SOG Navy Seal 2000

Well, I've since found another one, plus a Tigershark of AUS6. I guess the Seal Pup went the same way? Sorry for being so out of touch, but I don't attend the SOG forum that much. So..... that begs the question, how do the afficionados, the fans, you know, feel about this change? I notice that, on the link that you gave me, all the glowing reports are there, of the evaluations, but no mention that the knife is made of a different material. Should the folks selling the SOG Seal 2000 still advertise it as the knife that went through all the extensive government tests and *selected* as the *official* Navy Seal knife? After all, it may look the same (it may even be as good, or better), but if it is a different steel, it is NOT the same knife. ;-) Anyone tested the new ones? The same Government evaluation? Doesn't seem likely. Sorry if I'm out of the loop here. If this has been discussed on any of the forums, someone please send me the thread.


http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2171215869&category=475

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2171215872&category=475:
 
I just recently purchased the SEAL 2000 and it works perfectly. I had to chop up some twigs and cut a bunch of really thick plastic. Knife worked like a charm. I never got to use the older SEAL 2000 but I have no complaints with this one and I'm sure they didn't change the steel to a lesser quality one.
 
Originally posted by ichor
So..... that begs the question, how do the afficionados, the fans, you know, feel about this change?
Click to expand...

Ichor, IIRC, the Seal series has always been made out of AUS6 (aside from the Carbon steel [SR5] Tiger Shark). SOG used to Marketed there knives (can't remember just how long ago it was) as 440A because the general public was used to 440A but didn't know what AUS6 was. Ron Anderson made a couple posts about this some time ago.Sorry, but I don't have anyy links to threads.

As far as I'm concerned, If it's from SOG, it's good.:D
 
I'll have to dig up the links, but the SEAL family has alwys been AUS6 (apart from the original SK5 Tigersharks...).:)
 
I don't know what the rules are, so Moderator delete this if necessary.
Am I allowed to say on the Forum here that I paid $65 for the Seal 2000, and bought it directly from SOG as a Factory 2nd when it was available a few months ago ??

Cheers,

Carl
 
Originally posted by wildmanh
Ichor, IIRC, the Seal series has always been made out of AUS6 (aside from the Carbon steel [SR5] Tiger Shark). SOG used to Marketed there knives (can't remember just how long ago it was) as 440A because the general public was used to 440A but didn't know what AUS6 was. Ron Anderson made a couple posts about this some time ago.Sorry, but I don't have anyy links to threads.

As far as I'm concerned, If it's from SOG, it's good.:D
Click to expand...


So, let me see if I have this right. You're saying that for all this time SOG has been, basically, misleading the general public about the material used in it's knives because their marketing dept. didn't think that people were intelligent enough to buy or not buy a knife because it was made out of a steel they weren't "used to" and now, all of a sudden the general public is smarter so SOG has decided to let them in on the fact that the steel is, and always has been, AUS6 not 440A?

Wow, that doesn't sound right to me. Surely there's more to it than that. I was under the impression that there was representation by the company on this forum. Is that wrong? If not, where are they on this issue? SOG may have good products, and some may think that as long as it's SOG, it's good. I, OTOH, would be very hesitant aboout buying something from *anyone* who provides false information about the materials used in their products. Puzzled, help me out here.
 
Originally posted by ichor
So, let me see if I have this right. You're saying that for all this time SOG has been, basically, misleading the general public about the material used in it's knives because their marketing dept. didn't think that people were intelligent enough to buy or not buy a knife because it was made out of a steel they weren't "used to" and now, all of a sudden the general public is smarter so SOG has decided to let them in on the fact that the steel is, and always has been, AUS6 not 440A?

Wow, that doesn't sound right to me. Surely there's more to it than that. I was under the impression that there was representation by the company on this forum. Is that wrong? If not, where are they on this issue? SOG may have good products, and some may think that as long as it's SOG, it's good. I, OTOH, would be very hesitant aboout buying something from *anyone* who provides false information about the materials used in their products. Puzzled, help me out here.
Click to expand...

