in some of the harshest conditions/environments to be had. They build knives designed to honor and wind up in the hands of military folks. They've collaborated with one of the best custom makers out there (Harsey). If they were suffering catestrophic failures frequently, they wouldn't have the reputation they do. I'd be willing to bet Reeve wants to put out the best products he can considering those good folks that use his blades, and if they were as fragile and substandard as is alleged, he'd improve them. A couple Youtube videos showing abusing knives with sledgehammers doesn't take that history of performance away.
Put yourself in any reputable makers shoes--you've been making knives for decades, with a fraction of a percent failing, probably when pushed beyond use into abuse, and some character puts a video out destroying a couple of your knives. What, you gonna go 'Hey, he broke two my knives with a sledge, lets stop everything we've done sucessfully for 25+ years and completely change it.' Probably not. If you make a good product, you continue making a good product, and possible alter/improve it if necessary.
So in conclusion--if you want a knife that can take the ultramaximum amount of destructive abuse, then maybe CRK shouldn't be your first choice. Abuse tolerance doesn't necessarily make them the better overall performers in real world field conditions however. But if you use a knife as a knife, then CRK is a very, very solid choice.
BOSS
Last edited:
:thumbup:
