-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is ready to order! See this thread for details: https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/bladeforums-2024-traditional-knife.2003187/
Price is$300$250 ea (shipped within CONUS). If you live outside the US, I will contact you after your order for extra shipping charges.
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/ - Order as many as you like, we have plenty.
SOG X-42 field knife: opinions wanted!
- Thread starter The Bear
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 25, 1999
- Messages
- 1,499
No experience so far because it is not available yet, probably will go just in a moment.
As to expecting it should be nice utility knife for outdoors use, with great edge hold, acute cutting edge (flat ground) and both comfortable and secure handle (I have Recondo).
Certainly not intended to be used as prybar, BG-42 is far too brittle for this role.
As to expecting it should be nice utility knife for outdoors use, with great edge hold, acute cutting edge (flat ground) and both comfortable and secure handle (I have Recondo).
Certainly not intended to be used as prybar, BG-42 is far too brittle for this role.
I don't think BG-42 is inherently too brittle for prybar use, unless you wish to disqualify any knife from that use. Plenty of sharpened prybars with similar grinds are made from ATS-34, which is a similar steel. SOG was heat-treating their BG-42 in the field knives several points higher than Chris Reeve does in the Sebenza, which might be expected to see less heavy use as it is a folder (62-64 vs. 59-61). I believe they (unofficially at least) backed off on the RC a few points, which should make it less brittle. If you do a search in the SOG forums, you will find an abundance of information on this point.
- Joined
- Nov 25, 1999
- Messages
- 1,499
Burke,
If you want to use as prybar relatively long flat ground BG-42 blade please, do it! It is your knife, your decision and your problem. Just do not grumble when your blade will break.
As to me both BG-42 and ATS-34 are far too brittle to be used in so-called survival knives what mostly are nothing but sharpened prybars. Great edge hold makes such steels very good choice for small (say 3-4 inches) to medium (say 4-4,5 inches) blades intended for cutting only. No way they are any good choice for big multi-purpose or camping knives, AUS-8, 440C and even VG-10 stainless steels are much tougher not to say about carbon spring steels.
On the other hand just lover hardness and these super-steels will display pretty overage edge hold...
SOG Field Knife with 5-plus inched blade will work well only if user knows exactly what he or she do with this knife.
I have discussed Recondo question with SOG people much more than it has appeared here and I know that it is not the hardness issue. SOG (in fact Latrobe for them) have never hardened Recondo blade over 62 HRC, most of the production knives got blades hardened to 60-61 HRC. The fact that Cliff Stamp hammering Recondo blade banged it into numerous pieces provides nothing. Hard hollow ground blade on flat surface - wow, what a scientific experiment! No wonder that Cliff banged for comparison kitchen knife with thin and soft 420 blade. Because the Sebenza would behave exactly the same way as Recondo being treated the same way.
The difference is not in the hardness. No one wants to pry with or to hammer $350 Sebenza blade and this is all!
No wonders at this world. Better edge hold requires harder steel, higher cutting performance requires thinner edge. The opposite side of the coin will be more brittle and less tough blade. Get BECKER Companion or Cold Steel SRK in carbon steel if you want to keep your knife in single piece when prying or chopping.
No offense please, propre knife use this is all what I want to state.
If you want to use as prybar relatively long flat ground BG-42 blade please, do it! It is your knife, your decision and your problem. Just do not grumble when your blade will break.
As to me both BG-42 and ATS-34 are far too brittle to be used in so-called survival knives what mostly are nothing but sharpened prybars. Great edge hold makes such steels very good choice for small (say 3-4 inches) to medium (say 4-4,5 inches) blades intended for cutting only. No way they are any good choice for big multi-purpose or camping knives, AUS-8, 440C and even VG-10 stainless steels are much tougher not to say about carbon spring steels.
On the other hand just lover hardness and these super-steels will display pretty overage edge hold...
SOG Field Knife with 5-plus inched blade will work well only if user knows exactly what he or she do with this knife.
I have discussed Recondo question with SOG people much more than it has appeared here and I know that it is not the hardness issue. SOG (in fact Latrobe for them) have never hardened Recondo blade over 62 HRC, most of the production knives got blades hardened to 60-61 HRC. The fact that Cliff Stamp hammering Recondo blade banged it into numerous pieces provides nothing. Hard hollow ground blade on flat surface - wow, what a scientific experiment! No wonder that Cliff banged for comparison kitchen knife with thin and soft 420 blade. Because the Sebenza would behave exactly the same way as Recondo being treated the same way.
The difference is not in the hardness. No one wants to pry with or to hammer $350 Sebenza blade and this is all!
No wonders at this world. Better edge hold requires harder steel, higher cutting performance requires thinner edge. The opposite side of the coin will be more brittle and less tough blade. Get BECKER Companion or Cold Steel SRK in carbon steel if you want to keep your knife in single piece when prying or chopping.
No offense please, propre knife use this is all what I want to state.
Cliff Stamp
BANNED
- Joined
- Oct 5, 1998
- Messages
- 17,562
Sergiusz Mitin :
[Sog]
They were clearly promoted as being 62-64 RC, and two weeks before I put up the review, Ron stated that the blades were hardened to 62 RC which is what was on the blades. SOG has since then clearly stated that they have lowered the hardness. Ironically, the new field knife would benefit from a higher hardness.
