Review : SOG X42 TiN Recondo

Cliff Stamp · May 11, 2001

Link :

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

I have a X-Ray Vision as well, the review will be up in about 1-2 months. It is currently out on loan to a friend to get some wear from use on the lock while I am busy with other blades.

-Cliff

[This message has been edited by Cliff Stamp (edited 05-11-2001).]

Burke · May 11, 2001

Interesting, Cliff. Have you contacted Ron at SOG about this? From what I've seen he's a stand-up guy about warranty issues, and though I think your testing went well beyond the expected "normal use" envelope of this knife, I'd be interested in his comments on whether this is the expected performance.

cutty · May 11, 2001

RON'S a good guy.

Bugs3x · May 11, 2001

Very enlightening review. Several months ago, I briefly handled one at a mall knife shop. Guess I'm too old or something, because the knife felt so light I couldn't really take it seriously. I mean it felt delicate. Who'd have guessed I was right?

It will be very interesting to see if SOG responds to this review. Can't help but wonder a lot if that edge angle/geometry is what SOG intended.

Cliff, while on the one hand it makes a lot of sense to just go ahead and test any knife as received, if something like the unusual edge geometry of the Recondo is noted, and not at all what one would expect, would checking with the manufacturer before beginning, and replacing a knife that wasn't at all representative of what the company is really producing not actually provide a more realistic, useful review? (Sorry that question is so convoluted.) More simply, wouldn't making sure that the example you were about to test is representative of what the company is by and large producing, result in a more useful/realistic review?

In this instance, I would think that the cutting tests could well be dramatically different if that edge was way outside the norm. I think the brittleness would have resulted in the same results, regardless, maybe even have been worse.

I'd like to understand your philosophy of using the example you get, however representative or potentially screwed up it is.

Thanks,

------------------
Asi es la vida

Bugs

Ron Andersen · May 11, 2001

It's never settling seeing a knife in that condition, even if the damage was deliberate or under abused circumstances.

If Cliff would like to send what is left of his knife in for our technicians to evaluate, it would give SOG the opportunity to see if "factory specs" were in place. Our quality control samplings have been outstanding to date.

For a fair and accurate test of a knife, if the reviewer had concerns prior to the test regarding his sample, he should have questioned the manufacturer and have it inspected.

By the types of testing put forth by Cliff, it was clear that breaking the knife and disrespecting it was his goal. His premise for buying and reviewing the knife was based on "the performance of the steel" based on a theory he stated prior to purchasing the Recondo that SOG does not properly heat treat this knife.

It should be noted that we have had only one warranty claim to date on the Recondo (which happens to be the situation linked in Cliff's review) with a broken tip. And we have received no complaints even similar to Cliff's regarding the knife being dull.

Regarding Cliff being in contact with us, yes and no. Yes, he and I have corresponded, but no, not about this review or this broken knife. Regarding submiting his knife for warranty, I'm sure that he would be not be interested and warranty would not apply in this case. But as always, and this applies to Cliff, we want to have open communication with anyone having trouble with our products or wanting to better understand them.

I think an important point to understand is that a goal of a reviewer should often be to better a product for all consumers. We regularly receive direct input from writers/evaluators who have a love and passion for the product and desire to see the knife they reviewed improved and they give us candid evaluations of how our product could perform better (in their opinion) and we listen. Rarely (I can't remember when), do we see an evaluator who did not seem to desire to make it a better product and, as with Cliff, has not yet contacted us with any concerns with his product.

Other reviews have been done on the X-42 Recondo with very favorable outcomes (of course with the standard mix of what the reviewer did not like or what they felt could be improved upon). All reviews so far have been quite positive, with Cliff's being alone in some of its opinions.

I did, though, expect this review from Cliff and was not at all surprised. Cliff had let me know before he bought the Recondo that he did not support our heat treating (among other things), so a broken blade and a less than favorable review from him was to be expected.

Anyone wanting published reviews of the Recondo can email me with your name and mailing address, and I will gladly mail you those reviews.

------------------
Ron Andersen
Consumer Services Manager
SOG Specialty Knives, Inc.

Website: www.sogknives.com
Email: ron@sogknives.com

[This message has been edited by Ron@SOG (edited 05-12-2001).]

