Review : SOG X42 TiN Recondo

[Ron Andersen]

Hi Cliff,

These are relative terms "noticeable degree bend", "lot of pressure"

And beating the knife with a pipe is quantitative? By the way, has anyone found the need for beating one's knife with steel pipe in field use? How about chopping concrete blocks? Is micro waving the blade next? If someone needs to do some of these extra extreme things in the woods, maybe they live a far too careless life. (These prior comments come from a really nice guy who is exasperated with silly testing procedures.)

Your "research" benefits the knife community as much as my subjective terms (stated above). Our lab (and other independent sources) has reviewed your "research" and has yet to find anyway to even come close to replicating your testing methods in a controlled environment to find out if our outcome would parallel your "findings."

But the question is, "Why would we want to replicate your tests?" We'd rather stick with "relevant use scenarios." That would benefit everyone much more and we wouldn't look ignorant in the process.

 

[Crayola]

I am still learning a great deal from this thread, thanks to all. But one point that I think is part of the problem is that the Recondo, with its tanto point and such, is designed as a tough, small fighter type blade. Fighters take impact. Perhaps the one exception would be a dagger, and anyoen who carries a dagger should realize the inherent weaknesses (and strengths) in that design. The Randall #2 was designed to make a Sykes\Fairbairn in a stronger format. But a Randall #1 would obviously be stronger.

So I understand that the BG-42 was chosen for the decrease in the # of sharpenings needed, and I think SOG wanted to be the first out there with an AFFORDABLE BG-42 knife. BRAVO for that. I suspect, though that the X42 field knife will be a "better" knife than the Recondo as a field knife, because of the general shape. A Tanto isn't the best for general chores, and since BG-42 is for cutting and not for impact, I suspect the Field Knife will be a hit as a general cutting blade.

Though, I'm still kicking myself in the but for not picking up a Recondo in March. I went on vacation and saw an Applegate/Fairbairn dagger, a Nimravus cub and the Recondo, and came home with NO sharp friends! Next time...

 

[Doc4570]

Dear Ron,
So how is that vacation of yours coming along ??

Getting a lot of rest ?
Leaving those office worries behind you ?
Getting that blood pressure down ?

I heard another, very popular vacation activity is mining coal.
Maybe for Christmas. Think about it.

Doc

 

[Cliff Stamp]

Ron :

And beating the knife with a pipe is quantitative?

As I explained in depth in detail in the emails we exchanged this was done in a controlled manner. To be specific, a quote from the email in which I answered this question in detail :

The pipe for example was gripped at the very end and a hard snap was done from the shoulder with the pipe held perpendicular to the wrist. Maximum effort was used on the hits and a short rest was given inbetween the hits to eliminate fatigue. The contact point varied with a standard deviation of less than 1 cm on the
pipe.

If I had not chopped up the pipe later on I could have put a number on the impact energy, the mean of which would not have varied significantly. If you are curious I could also have found out the steel type, which is probably just mild steel. Very weak in any case, as it readily deformed under the impacts.

By the way, has anyone found the need for beating one's knife with steel pipe in field use? How about chopping concrete blocks?

As mentioned many times, there are lots of field uses that generate much more pressure on a blade and/or generate more energitic impacts, than the above and therefore can cause much more damage. You are getting stuck at the point that these specific tests are not tasks that you would actually perform and thus they are artifical (which is exatly the case for the most part), when you should be considering how actual use can replicate such forces on a blade, and in fact exceed them. As well of course there is the direct usage that Crayola noted. All of which is again covered in the review.

As for what I have described being subjective, yes a large part of it is still much more subjective that I would like it to be, there are still a lot of details that I have left to work out. Ideally I would want to do the work in such a manner that it is easily replicated without complicated equipment by anyone that wished to do so, but at the same time is quantative enough to allow rankings on past blades. Some significant gains have been made as of late (stock materials being used, estimates of impact energies, etc.), but there is still a ways to go before I would feel comfortable in comparing one blade to another on a stock set of tests without having used them side by side.

But the fact remains, I am simply describing my experience with a blade, you are giving people the official word from SOG on how to use it and more importantly what will be covered - you should be held to a <b>far higher</b> standard. As I have noted before, the primary goal of my reviews <i>in regards to a definate statement of knife performance</i> is to have the maker/manufacturer state such - as since I usually look at only one blade, I can't estimate the variance in performance that could be expected, so I cannot state what the expected performance should be on another blade. This again is clearly stated in the Recondo review. There are other goals for the reviews of course, generally they have to be combined together, again to make sure that you are not seeing a one-sample bias. Such as I noted for the edge holding, and edge aggression of the BG-42.

-Cliff

 

[Gator97]

Cliff

Some of the manufacturers like Benchmade were really pushing on the hardness of their ATS-34 blades getting them 61-62, and the difference in a couple of RC points can cut the impact toughness in half on some steels. As well, I seriously doubt that Benchmades heat treat is as tight a procedure as Paul Bos performs.
Agree.
Strider is speced at 61 HRC and I wouldn't call it brittle by any means, that was my point. Based on your messages and reviews I think you don't consider Stridre ATS-34 heavy duty blades being brittle, do you?

Bg-42 at 62-64 RC would however would be near ideal for something like the A.G. Russell Deerhunter.
I think it'd do jst fine in X42 or outdoor recondo, or whatever the final name will be for it. Unfortunatelly SOG dropped the HRC to 60

 

[Gator97]

Originally posted by Ron@SOG
SOG decided to digress a bit from Latrobe’s hardening guidelines of Rc 61-64 and modify these knives to range of about Rc 59-60. These new standards are in the process of being instituted on forthcoming product.

Ron, this is gona happen to outdoor recondo too? Why? It's not heavy duty or stabber, or anything like that. I thought that was rather a light use, more cuting optimized blade. At least that's what it looks like to me. May be I miss something here, but anyways.
Ok, the intended use of Recond reuires lower hardness, but how did the outdoor one is involved in that? Just because of the same alloy?

 

[Ron Andersen]

Hi Gator,

I'm under the impression that all SOG BG-42 knives will have the new Rc standards mentioned.

Between the Recondo and the Field Knife there should be no increased "abusive" behavior for the Recondo implied by the manufacturer to the user. The primary use is still cutting (with the Recondo having better stabbing capabilities).

It would a false assumption to say the Recondo can do anything and the Field Knife is for light duty tasks. Both are great performers.

Yes, they are both similar and different. The Field Knife will just have a more continuous edge for cutting and a flat grind (a bit thinner down the middle than that of the Recondo, though made of the same blade thickness stock).

Both will be outstanding user knives. But if one's standards are based solely on activities following Cliff's examples, the user may be disappointed. If one's standards are high, but realistic, the user (like the US Army Ranger the letter referenced above) will be outstandingly pleased.

We have never said that this knife is the absolute "best of the best" (with nothing better out there). We're not that arrogant. Leave knives that perform in that elitist league to those like custom makers selling their knives at three times the cost. Our knives are outstanding performers at a great value. Keep things in perspective.

Let me apologize once again for any "edge" to my tone. Defending our product against such unrealistic and abusive activity is very difficult and becomes a bit personal. It's like trying to tell someone that there is little truth in fantasy and they don't understand. I can only hope those who are rational can tell the difference.

 

[Gator97]

Hi Ron,

Originally posted by Ron@SOG

I'm under the impression that all SOG BG-42 knives will have the new Rc standards mentioned.
Hmm, kindda pity. Would've been interesting.

The primary use is still cutting (with the Recondo having better stabbing capabilities).
In which the outdor one definitely preveals

It would a false assumption to say the Recondo can do anything and the Field Knife is for light duty tasks. Both are great performers.

Well I guess that's personal. I personally couldn't find much utility use for Recondo, and I am not into stabbing anyways.
As of outdoor one, even though I have never seen it, I think it'll be
good with light/medium cutting, but less likely I'll try to chop or pry heavily with it.

 

[Bugs3x]

Thanks, Ron. I appreciate the response. Guess my paranoia was on overload. Kinda goes with the territory of my PTSD.

 

[Ron Andersen]

Originally posted by Doc4570
Dear Ron,
So how is that vacation of yours coming along ??

Getting a lot of rest ?
Leaving those office worries behind you ?
Getting that blood pressure down ?

I heard another, very popular vacation activity is mining coal.
Maybe for Christmas. Think about it.

Doc

Hey Doc,

I missed this and caught while re-reading. Priceless! Thanks.

 

[Krizzard]

Heh! Heh!

Poor Ron, Looks like you're in for a short holiday. But as someone very close to you once wrote," we live in a democracy...."

Can't please everybody.


Krizzard. out.
"...Whoever kills with the sword must be killed by the sword... "
- The New Testament, Revelation 13 :10

 

[qwertyname]

In reading through this thread there are a couple of stated or implied issues, which are something of a concern to me ...

First, Ron stating that the casual reader is going to be overly influenced by pictures and won't really read Cliff's review. I'm really quite uncomfortable with this, because it assumes a level of ignorance which may or may not be true in the general populace, and it puts Ron's ideal reviewer in the position of having to determine what experimental data people should or should not have, essentially providing a level of protection for the company. From the standpoint of objectivity alone I am concerned with this, but further it certainly implies a level of "editing" which would make my distrust data from SOG directly. I would hypothesize that if in fact the Recondo had "survived" Cliff's testing, Ron would likely include it as a link for people interested in reviews of the Recondo. I base this on the fact that SOG does "publish" reviews by people who have liked the knives. Assuming for a moment that my supposition is true, then SOG would be in the position of editing information that is negative, and pushing information that is positive. In short the review process becomes advertising, and much of its value is lost.

Second, perhaps I am unusual in this as I really have no need to see a comparison of the Recondo to a similar BG42 knife. Obviously more information is better, but I'm not dying for it. In particular I'm not that interested in it regarding the cutting performance. Why? The edge grind and bevels Cliff indicates tells me the knife won't slice well. Anyone that has ever sharpened anything would probably know that. The wear resistance, which is a great advertising point of BG42 was still represented in the test. Certainly a test against a Sebenza would tell me that a better geometry would make a better slicing BG42 blade, but what does that tell me? I could do the same with mild steel and have similar relative results. In terms of the shock resistance, I've read the review of the Ray Kirk Bowie in 52100, the Strider WB in ATS34 and the Busse Battle Mistress in INFI. These represent comparisons which I can get a mental handle on and tell me about as much as anything except a side by side with one of those knives in BG42 would be. Again there still would be some lacking relevance, because the Recondo at under $100 is 1/3 the cost of the Busse or the Strider as is, and probably would be 1/4 or 1/5th the cost of either of those in BG42. So the question of value would have to be introduced.