It proved that it broke under those conditions. Which can be extended to other conditions providing you have done both and can correlate them. I banged on it with a hammer specifically because a knife maker commented that at the hardness SOG was running it, the blade would shatter into pieces. Which I was curious of, and it did. I have hammered on lots of other blades since then, mainly flat ground as I don't use hollow ground blades much, except for axes. You are correct in pointing out that the fractures were caused by the grind as much as it was the steel.
The Sebenza is not promoted in that same manner. Reeves warns about prying even with his large one piece line which is A2 at ~ 55 RC.
I do agree with stainless steels as prybars, they are not what I would want. They are wonderfully strong, but suffer gross facture at low angles when compared to simpler low allow steels, which will give before they break. You can just then bend them back into shape and continue on as normal. Getting them stress relieved when you can to limit long term effects of the plastic deformation.
Back to the field knife, I would recommend a Becker CU/7, A.G. Russel Deerhunter, or puukko or Leuko for the same role.
-Cliff
[Sog]
They were clearly promoted as being 62-64 RC, and two weeks before I put up the review, Ron stated that the blades were hardened to 62 RC which is what was on the blades. SOG has since then clearly stated that they have lowered the hardness. Ironically, the new field knife would benefit from a higher hardness.
It proved that it broke under those conditions. Which can be extended to other conditions providing you have done both and can correlate them. I banged on it with a hammer specifically because a knife maker commented that at the hardness SOG was running it, the blade would shatter into pieces. Which I was curious of, and it did. I have hammered on lots of other blades since then, mainly flat ground as I don't use hollow ground blades much, except for axes. You are correct in pointing out that the fractures were caused by the grind as much as it was the steel.
The Sebenza is not promoted in that same manner. Reeves warns about prying even with his large one piece line which is A2 at ~ 55 RC.
I do agree with stainless steels as prybars, they are not what I would want. They are wonderfully strong, but suffer gross facture at low angles when compared to simpler low allow steels, which will give before they break. You can just then bend them back into shape and continue on as normal. Getting them stress relieved when you can to limit long term effects of the plastic deformation.
Back to the field knife, I would recommend a Becker CU/7, A.G. Russel Deerhunter, or puukko or Leuko for the same role.
-Cliff
- Joined
- Nov 25, 1999
- Messages
- 1,499
Cliff,
I know you can mess less experienced readers head using more or less scientific-like arguments, keeping them strictly scientific when it is profitable for you and gently skipping when it isnt. Too keep this discussion clear and fair just answer me, please, clearly: would Sebenza or another similarly ground BG-42 blade be shattered on such treating or not.
In another words is this an issue of SOG/Latrobe wrong heat treating or this is natural property of BG-42 steel.
Just this, nothing more, please.
BTW, Im still waiting for hammered Sebenza pictures...
I know you can mess less experienced readers head using more or less scientific-like arguments, keeping them strictly scientific when it is profitable for you and gently skipping when it isnt. Too keep this discussion clear and fair just answer me, please, clearly: would Sebenza or another similarly ground BG-42 blade be shattered on such treating or not.
In another words is this an issue of SOG/Latrobe wrong heat treating or this is natural property of BG-42 steel.
Just this, nothing more, please.
What SOG states in their catalog and advertising info is more or less marketing item. Aspiring to be scientific, fair and unbiased tester - did you check real hardness of hammered blade or not?
Are you testing knives or the reliability of advertising slogans? Should I point at least dozens of inaccurate items in some other manufacturer ads like number one, outperforms any other knife for dozens times etc., etc. perhaps you know what Im talking about.
BTW, Im still waiting for hammered Sebenza pictures...
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2002
- Messages
- 125
Well just to answer the Bears original question:
SOG makes some very good knives, I have a SOG Tech 1 and it has performed outstanding. However if you want a Super strong, Survival, sharpened prybar,rust resistant knife at a fair price you should be looking at the Fällkniven A1 with black coat on the blade and with a kydex sheath.
That is a very GOOD bang for the buck.
SOG makes some very good knives, I have a SOG Tech 1 and it has performed outstanding. However if you want a Super strong, Survival, sharpened prybar,rust resistant knife at a fair price you should be looking at the Fällkniven A1 with black coat on the blade and with a kydex sheath.
That is a very GOOD bang for the buck.
Bobby B
No more Mr. Knife-guy
- Joined
- May 18, 2001
- Messages
- 3,053
I just got my Field knife and quite like it. I have NO! intention of hammering it, or using it as a prybar
. I intend to use it as a "camp" knife, for chopping, I'll bring an axe, etc. I also intend to replace the Zytel handles with Cocobolo (if and when I get around to it...
). The blade says RC 60, if I remember correctly.
I agree, if I need a sharpened prybar, I'd consider the CS Recon Scout for example...
. I intend to use it as a "camp" knife, for chopping, I'll bring an axe, etc. I also intend to replace the Zytel handles with Cocobolo (if and when I get around to it... ). The blade says RC 60, if I remember correctly.I agree, if I need a sharpened prybar, I'd consider the CS Recon Scout for example...
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2000
- Messages
- 3,769
Cliff may be well intentioned (likely being a really nice guy), offering his "wisdom" to the knife world, but at times, his results are skewed by less-than-sound science, using testing procedures that are both peculiar and unconventional, as well as exhibiting personal bias. In other words (from the mouth of one of my college professors), when reading his comments/editorials/reviews/posts, eat the meat and spit out the bones.
If you use knives in the scenarios Cliff tests them, his reviews might very well be highly beneficial to you. Honestly, no one with whom I'm in contact would be so foolish.
BTW...The Bear, if you have any questions that I can answer for you, please either email me or post your request in The SOG Forum here at BladeForums.com.