Sergiusz Mitin · May 12, 2001

Cliff,
Only one question so far, maybe even somewhat silly question. Why making your tip-breaking test and blade hammering test you are comparing Recondo with fillet knife made of soft 440 or 420 steel but not with another BG-42 blade, Chris Reeve's Sebenza for example. In this case it would be clear, scientific and reliable comparison. Comparing "apples & oranges" it is possible to prove anything what anyone wants...

Let's wait what will say SOG technicians about this. So far Cliff's Recondo blade seems quite overhardened, the question is only is it done accidentally or they are hardening all their blades this way.

Doing some stabbing, chopping and sharpening with my Recondo I didn't consider that blade is overhardened. On the other hand I didn't have intention to break it...

Hmmm, now I'm thinking hard should I repeat Cliff's test to check my blade? Somewhat like to punch my dog into muzzle to check how strong are its teeth... Maybe not exactly the same but somewhat onto this side, isn't it?

The General · May 12, 2001

So Cliff, you did not like it then?

------------------
Wayne.
"To strive to seek to find and not to yield"
Tennyson
Ranger motto

A few useful details on UK laws and some nice reviews!
http://members.aol.com/knivesuk/
Certified steel snob!

Cliff Stamp · May 12, 2001

Bugs3x :

wouldn't making sure that the example you were about to test is
representative of what the company is by and large producing, result in a
more useful/realistic review

Yes, and specific to the edge geometry I asked Ron about that on 4/30 in the
following thread :

http://www.bladeforums.com/ubb/Forum55/HTML/000203.html

He made no comment either way about the intended bevel angle. If he had said that was a flaw
and gave me different specs I would have ground the blade I was using to
match. Or if he felt that it would be better to look at another piece I
would have done that as well. You can see example of both situations in past
reviews.

Now to clarify, one thing I will not do is ignore problems with blade. If
someone wants to provide me with a sample(s) to show that the expected
behavior is different than what I have seen - yes I will look at them.

However I will *not* remove or alter the description of the flawed product, nor keep such problems between myself and the maker. However I will add a link to the review to the writeup on the replacement or add that additional information directly into the
existing review, if I can do it without the whole thing getting to confusing.

Of course the optimum way to do this, and thus avoid all such problems is for me to buy a
large sample. Then, not only would I have eliminated the possibilty of skewed reviews because of outlier blades, but I could independently judge QC issues which would be *very* nice. Note I would have to take care to insure that I got a random sample, but that is not the main problem.

I simply don't have the $2000 or so on hand to buy a decent
sized sample of even a moderately priced production blade. For a high end
one like say the BM that is like $5000. I just can't afford that and can't see that situation changing in the near future.

Burke :

Have you contacted Ron at SOG about this?

We exchanged several emails about BG-42 in late April and I told him towards
the last of the month that I had bought a Recondo and Vision. I also posted
up in the SOG forum the links to the reviews while they were in progress (only partial light cutting work done) so
he could see what I had done (above thread) . I also commented on what was
left to do, and added the standard clause :

if I am overlooking a key feature or features of the blades drop me
an email or make a post with suitable suggestions

Again, no responce by Ron.

I'd be interested in his comments on whether this is the expected
performance.

So would I, but considering the run-around on the tip breakage awhile ago, I
don't expect a definate answer either way on that.

In any case I didn't buy the knife to evaluate SOG's BG-42 specifically but
to provide me with a baseline for BG-42 in general. I have been interested
in it for quite some time and now can actually discuss it with custom makers
with a reasonable background.

Basically I can describe the experience I have had, and this is the critical
part, ask them if that would be the expected behavior of their BG-42 and if
it isn't we can discuss the performance improvement with *specifics*.

Without the experience
with the SOG BG-42 I could not say anything definate and thus the exchange
would not be nearly as beneficial as it would be far more vague.

This by the way, is what I would suggest to anyone who is going to make a decision based on a review I have wrote (or will write). Simply use it as a baseline for a discussion with the maker if you are going to use it at all.