Third, Ron and Cliff to some extent have been like ships passing in the night. Nowhere in Cliff's review did he say that SOG warrantied the knife for what he was going to do to it. Nowhere did Cliff imply he was expecting (in fact he explicitly stated that he did not expect) the knife to be covered for his testing. Overall I think Ron has been more than clear that SOG would not have warrantied the type of testing that Cliff did, based on previous forum discussions about warranty. Basically, the issue came down to a question Cliff phrased quite simply, "is this what you expected to happen?" By itself this is a simple enough question, and the outcomes are simple enough. It only seems to get complicated when Cliff says, "other knives can do this better." Now, to the customer, does this imply that the Recondo should have done this? As a customer, my answer is no. As I pointed out before, you are dealing with a value statement at that point, do I expect a $100 utility design knife to outperform a combat specific $350 knife in a propriety shock specific steel? Probably not. As it is the Recondo seems to perform better in certain aspects than the infamous Mad Dog TUSK which Cliff reviewed some time ago, and is probably 1/7th to 1/10th the cost of that.

Fourth, what is the knife designed to be used for/what do the specs. really say? Certainly from the blade style and overall construction, to me, it LOOKS like a knife designed for hammer or saber grip fighting in places where rust, rot and sharpening are difficult issues. Is this really what it is for? According to Ron probably not. Will it serve in those circumstances if necessary, again according to Ron, probably so. Given that, does Cliff's testing simulate realistic usage? I think it depends on for whom. Obviously for the General, no - he stated this. Personally, the issue is really is the testing Cliff is doing TRANSLATABLE to something I might realistically do? Some yes, some no. The infamous "pipe beating" is an interesting question as I have often hammered on the back of a knife to split wood, but I'm inclined to think that beating on the edge doesn't translate as well to the possibility of hitting a nail or wire while cutting.

(The kenetic energy of the pipe is most likely going to be much higher, given that the pipe has more mass and from my read has high rotational velocity than the blade alone would. Further, since both pipe and nail are round, initial contact area on a flat is going to be the same. Thus, in the pipe scenario, in my estimation, the knife has to absorb a greater amount of energy in shock load, and as in equivalent transient peak load to a nail scenario. Granted the nail is probably harder than the pipe, so in the nail scenario the load doesn't get distributed via deformation as the pipe does, but to me that would also imply a more localized damage.)

Finally, and I'm sure all of you are glad to see the word, Cliff in his review includes the statement that he is not telling you what the knife is good for. He isn't recommending it, he isn't panning it, which if you read the whole thread about the TUSK he is given to do if he feels it is justified. He didn't do alot of low stress tests, which I am glad of, because for a field/utility knife, I don't care much about the low stress tests. Realistically, any knife can look good in low stress tests. In my personal opinion, with the exception of the edge geometry issue, I thought the knife handled a reasonable amount of abuse in the test. It seemed to stab well enough with low pressure, didn't show chipping until going into the metal on metal tests. If I wanted such a knife, I would certainly consider it for the price.

Granted, no manufacturer wants to see a broken knife, and all such customer service reps want to defend the company they work for. However, I definately see value in the reviews that Cliff does and take them in the fashion in which I think he intends them. Compare this to that, take the pieces that simulate my reality and leave the others. Overall, I think that Ron has handled this better than others have, and I commend him for that. I sincerely doubt that SOG's sales of the Recondo will be significantly effected one way or the other by Cliff's review. Despite the hemming and hawing going about, no one seems to have expected the knife to survive what Cliff did, including Ron, so to me the question of whether the test was "realistic" or not isn't even relevant. When you do a Charpy V - Notch test on a material you break the material. You still learn something from it.

 

[Ron Andersen]

Hi Qwertyname,

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I'd like to respond to several of your thoughts.

Ron stating that the casual reader is going to be overly influenced by pictures and won't really read Cliff's review. I'm really quite uncomfortable with this, because it assumes a level of ignorance which may or may not be true in the general populace, and it puts Ron's ideal reviewer in the position of having to determine what experimental data people should or should not have, essentially providing a level of protection for the company.

I can assure you that the average reader cannot easily read and digest Cliff's reviews. If you can, you are in an above average class. I'm far from knife illiterate, have read Cliff's review probably a dozen times and still don't feel I have the full grasp of what he trying to state or the conclusions he's trying to make. Our engineers (more techie than myself) had to read and reread it. So, if those in the "know" are struggling with the "evaluation," others will likely walk away confused, not assimilating the data as Cliff intended it. I've personally talked with well over 50 people who negatively struggled with Cliff's "research." I've talked with Cliff about the methods of his conveyance of data, and he really does not care if the populace at large can understand it. He was clear that he is documenting his research only for a select few. What a pity from someone who has so much to offer us all.