If you use knives in the scenarios Cliff tests them, his reviews might very well be highly beneficial to you. Honestly, no one with whom I'm in contact would be so foolish.
BTW...The Bear, if you have any questions that I can answer for you, please either email me or post your request in The SOG Forum here at BladeForums.com.
Cliff Stamp
BANNED
- Joined
- Oct 5, 1998
- Messages
- 17,562
Sergiusz Mitin :
Since the RC on the Sebenza is lower than on the Recondo the impact toughness should be higher and thus increase its resistance to hammering and such. However the Sebenza also has a much deeper hollow grind, but for now lets pretend that it is ground the exact same way as the Recondo. There is no argument against the fact that the higher value of SOG hardness makes the steel more brittle, dancing around this is nothing but hype. The critical question would be how much above the break point of the BG-42 in the Recondo were the impacts and is this greater than the increased toughness of the BG-42 in the Sebenza. From what I have seen of hardness/toughness charts, once you go beyond the maximum, you can get impact toughness drop off rates that are 50% in just a few RC points (CPM-3V for example). Thus even a small hardness difference can totally gut your impact durability. So it would not surprise me if it took much heavier impacts to break a BG-42 blade that was just a few RC points lower.
Heat treating choices are not as simple as right or wrong. There is nothing inherently bad about hardening BG-42 to 64 RC for a knife, or even going harder with other steels. I have a number of custom knives planned that are even harder, made from alloys I would expect to be just as brittle as BG-42 or even more so probably. However, you can make an argument about suitability of the properties of a particular heat treat to a specific type of knife. Just like 1045 at ~45 RC makes a very nice brush knife, it makes a pretty poor skinner. CPM-10V at 64 RC makes a wonderful light utility knife but a pretty poor large bowie.
No, I don't have a RC tester. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that scientific work is unlimited in funding. This would be lovely if it were the case, but unfortunately it isn't. Walk into any lab and see if they have access to the ideal equipment for all the time they want, the answer is obviously not. Ideally you would explore what you want without such bothersome restrictions, but in reality you don't. You can't just order something and say "Its for science, I don't have to pay." . It was a lot different a few generations ago where science was conducted often by independently wealthy individuals, such isn't the case now and funding is a real issue which limits research. Ideally when I look at a blade seriously I would have at least a dozen or so of them, for myself as well as copies to give to friends for different perspectives based on enviroment, physical ability and skill. Plus this would allow a decent QC check, you would want to buy them from different places at different times of course.
The knife is looked at primarily on the basis of what it is designed for, based on the perspective of the manufacturer as well as those from other makers of similar. Usage outside of this will be done, on some knives more than others, a large influence is how well is does at its intended task. Quite simply if I buy a knife for a purpose and it achieves that very well, it is not likely that I use it for much outside of its intended use that could damage it beyond the cosmetic. However if a knife fails to perform its intended task (or anything else well), then it doesn't have much use to me besides taking it apart and learning about break points, how and when they happen. This sort of skews the durability perspective of highly efficient knives, but this will be commented on in comparisons. This is only true on knives I buy, on ones I am given to review I will usually take apart, or in any case stress much harder than when I buy them. This is mainly to keep me honest so I don't go light on a knife so as to have it in good shape so I can keep it for personal use.
By all means, it would probably be best in a seperate thread.
Ron :
Sergiusz Mitin :
The above I quote, simply because it amazes me at the ease at which both parties insult people so readily. Here is a quote from Bill Martino, a retired Engineer, well known on the HI forum :
"I happen to agree 100% with Cliff's testing methods."
To refer to him as foolish and inexperienced, is amusing. I used Bill as an example, simply because I know him quite well, and he will be not be offended at the above, but will just laugh and carry on. When I think of others, well the amazement grows. It is of course fine to disagree with someone, and argue about the interpretation of results, it is the norm, perspectives differ, just look at the thread in the HI forum on use and abuse, difference of opinions, yet no personal attacks.
If you read the reviews past and present you will note they are not the same, the work evolves through such discussions. I would not do things now as I would have in the past. But to stoop to the level of personal insults, and vague comments, while at the same time complaining about the lack of "science", (and bias while you are employed by the knife company being discussed ) is irony to such an extent it is staggering.
Buck 112 :
Why would you expect a very high end knife, with an expensive melt of a high grade steel, with a high end heat treat to be outperformed by low end steel with a quick and dirty hardening. The answer is that you should not, assuming the correct type of knife. Yes you can take a 1/16" skinner and break it with ease, just like you can take a restoration pry bar and break it doing wrecking work. A 1/4" tool steel blade requires serious effort to bring it to the point of failure prying wise, in the mark of 3000 in.lbs. Assuming the blade is not overhardened, it will like a prybar, take a set before it breaks.
-Cliff
Since the RC on the Sebenza is lower than on the Recondo the impact toughness should be higher and thus increase its resistance to hammering and such. However the Sebenza also has a much deeper hollow grind, but for now lets pretend that it is ground the exact same way as the Recondo. There is no argument against the fact that the higher value of SOG hardness makes the steel more brittle, dancing around this is nothing but hype. The critical question would be how much above the break point of the BG-42 in the Recondo were the impacts and is this greater than the increased toughness of the BG-42 in the Sebenza. From what I have seen of hardness/toughness charts, once you go beyond the maximum, you can get impact toughness drop off rates that are 50% in just a few RC points (CPM-3V for example). Thus even a small hardness difference can totally gut your impact durability. So it would not surprise me if it took much heavier impacts to break a BG-42 blade that was just a few RC points lower.