Sergiusz :

Why making your tip-breaking test and blade hammering test you are
comparing Recondo with fillet knife made of soft 440 or 420 steel but not
with another BG-42 blade

I didn't have another BG-42 blade on hand. I was going to use the WB for the
pipe hitting test as it is a blade of similar intended use, but I was unsure of its durability and did not want to
risk gross damage as I have cutting performance work to do with it yet. Once
that part of the review is done I will do similar things with the WB. I
won't do a flex test to failure, as its simply beyond my ability to bend it that far. I already tried that, but I will give it hard impacts with the same pipe on the edge and on the flats.

I chose the fillet blade because for one it was disposable, but more importantly it had the properties I wanted to use to contrast with the Bg-42 blade. Specifically it had a much higher toughness and was able to resist fracture *without* being that soft that it indented visibly under the pipe impacts.

Ron :

Cliff, has not yes contacted us with any concerns with his product.

As noted in the above, I did not think, based on how you responded to the earlier tip breakage, that it would generate a useful exchange as you would not make a definate statement about the expected performance in that case and what is even worse called the simple stabbing abuse, which even a SAK can handle.

As well I also had to consider the fact that you had no interaction with me after I described the problems I had with the Recondo in the thread on your forum. After trying a couple of times with no responce (uneven edge grind, thick bevel, and the quick coating wear Tag described) and getting no responce, then no I am not going to keep asking.

In regards to :

warranty would not apply in this case

Consider this - if the performance I described it *not* the expected performance, then I had a defective product - which even a very basic warrenty will cover. Now some go beyond that, but I have not seen one yet that allows defects, I don't see then the warrenty could actually cover.

Now I *do not* what to imply that I actually expect a warrenty replacement for the Recondo. I don't because I saw pretty much exactly what I thought I would see based on past experience with hard stainless steels and discussions with several custom makers about BG-42 in the 62-64 RC range. Now there were a few surprises such as the coating inability to prevent rust, but coatings all wear off eventually and it not a major concern personally, nor was the inital poor edge grind. Nothing major.

And yes, obviously if this is not the expected performance, and SOG wants to provide a replacement, then I would repeat the work and link that review to the existing one. Not any time soon though, because I have other work to do, I will not have much free time for about 2-3 months.

To Burke and Bugs, thanks for the comments, and if you think there are more informative ways to show the performance I have described, or better aspects to look at, or even just additional things you would like to see, then just drop me an email, and I will try to include them if possible in future reviews. That is an open clause to anyone by they way which applies to any review in progress, or completed if I still have the blade and it is functional.

-Cliff

[This message has been edited by Cliff Stamp (edited 05-12-2001).]

Richard · May 12, 2001

What is considered "normal" hardness for BG42?

------------------
Richard Todd - Digital knife photography
icq 61363141
My WebSite
Do your site a favor, get quality digital images!!!
New photos added!!!

Cliff Stamp · May 12, 2001

Richard, it depends on what the knife is intended to do. I think it would make a very nice knife in then 62-64 RC range if you wanted a low stress cutting blade. The high hardness would provide optimum strength to maintain a crisp edge and of course increase the wear resistance for long term edge holding on abrasive materials.

I have a couple of test blade planned later this fall, one in M42 at a very high hardness, around 66, and another in D2 at around 60. It will be interesting to see on light use such as cardboard, rope, foods etc., how much longer the M42 blade stays sharp and cuts aggressively. AS well how it handles very abrasive materials which can even quickly wear down D2. As well I am interested in just how fragile the blade will be at that RC and how little stress is needed to see significant blade damage. The maker insures me because of the low ductility of M42 at that hardness it will be a very low stress indeed.

Most "Tactical" custom knives in BG-42 are a couple of points lower than what SOG uses. Now while this may not seem like much, even a few RC points can cause a *huge* change in the impact toughness (100%) and ductility of a steel. It depends on the maker though, so you might want to ask around and see.

The Sebenza for example is around 60-62, I think, and even two points lower than SOG's specs, there are still a lot of chipping problems reported with them. Check the Reeves forum for details - now it has to be noted that Reeves grinds a *very* high performance (very acute) edge on his knives. Most people comment that once that are reprofiled on the Sharpmaker angle, which is significantly thicker, the chipping tends to stop.