The "level of protection" you are referring to was not my concern. I've already stated that breaking the knife was fair to understand its upper limits. It is the method in that it was broken and the way in that it was so prominently displayed. And the lack of science Cliff applied to his testing. "Research" should be fair: "Did the knife break in an activity that it was intended to perform?" Beating the knife with a steel pipe is not fair. He might as well run over it with a tank.

I would hypothesize that if in fact the Recondo had "survived" Cliff's testing, Ron would likely include it as a link for people interested in reviews of the Recondo.

I've done so anyway at customers' request.

In short the review process becomes advertising, and much of its value is lost.

Again, there is no "value" if the knife was handled in a way it was not intended to be used.

The edge grind and bevels Cliff indicates tells me the knife won't slice well.

I should correct this. Since the Recondo's inception, every piece is being designated for QC testing for sharpness. If Cliff's slipped through, I apologize for that. But every one must slice paper. Maybe I do not understand what you meant by "won't slice well." It is a bit of a blunter grind for edge protection, but I can promise you, they come "sharp."

Again there still would be some lacking relevance, because the Recondo at under $100 is 1/3 the cost of the Busse or the Strider as is, and probably would be 1/4 or 1/5th the cost of either of those in BG42. So the question of value would have to be introduced.

Very good point. Cliff's comparisons have lacked greatly in his "research." My wife just finished her Master's Degree. If she had used such poor comparisons in her research project, she would have instantly been taken to task, asked to delete such portion, possibly start over, or simply failed.

This issue of "value" is also important. SOG is a "production" manufacturer. Other companies are closer to custom (they're making their knives either one at a time, or in small lots). SOG's are made in much higher lots. We feel that the quality suffers very, very little from those of custom knives (this has been proven by our very satisfied customers), but it is impossible for any "production" knife maker to equal the performance of some of these other knives at three time the price. It is through SOG's production standards, that we can offer such quality and value to our customers.

Nowhere in Cliff's review did he say that warrantied the knife for what he was going to do to it. Nowhere did Cliff imply he was expecting (in fact he explicitly stated that he did not expect) the knife to be covered for his testing.

Cliff's philosophy on the handling of knives is actually quite clear. A knife must apparently do "all things"…perfectly. Whether extreme lateral force or chopping cement, a knife should be used for these purposes. If Cliff regularly finds himself in perilous and precarious situations in the woods that would necessitate beating the knife with a steel pipe or chopping concrete, he is very unlucky and I would not feel him a safe hiking/camping partner.

SOG's warranty as quoted from SOG's website

This guarantee is voided (as determined by SOG) by misuse, abuse, improper maintenance, or alterations of the product and does not cover any normal wear that might occur….Cases of surface rust, bent and broken tips, and coatings are also not covered under this warranty.

I don't think there should have been any misunderstanding on Cliff's part. Also, SOG's warranty is very, very similar to most every "production" knife manufacturer. I think Cliff maybe read on a couple (or few) really high end knives a completely unrestrictive warranty, such as, something like, "we'll give you a new knife regardless of how it breaks." If Cliff chose to then believe that ALL knives should be held to the same standard, then that is Cliff's misconception to make. I believe that Cliff does understand the differing warranty policies, but chooses to ignore them in his knife handling.

Overall I think Ron has been more clear that SOG would not have warrantied the type of testing that Cliff did…"

Correct and incorrect. I did quality that if the knife was found to have a manufacturer's defect, I would replace the knife. That did not end up to be the case.

It only seems to get complicated when Cliff says, "other knives can do this better." Now, to the customer, does this imply that the Recondo should have done this?

Very good point. Cliff does complicate the issue by saying "other knives can do this better." Which knives? Should those knives even be in the same category, thus tested side-by-side? These are some of the concerns I've expressed about Cliff's "testing." The comparing "apples for apples" is apparently not necessary. His rationale has been, "I didn't have anything close, and so I used what I had." This is not sound science.

Given that, does Cliff's testing simulate realistic usage? I think it depends on for whom.

If someone wants a knife to do "all" things, then yes, Cliff did relevant testing. But I've read all over the place that a knife is the most expense, poorly performing pry bar you can buy. It seems that SOG is not the only company to discourage this application. In a pinch, should it be able to? Yes. But to what degree? Materials will assist in answering that. A tougher, more flexible steel would be one's choice.

I have often hammered on the back of a knife to split wood…

This is not an activity supported by most knife manufacturers. But, beating on the spine versus beating on the flat side are two completely different things.

I sincerely doubt that SOG's sales of the Recondo will be significantly effected one way or the other by Cliff's review.

Don't be so hasty with this comment. I've talked with some really confused people who have read this "review" and even several who believe that if Cliff speaks, "it must be truth." I'm certain we have taken a hit in sales. How much is completely impossible to calculate.

Overall, I think that Ron has handled this better than others have, and I commend him for that.

I appreciate this. At times, I feel I did cross the line of professionalism.

Everyone needs to evaluate for themselves if this was relevant testing. I would rather see Cliff break the knife hacking a forest of timber before having him beating it with a pipe. At least in the "forest" scenario, it's more reflective of the materials the knife should be coming in contact with. Cliff's testing methodology certainly seems to favor "This knife must break, period," versus "Will this knife break at the limits of its intended use?"

