SOG X-42 field knife: opinions wanted!

[Sergiusz Mitin]

Gator,

Some (if not many) knifemakers do the same

Yes, I know it. The purposes that they do it for and the way they use results are quite important for me from ethical point of view. Manufacturer A have broken some knives from his closest competitor, manufacturer B, to compare their limits with his own product ones and to convince himself that he is going right way. Company C breaks knives in their lab on regular basis for the same purposes. Both A and C do not make the secret that they are doing this but they have never published such results to convince others that their knives are better (or competing knives are worse). All encrypted names are well known here, I only try to keep my possibly fair and unbiased position do not showing them.

Here are a lot of manufacturers who advertise their knives incomparably more importunate and unfair way than SOG does. If I, say, do not like their knives or/and advertising methods – does it mean that I should buy one of them, bang it with hammer (banging also $5 kitchen knife for comparison) and conclude, that “number one” in fact can’t match even cheap kitchen knife? Making such conclusions it is possible to prove what should be proven and badmouth each manufacturer. Just select one whom you do not like for one or another reason...

Your reviews are different, you do things your way

You are right, my reviews are different (BTW, yours also). I try to point probable user’s attention to knife properties what are important in real life use and/or reasonable abuse. Cliff sometimes publishes data obtained very clearly and scientifically, for ex. comparing cutting performance. And sometimes not, for ex. applying to selected knives methods what each normal man couldn’t even consider as super-exaggerated abuse – such situations are simply not imaginable until someone don’t want to break a knife intentionally.
But it is possible to break each knife!
So conclusion that certain knife doesn’t hold up in intended use or reasonable, possible in real life conditions abuse is one thing. The conclusion that a knife can be broken is quite another thing, I do not need any experiments – scientific or not – to prove it.

Hmm, and how much that stuff would cost and how would one keep that at home? Have you tried that?

Hmm, do you know how expensive was the stuff what allowed Americans to reach Moon surface? Now imagine that I would like to repeat this in home conditions. Not being so rich should I try to obtain the same results with somewhat simplified methods, for ex. putting the black-powder rocket into my a$$?

Cliff,

No, you were making inferences about people, not the methods

Not excluded you are partially right but only partially. We all are people only. Believe me or not, I really have nothing against you personally. But I don’t agree with the way you do some things and I don’t want young people reading this Forum to consider them as right way to go.

And please do not put Ron & Sergiusz into one team as like all other readers would agree with you and just R&S wouldn’t. Ron is SOG spokesman and defending SOG against your publication negative effects does his paid job. Nor I’m SOG employee or do work for them anyway neither they are my especially favorite manufacturer or their knives are among my especial favorites. Definitely I would like to change a lot in SOG production line if this would be in my power. Yes, I respect highly Ron’s honesty and determination he does his job with but this never would be enough for me to put my name under something what I do not believe or agree.

So I’m just treating your testing methods the same way that you have treated Recondo and Vision knives. Somewhat biased? Maybe, but to methods you use only, not to you personally.
Do you take this as insult and personal attack? OK, please take my apologies as to form I have expressed my opinion and let’s stop this idle discussion.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

Sergiusz Mitin :

Both A and C do not make the secret that they are doing this but they have never published such results to convince others that their knives are better (or competing knives are worse).

Yes, they do, they just don't do it publically. It however will be discussed in email and on the phone and face to face in private conversations. However I prefer to say what I did in public. This to me is vastly better than speaking behind someone's back where they can't defend themselves.

As for convincing others, my reviews contain links to other peoples point of view which are often radically different from mine. There is also no skew put on these viewpoints, such as Ron has done in the past time and time again when he has referenced what I have done or said, this again clearly shows a biased perspective.

... a lot of manufacturers who advertise their knives incomparably more importunate and unfair way than SOG does.

I know, and I have commented on this in the past when I have seen it. If you feel that I am ignoring a case that is as bad or worse than something I have critized then by all means point it out as it would be hypocritical of me. And yes, I often do buy knives that I feel are vastly over hyped, as well under hyped and those that are not hyped at all. I have also been mistaken about this in the past (all counts), and when it happens I simply note that I was wrong.