-Cliff

Burke · May 12, 2001

I did some looking around on BG-42, trying to find typical hardness specs. I believe Reeve is even lower than 62, shooting for maybe a 60. Frankly, this strikes me as similar to the Spyderco/CPM440V situation, where Spyderco ended up lowering RC to compensate for chipping problems. It seems like SOG is being a little defensive here regarding the hardness. If they say a blade will RC out at 62-64, I would expect them to shoot for a 63, not a 62. If Reeve, in making a folder with high cutting performance and a thin edge grind designed to cut well, not pry things, isn't comfortable with 64 RC, I would think 64 is an inappropriate hardness for the steel when used in a design as supposedly abuse-tolerant as the tanto.
Regarding the edge, I would find your review more informative if you had, after doing initial cutting work, reprofiled the edge and done some more work before breaking the knife. I think this would also make the review appear more impartial; you state from the outset that the edge came dull. Most of us would sharpen a dull factory edge, and your using it dull lessens the relevance of that testing. I think Ron has a valid point regarding that.
I do, however, think Ron did not address my comment about whether or not this is the expected performance of this knife, regardless of whether or not it is abused. Compare this to the Camillus response regarding your test of the Machax, in which they stated that the chipping problems you had are *not* to be considered normal, and that you should contact them regarding it. I would like to know what SOG considers normal and acceptable behavior for BG-42 and other steels, and while I agree with Ron that your treatment of the blade was abusive, one would learn very little about ultimate strength *without* testing to destruction. I would guess that if you repeated this work with a Strider, they would tell you the knife is not supposed to break (I recall a post by Mick Strider in which he stated he put a knife in a vise and beat on it with a sledge until the vise came off the bench it was on). While Strider optimizes their knives for strength, not cutting performance, the same seems to be true of the Recondo.

Cliff Stamp · May 12, 2001

Burke:

If they say a blade will RC out at 62-64, I would expect them to shoot for a 63, not a 62.

Yes. I would classify that as hype as it is a misrepresentation of the product which seems to be for promotional purposes. If your goal is to actually center the scatter on 62 then you would obviously represent the RC as 61-63 or 60-64 or 62-63, depending on the size of the deviation and how tight the center is to 62.

Regarding the edge, I would find your review more informative if you had, after doing initial cutting work, reprofiled the edge and done some more work before breaking the knife.

I did sharpen the knife and repeat a lot of the cutting work. In some areas like on the rope the blade showed significant improvement, in others like on wood, it showed none. What I didn't do was repeat the edge testing work. I was actually curious about this and wanted to verify if the greater edge retention of the BG-42 over the ATS-34 was due to what I thought it might be (duller to begin with) or an actual ability of the steel. You are correct that this would be valuable information (for me anyway) however I do have only so much time, and I was personally confident enough in what I thought was the cause that for me, the time would be better spent elsewhere. And I also had to factor in that I will be using BG-42 again (custom blade) and I can use the results of that work to draw a definate conclusion. And when that is done, I will update that section of the Recondo review.

Most of us would sharpen a dull factory edge, and your using it dull lessens the relevance of that testing.

I have had many discussions regarding this very aspect. Personally it makes no difference to me how sharp the edge is NIB, and not even that important how clean the bevels are. However, if I did ignore this completely it would present a strong bias in favor of those who do a crappy job as compared to someone like R.J. Martin who has a very high standard in that regard. If I was to do a review of one of Martin's blades, would it be fair to ignore the NIB extremely high performance? If not, then I can't do the opposite either. Right now, I try to do both, if the blades performance is high, there will be much more work with the edges I put on it than the NIB edges. If it is low, then most likely not as you also have to factor in I only have so much time so am I going to be working with high or low performance knives if I get the chance.

Now I am not saying that I won't sharpen dull knives, but simply that the scope of the work after sharpening is going to be effected by other performance aspects. In particular to the SOG, I was also faced with other geometry aspects like the leverage disadvantage of the partial serration pattern and the low sabre grind, both will impair cutting ability. As well there were other things to consider like the low ergonomics of the handle, and the brittleness and low ductility of the steel. In addition to that was the total lack of interest by Ron. Would that alone stop me from doing additional work. No. However when you add it to the other list of reasons I had a long list of negatives and a *very* short list of positives (only one, which will be removed at a later date), I really didn't have a strong incentive to spend another 6-8 doing various cutting in order to guage the edge retention abilities when I could be using that time on another knife.

