s30v

[Moodino]

With all due respect. They do buy hype. I can tell you that as a former insider selling hype to them.Just so you know, knives figure very low on the GSA / Military contacting totem pole, right down there with the quality of MREs. 99% of testing money is spent on software and big ticket items like tanks, jets and sophisticated ordinance and guidance systems. To the Military the only test of a knife might be weather it "Looks" like it would pass muster. Sorry 'bout that !

....They don't buy hype. To suggest they don't know any better is truly arrogant.

 

[Jerry Hossom]

Moodino, with all due respect, knife selections by Special Forces and Recon Marines do not fall into the same category as MRE's. The knives were tested and approved by an evaluation team from each of those organizations, selected for specific knowledge of the subject and need. These are the same people who select contract martial arts training programs and definitely not a matter routinely handled by Army Ordnance or GSA. These are not the stuff/crap that's sold at PX's. These are issue weapons.

If you sold "hype" to the military, I'm surprised you'd be on here bragging about it.

 

[Jerry Hossom]

On the subject of veracity. Here's the review of the Buck Solution written by Cliff on his site.

http://www.cutleryscience.com/reviews/solution.html

Note particularly such things as, "The initial edge sharpness was low, however it was a used blade and the edge was chipped along its length, not large enough to see, but readily felt with the thumbnail. While ATS-34 isn't that easy to machine, because the edge angle was quite acute and more importantly the edge is very evenly ground, one of the best seen in awhile, the edge was honed to a razor sharpness on a Sharpmaker with 5 passes on the medium and then five on the fine."

And, "The Solution was used to dig a hole in rocky soil large enough to fit a one gallon bucket. The edge chipped readily in rock contacts, about 0.5 millimeters deep, three large visible chips, the tip also fractured, lost about a millimeter. No fine cutting ability was left on the edge used to dig, the Solution could not even score ropes for example. This was semi-stressful digging, initially using the knife as pick and shovel, but as the hole progressed more as a pick with the off hand removing the debris. It was not going really light trying to concentrate impacts on the spine, which make it easy on the knife but hard on the user, but nor was it raising the knife up and slamming it hard like a pick, it was more poking than actual stabbing as would be done with an actual pick.

And, "The Solution was then batoned into a spruce log and walked on. with 1.5" of the blade in the wood it easily took 200 lbs on the handle. However a light pop from a hammer to loosen it and the blade broke in half and another piece broke out of the edge up by the handle, not in the impact area, just from the vibration in the blade."

But cutting nails is not a useful test...

Hardheart, from Cliff above: This shows how a simple SAK and Opinel are far superior to ATS-34 and even S30V in edge stability. Note again, the SAK was SUPERIOR in edge retention to the S30V knives."

 

[Leatherface]

personally i LOVE threads like this!!!

And here I thought that 5160 was the ultimate steel!!!

Jerry and a couple others

I have heard that ( and have had it happen to me with a HI CAK) certain steels "edges" arent that sharp or durable till they are sharpened a couple times..Could this be the chipping that is being discussed??

OHH and if s30V sucked, then Benchmade wouldnt use it for so many knives...IMO

please carry on!


the unprettier is coming

 

[sams]

I too found this thread both entertaining and educational. I'm old, active service in the USN from '68 to '72. I can talk about knives used in the TEAMs but it is not the topic.

I use a knife dailey. I still work in the water. I cut wet rope very often. I think that use, and skinning game is my ultimate test for a knife edge. Sean McWilliams was whom I first heard talking about blade geometry after Mr. Moran. Knife shapes or rather blade shapes should be matched to the job.
I found O1, BG42, S30v, D2, 154cm, ats 34, and Scandanavian, German 440c to make great steel blades.

For the past 50 yrs of carrying and using knifes, all I can say is thank you to the master knife smiths, Mr. Lile, Mr. Hossom, Mr. Lake, Mr. Dowel, Mr. Hibbens, Mr. Dozier, and so many more. I used and enjoy their products.

I would like to add, VG10 is my current knife steel in use and love it. I carry my Chris Reeves S30v Neil Robert's knife in a bag and it does quite a job in the Gulf. I used it to clean a nice Red fish for dinner the other night. No chopping bones, nails, just cutting and it did a hell of job on the fish.

Sam S.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

I agree you might reasonably argue that a steel like 12C27M will be less likely to chip than a higher carbon steel, but you certainly can't attribute other qualities like increased wear resistance to 12C27M as a result of that. And there is no information to address other failure modes like plastic deformation as a result of the kind of use one might have for a large blade, the subject of this thread.

No one has argued increased wear resistance, what people have said many times is that this is rarely the critical factor aside from low sharpness edges. As for plastic deformation, yes, that is directly what Landes measures which you would know if you ever read his work or talked to him about it.

Again, you are ignoring that if carbides were necessary for this then all the ABS guys and makers like Goo are making blades with edges that roll easily. Now the absurd nature of this is that your knives with the "superior" steel have much thicker and more obtuse edges. Your arguement is self-contradictory.

You've called Cliff, Possum, Buck knives, Cliff's carpenter and Roman Landes either liars or unreliable. Anyone else you want to warn us about?

All the people who Landes references obviously have to be liers as well. In addition to this all the guys on the European forms who write articles such as cited in the above which shows 420HC to be SUPERIOR to S30V in regards to the aspect of edge holding noted.

Add to this Mike Swaim, Alvin Johnston, and all the guys on rec.knives who have spoken about the detriment of high carbide steels since before Hossom knew anything beyond ATS-34 is a "tough" steel because it was hard to grind.

Landes work is peer reviewed, it was later published. It is directly supported by material journal articles. Buck representatives constantly promoted the fact that graduates from that school strongly endorsed the knife for activites FAR beyond what was done to break it.

Instead of call them on hype or misdesign you argue semantics yet you are the same person who argued heavily for semantics about the Mick Strider / Ranger issue. Mick was a Ranger because he was accepted by Rangers and similar arguements. Of course when it suits you the letter of the language will fall where you want it.

In all cases in the above you are wrong, materials science does not support you and PUBLISHED work which was peer reviewed and supported by independent journal articles directly contradicts you. This is supported by reviewed from many independent studies by knife users around the globe.

But all of these people are making everything up except you, and then you have the perspective to ask me if I consider myself the total and sum expert. You are the one ignoring everyone else, I am the person citing other people. That label of self-described expert is on you, I have noted cited the work I did, just those that support what I say.

-Cliff

 

[bruce]

Moodino and Jerry Hossom, having worked in "Combat Developments" (the development of equipment and the doctrine for it's employment) for a few years, I can tell you that your knowledge of the amount of testing required for any proposed equipment system is more extensive than you realize. The MRE, regardless of what your personal feelings are about it, was tested way more than any knife, more than some weapons systems. The Surgeon General of the Army was involved with MRE testing but not knives. Try another analogy.

 

[Moodino]

Sounds good. Can you cite the actual viewable test plans and results of these so-called tetsts so we can review them? No? They usually just pay lip service in that respect. Some COTAR just signs a piece of paper saying " Tested & Approved" and the press are then invited in to stage some photos for publication. Happens all the time.
I'm not proud of the fact that when I worked for PriceWaterhouseCoopers consulting we sold hype tot he military and numerous other government agencies- but since every other consultancy did the same, I'm not embarrased about it either. I just thought that since there is so much hubris and mythology regarding "Government testing", my factual contribution would help the community realise that the only testing that counts is either conducted by trusted third parties or an actual population of end users ( soldiers) in the field, entering thier experiences into journals. Or better yet, observers studying end users in the field.What I do for a business is gather the data that is purportedly compiled by govenment insider testers- but actually isn't compiled by them at all.

Moodino, with all due respect, knife selections by Special Forces and Recon Marines do not fall into the same category as MRE's. The knives were tested and approved by an evaluation team from each of those organizations, selected for specific knowledge of the subject and need. These are the same people who select contract martial arts training programs and definitely not a matter routinely handled by Army Ordnance or GSA. These are not the stuff/crap that's sold at PX's. These are issue weapons.

If you sold "hype" to the military, I'm surprised you'd be on here bragging about it.

 

[Jerry Hossom]

Cliff you wear me out. Yes you did say, "This shows how a simple SAK and Opinel are far superior to ATS-34 and even S30V in edge stability. Note again, the SAK was SUPERIOR in edge retention to the S30V knives."

You did say the Marine Sniper school endorsed the Buck Solution - not that a Buck repesentative said the students said they liked it.

What you did to that Buck Solution, which you apparently received used and aleady chipped, is hardly a scientific measure of a knife's qualities. Since it was already used, you don't even know what the edge was like when it was received from the factory. That you managed to destroy it hardly deserves an attaboy.

You did say Landes' work was confirmed by a panel of experts, not that it was peer reviewed which as you well know is different. Confirmation suggests they actually did work that confirms his results. There is really no other way to "confirm" results.

Show me and the others here the material journal references which directly support his work, preferably those which reference his work and relate directly to the topic being discussed.

Comparing the microstructure of high and low alloy steels based solely on the carbon content is complete nonsense. Chromium carbides are so completely different from the carbides in a steel like 1060 they don't even occupy the same part of the structure.

Material Science does not support what? That S30V is superior to 12C27M as a knife steel? That S30V can be reliably used in a large knife?