Heat treating choices are not as simple as right or wrong. There is nothing inherently bad about hardening BG-42 to 64 RC for a knife, or even going harder with other steels. I have a number of custom knives planned that are even harder, made from alloys I would expect to be just as brittle as BG-42 or even more so probably. However, you can make an argument about suitability of the properties of a particular heat treat to a specific type of knife. Just like 1045 at ~45 RC makes a very nice brush knife, it makes a pretty poor skinner. CPM-10V at 64 RC makes a wonderful light utility knife but a pretty poor large bowie.
No, I don't have a RC tester. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that scientific work is unlimited in funding. This would be lovely if it were the case, but unfortunately it isn't. Walk into any lab and see if they have access to the ideal equipment for all the time they want, the answer is obviously not. Ideally you would explore what you want without such bothersome restrictions, but in reality you don't. You can't just order something and say "Its for science, I don't have to pay." . It was a lot different a few generations ago where science was conducted often by independently wealthy individuals, such isn't the case now and funding is a real issue which limits research. Ideally when I look at a blade seriously I would have at least a dozen or so of them, for myself as well as copies to give to friends for different perspectives based on enviroment, physical ability and skill. Plus this would allow a decent QC check, you would want to buy them from different places at different times of course.
The knife is looked at primarily on the basis of what it is designed for, based on the perspective of the manufacturer as well as those from other makers of similar. Usage outside of this will be done, on some knives more than others, a large influence is how well is does at its intended task. Quite simply if I buy a knife for a purpose and it achieves that very well, it is not likely that I use it for much outside of its intended use that could damage it beyond the cosmetic. However if a knife fails to perform its intended task (or anything else well), then it doesn't have much use to me besides taking it apart and learning about break points, how and when they happen. This sort of skews the durability perspective of highly efficient knives, but this will be commented on in comparisons. This is only true on knives I buy, on ones I am given to review I will usually take apart, or in any case stress much harder than when I buy them. This is mainly to keep me honest so I don't go light on a knife so as to have it in good shape so I can keep it for personal use.
By all means, it would probably be best in a seperate thread.
Ron :
Sergiusz Mitin :
The above I quote, simply because it amazes me at the ease at which both parties insult people so readily. Here is a quote from Bill Martino, a retired Engineer, well known on the HI forum :
"I happen to agree 100% with Cliff's testing methods."
To refer to him as foolish and inexperienced, is amusing. I used Bill as an example, simply because I know him quite well, and he will be not be offended at the above, but will just laugh and carry on. When I think of others, well the amazement grows. It is of course fine to disagree with someone, and argue about the interpretation of results, it is the norm, perspectives differ, just look at the thread in the HI forum on use and abuse, difference of opinions, yet no personal attacks.
If you read the reviews past and present you will note they are not the same, the work evolves through such discussions. I would not do things now as I would have in the past. But to stoop to the level of personal insults, and vague comments, while at the same time complaining about the lack of "science", (and bias while you are employed by the knife company being discussed ) is irony to such an extent it is staggering.
Buck 112 :
Why would you expect a very high end knife, with an expensive melt of a high grade steel, with a high end heat treat to be outperformed by low end steel with a quick and dirty hardening. The answer is that you should not, assuming the correct type of knife. Yes you can take a 1/16" skinner and break it with ease, just like you can take a restoration pry bar and break it doing wrecking work. A 1/4" tool steel blade requires serious effort to bring it to the point of failure prying wise, in the mark of 3000 in.lbs. Assuming the blade is not overhardened, it will like a prybar, take a set before it breaks.
-Cliff
- Joined
- Nov 25, 1999
- Messages
- 1,499
Cliff,
This is amazing!
What a pity that you didnt call me sending one of the pieces here. I would perform the measure in Lodz Polytechnic lab for you.
If you are taking this as insult Im sorry...
Wow, you have contributed some dozens of dollars to buy SOG Recondo for shattering and you have regretted some bucks to commission hardness test at the lab where is RC tester?
This is amazing!
What a pity that you didnt call me sending one of the pieces here. I would perform the measure in Lodz Polytechnic lab for you.
Not to brag myself but Im an engineer also and I definitely do not agree with Cliffs testing methods anyway, considering them fairly unscientific, biased and called to prove what should be proved...
If you are taking this as insult Im sorry...
To all who would be critical of Cliff's methods and findings: unless you are testing blades to the extent that Cliff does, I think you should hush. Cliff takes blades up to and beyond their breaking point, literally. I don't see anyone else on this board providing the kind of evaluations that Cliff does. Most evals of blades go something like, "It's purty, it feels good, and it cuts good." Nothing wrong with that as far as it goes. (I for one am not going to intentionally destroy my blade just so I can tell you guys about it.) If you don't like Cliff's methods, let's hear yours.
Have a nice day.
Have a nice day.
Bobby B
No more Mr. Knife-guy
- Joined
- May 18, 2001
- Messages
- 3,053
I work in the automotive industry. We use a study called GR&R (Gauge Repeatability & Reproducability) to determine the validity of testing methods (gauging). It measures the reliability of a measuring system, and expresses it in terms of a percentage ratio of the gauging "error" to the tolerance of the specification being measured. The "standard", is that the error should be no more than 10% of the tolerance on the measurement desired.
Whew!!! What it does is measure the liklihood that anyone should be able to repeat the test, and reproduce the result.