I should clarify that a makers involvement does not have to be positive for it to cause an extension of the work. I have reviews in progress now that the discussion with the makers has been mainly negative. This is fine, as a different perspective is of value and in the end will just improve the work as I do different things and round out the evaluation. In fact negative discussions are of significantly greater value, and what I would want (as long as they are constructive) as positive ones don't do much except feed the ego.

I agree with Ron that your treatment of the blade was abusive

There is obviously not going to be universal agreement on that. Personally for a heavy use knife, I feel that the impact strength should be far greater than what I saw on the Recondo, as well as the ductility. So the judgement I would make is that the tests performed are fair for that knife as other blades I have used in that class would easily take much more extreme ones (Busse Basic). Now if I did them on the David Boye hunter I had awhile ago I think they would be very unfair as the knife is not designed for that kind of use at all. In any case, different opinions are of great value and don't hesitate to state yours, even if they are in direct opposition from mine.

While Strider optimizes their knives for strength, not cutting performance, the same seems to be true of the Recondo.

Yes, I was of the same opinion as well, which is why I was as extensive with the durability work.

-Cliff

[This message has been edited by Cliff Stamp (edited 05-12-2001).]

Ron Andersen · May 12, 2001

Regarding the Rc of our blade, we began advertising the Recondo at Rc 62-64 as the guidelines Latrobe set for us long before we went into production. As an additional reference, Admiral Steel sets the ideal range at 61-64 on their website. Once we went into production, SOG has targeted a maximum of 62 (Rc 62 is actually stamped on the blade). Our sampling tests are ranging in the 61-62 range with none noticeably exceeding 62. These are the standards we are using and that can be expected in production models. These facts have also been shared with Cliff in the past. He knows that we are shooting for 62, so any statements he is making that we are heat-treating from 62-64 is knowingly wrong.

Cliff, have you tested the hardness of your Recondo? That would be valuable to know. If you do not have access to accurate and reliable equipment, we do here. We would also, in fairness, like to review the knife.

It should be understood that Cliff's test was not a scientific one, however "scientific" it sounds. Any knife can be broken. It comes down to determination.

SOG cannot comment specifically on Cliff's knife unless Cliff chooses to allow us to review it in our facilities. We can say that any knife, including ours, can be broken by a determined person. We do not advertise that heavy pounding can be applied to the spine of the knife. We do not say that if it is thrown for 15' and falls on the ground that it can not break. I personally have lost respect for Cliff as a reviewer that he would even perform and include such non-applicable knife tests in his review.

Current and future users of the Recondo can find an outstanding knife with some great upper end limits. But unlike Cliff, we would suggest using the right tool for the right job.

If Cliff's question referred to above went unanswered in the SOG forum, it was taken sarcastically and dismissed since dull knives are not shipped. If mistaken, Cliff, I apologize. But Cliff, you have been abrasive and confrontational with SOG in the past and that can lead to misunderstandings. If it was a serious and sincere question, you certainly had my email address and my phone number. Your lack of tenacity shows your sincerity.

I apologize to others here for my responses, but Cliff's review could not go without comment. I would think a reasonable person reading the review could see Cliff's purpose.

By the way, thanks for those who have commented above as to SOG's and my professionalism. I hope my comments here have not changed your opinions. This is not easy, nor desired.

SOG may have more to say next week. Not being an engineer or technician myself, I can't comment more technically. I'll meet with them on Monday.

------------------
Ron Andersen
Consumer Services Manager
SOG Specialty Knives, Inc.

Website: www.sogknives.com
Email: ron@sogknives.com

[This message has been edited by Ron@SOG (edited 05-12-2001).]

Cliff Stamp · May 12, 2001

Ron :

He knows that we are shooting for 62, so any statements he is making that we are heat-treating from 62-64 is knowingly wrong.