Where has what I said contradicted what was written by Landes? Did Landes say you shouldn't use S30V in a large blade? Did Landes say that 1050 or 1060 and 12C27M have the same microstructure? What people are making what up?

Except me? Am I the ONLY knifemaker or knife company who believes that S30V is an excellent knife steel? Am I the only person who has used it who thinks it's an excellent knife steel? Does it effect my business (such as it is) one tiny little bit if I NEVER use S30V again or if every knife I make for the rest of my life is S30V? Where is the "ME" in this?

"ME" is this, and this is the only reason I'm here dealing with you when I do in fact have more material matters which should concern me, like getting knives done for a show in 5 days. I am here doing this, so you don't get a free pass to trash knives and steels that you don't favor. Because there really are knives that are better than those you approve. There really are steels other than INFI and 12C27M. And there really are fine people who make a honest living making fine knives in fine steels for people who really do know how to use knives. Furthermore, I think there are a whole lot of people, most who read this, who possess common sense and require only a few facts to understand that much of what you say and have said here is nonsense.

Here's one for you to get your teeth into Cliff. It's a steel with the carbon content in the range you like. I found this on another forum, written by a metallurgist from Norway.

"I have done chemical and metallographic analysis of INFI. It has prominent carbide stringers, so the transverse strength is probably not so good."

On the SF evaluation of the CRK knife they selected. SF and most special operations units operate somewhat differently than the balance of the military. IF they want to hire a particular martial arts school to provide training for their personnel, they hire people from that school and I seriously doubt GSA knows about it. They hire and buy according to the needs in the geographic region for which their group is responsible. If they want a special brand of something, not issued, they buy it. The amount of money in question for these size purchases is petty cash.

There is another category of military purchases that does indeed get the cursory once over, that looks like it will cut, approval process, and that is the selection of products to be sold in the PX's. That is a military wide selection and the product much be granted a number to be sold in a PX. I suspect that is the type of approval you might be referring to Moodino. Maybe not, but unless you have specific knowledge about the CRK knife, I think you're comments might be misleading in this instance. I know a goodly number of special forces soldiers; they really aren't the kind of guys who buy into BS and most are smarter than the general population reading this thread, including Cliff. Besides, have you ever seen pix of how these guys dress in the field? The only issue gear I can even identify on most of them is their firearms and even those are sometimes augmented from the local supply depot.

 

[hardheart]

? knives in the PX's I've been to don't have NSN numbers, I can only think of the pilot survival knife that I saw in clothing & sales before. Cold Steel SRKs, Spikes, Spyderdco Dragonflies, CRKT Summits, Smith & Wesson boot knives don't have them, and the PX doesn't sell Benchmade autos or Ontario bayonets. I just checked the aafes site, they have stuff like the Vic golf tool listed. really, the PX is like a convenience store or a Super Wal-Mart depending on where you are.

 

[Jerry Hossom]

Hardheart, I've apparently been misinformed. A Company have told me there is a selection process for their products to be approved for sale in PX's. They must have been mistaken. Sorry.

Guess, I should have known better than to believe a knife company!!!

 

[bruce]

Moodino, I left my test plans in my office when I left Fort Lee - Sorry! But if there were no tests, what was I doing for months at a time at Fort Hood, Fort Ord, Fort Lewis, Fort Lee, and the training area on the Big Island of Hawaii? Your experience was nothing like mine. My tests were conducted and had nothing to do with suppliers/vendors. They weren't there. The results were briefed to the Quartermaster General, Commander of the TRADOC Logistics Center, The Army Staff's Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, The Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, The Chief of Staff of the Army, The Secretary of the Army, and a couple of under-secretaries of Defense. No smoke and mirrors here - test designs, execution, data, statistics, and reports resulting in firm, well thought out decisions. I would not have had the guts to brief "fluff" to the above senior leaders! The results of the tests resulted in changes to force structure, doctrine, and equipment. Yes, for MRE's and other combat rations and field feeding equipment. I don't know about the knives you imply knowing something about. I do know about the combat developments that resulted in the M9 bayonet though.

If your experience is different, things have changed recently.

 

[Moodino]

Sorry guys. Valid tests are monitored by independent third parties as a standard aspect of due diligence.I'm impressed with 'real soldiers' doing thier own personal testing, but this is not to be misconstrued for independent testing. This topic is constantly comming up and I'm constantly having to slap it down. I can't help it, it just gets my ire when I read the refrain ..." Such and Such a unit of the Special Forces tested such and such a knife and it won the blue ribbon prize and sorry, the unit mascot ate the test plan , the videos and yes the results documents too!"

 

[Jerry Hossom]

And how do you explain that the CRK Special Forces knife was actually issued to Special Forces personnel?

