Review : Allen Blade / Ed Caffrey 52100 MEUK

C

Cliff Stamp

BANNED
Joined
Oct 5, 1998
Messages
17,562
Awhile ago I put up my initial impressions of this blade :

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=160902

I have just become more impressed with it with use :

http://www.physics.mun.ca/~sstamp/knives/MEUK_52100.html

Some things in that I have not done before such as the gradual sharpening to see how fast the blades reacted to the abrasive. That was interesting but very time consuming. As well normalizing the results to account for such things as blade length and presenting the result os some basic statistics on the rate of sharpening.

It was also the review where I started the stock testing on hardwood dowels. I will add a pine 2x2 cut later on, and possibly a pine 2x4 and 4x4 chop (not for this blade obviously). As well I might use various ropes, still working on that method though as it is very dependent on the surface the rope is resting on, which I don't like too much.

This is also the first review to contain cross links to the page on blade review methods :

http://www.physics.mun.ca/~sstamp/knives/blade_testing.html

That is still in a very rough stage and some aspects are just outlined. Eventually it will contain the results of all stock tests and the reviews will just link to it. It will also cover in detail what controls the various performance aspects and to what extent.


-Cliff
 
Cliff, as usual, you have done an outstanding job on evaluating the knives. A lot of people owe you debt of gratitude for the service that you have been providing. I greatly appreciate it.
At times I have a hard time with the "grams" part as I am still running on pounds :). Keep up the good work and let me know if there is anything I can do for you.
 
Cliff--

That's an impressive amount of work. As you standardize your testing techniques and blunting stock, it looks as if you may be approaching creation of an over-all index that will be more comprehensive than anything I've seen published.

The one thing I think that would significantly reduce subjectivity for the reader, in trying to assess your results, would be the use of standard control blades for the comparisons. By using one comparison blade in one test, and then another comparison blade for another test, and so on, you are able to report accurately on the differences. But if you finally arrived at one blade, or a set of blades, as controls, it would be much easier for the reader to understand the test blade's performance relative to a broad array of knives. I know how much easier it has been for me to understand test results in the past when you have used one of my blades as the control--the results are immediately understandable to me in a universal sense, because I know just how that control blade performs. So, I'm hopeful that finding appropriate control blades for testing different categories/sizes of blades will also be a result of your standardization process.

Of course, with the amount of testing you do, that would require replacing the control blade(s) fairly frequently to maintain consistent geometry, and that would obviously be expensive. I'm sure you could find contributors here to support such an effort, however. I'd certainly be willing to participate.

Thank you again for undertaking such a monumental task with such tenacity.

--Will
 
Marvelous Cliff! Your work is raising the bar on what constitutes a quality evaluation. Hope knife makers will start taking more advantage of your work, time, and results the way Jerry Busse and a few others seem to have done.

Great work again. Enjoyed re-reading the original review and the web page. Gonna go out and cut me up some big cardboard now. Recycling day is tomorrow.
 
Ray, thanks. The knives you have loaned to me have been a tremendous benefit. I have sharpened them and done the initial edge testing and will proceeded with a repeat of the edge retention work this week.

Will, as usual you bring up a very good point. It is often difficult for me to compare blades against past experience when the references are not the same and I have done the work, so I realize that anyone reading it is in a difficult position. If you go back to the blade evaluation page you will see some efforts to solve this problem via specific stock tests :

http://www.physics.mun.ca/~sstamp/knives/blade_testing.html

Some of these, specifically the tip work, are still in rough form and the results show a large variance. All the work gets repeated on a regular basis and the results recompiled so you will note over time that the ranks will get more precise.

As well I am looking at including other aspects. For example in regards to chopping, it is not just raw penetration (number of cuts) that is important but also the level of fatigue generated plus the extent of binding. Both of these will be added to the table in the near future, the binding might be a simple subjective ranking at first. The fatigue performance will be just judged by the loss in ability after a set amount of work, obviously I need a firm performance baseline to judge off of before I can make this calculation.

In regards to the baseline blades, it would be very nice to have a few that were constant and thus after the stock tests were performed the dynamic work could also have strong constant baselines. However I am still looking for good choices in that area. I am thinking of 7 basic blades.

(a) thin light use cutter (Deerhunter)

(b) medium, heavy use blade (WB,TAC-11)

(c) large, heavy use blade (Battle Mistress)

(d) machete class

(e) parang class

(f) hatchet

(g) tomahawk

Ideally the performance of each blade in this class should be at about 50% of maximum as it offers the widest range of useful comparison. The price however has to be low because they will be replaced often so the example blades given in the above are not really suitable as ideally I would like to push on them rather hard and thus really reduce the lifetime. Note there is a lot of overlap between these classes and I am still not firm that they all are necessary.

The only one I am currently firm on is the hatchet which is currently from Gransfors Bruks, but may be replaced with a Wetterling hatchet. The light use blade will not be a problem, I will just get a decent Puukko and I might go with Ontario for most of the other blades. The only problem there is that some of the really cheap knives come with poor edge profiles and I have still not decided on if it is best to modify or no. On the positive, it is worth it to know that with a little work you can turn a knife around, however with enough work you can turn something into a totally different knife. I would prefer to use baselines which are pretty much NIB, except of course I would be sharpening them as necessary - at the NIB profile.

Suggestions of course are welcome on baselines blades, other testing methods and any other feedback.

Matthew thanks.

-Cliff
 
Cliff--

As usual, you are light years ahead of me. I was going to ask where the 10V Coyote Meadow would fit in your array (I assume light use utility), but then realized it's much too expensive a blade to use as a tester. Makes more sense to just index it to a test blade so that the relative performance can be evaluated against other blades that way.

Thanks for sharing the grand plan.

Best--Will
 
The main problem with using a high end custom for a baseline is that it is not really a very clear picture for most people. How many people have that knife, or can pick it up if interested. There is a decent wait time even if you have the money on hand. Speaking of that knife, I am getting one made identical in CPM-15V, should be about 63 RC.

-Cliff
 
Five years later this knife is still going strong. It is very much like a larger version of the Blackjack small. This is more of a Caffrey knife as it has his steel and grind geometry with a fairly "tactical" handle from Blade. It makes a very nice wood working knife, for general cutting utility I would prefer more more hardness and thinner stock and tend to move towards hollow relief grinds.

-Cliff
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top