Schrade Extreme Survival

[Esav Benyamin]

FortyTwoBlades post # 178 is what we're looking for -- an evaluation of the knives and the reviews, an opinion without demonization.

* ****** **** ******

thundermoon, read what you wrote in post # 177 and then tell me what you mean.

 

[thundermoon]

I thought it was pretty clear, but some times I'll admit I do ramble, what part are you talking about?

 

[zenheretic]

I gather that one position taken here is that a more-or-less copy of a product is "immoral" even if lawful and that it is wrong to support those who copy by buying their copies.

I am curious. Does anyone here use "gereric" drugs? An example would be an aspirin other than those made by Bayer.

Irrelevant example. All brand drugs are patent protected and even when the patent expires, the prospective generic maker has to apply to the FDA for approval.

In the world at large and with knives it is up to original maker to have a patent and defend that patent. In that light, comparing drugs to knives isn't really meaningful.

 

[tsiloics]

It's a shameful act to take a full lift of someone else's design into production, and the CRK's Noss whacked with the hammer broke much more easily than they should have. These are basic facts.

It may very well be true that this knife represents a better value in terms of performance/$ than the original. It may also be true that many, most or even all CRK owners don't care about a knife's ability to withstand a small hammer blow. But none of that changes the basic facts.

 

[CaptInsano]

Irrelevant example. All brand drugs are patent protected and even when the patent expires, the prospective generic maker has to apply to the FDA for approval.

In the world at large and with knives it is up to original maker to have a patent and defend that patent. In that light, comparing drugs to knives isn't really meaningful.

It is a perfect comparison. The question is about copying another's design regardless of the process involved.

 

[Thomas Linton]

Irrelevant example. All brand drugs are patent protected and even when the patent expires, the prospective generic maker has to apply to the FDA for approval.

In the world at large and with knives it is up to original maker to have a patent and defend that patent. In that light, comparing drugs to knives isn't really meaningful.

The argument was that legal issues, such as whether an item is patented, are irrelevant to the moral and ethical wrongness of copying. A member suggested that anyone knowingly buying a copy of a knife was "ethically challenged" and "dispicable" (which might even approach being personal in one's comments about other members).

Obviously, copies of every sort of goods flood the marketplace, just starting with "generic" drugs. So I thought - and still believe -- that my question tests whether knives are a separate class of goods with special ethical and moral constraints on making and purchasing copies.

This site says the knife is 1070, not 1095, has an MSRP of $93.xx: http://www.camping-gear-outlet.com/...urce=Froogle&utm_medium=Product+Search+Engine. It does not appear to be anything like a $100 knife if one looks at prices on the Internet, where it is widely available.

Sportsman's Warehouse is a chain sporting goods store, not a hardware store.
It has no online catalog.

For myself, I buy only Schrade knives made in the U.S.A., but that is a matter of personal choice.

 

[MORIMOTOM]

I thought it was pretty clear, but some times I'll admit I do ramble, what part are you talking about?

challenging a mod to ban you is an unwise course of action.

your post reeks of emotion rather than reason, an attitude which will win you no friends nor garner sympathy for your position.

 

[Phil Elmore]

Phil you are wrong....... I am a friend of mistwalker's and can assure you that he purchased the Chris Reeve look a like well in advance.

The man buys a knife.... writes a review(as he does with everything he buys).... sends it to the manufacturer... gets a reply and an offer to test some more knives for free...... who wouldn't?

He posted these on another site over a period of a week or two and just dumped everything on this site.... you can see he hasn't been here long... cut the guy some slack.....



Whether Morgan Taylor has alterrior motives or not ..... Mistwalker is NOT A SHILL




Rick

I have not called him a "shill." I have called into question the veracity of his presentation of the sequence of events leading to the review, because it did not seem believable, and the photographs cited as evidence by another member would seem to verify this. They are not definitive proof; further, this is no court.