Ichor, I was going off of my memory, and probably not fact. Let's see what Bobby B. can find. His info will be better than my crazyness.;)
 
In the last few minutes I've been searching archives under"AUS6". In one post Ron Anderson refers to "AUS6(440A)" as if the two are interchangable. I'm far from an expert but I never thought the two steels were identical. In another post, another forumite alludes to the fact that SOG refers to 440A as AUS6 and to 440C as AUS8. Again I'm having a hard time with the interchangability of these terms. And I don't know for a "fact" that SOG does this, that was from a third party. I will keep searching.
 
In the archives BOK specifically asks Ron if his Tomcat is AUS6 or 440A. Glockman99 answers that it is AUS6, even tho' the SOG catalog says it's 440A. Ron either missed or ignored this question.

30 minutes later: I have now found a second thread in which Ron refers to AUS6 and 440a interchangably, yet the Joe Talmadge page on steel, says that AUS6, 8, and 10 are "roughly" the same as 440A,B and C, it also clearly says that 440A is .75% carbon and AUS6 is .65%. It is, in fact, not AUS6, but AUS8 which is .75% Maybe I'm too picky, but that doesn't seem the same to me.

20 minutes later: OK, now I 'v found what I was looking for. I found a post in which Ron says, "(SOG’s AUS6 and 440A are nearly identical)". Actually, it would appear, that 440A is nearly the same as AUS8, not AUS6 (according to the Joe Talmadge page that Ron refers to. Unless I'm misreading something).

So, there's my answer. It's *not* the same steel, but is "nearly" identical, and SOG has, for years, been advertising knives as 440A when, in fact, they're not. Hmmm....someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about this. I'm not looking to be attacked by rabid SOG fans, just searching for the truth.
 
In all seriousness, I'm gonna have some fun with this based on 20 years of pushing papers as a degree'd mechanical engineer which makes me no expert. So with tongue kinda/sorta in cheek, and having read the Talmadge page:

I'm not certain anyone can tell the difference in an operational environment. If someone calls a dog a cat, but really really wants something that barks, one just closes their eyes and points at whatever barks and says, "I want one of those, please." They get what they want and that's a good thing. It may look different than what is expected, but hey, it's what the person wants.

As an example: if a soldier in Iraq uses his AUS6 knife as a prybar to open crates of ammo, would it break any sooner (or later) than his pal's "exact" same knife with a 440A blade ?? I haven't a clue, but I'll bet we could find a dozen out-of-work Ph.D's willing to submit for a $1million government grant to study this. And what would they find ?? Well, statistically speaking....

My point is: as an engineer who has done design work (I won't say where, I'd be laughed outta the Forum forever) I've learned that the yield strength and ultimate strength of any particular material published in Mil-Handbook 5 is a statistical value based on hundreds of test samples. And one of the most important assumptions during all this testing is that the sample tested is 100% pure and homegeneous, that is, correctly mixed with no air pockets/voids/etc which will affect the strength of the material in the precise and exact location which the mathematics tells the scientist the maximum stress will actually occur, not to mentioned machined to the precise same dimensions each and every time,not to mention that the gauges do the same thing every time (hint: there can be a lot of randomness in all of this "precise" testing). And don't forget that all published ASTM Standards have a fudge factor to ensure conservatism of the published value (how's that for "confidence" in the actual value determined during testing ??).

Therefore the logical (??) assumption is that the EXACT and PRECISE metallic specimen one holds in one's hand may be full of voids and ain't worth the cost of the shipping to get it there. Or it could have .01% more carbon and be stronger.... or .01% more vanadium and be tougher.... or .01% more chromium and be more stainless.... or the steelsmith could have spit in the vat and created a piece of supersteel that makes D2 look like a cube of butter !! Statistically speaking, it could happen !!

