Realistic Knife Testing

H

Hansen

BANNED
Joined
May 17, 1999
Messages
177
Am I alone in thinking that knives should be realistically evaluated and tested? Doesn't it make sense to test a knife actually using it in a real world environment?

I believe a blade should be tested to see how it performs doing what it was designed to do. If a blade was designed to be used in a salt water environment, such as scuba diving, then that's where it should be tested.

If a blade was designed to be a outdoor survival blade, then I would think that the only reliable test would be to take it to the woods for a few days,weeks, or months, and use it to make shelter, clean game, whittle fuzz sticks and trap triggers, filet fish, cut leather & rope, etc. And then report how well it did chopping, etc.

To drop a blade point down on concrete, or shoot the handle with a rifle, drop it in a tub full of something corrosive, or see what it would take to destroy it, are tests that simple don't make much sense to me.

I guess some folks are curious to see just what it would take to bend or break a blade, or how many boards or rope it could chop or cut through, and still shave, but as for me, I shave with a razor.

To me unrealistic testing, constitutes knife abuse, and isn't worth even paying attention to.

Romans 6:23
 
Well, I'll certainly agree with you!
Cut a little cardboard, maybe some small limbs from trees, a plastic bottle, rope, skin the covering off electrical wire, make a pile of wood shavings,etc.
You know, things the knife was meant for.
Do normal things for a week, then tell us how the blade and handle hold up, how sharp it is, what scratches easy and so on.
 
That is why my tests do just that.

The reason for the drop test is simple. Haven't you ever droped a knife? Broke a tip?

The 7" Knife test used the knives in real world situations.

The reason a 2X4 is used is so we have a standard to go by. If I went out and cut limbs off a tree with each knife it would then be argued that each limb was different, had different density and so forth.

Watch for my future tests and see if I don't follow the real world testing scenarios.

I am getting a Diving knife to test made by Kit Carson out of Talonite. Should be fun and I will test several knives at the same time.

Here is what I need from you guys. The tests will be in our on-line magazine. You will need to get a subscription to help us pay for all of this
wink.gif


And just like my last test I will tell it like it is and take any heat.

It is how we handle the heat which tells of our character and integrity.

------------------
Best Regards,
Mike Turber
BladeForums Site Owner and Administrator
Do it! Do it right! Do it right NOW!
www.wowinc.com
www.gigandknives.com
www.macedirect.com
www.dragon-forge.com
The above sites are pure shamless plugs!
 
You pegged it Hansen! I have never understood the so called tests that knives are put through. Give me any blade on the planet and I gaurentee you I can destroy it. Thats not a test to me. Excellent point Hansen! Take care! Michael

------------------
"Always think of your fellow knife makers as partners in the search for the perfect blade, not as people trying to compete with you and your work!"
 
It seems pretty obvious that the thicker, heavier blades will out chop the thinner and / or smaller blades. I once read of a Gurkha chopping through a 2 x 4 board in 4 blows with his Kukri! Of course a quality Kukri will out chop most blades, since they were designed to primarily chop.

It also is pretty obvious that a thinner blade will cut and slice better than a thicker blade.

Better steels will hold an edge better and out perform average steels - whether chopping or cutting.

I guess my point was that people testing knives can get carried away, and that I personally only value realistic tests where knives are used in the environment, and in the manner, they were intended.
 
Testing is fun and can potentially yield valuable information. I tend to test knives in the spirit of their construction.

For example, on a review I did of Hossom's Millennium fighters, I focused on what the knives would actually be used for. I worked them against a large beef joint, a sparring tree, etc. I tested the point too, repeatedly driving it into bone and wood. Here's the now antiquated review:
http://www.bladeforums.com/ubb/Forum3/HTML/000656.html

The results speak for themselves. It would be nice to include "flesh and bone" testing to add to the other tests going on. That would be one test I'd listen to when it came to fighting knives. The frustrating thing is that the more subjective elements, like how a knife moves and feels in the hand is harder to review. Perhaps a panel of judges could be used like in some gun rags.

Matt
 
Thanks, Zog. That was interesting reading your test of the Millenium Fighters. I also enjoyed checking out Hossom's Web Site.