I have stated that the review was thorough and well-documented. I have also repeatedly defended the practice of receiving knives from manufacturers for purpose of doing reviews -- something I have done many times myself. I have said only that one must be concise and honest when responding to queries about the provenance of the knives evaluated.

If "Mistwalker" had not misrepresented himself, and this is a misunderstanding, he can correct this simply by stating his case, without rancor, without insults, and without defensive posturing. For that matter, he can say, "Phil Elmore, screw you. Your opinion means nothing to me." That's fine too, because, ultimately, what difference does my opinion make? I am one person. I believe I've been civil even in stating my reservations and criticisms of the presentation herein.\

It's a shameful act to take a full lift of someone else's design into production, and the CRK's Noss whacked with the hammer broke much more easily than they should have. These are basic facts.

The latter is not a fact. It's an opinion based on an ignorance of the proper use of a knife. You cannot use "whacked with a hammer" and "broke much more easily than [it] should have" together and still be talking about the appropriate use of a knife. THAT is a basic fact.

 

[CaptInsano]

The latter is not a fact. It's an opinion based on an ignorance of the proper use of a knife. You cannot use "whacked with a hammer" and "broke much more easily than [it] should have" together and still be talking about the appropriate use of a knife. THAT is a basic fact.

I don't see where he said it was an appropriate use of a knife. In fact, he did not. That is a basic fact. I don't understand why you are arguing with him about something that he never said.

 

[Phil Elmore]

When you hit a knife wth a hammer, you are going to break that knife. Complaining that the knife broke "before it should" when abused in this manner demonstrates a remarkable ignorance of the appropriate use of a knife. It also exhibits a remarkable lack of any reasonable expectations for that knife's service. Saying, therefore, that a knife "broke before it should" when struck with a hammer is not a "basic fact" -- it's a declaration of ignorance.

 

[Rick Marchand]

I can see your point Phil.... it would look that way..... I just see it from the "other side of the screen" and I can't expect those who don't know ALL the facts in their chronological order to be able to distiguish truth from fiction....

Sorry if I offended.


Back on topic....

I much prefer these kind of tests than most of those conducted on Noss's site... They are more geared toward the actual uses of a knife... rather than to intentionally destroy one through improper use.

 

[CaptInsano]

When you hit a knife wth a hammer, you are going to break that knife. Complaining that the knife broke "before it should" when abused in this manner demonstrates a remarkable ignorance of the appropriate use of a knife.

I would imagine that intentionally attempting to destroy a knife is not an appropriate use. The expectation is not that the knife will not break. The expectation is that a continuum may be created by placing different blades under similar stresses. The question is not whether a knife will break. It will. Everyone knows this. I don't know why you feel a need to point out something that is so obvious to everyone else. The question is when the knife will break.

It also exhibits a remarkable lack of any reasonable expectations for that knife's service.

That's probably why performance beyond reasonable expectations is so impressive. Actually, that's pretty much the premise of a destruction test. If you don't understand it, you'll find all other aspects beyond you as well.

Saying, therefore, that a knife "broke before it should" when struck with a hammer is not a "basic fact" -- it's a declaration of ignorance.

Ignorance has nothing to do with it. The principles you have cited as being unknown to testers are, in reality, quite well know. If you were ignorant of this, now you know. I'm glad I could help. Further, saying a knife broke before it should is a combination of materials used, advertising, price, and the relative performance of other blades.

 

[Phil Elmore]

The expectation is that a continuum may be created by placing different blades under similar stresses.

This expectation is unreasonable because those stresses cannot be reproduced with any degree of precision. Thus those who form conclusions on them are doing so based on the spectacle of Hockey Masks's videotaped stunts, and not on any real, substantive, logical evidence.

Performance beyond reasonable expectations does not impress me. It's luck. Luck is a wonderful thing -- but it is not the benchmark by which I will evaluate any product.

Don't equate a refusal to agree with unreasonable and ignorant standards with some failure to understand something.