Again, I appreciate your thoughtful response. It seemed to be as unbiased as possible.

I've always wondered if the professors at the university Cliff is at would endorse these tests as "pure science."

 

[qwertyname]

Ron,

Thanks for the quick response. I'd like to try and clarify some of what I have said, because I think you have possibly misinterpreted a few points.

First, I will start by saying that I don't really know what "fair" has to do with in a test. I completely understand your contention that you would have prefered to see Cliff go through the testing performing tasks that the knife was designed and warrantied for. However, Cliff chose to test the knife in a way that represented the extremes of performance of the knife. I don't think even Cliff would contend that on a typical trip through the woods you would encounter all of the conditions he had, nor that given a choice the Recondo would be the tool of choice for all of those circumstances. By the definition of does this fit in "designed for this use" the tests were "unfair", but they did tell me a number of things about the knife.

Second, I will grant that Cliff's reviews can be a bit denser than other reviews, but as an engineer myself I have no problem going through them and evaluating them for what they are, description of a set of conditions and the results. Following Cliff's instructions in the reviews, I take away those pieces that I feel are representative of something I will deal with and leave the pieces that are not. However, the important part is that the only bias to deal with is Cliff's own. As he has spent his own money to distroy a Strider WB, a Busse Battle Mistress and a Mad Dog TUSK (among many others I'm sure, these are just the ones I can remember easily) along with a SOG Recondo, I am inclined to think he may have a personal dislike for large knives, but not a bias towards or against any given manufacturer. As you say you posted the link at customer's request, and I still suspect you would have posted it more eagerly if the Recondo had "survived" the testing. To me, almost independant of the quality of the testing, this provides me with certain security in what I am reading. SOG certainly is not a company based on "hype", but there is no question that what comes from SOG will show a bias - as it should.

Third, I think you may be assuming too much about Cliff's expectations. I find it very hard to believe that Cliff bought the knife with any intent other than to beat it until it broke in a fashion that told him what he wanted to know about the steel and the knife. Having read his review, I certainly wouldn't have expected the knife to come through undamaged, and given the amount of this Cliff has done, I can't believe he expected it either. Cliff spent his money not to own a knife, but to learn something about a steel and a knife. To assume something different is unrealistic. Thus, as I said before, I don't think the warranty issue ever came into this, unless for some reason Cliff actually submitted it for that purpose. Now, I think it is particularly honorable for SOG to be willing to look at the knife and consider it for a manufacturing defect at this point.

Fourth, from the standpoint of comparison to other products, certainly it might have been helpful in Cliff's review if he had stated the price of the related knives he used in comparison. As an evaluation of "which knife should I buy" it certainly would have been more informative to compare to offerings from, say, Cold Steel. However, again, I took something useful away from the comparisons that he did make.

Two final thoughts, as I see I am waxing verbose again, first, regarding the slicing ability - I know SOG knives are sharp, I have a Bowie and a Trident, but edge geometry is a different subject. A 90 degree angle can be sharp, and cut paper, but will not necessarily slice as well as a very narrow angle that isn't as sharp. The angles that Cliff found on his Recondo would definately not slice as well as many knives, probably including the SOG Tigershark with the convex grind, and certainly not as well as Sebenza which has a thinner blade and a narrower angle. If Cliff's knife is representative, possibly Spencer and the engineers should consider a different edge geometry.

Last, all in all, I think that even if initially Cliff's review has some negative effect on sales, in the longer term, the sale of the product will go back to how well the product meets its design goals, and how well those design goals meet the customer demand. As I said, Cliff managed to break a $350 Battle Mistress, a $400 WB and an $800 TUSK, and I haven't read of any significant reduction in sales of those products. Ultimately value always wins. In my estimation, the Recondo and the upcoming Field Knife still represent the only $100 BG42 knives in that size easily available, and so from a value perspective that still looks pretty good. As I said, if I needed a knife like that, I would still certainly consider one.

Hope I still sound objective, even if I am long.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

Gator97 :

I think you don't consider Stridre ATS-34 heavy duty blades being brittle

It depends on the baseline used. Ranking common cutlery steels by strength, compaction and wear resistance, many non-carbon steels will compete with ATS-34 in those areas - yet exceed its impact toughness and overall durability. So in that respect it is brittle. However comparing it to common stainless grades like 440C, VG-10, CPM-440V/420V, then no ATS-34 is not brittle. However, compared to lower carbon, lower alloy grades like 420HC, then again yes it is brittle.

I think it'd do just fine in X42 or outdoor recondo

Yes, and this this reveals the basic problem. The steel is considered independently of the geometry of the knife. Read for example what Ed Caffrey has to say about "The complete package".

Qwertyname :

it puts Ron's ideal reviewer in the position of having to determine what experimental data
people should or should not have ...

Using of course the guidelines from the maker, obviously an unbiased perspective.

...essentially providing a level of protection for the company. From the standpoint of
objectivity alone I am concerned with this, but further it certainly implies a level of "editing"
which would make my distrust data from SOG directly.