The advertized RC by SOG is 62-64, which is given on many websites and what I have stated in the review. Yes you have qualified this in the past. But you have not done so in an exact way. Saying something like "The range is 62-64 but we aim for 62". Is really vague. In order to have a concrete meaning you would want to specific a mean (or something similar) value and some kind of spread. I will add a comment to the review referring to the RC, but in any case, the review directly links to this thread so your perspective is available to anyone who reads it. Which is why, by the way, I link the reviews to the threads created on the forum.

We do not say that if it is thrown for 15' and falls on the ground that it can not break.

I wish you had told me that when I told you I had bought the Recondo. That shows an impact toughness that is less than that of one of the better ceramic composites. That you would make a knife like the Recondo and not guarantee that it can take a 15' fall without gross damage is a pretty telling situation to me. I don't think I have another knife that would break under such an impact. Some of the light utility ones would most likely suffer a tip fracture, but they have a significant distal taper. I will do some drops with the WB in the next few days. I would be very surprised if it broke at 15' .

By the way, the Recondo broke upon impact, not after 15' flight. It was clear that two pieces were in the air. I will clarify that in the review shortly.

If Cliff's question referred to above went unanswered in the SOG forum

There is no "if" Ron, you didn't answer it.

dull knives are not shipped.

Ron you are the first person I have ever seen quote a 100% QC on a product. Even the better custom makers will admit that yes even they can let something slip. The knife was dull, I know of about 1/2 dozen people who could attest to that, but if you believe I would lie, then its not much of a leap to believe my friends would for me if I asked them. Plus I could have obviously dulled it before they saw it and told them it was NIB.

As for my efforts stopping after a simple question on the forum - yes, that is not likely to change any time soon, and it was in regards to the bevel geometry not the initial sharpness. In any case why would I bother with emails or phone calls when you ignore questions in the forum. There are lots of makers who will not so obviously I am going to spend my time in exchanges with them. You want to ignore questions, that is obviously your right, but to turn around and put the blame on me saying that I should have hounded you for an answer - well, you obviously have a different perspective there than me.

To clarify, if a maker has a forum I will generally address questions or make comments there, including negative ones, I will not keep all such comments to private communication and then make positive ones on the forum - that would be a sign of an obvious bias. If the questions/comments are ignored, then no, I am not going to move past that. If they don't have a forum but an active email I would use that. If they ignore that then no I am not going to try the phone. That is reasonable to me. Now if they want to talk on the phone or whatever, then that is fine, I have given out my number in the past.

By the way, the Recondo sheath is fine, if anyone wants it for a backup let me know.

In addition, as I was just informed in email (thanks) I left out a rather critical aspect of the relative gemetries of the blades which could have significantly effected the outcome of the impact work (hollow vs flat grind). I added a comment in that regard.

-Cliff

[This message has been edited by Cliff Stamp (edited 05-12-2001).]

Ron Andersen · May 12, 2001

Cliff:

It could not even break my skin on a draw cut at high pressure (well above the force needed to drive the blood out of the surrounding area).

If this were true, in fairness, you should have deemed the knife defective and not up to your standards and returned it for a refund or returned it to the manufacturer for review. Now, we'll never know. This is an incredulous statement from you. Even dull knives NIB I have seen from various manufacturers could draw blood. I do try to put "qualifying" statements in my responses, and in this case, I did not. I apologize. Yes, quality control mistakes can happen. Since production started, all Recondos are being designated for review for sharpness and must pass a paper-slicing test. This is not a spot check, but all are being designated for review. Could one have been mishandled and not tested? Sure, but unlikely. I've watched the process.

but if you believe I would lie, then its not much of a leap to believe my friends would for me if I asked them. Plus I could have obviously dulled it before they saw it and told them it was NIB.

I hadn't though of that.

I wish you had told me that when I told you I had bought the Recondo.

You didn't ask. We maintain a consistent position that we do not make throwing knives, pry bars, or other tools not consistent with the knife's intended purpose, which is cutting. Can a SOG knife successfully pry or be thrown in a pinch? Of course and quite possibly successfully, but as with any knife (in varying degrees), there is an outside chance that hazards could befall the knife or the user. It is better to use the correct tool for the job. Nowhere do we state that a user can beat on the blade with a steel object. Cliff, what "real world" situation was being simulated that the knife was designed to perform?