So if Mr. SOG (or his PR folks) can't make up his/their mind which steel he really uses, or if he uses alternating batches of AUS6 and 440A and doesn't keep records, well, in reality he doesn't really know what he's getting anyway, statistically speaking.
That batch of AUS6 he just received in-house may say AUS6 on the invoice, but it may have the same chemical composition as 440A because the steelsmith was thinking about Miller Time.... or it may be AUS6 but it's full of pits and voids that won't be discovered because the grinding process will miss 'em because they just happen to be where no grinding occurs (and isn't that a bummer).

Which leads to another rant: why do toilet seats cost $600 ?? Simple: the paperwork (no pun intended). If Mr SOG wants to ensure that his material received is what he wants/expects it to be, he must have it tested... at great expense. So what does he "reasonably" do to make a profit ?? He rightfully assumes the steelsmith has done his job correctly, and therefore Mr. SOG can be confident of that which he receives as raw stock and then fashions into knives.

As an example of this: I've plied my trade at nuke power plants, and the steel of the piping which contains liquid nasties can literally be traced back to the hole in the ground from which the ore was dug, and the day it was dug, and every processing step along the way. Expensive ?? Por Supuesto !! Can Mr. SOG go to these lengths and sell the SEAL 2000 at a cost-competitive price ?? Statistically speaking, I doubt it.

So I'll summarize by saying: I have a SEAL 2000.... and four other of Mr. SOG's fixed blades. I'm easy to please, and if the steel's chemical composition isn't what the textbooks and spec sheets and Ph.D's say it should be, well, the edge still takes enough sharp to deforest my arm and cut my steak and chop Mr. Torment's twigs (I hope he doesn't mind me dragging him into this screed).

So I'll go out on my own limb and say: Mr Ichor, you can't go wrong with a SEAL 2000, no matter how hosed up the (art history major ??) marketing folks might be. Statistically speaking.

Cheers,

Carl
 
I agree whole-heartedly with NPH. Drag me into this all you want :]

I am so glad I bought this knife over the Ka-Bar I was looking at. To me, that itty bitty difference in steel doesn't bother me one bit. I've used my SEAL 2000 to cut up a bunch of limbs and twigs this past weekend and some heavy duty plastic. I took it inside, washed the blade off, wiped it down with a towel, and it looks brand new. These blades stay very sharp and mine SOG works the way its supposed to. If you think they are misleading you, don't buy it. But I ignored that little quibble and just bought the thing for $96 and went on my way, happy as can be :D

If you have any worries about the knife or whatever, consult the thread I created about it recently, if you haven't done so already.
 
OUT OF CONTEXT...........


So I'll go out on my own limb and say: Mr Ichor, you can't go wrong with a SEAL 2000, no matter how hosed up the (art history major ??) marketing folks might be. Statistically speaking.

Cheers,

Carl [/B]
Click to expand...

That's all well and good, Carl. Problem is you missed my point. I'm not saying that a SEAL 2000 is good or bad. From all the testimonials, they are very good. That wasn't the question. Your engineering experience notwithstanding, regardless of all the hypothetical anecdotes about someone spitting in a vat of steel or having one Miller two many before the work day was over, it doesn't change the apparent fact that MrSOG, as you call him, has been marketing knives as one steel, when they are another.

Thousands of posts on the forum involve seemingly endless discussions on the different steels, their qualities and shortcomings, and how we wish there would be a steel between this one and that and wouldn't it be nice to have the characteristics of this steel, but with the..fill in the blank...characteristic of that other one. Sometimes the differences seem very, very tiny. The fact of the matter is, the folks on the Blade Forums are very interested in which particular knife, from which particular maker is made of which particular steel. Kinda hard to deny that. If it wasn't important to them, they wouldn't discuss it at great length. Joe Talmadge wouldn't spend so much time laying it all out for those of us who *aren't* engineers (some of us may be art or history, or even athropology majors). Still some of us, if we can muster enough liberal arts gray matter, are able to read a simple list regarding the, admittedly simplified, make up of different steels. That may be why they put different numbers on them, like AUS6 or 440A, so that folks will know what is being talked about (or advertised). If it didn't matter we wouldn't have to put any numbers on them at all.