"Flesh and Bone Testing" for fighting knives sounds like an excellent, realistic test for such knives. Those Millennium Fighters must have tremendous penetration. That Millennium Bowie is awesome.

The idea of a panel of judges when testing blades seems good too.

Happy Trails...
 
I think Hansen has hit the nail on the head about testing. I own quite a few knives, although, probably not as many as a lot of other folks here on the forum. I have a Randal model 1-7 that I really like, a classic design, great feel, etc. I'm sure I could use this knife to chop wood if need be, however, I can tell just by the size and weight of it that it really wasn't designed for chopping and wouldn't be very good at it.

I also have a couple of CS Trailmasters. I really like those knives, they are great choppers and all around rough use utility knives, but, if I wanted thinly sliced tomatoes the Trailmaster wouldn't be the best choice (nor would the Randal).

I guess my point is the same as Hansens, any knife is going to be a trade-off where performance is concerned. Enhance one capability at the expense of another. No one knife will be the best at everything.

Some knives are intended to be all around, do all knives. I think the 7 inch knives fall into that catagory. They're really compromise knives that will perform a variety of tasks reasonably well but will not really excell at any one task in particular. That's OK if you're going to be limited to a single knife for some period of time and want an all around utility knife.

On the other hand, I've read where some folks think that 7 inch knives are just poor at everything and wouldn't carry one (too big for fine work, too small for truly big knife performance).

It all comes down to what the buyer intends to use the knife for. A comprehensive review may help the buyer decide if the knife they are considering for purchase will meet their needs. That is where a real world review, testing knives under the actual conditions in which they are likely to be used, will be of most benefit to the potential buyer.

[This message has been edited by Steve6 (edited 07 November 1999).]
 
Hansen,

Ultimately real world testing is what determines whether or not I carry the knife. Unfortunately, my real world requirement may be different from your requirement, and each one of us uses their knife for their own purposes in their unique environment. So I rely on standardized testing (2x4, rope, cardboard, spine whack, prying etc.) to provide a performance indication and help me determine what to buy.

So IMHO standardized testing helps determines what we buy, and real world experience helps determine what we keep.

 
Agree w/Hansen, too. In fact, all this testing business seems to speak mostly to folks who "test" rather than use knives...

I've enjoyed particularly reading Ron Hood and Jeff Randall's various comments, as they assess their tools after extended use for a variety of tasks, in harsh environments.

Maybe we should call a moratorium on testing? Or better: Thou shalt not comment on a knife's performance prior to 4 months of *actual* use!

Glen
 
Dead on target, Storyville. All any of this has taught me is that I cannot rely on anyone else's tests to tell me if a knife will perform the way I want it to. I am the only one that can determine if a knife meets my needs.

I think I remember Cliff Stamp saying something very similar to this several months back.
 
Glen,

Knife testing typically always boils down to the individual. Ron and I basically use a blade for the same thing, but he prefers tantos in some of his work and I prefer belly to a blade. This is not to say that either of us are wrong.

I agree that any knife testing should be done over a period of time. You can find most quirks and problems usually with a day of testing, but long term issues such as ease of daily carry, handles coming loose, sheaths breaking down, coatings wearing off, and physiological problems associated with extended use only become evident after using the piece for a while.

In a one day test I may not step on the blade or drop it as many times as I would during a month in the bush. I may not be as tired after a day's knife testing as I would be after 2 weeks in a survival situation, so how does this affect my grip and cutting ability? Besides, I don't even know if I really like a blade or not until I've used it for a while.

Just some thoughts from my POV. On the other hand, I think the tests that Mike's doing have a lot of value and there's no way that most folks can take the time to do extended tests. The same with Cliff and some of his destructive tests...I'm just glad it's not me buying blades to see if I can tear them up
smile.gif


Jeff

------------------
Randall's Adventure & Training
jeff@jungletraining.com

 
To me, there are two types of testing: Laboratory testing and field testing. They represent opposite ends of the spectrum. Many tests lie somewhere between the two.