Regarding "hype," SOG is one of the companies that use lesser degrees of hype than others. We refuse to compare ourselves to other companies and avoid stating we are the best.

Regarding our "advertised" Rc range, media is difficult to change once put into place. We marketed the Recondo before production standards were honed. This is quite standard industry wide. Once we finally chose what the final product would be like, certain advertising had already taken place. This is not hype or misleading. If we had changed the blade length of the knife, would that have been regarded as hype? No, just a change in specs.

------------------
Ron Andersen
Consumer Services Manager
SOG Specialty Knives, Inc.

Website: www.sogknives.com
Email: ron@sogknives.com

[This message has been edited by Ron@SOG (edited 05-12-2001).]

Bugs3x · May 12, 2001

Thanks, Cliff for the response.

In addition to my terrible memory, which I often mention, I tend to have brain farts. Or some sort of misfire.

I cannot recall the exact sequence in which I read what. I do know that I had read the thread linked containing your question re the odd edge geometry. As near as I am able to recall what was going thru my so-called mind when I posted, I think I had read the thread after the review, and didn't check the dates, just assumed you'd asked after the fact. I know about assumptions, and I guess this proves the rule.

I do think it would be possible during a review, particularly where a knife has such blatant problems, that mention of another review begun on a knife with the same steel would be helpful. To me, that provides a sort of automatic caveat that maybe I shouldn't apply the results of the tests too widely, until I hear how another example performs.

------------------
Asi es la vida

Bugs

Sergiusz Mitin · May 13, 2001

Cliff,
I have one silly question more. Yesterday I have hammered some metal saw blades trying to simulate your experiment as close as possible. These blades are fairly overhardened and exceptionally brittle looking from knife standpoint. Hammering them on the steel anvil I have obtained only cross-directed breaks. Just hitting the blade with hammer's tip (opposite side of the normal hammering surface) in some coincidences I have got multiply-directed breaks similar to glass breaking. Another case when I have got multiply-directed breaks was when I have hit the blade with very heavy (2 kg - about 4,5 pounds) hammer with entire my force.

Hmmm, could this mean that Recondo blade is more brittle than metal saw blades? Or probably you are exceptionally strong man, I could say closely near Superman, if you have obtained the same results with light (how light?) hammer and only your wrist movement...

In fact I can't consider also where did you hit this blade with your hammer - at the place where it have two cross breaks (first half counting from the tip) or where it has multiple curved breaks at the last half?

[This message has been edited by Sergiusz Mitin (edited 05-13-2001).]

Cliff Stamp · May 13, 2001

Bugs:

I do think it would be possible during a review, particularly where a knife has such blatant problems, that mention of another review begun on a knife with the same steel would be helpful. To me, that provides a sort of automatic caveat that maybe I shouldn't apply the results of the tests too widely, until I hear how another example performs.

Yes, that is a fairly strong point. I'll put in a link as soon as the details are definate on the BG-42 model I am getting.

Sergiusz :

where did you hit this blade

The contact point was just above the edge grind, slightly below the middle of the primary hollow grind. The hammer contacted at the top of the head which maximized the pressure, a full flat hit on the face would have resulted in a much less stressful impact. Those four arc'ed sections all exploded off at the same time from the same hit. There are other pieces missing, I could not find them. Those four pieces were contained in about a 4' radius.

Ron :

you should have deemed the knife defective

As I have noted in the above, NIB sharpness is not a primary concern of mine. Nor will I ever return samples until I get a 100% one to review. That introduces a strong bias into the review, basically you are then letting the manufacturer pick out the blade for the review which is really poor method unless you can't avoid it.

Now you could argue that it would be reasonable to return it to have them sharpen it so I could comment on the optimum quality that can be produced - again in addition to what I already observed not as a replacement. And this is something I would do if a sample was provided, but no, not something I am going out of my way to do, especially on an aspect that is not that major and especially not on something I consider cosmetic.

If it was a real functional proablem then yes I would return it and I have done so in the past. The Spyderco Military for example. But again, regardless of how the results with the replacement or repaired product go, the commentary on the original one would stay and just link to the new work or merged with it as a before and after piece.

what "real world" situation was being simulated that the knife was designed to perform?