My point (and I think I have one... ) is that Cliff does some testing that he takes very seriously. The caveat, however, is that the tests would be "difficult" to repeat (should one want to
) and the results unlikely to be reproduced.
I recall the infamous Recondo test which involved hitting the knife with a steel pipe, while someone held it. [Talk about dedication! I wouldn't want to repeat that. When that failed to give the desired results, the knife was stuck into a piece of wood and hit until it broke. [reminds me of a quality joke:" ... yes, but was it a calibrated hammer?"]. The results were then compared to a fillet knife (?!) That is supposed to be flexible... To my mind that is the equivalent of running motorcycle over a ditch on a 2x4, trying it with a tank, then saying that the tank is not adaptable because it broke the board. It's apples and oranges.
Now the point [finally!]. I know that Cliff means well, and I understand actually has a scientific background, but I can't agree with the results he draws from some of his tests.
A good scientific experiment (or test) should be conducted in such a manner that it can be reproduced by someone else in a similar manner
While Cliff's tests satisfy some readers needs, my point is that they are not "good science" as sometimes presented, since they are neither repeatable, nor reproducible. They are as "scientific" as the review suggested by Tommy Hawk "It's purty, it feels good, and it cuts good." They are simply Cliff's opinions, and should be regarded as such.
Those are my thoughts anyway...
Rob
Whew!!! What it does is measure the liklihood that anyone should be able to repeat the test, and reproduce the result.
My point (and I think I have one...
) is that Cliff does some testing that he takes very seriously. The caveat, however, is that the tests would be "difficult" to repeat (should one want to ) and the results unlikely to be reproduced.I recall the infamous Recondo test which involved hitting the knife with a steel pipe, while someone held it. [Talk about dedication! I wouldn't want to repeat that. When that failed to give the desired results, the knife was stuck into a piece of wood and hit until it broke. [reminds me of a quality joke:" ... yes, but was it a calibrated hammer?"]. The results were then compared to a fillet knife (?!) That is supposed to be flexible... To my mind that is the equivalent of running motorcycle over a ditch on a 2x4, trying it with a tank, then saying that the tank is not adaptable because it broke the board. It's apples and oranges.
Now the point [finally!]. I know that Cliff means well, and I understand actually has a scientific background, but I can't agree with the results he draws from some of his tests.
A good scientific experiment (or test) should be conducted in such a manner that it can be reproduced by someone else in a similar manner
While Cliff's tests satisfy some readers needs, my point is that they are not "good science" as sometimes presented, since they are neither repeatable, nor reproducible. They are as "scientific" as the review suggested by Tommy Hawk "It's purty, it feels good, and it cuts good." They are simply Cliff's opinions, and should be regarded as such.
Those are my thoughts anyway...
Rob
- Joined
- Nov 25, 1999
- Messages
- 1,499
Tommy,
Or treat them as barbarian way as Cliff treats, banging with hammer or steel pipe for ex.?
Wow! Greatly probably I will never match Cliff in this competition because having closely near 50 years I have broken only one blade in my life...
You have expressed pretty fresh idea!
The next step in such conclusions probably should be the best driver is who crushes the most cars and who doesnt crush them on regular basis should sit hush and shouldnt criticize The Hero anyway, isnt it?
If seriously, one of the Forum main purposes is to promote knife safe and proper use. Plunging the knife blade into break in wood and charging the handle sideways until blade breaks, hammering blades or banging them with steel pipes no way can be considered nor proper neither safe. Rob did hit a nail test should be repeatable and reproducible to be scientific and to provide materials for comparison. Cliff tests knives following individual methods, mostly having intention to prove what is required to prove. Do you really think I couldnt find a method to break each knife if I should do it or if I would like?
No problem if you would like to know blade breakage limit but test it scientifically. Please visit Test section at www.fallkniven.com to see how such tests should be set up.
Does this mean that me or anyone else should shut down and sit hush until he or she will not break as many blades as Cliff did?
Or treat them as barbarian way as Cliff treats, banging with hammer or steel pipe for ex.?
Wow! Greatly probably I will never match Cliff in this competition because having closely near 50 years I have broken only one blade in my life...
You have expressed pretty fresh idea!
The next step in such conclusions probably should be the best driver is who crushes the most cars and who doesnt crush them on regular basis should sit hush and shouldnt criticize The Hero anyway, isnt it?
If seriously, one of the Forum main purposes is to promote knife safe and proper use. Plunging the knife blade into break in wood and charging the handle sideways until blade breaks, hammering blades or banging them with steel pipes no way can be considered nor proper neither safe. Rob did hit a nail test should be repeatable and reproducible to be scientific and to provide materials for comparison. Cliff tests knives following individual methods, mostly having intention to prove what is required to prove. Do you really think I couldnt find a method to break each knife if I should do it or if I would like?
No problem if you would like to know blade breakage limit but test it scientifically. Please visit Test section at www.fallkniven.com to see how such tests should be set up.
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2000
- Messages
- 3,769
Cliff,
If you did reviews in a responsible manner, you wouldn't receive so much flack.
You made reference to one engineer who validates your testing procedures (I'm sure you could find others, but not likely very many). I've shown your reviews to numerous engineers who do not seem to agree.
If you did reviews in a responsible manner, you wouldn't receive so much flack.
You made reference to one engineer who validates your testing procedures (I'm sure you could find others, but not likely very many). I've shown your reviews to numerous engineers who do not seem to agree.