Yes, exactly my point of view.

SOG does "publish" reviews by people who have liked the knives.

Which brings up another important critical point. Much of what Ron says in the above does contain valid points. For example I did not estimate the energy of the pipe before the impacts, the force I was applying when I bent the tip / main blade body etc., thus it would be difficult for someone to duplicate the results from the review alone (they could always ask for the relevant details of course). Which is an amusing point, Ron critizes the reviews for being too technical, but when I gloss over a lot of technical details that would only be important to few few people, he critizes that position as well. It can only be one way or the other.

But forget about this for a moment and apply the same criteria to other reviews of SOG products which were positive, does Ron make the same demains about controls - no. A strong bias is showing. Consider the following; remove all the testing in the review I did which damaged the knife, and now use as a baseline only knives that perform worse than the Recondo under such useage guidelines as Ron would control. How do you think Ron would have responded to that review. Now would that have been a better review?

[nail vs pipe]

that would also imply a more localized damage

Yes, and result in far more extensive impaction or fracture. Most accidental impacts have a much greater potential for damage than an impact with a mild steel pipe. First off it is usually a greater strength impact (as you are not worried about mashing the other guys hand if you miss), there is a lower contact area (consider a jagged rock face), and as well the pipe deformed readily under the impacts, nails, rocks and such will not and thus the impulse generated from the collision will be <b>much</b> greater.

Granted, no manufacturer wants to see a broken knife

Depends on <b>how</b> it was broken. Look at how Busse responded to the treatment of the Basic #7 (my Battle Mistress is still in one piece) and he is hardly the only one with such a point of view. Many manufacturers / makers react to such work in a positive way, as do various users who loan me their knives. Beyond those who want to see limit testing and outright suggest it, knowing very well that I am public about <b>all</b> results good or bad, I know many more who have responded in a very positive manner when I discussed points of failure with them, which often involved duplicating testing they had done. A lot of which was using the knife well beyond the scope of intended use, or using poor method / excessive force, heavy fatigue etc. .

Ron :

I 've talked with Cliff about the methods of his conveyance of data, and he really does not
care if the populace at large can understand it.

Not exactly, there are simply other considerations besides readibilty. Many elements of knife performance are not trivial and depend on "technical" factors like moment of inertia, grain structure of the steel, etc. . Such commentary has on occasion spawned several very information email/thread discussions and I have no intention of stopping it nor removing such from the reviews. Of course, if you don't understand something and want clarification, you can always drop me an email, usually that tends to cause the review to be updated if it was the subject of the discussion.

there is no "value" if the knife was handled in a way it was not intended to be used.

If someone wants a knife to do "all" things, then yes, Cliff did relevant testing.

This shows Ron's perspective clearly in that he wants the reviews to serve as an ad for the knife - this is not my purpose at all. It is also misleading on two parts. First off all who defines the "intended" use? The maker? What about if two different makers have radically different viewpoints on very similar knives? Whose perspective controls the review? But even if everyone agreed, it would still be false as the parts of the review that exceeding design usage are there to demonstrate what you have to sacrifice to get the performance in the intended scope of work.

I can promise you, they come "sharp."

The edge on the Recondo is far too thick and obtuse to slice well regardless of the sharpness which is just a matter of edge alignment and polish. The Recondo was sharpened and much of the cutting work was repeated and the results presented in the review.

[in regards to price value]

Cliff's comparisons have lacked greatly in his "research."

If you include this factor, the cheapest blade always dominates at an extreme level. If I included a cheap paring knife in the cutting tests for example and scaled the results in a linear manner with blade cost you would want a log scale to even see the performance of the other knives. This has been covered in extensive detail on the forums in the past. As well the price of these knives are well known as I link to the relevant pages. Which is another critical point, I can't make those decisions / judgements, the reader has to.

Cliff does complicate the issue by saying "other knives can do this better." Which knives? Should
those knives even be in the same category

Yes, several of which will be featured in upcoming reviews so you can find more detail there.

[using a piece of wood as a mallet]

This is not an activity supported by most knife manufacturers.

You really only need one that does, and I can think many more than that.

I would rather see Cliff break the knife hacking a forest of timber before having him beating
it with a pipe.

This is pretty amusing. Besides the fact that it is not nearly as safe to approach limit strength/durability in actual use, you can't in general be as specific about the break points when they happen and that is one of the main complaints you make about what was done. In any case, it does happen from time to time, and you can read in several reviews where the blades did suffer gross damage in actual use. If such random events don't happen I will eventually induce them. Note as well that you can extrapolate the results from the work done if you have done both, and I have, and have discussed the results in email with people who were interested in applying the results.

qwertname :

I don't think even Cliff would contend that on a typical trip through the woods you would
encounter all of the conditions

Personally no, even a single incident doesn't happen on a constant basis, but then I tend to be overcareful about such things, inspect material before cutting it etc.. . It depends on the user, several of my friends who I loan a blade out to will put more damage on it in a day that I would in a month. Then again it is not their knife/money, and they know such things don't bother me and actually are of interest, so they are quite probably looking for odd things to do.

Thus, as I said before, I don't think the warranty issue ever came into this, unless for some
reason Cliff actually submitted it for that purpose.