Moodino, I either have to believe you or believe people I know who are members of Special Forces. Who would you believe?

Do you also have data to refute that the Strider folder was issued to MARSOC? Just curious.

 

[rifon2]

Hey, S30V is freakin' expensive!

Becker issued one of their (big) knives in S30V - at a price(!) - and sold maybe about 3 of them, IIRC.

 

[Jerry Hossom]

Moodino, maybe I'm just not understanding you. Are you saying these knives were not tested, evaluated, selected and/or approved (one of those) or they were not tested according to the approved method and format? I guess I'm not certain what's in dispute after rereading your reply to my first comment to you. What is a COTAR?

 

[hardheart]

is the Yarborough an issue item, I was under the impression it was more a gift to Soldiers completing Q course.

 

[Jerry Hossom]

It's not clear to me what are the conditions under which it's issued. The point is that it is issued and it was evaluated. I know someone who was present during part of the evauluation. Regardless, I think it is safe to say the knife is in some fashion, formal or not, approved by the Special Forces.

http://www.chrisreeve.com/greenberet.htm

The again, at the bottom of that page is:

"Use of Special Forces insignia does not indicate endorsement by U. S. Army Special Operations Command."

So, they issue it to graduates but do not endorse it. Or maybe they endorse it but just can't say so, because Moodino won't let them...

 

[Cliff Stamp]

Yes you did say, "This shows how a simple SAK and Opinel are far superior to ATS-34 and even S30V in edge stability. Note again, the SAK was SUPERIOR in edge retention to the S30V knives."

Where does this say the wear resistance was higher? Yes, the SAK was superior in edge retention for the cutting performed. THis is directly because of the greater edge stability and because the carbide content was LOWER.

You did say the Marine Sniper school endorsed the Buck Solution - not that a Buck repesentative said the students said they liked it.

They were given to graduates, the graduates endorsed it without exception. THe amusing thing is now you are backtracking the exact same way with the GB promotion by Reeve.

What you did to that Buck Solution, which you apparently received used and aleady chipped, is hardly a scientific measure of a knife's qualities. Since it was already used, you don't even know what the edge was like when it was received from the factory. That you managed to destroy it hardly deserves an attaboy.

The edge was not modified from factory geometry. I did not destroy it, a carpenter did with a very low stress task which was easily also performed by a MORA 2000, and the $5 similar knives Rangar sells which are made out of 12C27M.

You did say Landes' work was confirmed by a panel of experts, not that it was peer reviewed which as you well know is different. Confirmation suggests they actually did work that confirms his results. There is really no other way to "confirm" results.

When a panel of experts approves the methods used, the logic applied and the final conclusions it is a large confirmation this is what the word means. When Landes cites many papers which are peer reviewed on the same issues this is also of confirmation. The same conclusions have been verified my many independent lay users in the US and overseas for the last 10 years, many of whom never heard of Landes but did similar work. THis is further confirmation. The same methods he use are currently used by indistrial manufacturers to test edge stability, this is a fairly large confirmation.

Show me and the others here the material journal references which directly support his work, preferably those which reference his work and relate directly to the topic being discussed.

Read his book, or scan through the reference list he himself has posted several times.

Comparing the microstructure of high and low alloy steels based solely on the carbon content is complete nonsense.[/qute]

Yeah, but I never did that. I compared them based on the actual microstructures, i.e., micrographs and discussions with Landes on properties dependent on those microstructures which he MEASURED and correlated.

Material Science does not support what? That S30V is superior to 12C27M as a knife steel? That S30V can be reliably used in a large knife?

Obviously because both of those statements are undefined, superior and reliable are meaningless in isolation.


[qute]It's a steel with the carbon content in the range you like.

Again this is misrepresentative nonsense, I do not LIKE chemical compositions. You would need to know the proporties that the knife would require in order to know what steels would be suitable.

I know a goodly number of special forces soldiers; they really aren't the kind of guys who buy into BS and most are smarter than the general population reading this thread...

All that you can say with any endorsement is that it says that the standard met is the lowest of a similar endorsement. So you can say that the the knives are as good as the SOG SEAL 2000 or any other knife which also passed such "tests". That is ALL you can say, the rest if just HYPE.

-Cliff

 

[gator68]

Cliff you wear me out. Yes you did say, "This shows how a simple SAK and Opinel are far superior to ATS-34 and even S30V in edge stability. Note again, the SAK was SUPERIOR in edge retention to the S30V knives."

Yes Cliff did write that, because that is a clear statement of the results of the testing the guy did on Messerforums. I suppose that German guy is "unreliable" too ... Sure are lots of people willing to make up stuff and post about it ... We sure are lucky to have a Jerry Hossom as the lone ranger standing up against all these "unreliable" people ...