I think you are a little sensitive, for my post (I can't speak for Sergiusz) was not insulting. Calling you an "Ass" would have made it insulting (but I'd never do that). I was just sharing a personal opinion about observations I've made (and shared by others) about your testing procedures. And regarding the "ease" of these comments, there was nothing "easy" about them. They grew out of your long line of less-than-sound testing procedures in your "reviews."
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2000
- Messages
- 3,794
Or treat them as barbarian way as Cliff treats, banging with hammer or steel pipe for ex.?
Some (if not many) knifemakers do the same. At least I've seen posts here stating that. And I suppose their hammers are not calibrated either
Wow! Greatly probably I will never match Cliff in this competition because having closely near 50 years I have broken only one blade in my life...
Sure. Your reviews are different, you do things your way. Destructive testing isn't your thing, that's it.
the best driver is who crushes the most cars and who doesnt crush them on regular basis should sit hush and shouldnt criticize The Hero anyway, isnt it?
Statistically high-performance drivers have more "crushed cars" left behind than the average driver. Sure everyone is entitled to an opinion. Though safe driving means you're not pushing your car to the limits, right?
If seriously, one of the Forum main purposes is to promote knife safe and proper use.
Testing/Reviewing too. One of the most interesting parts of this forum to me are those independent reviews. Yes they are neither exactly scientific nor easily reproducible, but they do have the value and ferquently they are more valuable than reviews in knife magazines.
sideways until blade breaks, hammering blades or banging them with steel pipes no way can be considered nor proper neither safe.
Who said it was? Cliff? It's testing in a way he sees it fit. If he would put a disclaimer in Red <font color=#FF0000>This isn't safe, don't try at home</font> would that change something?
Please visit Test section at www.fallkniven.com to see how such tests should be set up.
Hmm, and how much that stuff would cost and how would one keep that at home? Have you tried that?
Cliff Stamp
BANNED
- Joined
- Oct 5, 1998
- Messages
- 17,562
Sergiusz Mitin :
Ron makes the same claim as well, which is basically that this was all that was done to the Recondo, and in general all that I do when evaluating a knife. This does paint a pretty odd picture I agree as it would be a pretty odd way to do things. This would be especially true if you then commented about the general worth of a knife, because it only looks at one aspect of the blade, and a rather extreme one. If you read the reviews you will note this isn't the case at all, and thus your argument is shown to be very biased as you are looking at the reviews with a very skewed perspective and making false generalizations.
As for the RC tester, as I have discussed in the past there are positives and negatives to proceeding down this road. And in any case, the lack (or presence) of such methods has nothing to do with bias or how "scientific" a testing procedure may be. Precision and accuracy are irrelevant, only the knowledge of the bounds is important which comes from nature of the method, specially its robustness. I do think I will pick up a RC tester eventually, though this is a "red herring" in the above. It is also very odd to criticize a user for not doing a RC test on a knife because of the variable promotion in hardnes, when this should be a QC issue of the maker.
And even if this was done, do you actually think Ron would be positive about the results. To be specific, anything that voids the warranty, in his opinion (and SOG's I would assume as he keeps stating that he is speaking directly for them), has no part in a knife review. This of course produces a very biased review as it lets the makers dictate the testing. I should point out though that others such as Les Robertson think that this is in fact the way it should be done.
My argument against this is quite simple. What happens if two manufactures make a knife for the exact same promoted usage, but have two widely different opinions on abuse. Which one should you use to determine how the knife performs in the worst possible conditions. If you use the extreme one, the lower one fails and they cry unfair as the knife is broken. If you use the low end one the upper end maker will cry unfair as you are not showing the true potential of their knife.
Personally, I'd just go over both of them, if it was at all possible within certain bounds. Usually things like no bars for leverage work, nothing beyond a hammer for impacts . There is nothing wrong with exceeding these of course, I usually don't most of the time simply because I don't do that in use so there is not a lot of interest in looking at it, and few knives make it necessary anyway.
Rob :
Ok, this is a valid point. So just think for a moment, about hitting a knife with a hammer. Common sense will tell you that there is only a certain range of impact energies able to be produced. I can't for example drive a six inch spike into a piece of 8x8" no matter how hard I try. Thus there is an upper level of energy. At the same end, there is a lower level, as well. With some thought and care, both of these can be deduced, and some simple tests done to check. The latter has been detailed in a few reviews, where I was asked to estimate the impact energy as someone wanted to know how hard I was using a baton on a knife to split wood.
In particular to the bar hits, the impact energies could be quantified, by the following; the mass of the bar, its dimensions, and its hardness [or just the particular specific piece, its the outside wrap of a cheap standard barbell], the impact point, the time of the swing, and the extension of the knife after the impact (the ability to resist the downward load), etc. . I included such details in later work as well as how to check out impact estimates by driving nails and comparing the results to using specific weights to do the same. There are also some comments to this regard in the Recondo review.
I had intended to just vice the handle to remove the influence of the person holding it, but concluded this was unrealistic as it assume the individual has the strength to stop the blade from moving at all. Which could of course be used to set the highest end limit. There are people for whom this would be very close to true. I was also actually curious if I could in fact hold onto the knife at the time, as well how uncomfortable it would be, as well as the ability or stop an incoming weapon. The latter turns out to be extreme difficult, which is easy to see why with a little math.
Now forget all of this, and assume that I didn't record any of the above so can't give you any details on the bar. Then it becomes very difficult to repeat what was done, as a fully hardened bar will give very different impact energies than an annealed one (which was used). Yet you could still proceed, just bound the results with the two bars. And again, this is still just one aspect, of one part of the review. And the conclusions drawn from it which are on one aspect of one part of overall functionality, are not drawn from it in isolation, but together with how the blade performed in other areas, as well as materials properties of the steel, past experience etc. .