No. In regards to warranty issues, currently (pretty much after the TUSK incident I think) I decided to write off any blades that I buy so it is not a personal consideration. I will often ask about the expected performance, but that is all. Obviously I can't state in the reviews what is covered and what is not as that is to be decided by the maker / manufacturer, often without using any strict guidelines that you can base usage on, such as Ron has detailed in the above.

-Cliff

 

[Ken Cook]

Cliff,

I stopped reading your reviews about three years ago and because of this, I'm seeing this particular review through "fresh eyes" and what I see is a little disturbing.

Your review raises a few questions for me.

Right off the bat, you spend a paragraph or so ridiculing SOG's use of terms like "extremely tough" and so on. Are you reviewing the company's knife, or their Marketing Department? Doesn't really matter. You made it very clear that "Impartiality" had flown out the window before you even started the "review."

You compare the cutting ability of the Recondo to a couple of different knives, one of which is a custom, and the Recondo does not compare favorably. Do you learn anything when you compare Ferraris to Camaros?

You compare the Recondo to a couple of different customs and a couple of Striders, and in your post above, you compare it to a Busse! Why compare Apples and Oranges?

It seems to me that if you wanted to do a fair and honest comparison for the sake of expanding Forum member's knowledge of a given knife, you would make some attempt to compare apples to apples. Doesn't "Recondo vs. Nimravus" make a little more sense?

Or better yet, make no comparisons at all!

Speaking for myself alone, I don't really care for comparison testing. I don't need to be told that a $400 knife is generally going to outperform a $100 knife. If the $100 knife performs as well as the $400 job, it should be more an indictment of the 400 dollar blade than praise for the $100 model shouldn't it?

As to your testing methods...

Okay, I was with you as far as the part where you had someone striking the knife while you held it in your hand. That has some small value as a testing method. It falls into the "It Could Happen" catagory. It could happen if you're going to use a small blade for large blade Bowie fighting tactics. (But the Recondo ain't exactly a Crossada or Hell's Belle!) But you're already using the knife in a manner for which it wasn't designed.

But when you couldn't do enough damage to the knife that way, you weren't satisfied. You had to stick it in a piece of wood and swing away in your best Mark McQuire style? At exactly what point in the "fight" does that happen, Cliff?

Laying it on a concrete floor and pounding it with a hammer? (or an eight pound maul???)

What do you learn from that? That it can be broken?

It occurs to me that I could use your "methods" and either praise or damn any knife I wanted to. I could decide what results I wanted to acheive, and then acheive exactly those results with any knife. I could then legitimize my results by tossing in a few spread sheets and bar graphs. When you begin your "review" by belittling a company for it's advertising material, it's not much of a leap for one to wonder if that is perhaps exactly what you did.

Busses can be destroyed.
Striders can be destroyed.
Customs can be destroyed.
Anything can be destroyed.

So the real question in the end, is; "Is there a knife that Cliff Stamp can't mis-use and abuse until it breaks?"

The only question any knife (or other tool) user should care about is; "Will this tool perform the task it was designed to perform?"

I think, before you got your hands and hammers on it, that this Recondo would have done it's job just fine. It's a damned shame that it got such a bad rap because it wouldn't do what it wasn't designed to do and I surely hope that SOG doesn't provide warranty service on it. I'd hate to see the cost of intentional mis-use, abuse, and destruction get passed on to future customers.

My .02, YMMV, IMHO, etc...

 

[Cliff Stamp]

Ken :

Are you reviewing the company's knife, or their Marketing Department?

I have tried different formats for the reviews. At that time I was starting the reviews with comments on the design from the makers. After I put that in it came to me that if I didn't comment on it directly it could be inferred that this was support, so I had to address the statements made. Later on I decided to abandon this as it doesn't allow replies to the comments. Currently I deal with such issues in the threads such as with the RCM review which contains commentary on Newts viewpoint on the design.

"Impartiality" had flown out the window before you even started the "review."

The order of the text in the review dosen't follow a linear timeline. They are usually wrote after all the work has been completed, sometimes much later. However, do I have preconceptions about knives before I use them. Yes. If I use a particular steel, and buy another knife with the same steel I can expect similar performance and so on. If I have materials information on a steel its the same thing.

Now a reasonable question is do these preconceptions induce a bias? I don't think they do and there is evidence for this as indicated by occasions in the past where I have described unexpected results. Furthermore they obviously didn't in this case, as Sog has commented that the performance of the Recondo is as would be expected. Thus the results are by defination, unbiased.

Now you could argue that the choice of testing was biased so as to make the Recondo look bad, however I asked Sog multiple times to suggest testing that would showcase the intended design. I was never given any specifics. As well the methods that were used to damage the Recondo have been exceeded on other blades.

Why compare Apples and Oranges?

To understand the differences between them. What exactly about the design for example makes it for a specific purpose.

The idea of the reviews isn't to promote a knife. They are not in general even limited to comments on the specific knife in question but will included comments on steels, geometry and design issues as a whole as well as particular aspects of performance that are not limited to the one particular knife in question. Such as steeling vs stropping for example.

