Reasonable Knife Evaluation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Karda said:
What is truly hypocrisy is that "Hard Use" and "destructive test" advocates drive the makers into making hard use knives...use them beyond the steels limitations and then claim your abuse is holding the makers "accountable". Like it or not the end user drives the market, is the reason for marketing strategies and also pricing( among things such as tooling and steel grades used)....
Click to expand...

If you did some research into the matter, you would notice that "hard use" and "destructive" testing like those performed by the infamous Noss are a relatively new thing. On the other hand, various makers have been advertising their knives as tough and fit for hard use and even abuse since god knows when. Such advertising is a much older practice than "destructive testing" by end-users. Sure, the end-users drive the market, but most knife users don't know much about destructive testing (or knives), and most knives are made for the majority of end-users. The mass of end-users that drives the main trends of the knife market doesn't know or care about hard use knives and destructive testing. They just want a cheap knife they can cut stuff with that isn't too impossible to sharpen.


sooner or later all your adamant harping and supposed "testing" will drive the makers to build a knife noone will break or be able to afford.
Click to expand...

There is no reason to believe for a second that any manufacturer would build something that no-one can afford. But let's for a second imagine it would be possible to somehow build a knife that cannot be broken by anyone that still functions as a knife (which is to say that it can cut stuff better than a piece of sharp rock). If someone made and sold a knife like that, why would it be a bad thing? :confused: There would still be cheaper knives that would cut better available, so I don't see how it would be a negative thing.
 
Not sure whether I should read this sequel of "Chris Reeve Destru(c)tion Test On Youtube?". Usually sequels aren't as good as the originals, but now and again there are a few exceptions...maybe I just sit back and look what happens.
 
Is it not easier to just disregard something that you do not agree with, rather than crusading against it? Particularly when the things that you do not agree with have no practical bearing against you other than a slight annoyance.


Honestly, are you proud that you brush your teeth every morning? That you pay your taxes? YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO.


Oh, wait...you have a knife that you carried for 3 days and all you can tell us is that it fits in your pocket, you like or dislike the shape of the handle, you prefer/dislike the steel used, you thought that it was a worthwhile buy. So what? Aside from irrelevant opinions from some random internet person, you tell us that a knife should cut like a knife, when it is being used as a knife is designed to be used.

IT IS SUPPOSED TO CUT. I assume and expect a knife to be capable of cutting things. If it is capable of more than that, great. I'll watch. I am not going to use the ability to shear angle iron as a sole reason to pick up a scrapper 6. How seriously do you think most people are taking these videos? Isn't that kind of a ridiculous assumption?




That said, there is definitely nothing scientific about a certain masked tester's methods. Not supposed to be. Never claimed there was. So what?

Don't watch em. No harm, no foul, no more of these ridiculous threads. We all win.
 
Karda said:
sooner or later all your adamant harping and supposed "testing" will drive the makers to build a knife noone will break or be able to afford.
Click to expand...
Since when does price equal performance, especially in this area, and in the videos this topic is about? From the outset, you have been concerned about possible scenarios which have so far not followed what has actually been happening.
 
shecky said:
Sharp Phil's reviews of Mantis knives are irrelevant.
Click to expand...

I disagree, taking the personalities out of it, if you are continuously giving positive "reviews" or saying things like "it is a good knife for the money" on blades you are being comped (I do not what the case is here) then it basically ends up being a paid infomercial. :barf:

Given Mantis' marketing history...

In all cases, it would seem to be in the best interest to preface how the knives in question were acquired for testing.
Disclosure.

IMHO, a knife you already own or pass-arounds, not supplied and eventually given to the tester by the maker, may be a far better tool to avoid such conflict. :)
 
3Guardsmen said:
And I maintain that there is NOTHING wrong with trying to find the breaking point of a knife that's built for 'hard use'!
Click to expand...

You have to define "breaking point for hard use" before you can test for it!

If your definition of it is - "how long I can randomly beat on the knife spine with a steel hammer while the edge is resting on a concrete block", then the videos MIGHT give you some indication. I say might because a sample size of one is not sufficient to reliably conclude anything, especially when dealing with impacts and impact toughness (and repeatability goes down further considering hardened steel on hardened steel repeated impacts).