As well, and this is where the huge bias comes in, take a look at other reviews which were positive about SOG's knives, and see if Ron or Sergiusz criticized the poster for not being scientific. This shows that it isn't the method at all that is causing the problem, but simply the results. As a specific example, when I quoted the high level of sharpness of the Vision using a couple of methods Ron was very positive, when I commented on the low level of sharpness of the Recondo (and SEAL) using the exact same methods he was very negative. This is a clear bias.
And what did you disagree with about the conclusions drawn? They were basically that the fillet blade had a much tougher steel and thus reacted to the impacts in a different way, impacting instead of chipping, and bending rather than breaking. Thus mainly illustrated the difference between 440A and BG-42 with a 10+ RC difference. The geometry difference was also discussed, as well the hammering was repeated with a full size 440A bolo some time later.
Ron :
Actually, the number of people who complain is far outweighed by the number of people who don't, publically anyway (if you can't stand behind your opinion in public, no weight should be put to it anyway). There is no shortage of makers, production and custom for me to deal with, nor individuals to share experiences and knives with. Can you expect to please everybody, of course not, unless you don't say anything, and even then you will get criticized by some for being mute.
No, you were making inferences about people, not the methods. As another example, which is even more amusing. Ed Fowler commented awhile ago about some testing methods, one of which including hammering on a knife to cut a very hard piece of wood, to such an extent that it could induce flattening of the spine, or gross failure. By your comments in the above (R&S) this makes him foolish and inexperienced. Other makers who test in really extreme manners include Jerry Busse and Howard Clark, who have done things even far beyond what I have. Your labels then apply to them as well.
Personal attacks are the norm only when the issues can't be dealt with. They are the lowest form of discussion and don't require anything except the willingness to attack others. As for the number of people I can find who agree with me, as I said before, popularity is a poor estimate of functionality, and hardly has any part of an argument which is at its core centered about being scientific or not.
If you want to discuss method then be specific. Point out conclusions which you think are false, and specifically how they are not supported by the argument. Saying a review is "biased" is like saying a knife is "crappy". It is vague and useless, and is mainly just used to inflame because an argument can't be made. To start you out, a bias is either caused by a data collection process which promotes certain results, or a method of analysis and inference which does the same. This is what you would address in detail to present a strong and coherent argument which had at its goal the creation of a better process.
As an example, awhile ago I commented about a sharp spine being a poor choice. It was pointed out that it makes an excellent scraper, and in particular are very useful if you use ferro rods as fire starters. My opinion was skewed on the spines, because in general I don't do much scraping, and do a lot of spine handling. However I can appreciate that the opposite could hold true, and not see the spine issue as one of just another tradeoff. In my perspective, the advantage of having a better scraper doesn't overcome the loss of comfort (draw knife, splitter, high up blade hold), or durability (sharp spine = high stress), but depending on how you use a knife, this will differ.
-Cliff
Ron makes the same claim as well, which is basically that this was all that was done to the Recondo, and in general all that I do when evaluating a knife. This does paint a pretty odd picture I agree as it would be a pretty odd way to do things. This would be especially true if you then commented about the general worth of a knife, because it only looks at one aspect of the blade, and a rather extreme one. If you read the reviews you will note this isn't the case at all, and thus your argument is shown to be very biased as you are looking at the reviews with a very skewed perspective and making false generalizations.
As for the RC tester, as I have discussed in the past there are positives and negatives to proceeding down this road. And in any case, the lack (or presence) of such methods has nothing to do with bias or how "scientific" a testing procedure may be. Precision and accuracy are irrelevant, only the knowledge of the bounds is important which comes from nature of the method, specially its robustness. I do think I will pick up a RC tester eventually, though this is a "red herring" in the above. It is also very odd to criticize a user for not doing a RC test on a knife because of the variable promotion in hardnes, when this should be a QC issue of the maker.
And even if this was done, do you actually think Ron would be positive about the results. To be specific, anything that voids the warranty, in his opinion (and SOG's I would assume as he keeps stating that he is speaking directly for them), has no part in a knife review. This of course produces a very biased review as it lets the makers dictate the testing. I should point out though that others such as Les Robertson think that this is in fact the way it should be done.
My argument against this is quite simple. What happens if two manufactures make a knife for the exact same promoted usage, but have two widely different opinions on abuse. Which one should you use to determine how the knife performs in the worst possible conditions. If you use the extreme one, the lower one fails and they cry unfair as the knife is broken. If you use the low end one the upper end maker will cry unfair as you are not showing the true potential of their knife.
Personally, I'd just go over both of them, if it was at all possible within certain bounds. Usually things like no bars for leverage work, nothing beyond a hammer for impacts . There is nothing wrong with exceeding these of course, I usually don't most of the time simply because I don't do that in use so there is not a lot of interest in looking at it, and few knives make it necessary anyway.
Rob :
Ok, this is a valid point. So just think for a moment, about hitting a knife with a hammer. Common sense will tell you that there is only a certain range of impact energies able to be produced. I can't for example drive a six inch spike into a piece of 8x8" no matter how hard I try. Thus there is an upper level of energy. At the same end, there is a lower level, as well. With some thought and care, both of these can be deduced, and some simple tests done to check. The latter has been detailed in a few reviews, where I was asked to estimate the impact energy as someone wanted to know how hard I was using a baton on a knife to split wood.
