The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is ready to order! See this thread for details:
https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/bladeforums-2024-traditional-knife.2003187/
Price is $300 $250 ea (shipped within CONUS). If you live outside the US, I will contact you after your order for extra shipping charges.
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/ - Order as many as you like, we have plenty.
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
First off, the ones making the claims that the knife should stand up to what the manufacturers claim is not Phil and is in fact the destruction test supporters. Phil is advocating reasonable evaluation and responsible use. The destruction supporters also claim to be holding these manufacturers "accountable" for their claims.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.
believing a product should stand up to claims made by the manufacturer isFirst off, the ones making the claims that the knife should stand up to what the manufacturers claim is not Phil and is in fact the destruction test supporters.
so would I. I would also like to know what this means to my own personal buying habits, as they have as of yet not restricted or influenced my purchases. I've got my eye on you sneaks!I ,for one, would like to know appointed these people the saviors of the knife community
Damn, when did noss say the umfaan was a piece of crap?and given them the right to bash a makers entire line of knives on the basis of controversial testing which is blatant abuse of a knife, such as noss4 did with chris reeve in his destruction test thread.
yes, having a different opinion on the quality of a product is neither reasonable nor responsible. I too think these knives are 'decent', give them more stars, or knives, or thumbs, dammit!He has also given some decent knives very low marks on his site. not very reasonble or responsible testing or evaluation IMHO.
It is certainly not enough that noss and Reeve communicated and Reeve knows who Noss is. He is a man of the people, he must provide us all with his name, face, blood type, and favorite dessert. (I'm having red velvet cake, Mmmmm)I would also like to see noss take responsibility as well as mr. reeve did about his controversial tests.
Is there a problem?At any rate, If the manufactuer stands behind his product and replaces it even in cases of blatant abuse, why on earth would there be a problem?
So who are you disagreeing with again?We all know that steel has it's failure limits and if used beyond these limits will ultimately fail. The only thing i see destructive testing is for,is entertainment, notoriety on noss's part and the only upside is to see how much it takes to virtually destroy a knife.
How is that a downside?The downside of it though, is that it may force the manufacturers to revise their policy on the abuse aspect and not replace a knife that has been abused. Holding the end user responsible for his actions and lack of common sense.
Seems a fair trade, though some would argue the knife was to valuable a thing to sacrifice for lil old meIn the cases in which the knife breaks in an emergency situation...well ,that knife gave it's life in the act of saving(or trying) to save yours.
Absolutely. Reasonable use being defined by the manufacturer, as Phil said. So reasonable use would be using in accordance with manufacturer claims. Glad we cleared that up.As the driving force behind what the manufacturers produce,the end user bears the responsibility to check makers claims and evaluate the knives on their own merit thru using or talking with people who've used the knife in a reasonable manner.
true, imoAnyone taking stock in destruction testing for the reasons of purchase needs to evaluate their own motives and why they would put themselve into situations needing a nearly indestructable knife.
Did you just say makers are irresponsibly trying to take advantage of us by claiming their knives are tough?As with any tool you need to use common sense in its responsible use and use proper knowlege along with your tooling. Anything else would concievabley be irresponsibley taking advantage of the maker. To me that is pretty much the same thing as the destruction test supporters claim the makers are trying to do by claiming their knives are tough.
You are implying, once again, that holding a manufacturer accountable for their product claims is a bad thing, since that is the opinion of the dreaded "destruction test supporters."First off, the ones making the claims that the knife should stand up to what the manufacturers claim is not Phil and is in fact the destruction test supporters. Phil is advocating reasonable evaluation and responsible use. The destruction supporters also claim to be holding these manufacturers "accountable" for their claims.
First off, which knife manufacturer did I personally bash?!? Secondly, you are allowing your personal affinity for a brand, and your ulterior motive for posting, to show. Now everybody can see your 'dog' in this 'fight.' You've done something that even Phil didn't do, you brought a specific tester, a specific brand, and a specific knife into the debate, and in doing so, you disregarded what the OP (Phil) has stated, that this thread wasn't about the tester you just named.I ,for one, would like to know appointed these people the saviors of the knife community and given them the right to bash a makers entire line of knives on the basis of controversial testing which is blatant abuse of a knife, such as noss4 did with chris reeve in his destruction test thread. He has also given some decent knives very low marks on his site. not very reasonble or responsible testing or evaluation IMHO. I would also like to see noss take responsibility as well as mr. reeve did about his controversial tests.
Once again, you're bringing a person into this debate that Phil specifically stated this thread wasn't about.At any rate, If the manufactuer stands behind his product and replaces it even in cases of blatant abuse, why on earth would there be a problem? We all know that steel has it's failure limits and if used beyond these limits will ultimately fail. The only thing i see destructive testing is for,is entertainment, notoriety on noss's part and the only upside is to see how much it takes to virtually destroy a knife.
I don't think anybody in the "destruction test supporter" group would disagree with that.As the driving force behind what the manufacturers produce,the end user bears the responsibility to check makers claims and evaluate the knives on their own merit thru using or talking with people who've used the knife in a reasonable manner. Anyone taking stock in destruction testing for the reasons of purchase needs to evaluate their own motives and why they would put themselve into situations needing a nearly indestructable knife.
How is merely using a tool improperly "taking advantage of the maker?" If one uses a tool improperly, is injured, and sues the maker, I would agree that he or she is "taking advantage of the maker," however, solely improperly using a tool is not "taking advantage of a maker," it's just being a moron!As with any tool you need to use common sense in its responsible use and use proper knowlege along with your tooling. Anything else would concievabley be irresponsibley taking advantage of the maker. To me that is pretty much the same thing as the destruction test supporters claim the makers are trying to do by claiming their knives are tough.
That is what Noss has done!
No, it's the opposite of what he has done. He has made abuse the standard of his video stunts, and those of us who believe in realistically evaluating knives are tired of hearing about him. If he wants to take off his hockey mask, take responsibility for his work, and actually stand behind what he does, I might be willing to listen to what he has to say. Until then, this thread does not involve him.
No, actually i'm voicing my disdain for the tactics of the testing and it's supporters.
I have no affinity for the brand mentioned, just more disdain for the way things were handled in the mentiond thread. Just as i have disdain for the way you've handled yourself here.
i have no need to skew facts and logic to prove my points.
Or any need to prove how much of a smarta++ i am.
Actually Katanas were not crossed per se. The mune or back of the blade was used for taking the edge of another blade and was soft so as to catch the edge of the opponents sword rather than have it slide down against the guard (Tsuba).
First off, the ones making the claims that the knife should stand up to what the manufacturers claim is not Phil and is in fact the destruction test supporters. Phil is advocating reasonable evaluation and responsible use. The destruction supporters also claim to be holding these manufacturers "accountable" for their claims.
Can we seperate Destructive Testing and Abuse?
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?