I agree that it is a safe assumption that you should not beat on S30V knives with a steel hammer if you want them to last very long - but I and most everyone here (particularly the knifemakers) would have told you that long before these videos.

The steels that perform poorly with being beat on with a hammer are the steels that are stronger in terms of tensile and compressive strengths. That is why grade 8 (hardened) bolts are used for applications that require high strength - and why they are not used in applications where they will be beat on with a steel hammer.

So if your definition of "breaking point" has to do with the strength of the steel, and you want the "strongest" knife, pick the one that breaks first when being beat on with a steel hammer! And also realize that all assumptions could be wrong given only one specimen was tested.
 
Sharp Phil said:
So, you're incapable of actually discussing this issue, and must instead make irrelevant personal attacks?
Click to expand...

Stating that I feel something is hypocritical is an "irrelevant personal attack"?! I guess playing the victim goes along with fighting unfairly, but it doesn't become you.;)

Sharp Phil said:
Plus, you're letting your emotional involvement with this concept get the better of you.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm not the one who started a thread and created a video about the topic. That was you.

3G
 
Yes, I started a topic and created a video about reasonable knife evaluation. Such a topic and any followers of the cult of knife breaking are mutually exclusive. It doesn't involve or concern you.
 
Phil

I think your video was very good and very well done. It gets the point across to use a knife or any other tool, as it was intended to be used for 'best results'.

However, for you to insinuate/state that "testing to failure" will change the customer expectations of the knife industry at large is... very simply put... a "large pile of 'poo'."

That is about as bogus a statement as I have ever heard or read. Anybody in their right mind will realize that "testing to failure" is, is likely, or can be... GROSS ABUSE. However... it could be a very valuable thing to know for some.

But, for you to try and place a standard on what is acceptable for a knife test is very weak in my opinion.

IF, noss4 or anybody else wants to do their thing and test to failure... why should that bother you ?
IF he does it while wearing a mask... why does it bother you ?
IF, he films it and shows it like it really happened... where is the problem ?

AND, IF anybody bases a knife purchase solely on a "test to failure".... they need their head examended anyway, IMO.

Your opinion is your opinion and I respect it... just as mine is mine.

And again, the video was well done and a good message to use a knife or tool as it was intended.

The "test to failure" just carries it another step and IMO can be useful & valuable information... as well as interesting.

Regards,
Chuck P
 
teacher said:
Phil

I think your video was very good and very well done. It gets the point across to use a knife or any other tool, as it was intended to be used for 'best results'.

However, for you to insinuate/state that "testing to failure" will change the customer expectations of the knife industry at large is... very simply put... a "large pile of 'poo'."

That is about as bogus a statement as I have ever heard or read. Anybody in their right mind will realize that "testing to failure" is, is likely, or can be... GROSS ABUSE. However... it could be a very valuable thing to know for some.

But, for you to try and place a standard on what is acceptable for a knife test is very weak in my opinion.

IF, noss4 or anybody else wants to do their thing and test to failure... why should that bother you ?
IF he does it while wearing a mask... why does it bother you ?
IF, he films it and shows it like it really happened... where is the problem ?

AND, IF anybody bases a knife purchase solely on a "test to failure".... they need their head examended anyway, IMO.

Your opinion is your opinion and I respect it... just as mine is mine.

And again, the video was well done and a good message to use a knife or tool as it was intended.

The "test to failure" just carries it another step and IMO can be useful & valuable information... as well as interesting.

Regards,
Chuck P
Click to expand...

My sentiments exactly! Very well stated, Teacher!:thumbup:

Regards,
3G
 
Sharp Phil said:
Yes, I started a topic and created a video about reasonable knife evaluation. Such a topic and any followers of the cult of knife breaking are mutually exclusive. It doesn't involve or concern you.
Click to expand...

Now it's a "cult".:rolleyes:

Phil, you are quite obviously harboring some animosity towards people who desire to test their tools to the extreme. I have to seriously wonder why that is. Are they in some way interfering with your happiness? I mean, what on Earth causes a person to become so upset about the way an individual chooses to test their personal property? I truly don't understand it.