 

[CaptInsano]

This expectation is unreasonable because those stresses cannot be reproduced with any degree of precision.

Sure they can. The degree of this precision is subject to personal opinion. You may feel the degree of precision involved is so small as to be negligible, but the accuracy of your opinion has never been empirically tested under scientific conditions. Therefore, claiming these stresses cannot be duplicated with any degree of precision is an exercise in your ignorance of the matter rather than a statement of any real, logical evidence.

Performance beyond reasonable expectations does not impress me. It's luck. Luck is a wonderful thing -- but it is not the benchmark by which I will evaluate any product.

Luck has nothing to do with anything. And yet, perhaps it does. Luckily, these are not your evaluations and as such your methods are irrelevant.

Don't equate a refusal to agree with unreasonable and ignorant standards with some failure to understand something.

I haven't. I have equated your misunderstanding as a failure to understand something. No one asked you to agree with the purpose of the tests as a valid tool of comparison. Your posts made it clear that you did not understand the premise and I have enjoyed explaining it you.

 

[Angus McGunnigl]

WHOAAAAAA NELLIE !!!!!!!!!!!!!

The dude got a knife.

The dude tests(uses) the knife and takes pics.

The dude then writes it up and posts it.

It's his experience with that knife.

It's a dude talking about a knife. It's what we do.

CHILL.

 

[a2d2]

I would imagine that intentionally attempting to destroy a knife is not an appropriate use. The expectation is not that the knife will not break. The expectation is that a continuum may be created by placing different blades under similar stresses. The question is not whether a knife will break. It will. Everyone knows this. I don't know why you feel a need to point out something that is so obvious to everyone else. The question is when the knife will break.

the problem is that a knife, or any tool for that matter, tested in that way could break at any time during the test(for any number of reasons). two knives of the same model, and batch could break at completely different times during this type of test. if two identical knives of the same model break at different points during a test, can one conclude that one of the knives was superior?

 

[CaptInsano]

the problem is that a knife, or any tool for that matter, tested in that way could break at any time during the test(for any number of reasons).

No. A knife could break under that test for a very limited number of reasons.

two knives of the same model, and batch could break at completely different times during this type of test. if two identical knives of the same model break at different points during a test, can one conclude that one of the knives was superior?

Why don't you ask someone to do an experiment and see?

 

[fastcamo]

This expectation is unreasonable because those stresses cannot be reproduced with any degree of precision. Thus those who form conclusions on them are doing so based on the spectacle of Hockey Masks's videotaped stunts, and not on any real, substantive, logical evidence.

Performance beyond reasonable expectations does not impress me. It's luck. Luck is a wonderful thing -- but it is not the benchmark by which I will evaluate any product.

Don't equate a refusal to agree with unreasonable and ignorant standards with some failure to understand something.

I don't see where your going with this Phil... I agree Noss's test are not scientific, but the same guy that looks like he weighs the same and swings that hammer about the same, gives you a pretty good clue how far you can push your product if one was so inclined....should a car company not crash test any vehicles? should Utility trailer quit testing the 60 mph corners on the roll tests? What about big game hunting projectiles for example, to the average eye they all look like copies, but realistically they are very very different, do some of the cheaper brands out penetrate and hold their weight better than higher priced more brand name ones?? you bet they do,, how about broad heads for archery, we and other test hundreds of them, from punching paper to concrete walls.. why... to see how far and how much punishment they can actually take, from the springs in your bed mattress to the tires on your car, just about every product that has quality control is tested to failure, if thats hard to understand or something that benchmark cant be set at, then you and others that don't agree are behind the times.

 

[a2d2]

"Why don't you ask someone to do an experiment and see?"
if i don't will that negate what i have said?

 

[CaptInsano]

if i don't will that negate what i have said?

What you have said has already been negated. However, it would be an excellent tool to estimate precision. If nothing else, it would provide repetition of results.