Reasonable Knife Evaluation

[hardheart]

geez, somebody's never seen Highlander

 

[akadave2]

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

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). Im sure it happened but it wasnt that common. Also the edge of the Nihonto (Japanese sword) was heat treated in such a way that chips in the edge would be smaller and shallower so the blade could be repaired.

As for abuse. In the Kamakura period swords were made beefier and with longer kissaki (tips) in order to cut through and pierce the invaders armor (Mongol, Korean).

 

[just10minreader]

geez, somebody's never seen Highlander

There can be only one!

 

[Karda]

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.

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 ,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.

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.

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. In 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.

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.

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.

 

[hardheart]

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.

believing a product should stand up to claims made by the manufacturer is

A. reasonable
B. unreasonable

I ,for one, would like to know appointed these people the saviors of the knife community

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!

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.

Damn, when did noss say the umfaan was a piece of crap?

He has also given some decent knives very low marks on his site. not very reasonble or responsible testing or evaluation IMHO.

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!

I would also like to see noss take responsibility as well as mr. reeve did about his controversial tests.

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)

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?

Is there 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.

So who are you disagreeing with again?

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.

How is that a downside?

In 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.

Seems a fair trade, though some would argue the knife was to valuable a thing to sacrifice for lil old me

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.

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.

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.

true, imo

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.

Did you just say makers are irresponsibly trying to take advantage of us by claiming their knives are tough?

 

[3Guardsmen]

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.

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."

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.

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.
Since you used the words, "the right," in your question, you should know that American consumers have a right (1st Amendment) to say anything they want about whether a product/brand does or doesn't meet their specific requirements! They have a right to test their personal property any way they see fit and are free to make that information public!

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.

Once again, you're bringing a person into this debate that Phil specifically stated this thread wasn't about.

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.

I don't think anybody in the "destruction test supporter" group would disagree with that.

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.

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!

Regards,
3G

 

[3Guardsmen]

Darnit! Hardheart beat me to it!

For Karda's edification:

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.

Regards,
3G

 

[Karda]

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.

 

[huugh]

"Knives can only be used to cut things..."

"You should of use an axe if you wish to chop wood".
But what KIND of axe can I use. Of course, have a variety of axe types on you, because using splitting axe to chop off small branches is against what it was intended to do, that's spliting along the grain, not across!

You should be more specific in your recommendations, maybe like this:

"Let's assume you wish to cut off this withy (namely from Salix purpurea, but certainly NOT S. acutifolia, S. daphnoides, S. mollissima, S. triandra or S. viminalis), approximately 35 cm long, 6 mm in diameter, in 10:32 am, on Tuesday, facing north, with your left knee slightly bent, wearing an orange hat, bought in Walmart approximately 2 weeks before for $ 3.99, the tree itself is found in calm, partially shady area with soil with no more than 10% of rockiness, your last meal covered 25% more callories than it is recommended for a man of your age and weigth. Remember to mark the angle you wish to cut it away with certified gauger. Before the act is proceeded, you should take a sample of the wood and also consult a botanist to be sure you identified the plant correctly. After necessary review of labour protection regulations, preferably consulted with local authorities, you might proceed to initiate tool selection. The knife itself should conclude blade length atleast of the diameter of the withy, + additional 10% for safety measure. The weight of the knife should be suited to your physical propositions and the emergency units should be alerted in case something goes wrong. Do not forget to take into consideration your traditional habits, local customs, the visual agreeability, thermal expansivity, humidity, place of origin, distribution network and political attitude of the manufacturer, distributor and your neighbor. Comittee to help with your adjudication of aforementioned criteria is always good. Remember to keep odd number of members. Invitation cards should be printed on recycled paper, stating in writing time, place and objective of said comittee's pursuance. In case the protest should be held against any member of the comittee, the dispute would be settled by relevant court."

 

[3Guardsmen]

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.

You certainly have that right, Karda. And even though I may disagree with you, I'm not going to tell you that you're wrong, and question who gave you the 'right' to feel that way.

Regards,
3G

 

[3Guardsmen]

Since you 'ninja edited' this part in after I replied to your post, I'll address it in this post.

i have no need to skew facts and logic to prove my points.

Doesn't one have to use logic and facts, you know, in order to be able to skew them? And another thing, your "points":

a) were never very clear
b) contradicted each other
c) didn't help the OP's case much

Regards,
3G

 

[3Guardsmen]

If you keep editing your post, it's going to generate a lot more posts, just to give you a friendly heads up. You may want to think twice and post once.:thumbup:

Or any need to prove how much of a smarta++ i am.

Good, because you certainly didn't prove that.:thumbup:

Regards,
3G

 

[Kohai999]

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).

Gee thanks, I didn't know that(insert sarcasm).....ashi are designed to reduce damage, and still could not prevent it...if the chunk removed is in the monouchi....the swordsman is screwed....no repairing is going to fix that.

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson, nidan, JKI, Muso Jikiden Eishin Ryu Iai Heiho

 

[Lycosa]

Phil---Your video, was a long time coming. Tnx.

 

[tsiloics]

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.

The issue isn't as polarized as you're making it out to be. For example, my position was that the ability for a "hard-use" knife to sustain impact from the maul was desirable and therefore valid as an attribute.

The fact that a given knife is promoted for hard use in environments where it is likely to be used as an improvised prying, impact or digging tool, reasonably raises the question of toughness. That would not be true for fillet knives, scalpels or, as in this case, multitools.

 

[neeman]

Can we come back to three ways of looking.

Normal reasonable use
Destuctive Testing
Abuse

Normal use of a tool will not damage it.
Destructive Testing is destroying on purpose, you are doing this for the express purpose testing to find where the tool breaks.
Abuse is extending normal use knowing that you might damage the tool.


Can we seperate Destructive Testing and Abuse?
A tester breaking a tool is different from a user breaking a tool.

Can we seperate Normal reasonable use and Abuse?
Normal reasonable use is actually set by the manufactuer and their claims, and their warrenty.
So Brand A sells their knife with claims of 'unbreakable', then they have moved the definition of reasonable use

 

[Phil Elmore]

Can we seperate Destructive Testing and Abuse?

No, we can't.

 

[ADD]

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?

Nice points.

How is the view from the ditch?

The other TV commercial of hard use/abuse I recall was the Timex watch that was frozen in a chunk of ice yet "kept on ticking".

I might add a decent pen can also be used, in a pinch, as a wonderful tactical weapon to the eyes or neck of a canine or human.

 

[Leighman]

I have a question I hope someone can rationally answer in regard to all this testing/abuse/destruction/etc.

Your son or daughter is being deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan.
You know that Uncle Sam doesn't always provide its folks the "proper tool for the job" (BTDT) so what do you give them?

Do you give them a knife that has shown it can take "abuse" (or to avoid the tiresome arguments of this thread, any word you choose to insert) or do you give them a knife that merely cuts?

If it's my child, you can bet I'll give them a knife that does more than just "cuts things."

 

[theonew]

No, we can't.

Pretty please, Phil, just this one time