You need to realize that you are behaving no differently than a person (or a lawmaker) who thinks it's prudent to place a limit on what types of firearms an individual can possess, or how many rounds their magazines may hold. These are things you've posted you are in opposition to. If you fail to see the hypocrisy you're displaying, you aren't quite the 'thinker' you purport yourself to be.

You may want to consider calming down, taking a step back, and really analyzing your position on this topic.

Regards,
3G
 
Just a couple of observations from my side of the ditch:

Anyone remember the t.v. commercial a few years ago where they took a Papermate Pen and used it as an ice pick, dragged it across a concrete hiway, etc. and then wrote with it?

How about the suitcase that they dropped off a bridge onto an expressway, and had apes jumping up and down on it?

I'll bet Samsonite sold a few million bags off that commercial alone.

One last thought: there's been lots of discussion about abuse or using the knife in a manner for which it was not intended. How does the manufacturer determine the standards for a stilletto or some other weapon of destruction?
 
Sharp Phil said:
Don't project your emotions onto me.
Click to expand...

Lol. You continue to prove my point. Why not try to back up one of your flawed arguments, that people who choose to test their knives to destruction place an unfair expectation on knife manufacturers? Your use of red herrings is impressive, but I'd rather see you prove your point.

Regards,
3G
 
No, I really don't "continue to prove [your] point." You're the one making irrelevant personal attacks. I'll say it again: Don't project your emotions onto me. This thread does not concern you; it is about reasonable evaluation of a knife.
 
All I have to say is. I notice lots of people use tools for unintended uses. Screw drivers for chisels, butterknives for screw drivers(come on, our better halves have done it before!) and so on. I'd like to see how far a knife can be pushed, but it doesn't sway my decision either way. It's just interesting to see whos blade treatments stand up to what. I don't like what NOSS does, but I don't hold it against him to have his fun. All in all, knives in the end are for cutting and if i need a right tool for the job, ill buy it or grab it. A knife can only do so much... then what are you left with?
 
I think the crux of the issue here, and one that has so far been avoided or ignored, is what is meant by abuse.

Phil has said that you are either abusing a knife or not, which is true. He also seems to argue that a knife is meant only for cutting and I guess as much as carving wood or making fuzz sticks could fit under this but not much else. But as "The Martialist," I think it would be better to revaluate this position. In a thrust or stab like might be seen in a self defense situation, the tip of the knife should be expected to contact bone and whatever the target is wearing including bits of metal. For the sword he sports in his photo, it should be expected to contact another hardened steel sword with full force coming from two people, not just one. He has also referred to any form of batoning, including with a wooden baton, as at least mild abuse. But this does not hold with his position that knives should stand up to what manufacturers say they can. The pictures here http://www.ratcutlery.com/field_photos.htm from Rat Cutlery, clearly show that at least some knives are meant to be used in batoning by their manufacturers. The basic shape of the knives (full flat grind) lends itself to being using as a wedge and is an intended use of the knife. They even clearly show a small knife less than 3" in length and 3/16" thick, not a knife greater than 1/4", being used for this. This manufacturer and others like Busse, back their knives with warranties that put money where their mouth is by offering to replace any blade that breaks (Rat Cutlery replaced the blade that Noss broke) when making these claims.

The abuse that Phil claims therefore seems to be within the limits of use that these knives are meant to take and not abuse at all. His position, in fact, seems to be a self-contradiction to what he expects out of a blade for self defense.
 
Cap'n Ahab said:
I think the crux of the issue here, and one that has so far been avoided or ignored, is what is meant by abuse.

....... For the sword he sports in his photo, it should be expected to contact another hardened steel sword with full force coming from two people, not just one.
Click to expand...


Should that happen....at the VERY least with a katana, an extremely large chunk of the edge would break off....worst case scenario, the entire blade will break or severely bend....katana were made for flesh and bone, almost exclusively, not fencing....should you wish to discuss this offline, you can e-mail me.

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top