In regards to the prying, I would exert much more force on the blade when doing assisted chopping to clear the wood out, or in regular chopping with a larger knife for that matter. Probably more force again when splitting wood. There are other materials that are really binding as well and you often have to work the blades sideways to open up the cut or the side drag is so great you can't work the blade through.

The heavy tip work is used as described for felling trees. That method I didn't come up with, wish I did as its really nice for a small knife on small-medium wood. It came up during a disussion with Peter H. or Fallkniven. As well there are other uses such as heavy tip digging for example to pry wood apart for tinder for example.

The impacts can happen again during wood cutting as often there can bin inclusion in the woods. The worst case are hardened steel, usually wire spikes from fences long took down but often cut away from trees and not removed as the wood can grow around them. A chop into a harded nail will generate an impact *much* larger than the pipe on blades stress because the contact areas are about 100 times smaller and thus the pressure 100 times larger. Or contacts on the spine from hammering with a rock for splitting purposes on large game or just wood, check the reviews forum archive for such work as an example :

I have split 2x4's,
4x4's and 60 or so 10' diameter cedar logs (pounding the knife through with a
big rock) with no damage to the knife.

from :

http://www.bladeforums.com/ubb/Forum3/HTML/001388.html

Obviously much higher impact forces than what I applied to the Recondo.

The pipe really isn't that hard. Here is a shot of a couple of cuts I made through it with the PAB from Strider which has a thinner edge bevel and deeper hollow grind than the Recondo :

http://www.physics.mun.ca/~sstamp/images/pipe_bits.jpg

I had to beat the pipe flat with the spine of the PAB before I could cut into it as otherwise the pressure was not enough to break through the metal because of the large contact area. I probably work hardened it slightly by pounding it flat. In any case I went about 0.25" - 0.5" down with the PAB and then finished the job with the Norse 'Hawk from Cold Steel, which also has a decently thin edge.

The 'Hawk suffered slight impaction, about 0.2 mm, just visible. The PAB less, about 0.1 mm, very hard to see, which I would expect as its a lot harder than the 'Hawk and has a thicker edge (20-22 degrees). Both blades did not chip. Both were very blunt in the contact areas.

As well besides the utility aspects I described in the above there are also the martial aspects. We have had discussions in the past about this in this forum. It seems reasonable for me to have a heavy fighting knife be able to resist a hard impact. Lots of knives are obviously not designed to do this, even some fighting knives. But they are not made out of thick stock, with shallow thick primary grinds and thick edges.

As with everything, you are free to decide for yourself what it necessary in regards to strength and durability (and edge holding and comfort and security etc.) and you obviously ignore anything that goes beyond what you need as the results are not personally relevant.

-Cliff

[This message has been edited by Cliff Stamp (edited 05-13-2001).]

Burke · May 13, 2001

"Because of the hollow grind on the Recondo, the blade is not supported under impact to the same extent that a flat grind will be. Specifically, when the blades were on the concrete floor the flat grind of the fillet blade allowed the back to make contact all along its surface. The hollow grind of the Recondo however meant that it was only in contact at the top and bottom of the grind and thus under impact had a much weaker structure."

The above is from Cliff's review. I would guess that a saw blade is probably a tougher steel than a cutlery steel as well (not knowing what kind of saw this is), and that it is flat ground, not hollow ground.

Cliff Stamp · May 13, 2001

Wood saw blades are usually like L6 which is extremely tough, it makes A2 look very brittle. They often have teeth that are specially hardened or with carbide tips. Metal cutting saws are often out of high speed steels but can be bi-metal. Take a hawksaw blade and bend it until it breaks to see how flexible it is.

I have a large piece of bandsaw steel about 15" long and about 3/16" thick that I keep meaning to grind into a machete. I tried it awhile ago but the machinability is very low which you would expect. I might try to get it annealed, then grind it and reharden it. But annealing an air cooling steel is not trivial. I might do some prying with it either and see if it can reach 40 degrees or so.

-Cliff

[This message has been edited by Cliff Stamp (edited 05-13-2001).]

Review : SOG X42 TiN Recondo

BOUNCED EMAIL: I need to update my email address in my profile!