The purpose of lab testing is to find out the performance envelope of a knife. The holy grail here is to make these tests as scientific as possible. Unfortunately, even scientific standards are still somewhat incomplete. For example, Sal Glesser, on several occasions, have made the offer for someone to come up with a knife testing standard. Forgot which one. But this is where people abuse and destroy their knives. We don't know something's limit until we push it that far. I think this is done by most factories, as it should be, and not with end users.

Second type is field testing in a real world environment. Carry with you everywhere you go and see how well it fits your needs after a while.

Chronogically, you want to start with lab testing and work your way to field testing. But to me, both types are important. I'm rather hesitant to condemn one type over the other. But I certainly don't condemn how people test their knives for their own use. Different people with different knives have different needs and uses. So, it stands to reason that personal tests would be different to address the different questions one raises.
 
In most industries testing usually involves conditions more stringent than are encountered in normal use because the tester is trying to find the limits in a much shorter time span.

I believe that Mike's testing was a very credible effort to simulate real world conditions for a 7" knife in a compressed time scale.

I feel confident that he would design a different series of tests for a 3.5" Folder than for a 7" Fixed Blade.

Mike,

How do we subscribe to the On-Line Magazine? I must have missed the link.

------------------
AKTI Member No. A000370
 
In the effort to accelerate the testing process knife tests are often run in high-stress modes. You chop, straight cut through vast amounts of tough material, bend, and drop. This provides lots of usable information that you can't get by just handling the knife. I offer my thanks to all of you users and abusers who give us this info.

What is missed by these tests are the lower stress, finesse aspects of the overall knife. Things like delicate carving of fuzz sticks, dead-fall triggers, and delicate gutting tasks are missed. These tasks require ease of handling and great sharpness. Much of this information can be figured out just by handling a well sharpened specimen. Some of it requires a little experimentation. None of it needs to take very long.

Mostly I use a knife as a fine instrument and use hatchets for the heavy work. It is important to me that I can do both heavy and light work with my knife. It's one of the reasons that I appreciate the design of the Buck 110 more as time goes on.
 
Hansen, if you don't see the value in a particular method of evaluation then don't read it. If you want to see more of a particular type then simply encourage those that post in that direction.

Storyville, your comment about waiting for 4 months is an excellent point. I usually take at least 6-8 months or so, this allows me to see the effects of extended use as well as different weather conditions (high humidity, extreme temperatures hot/cold etc.).

-Cliff

 
Part of the problem with "real world testing" is that to be fair (as many of you have pointed out) the knife should be tested against its intended purpose. Yet, I have seen very few makers/designers clearly state the purpose of their design. If its a fighter; what style or technique did the designer have in mind? What is the intended size of the user (small hands, large hands, tall, short), and, what types of targets should it be used against?

If its a "camp knife" then what conditions do you envision us camping under. Does it hold up better in dry or wet climates? Is intended for use in colder environments (oversized grips to accomodate gloved hands, etc.)? Is it for filleting fish or chopping down trees?

If many knife tests seem a little silly it because we're never quite clear on what we should be testing for. I wish the designers would come clean and tell us what they were designing the knife to do? If the knives perform for the purposes for which they were originally concieved then we can honestly say that the designer of the knife knew his stuff and did a good job. Otherwise we can just continue to test every knife for every purpose and classify them in our usual way (i.e. if it can hack through a 2x4 its a "camp knife", if it can clean game its a "hunter", and if neither is true its a "fighter")

 
I think that progressive destructive testing is the way to go.

The tests and abuse gets gradually worse, that way you know it's limits. I really like Cliff's way of doing it, he does not judge the knife, merely informs as to what he did and how the knife responded. Then you can decide what you think.

Field Testing is good too.

------------------
Marion David Poff aka Eye
Coeur D'Alene, ID
mdpoff@hotmail.com
http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Meadows/1770

"We will either find a way, or make one." Hannibal, 210 B.C.


 
You guys test 'em anyway you think you ought to. As a forumite and consumer, I'll read your tests and determine whether it answers my questions. If it does, I may buy the knife. If it doesn't I'll probably wait for the upgrade.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top