So, my point is, and I know that this may be the wrong forum to say this; when I buy a product that the maker, for years has presented as being made of a particular material, and I find out that it isn't true, then I feel mislead (if not lied to). When it turns out that it is actually made from a steel that is generally felt to be inferior to the advertised steel(yes, I know that is a matter open for discussion, but it still seems to be the general consenses on the Blade Forums), then I'm more than a little put off by that scenario. Frankly, I feel deceived and manipulated. Since I'm not an engineer I'd like to be able to depend on a company's ethics to tell me the straight scoop. And I find it difficult to trust that company enough to buy from them again, regardless of how much somebody else likes *their* knife. That's was my point. YMMV

Cheers,

John PS I have the old carbon Tigershark and a new SEAL 2000
 
John,

Yes indeed, I did miss your point, but I catch it now, I think, so I'll restate to be certain: yours is not a steel spec sheet concern, but much more importantly a product-as-offered-and-delivered concern.

And that one I cannot respond to nor mustn't even try.

Cheers,

Carl

p.s. you have an SK-5 Tigershark ?? Way cool, me too !! I went crazy and gun-blued it a couple of months ago, there's a posting in SOG Forum somewhere about that.

p.p.s and you (now) have a SEAL 2000 ?? Way cool too !! I hope you'll come to like it as much as Mr. Torment and I (and others) like ours.

p.p.p.s. as for the art history jibe, that's from a Dilbert cartoon a while back. Dilbert knows all, sees all, discusses all.
 
Originally posted by New Pig Hunter
John,

"Yes indeed, I did miss your point, but I catch it now, I think, so I'll restate to be certain: yours is not a steel spec sheet concern, but much more importantly a product-as-offered-and-delivered concern."


Yes, that is what I meant, I obviously didn't articulate it as well as I should have



"And that one I cannot respond to nor mustn't even try."

Nor should you.



"p.s. you have an SK-5 Tigershark ?? Way cool, me too !! I went crazy and gun-blued it a couple of months ago, there's a posting in SOG Forum somewhere about that."

Got it I don't know how many years ago. Expensive, at the time, but just couldn't resist the shape of that 9" blade. It's been a very good performer.

"p.p.p.s. as for the art history jibe, that's from a Dilbert cartoon a while back. Dilbert knows all, sees all, discusses all."


Sometime we liberal arts majors are a little sensitive.
Click to expand...
:p
 
You guys are having...:D
The thread I was thinking of (it's a long one...) got quite a heated debate with Ron explaining in detail what happened, and why... he also took his lumps on SOG's behalf... :o :eek: :footinmou

AUS6 vs 440A. It isn't the most "SOG friendly" thread, but Ron explains it better than I can.. :D
 
Mr Ichor,

my remorse is that I never learned about "real knives" until just last December when I bought my first SOG. Up till that point I hadn't understood, much less appreciated, all the topics of mechanical engineering which comprised such works of art. I'm a slow learner.

Just a couple of months ago one the local SOG faithful hooked me into a double-deal for a Tigershark and Tech I, and I shall remain ever grateful. What awesome tools.

Cheers,

Carl

p.s. I'm also a liberal arts major.... my first degree was in psychology. Long story how that happened, but that's the short version. And an even longer story is how I ended up with an engineering degree. The best truth is usually stranger than fiction and properly expounded over steaks, wines, single malts, and cigars.
 
"And an even longer story is how I ended up with an engineering degree. The best truth is usually stranger than fiction and properly expounded over steaks, wines, single malts, and cigars."

Cool, I like all that stuff. ;-)
 
Originally posted by ichor
"And an even longer story is how I ended up with an engineering degree. The best truth is usually stranger than fiction and properly expounded over steaks, wines, single malts, and cigars."

Cool, I like all that stuff. ;-)
Click to expand...
Yup! Me three!:D
We should hook up and Carl can buy us all of the above...:D :D :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top