When I get a knife it mainly just gets used in rotation. Though on occasion I will look at a specific point, and a lot of which is artifical like leaving a knife in a bucket of salt water. Later, this is collected together. But this isn't the purpose from the beginning. I'll will though often go out and specifically address points left out of the picture, often dictated from user feedback.

Doesn't "Recondo vs. Nimravus" make a little more sense?

Most knives will be compared to what I have at hand, which ideally would yes include , but not be limited to, knives of similar geometry and steel.

Or better yet, make no comparisons at all!

Performance is relative. Unless you relate the ability to another knife it is undefined.

If the $100 knife performs as well as the $400 job, it should be more an indictment of the 400 dollar blade than praise for the $100 model shouldn't it?

One or the other. Either someone is far above average or someone is far below. You would need other comparisons to make a definate statement.

But you're already using the knife in a manner for which it wasn't designed.

And as I have stated many times in the past who is to define this standard? If it is the makers this is clearly biased. You don't let someone selling a product set the standard for how it is to be judged.

As for the raw level of the impacts, there are lots of impacts that would happen in use which are in fact more stressful than were the hammer hits on the blade , batoning a knife into an inclusion for example. The full swing bars hits are pretty extreme though, the only thing that would replicate them off the top of my head would be if the blade was used as a brush hook and it hit an inclusion.

Which is something I keep meaning to look at, but keep forgetting to take surgical tubing with me to lash the blades to poles. It is rather extreme, and yes there are few blades that can function in this manner, some can though. I don't think for example the TAC-11 would be grossly damaged by it as the knife is of a higher grade of steel and similar geomety to a brush hook blade.

[hitting it with the bar and the hammer]

What do you learn from that?

When and how it breaks. Just like cutting rope until a knife blunts you can learn how it blunts and how long it takes. With the hammer I was curious if the steel would be as brittle as I have been told it would be. In retrospect the results were a bit skewed by the hollow grind. It would have been informative to look at how hard it would have been to break if the primary grind was flat, or convex.

It occurs to me that I could use your "methods" and either praise or damn any knife I wanted to.

However if you damm a knife for low performance in a particular aspect, which is actually average for that class, it isn't going to be a very strong arguement. Which is where comparisons come into play.

Busses can be destroyed. Striders can be destroyed. Customs can be destroyed.

Yes, the reviews contain examples of all three. The question of importance, and this comes back to comparisons again, is there any difference in what it takes to break the knife, and how the knife does fail when it does. The same thing goes for all aspects of performance.

-Cliff

 

[Ken Cook]

There are a lot of points I'd like to address, but I don't want to give the impression that I'm trying to start a fight so I won't pick your post apart, I'll just address this one issue, as I believe it's at the heart of the matter.

Originally posted by Cliff Stamp
And as I have stated many times in the past who is to define this standard? If it is the makers this is clearly biased. You don't let someone selling a product set the standard for how it is to be judged.

The "standard" (How a given design is intended to be used) is not set by the manufacturer. Nor is it set by you, me, or the guy down the street. The "standard" is within the nature of the given knife.

Every different style of knife has strengths and weaknesses according to it's nature. You would no more expect a custom "gentleman's folder" to serve as a "camp knife" than you would expect a Custom Fighting Bowie to serve as a "pen knife."

An intelligent knife user expects none of them to function as a prybar or a tent peg.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

Ken Cook :

The "standard" (How a given design is intended to be used) is not set by the manufacturer. Nor is it set by you, me, or the guy down the street. The "standard" is within the nature of the given knife.

Which I would agree as it is defined by geometry, construction and materials. However, how is a user supposed to come to this conclusion on suitability of use? Only by gaining an understanding of the where and how behind the constraints. This can only be achieved by using the blade and finding out where it excells, where it just makes do, and where it fares badly. This is at the core of the commentary I make on blades. All of them will be used over a wide range of use, the reader has to look at what was done, what they need to do, and then decide which parts of the review are relevant to them.

An intelligent knife user expects none of them to function as a prybar or a tent peg.

First off, all knives are subjected to lateral loads when in use, even for such really light cutting like through cardboard. As an extreme example, many kitchen knives (food prep in general), take huge bends when cutting. As well for heavier wood working, strong dedicated prying is used in chip removal, as well as to free a blade that has wedged tightly in the wood. A case can also be made for dedicated prying which has nothing to do with cutting at all simply because lots of knives can.

It again comes back to comparisons, if others can't reach the same standards(prying or otherwise) it simply indicates their failing (assuming similar promoted class and lack of superior abilities in other aspects). This is no different than any other property such as edge retention, sharpness or corrosion resistance. Now if you want to argue that there are trade offs, and that you can for example give up prying ability for edge retention, that is a perfectly valid argument. And such will come out in an overview of the blades abilities.

As a whole, the reason that most people have such a skewed perspective on abuse is the common place use of highly brittle stainless steels. Spring steels and the like have a much greater ductility and impact toughness (many to one), and will be completely uneffeced by usage that breaks the other blades apart. Now again you can argue this is a tradeoff of durability for corrosion resistance, and I would agree. Which is why I think it is important to point out the limitations of design and steels alongside their optimal abilities. Intentionally not doing this is a clear case of bias, usually done for promotional reasons.

-Cliff