In particular to the bar hits, the impact energies could be quantified, by the following; the mass of the bar, its dimensions, and its hardness [or just the particular specific piece, its the outside wrap of a cheap standard barbell], the impact point, the time of the swing, and the extension of the knife after the impact (the ability to resist the downward load), etc. . I included such details in later work as well as how to check out impact estimates by driving nails and comparing the results to using specific weights to do the same. There are also some comments to this regard in the Recondo review.
I had intended to just vice the handle to remove the influence of the person holding it, but concluded this was unrealistic as it assume the individual has the strength to stop the blade from moving at all. Which could of course be used to set the highest end limit. There are people for whom this would be very close to true. I was also actually curious if I could in fact hold onto the knife at the time, as well how uncomfortable it would be, as well as the ability or stop an incoming weapon. The latter turns out to be extreme difficult, which is easy to see why with a little math.
Now forget all of this, and assume that I didn't record any of the above so can't give you any details on the bar. Then it becomes very difficult to repeat what was done, as a fully hardened bar will give very different impact energies than an annealed one (which was used). Yet you could still proceed, just bound the results with the two bars. And again, this is still just one aspect, of one part of the review. And the conclusions drawn from it which are on one aspect of one part of overall functionality, are not drawn from it in isolation, but together with how the blade performed in other areas, as well as materials properties of the steel, past experience etc. .
As well, and this is where the huge bias comes in, take a look at other reviews which were positive about SOG's knives, and see if Ron or Sergiusz criticized the poster for not being scientific. This shows that it isn't the method at all that is causing the problem, but simply the results. As a specific example, when I quoted the high level of sharpness of the Vision using a couple of methods Ron was very positive, when I commented on the low level of sharpness of the Recondo (and SEAL) using the exact same methods he was very negative. This is a clear bias.
And what did you disagree with about the conclusions drawn? They were basically that the fillet blade had a much tougher steel and thus reacted to the impacts in a different way, impacting instead of chipping, and bending rather than breaking. Thus mainly illustrated the difference between 440A and BG-42 with a 10+ RC difference. The geometry difference was also discussed, as well the hammering was repeated with a full size 440A bolo some time later.
Ron :
Actually, the number of people who complain is far outweighed by the number of people who don't, publically anyway (if you can't stand behind your opinion in public, no weight should be put to it anyway). There is no shortage of makers, production and custom for me to deal with, nor individuals to share experiences and knives with. Can you expect to please everybody, of course not, unless you don't say anything, and even then you will get criticized by some for being mute.
No, you were making inferences about people, not the methods. As another example, which is even more amusing. Ed Fowler commented awhile ago about some testing methods, one of which including hammering on a knife to cut a very hard piece of wood, to such an extent that it could induce flattening of the spine, or gross failure. By your comments in the above (R&S) this makes him foolish and inexperienced. Other makers who test in really extreme manners include Jerry Busse and Howard Clark, who have done things even far beyond what I have. Your labels then apply to them as well.
Personal attacks are the norm only when the issues can't be dealt with. They are the lowest form of discussion and don't require anything except the willingness to attack others. As for the number of people I can find who agree with me, as I said before, popularity is a poor estimate of functionality, and hardly has any part of an argument which is at its core centered about being scientific or not.
If you want to discuss method then be specific. Point out conclusions which you think are false, and specifically how they are not supported by the argument. Saying a review is "biased" is like saying a knife is "crappy". It is vague and useless, and is mainly just used to inflame because an argument can't be made. To start you out, a bias is either caused by a data collection process which promotes certain results, or a method of analysis and inference which does the same. This is what you would address in detail to present a strong and coherent argument which had at its goal the creation of a better process.
As an example, awhile ago I commented about a sharp spine being a poor choice. It was pointed out that it makes an excellent scraper, and in particular are very useful if you use ferro rods as fire starters. My opinion was skewed on the spines, because in general I don't do much scraping, and do a lot of spine handling. However I can appreciate that the opposite could hold true, and not see the spine issue as one of just another tradeoff. In my perspective, the advantage of having a better scraper doesn't overcome the loss of comfort (draw knife, splitter, high up blade hold), or durability (sharp spine = high stress), but depending on how you use a knife, this will differ.
-Cliff
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2000
- Messages
- 3,769
Hi Cliff,
If you were just "Joe Blow" knife knut commenting about your latest knife purchase (including in detail, as others have), there would not be complaints. But you come across as a seasoned physics researcher, but testing procedures would be laughed (and have been laughed) at by those in the field.
I have no doubt that you are a sincere guy and I really only wish the best for you. But it's hard to ignore such ineptness.
You couldn't be more wrong. Maybe you had trouble reading my posts, so let me explain. I have regularly taken issue with your testing procedures...as I have in this thread. If your testing procedures were less "peculiar and unconventional," in a scientific manner, you would not receive so much heat. Repeatability is a major issue! It's absurd to present material as "science" if the results cannot be replicated. On the "inferences about people," I have addressed your "personal bias." You can't draw a conclusion about a knife's steel before you've received and tested it.
If you were just "Joe Blow" knife knut commenting about your latest knife purchase (including in detail, as others have), there would not be complaints. But you come across as a seasoned physics researcher, but testing procedures would be laughed (and have been laughed) at by those in the field.
I have no doubt that you are a sincere guy and I really only wish the best for you. But it's hard to ignore such ineptness.
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2000
- Messages
- 3,769
Here's an email I sent to The Bear. I thought it appropriate to share here.