Cliff sometimes publishes data obtained very clearly and scientifically, for ex. comparing cutting performance. And sometimes not ...

And instead of asking me about the difference, you conclude I am biased . Do you think that is a valid scientific approach. If you had asked I would have told you that I am interested in some aspects more than others. The break points are for me usually secondary, and are thus are general more qualitative. As well, the same properties (strength / impact toughness) can often be inferred from the behavior of the edge under use, when it is thinned to the point of failure. Check for example recent posts on the Jungle Knife, Tramontina Bolo and RTAK. In retrospect I wish I had used loads for the hammer impacts of the Recondo as I am doing that now on a few knives and would have liked to be able to make a more precise comparison.

... for ex. applying to selected knives methods what each normal man couldn?t even consider as super-exaggerated abuse - such situations are simply not imaginable until someone don?t want to break a knife intentionally.

First of all, the usage of the Recondo was repeated on other knives and in fact other blades were treated worse. The Recondo was popped with a hammer lightly and it shattered. The Busse Basic was used for well over a year splitting wood by hitting it with a hammer, and the poll of hatchet and tomahawk about as hard as they could be swung. The Basic was also subjected to far greater use prying and hard edge contacts greater in both magnitude and frequency. Compare the response of Busse to that of Ron.

As for the usage being not imaginable, I can give you lots of examples of actual use which involved heavy prying and cutting hardened metal, emergency and rescue being the most obvious. As a rather trivial example, do brush clearing in an urban area. Contacts off of hardened steel are fairly common, one of the most frequent cases are kids building cabins which can leave nails in trees which will in time grow in, ingrown fences, railings etc., as well concrete impacts are also frequent. The forums give numerous examples of such.

But it is possible to break each knife!

It is also possible, with enough force, to cut anything with any knife no matter the geometry or bluntness of the edge, and to hold onto any knife regardless of handle shape or texture. Thus so all comments on cutting ability and sharpness should not be made as well? It is not the fact that the knife breaks that is important, but how and when it breaks.

But I don?t agree with the way you do some things ...

So discuss the methods, not the individual.

... do not put Ron & Sergiusz into one team as like all other readers would agree with you

This was not implied, just that both of you were using personal attacks.

Ron :

On the "inferences about people," I have addressed your "personal bias."

Without support, or any argument except for your own opinion. This is a personal attack on me, not the method. As noted in the above, if you are discussing a bias in method, the individual doesn't come into the commentary. Also, you drew conclusions about anyone using similar methods. As for your perspective that it wasn't personal - this is why I quoted your statements, semantics can of course be debated forever.

What makes the least amount of sense in your argument about bias is that you have stated that the behavior of the Recondo was as expected - this means that the data was unbiased, this is what the word means when used in regards to data collection, analysis or inference.

You can't draw a conclusion about a knife's steel before you've received and tested it.

Sure you can if the specifics are known. If you tell me a knife weighs 600 g, I know it will be heavier than a knife that weighs 400 g. I don't need to actually hold it to conclude this because I know how gravity induces a weight based on an objects mass.

By the same reasoning, I can conclude that BG-42 at 62-64 RC is likely to be too brittle for a tactical knife because of what I have seen in the past, what I know about the toughness of steels at a very high hardness. Reasoning which was supported by many makers, including SOG as they lowered the RC which you noted was influenced by comments I made.

... it's hard to ignore such ineptness.

Another example of you not being personal and dealing just with the issues.

As for repeatability, as noted in the above, the work could have been repeated if desired, some parts would be more difficult that others I would agree and some would have had rather large confidence intervals. However, again, this doesn't define bias or point towards unscientific methods . Many experiments for example are done to just orders of magnitude, and all of the above reference work could be duplicated to a far greater degree of precision.

At a simplest level for example, for the hammer hits on the concrete, you could just subject the blade to such impacts until it broke in the same manner. Thus the break point defined the impact energy. However this is another red herring as you have clearly stated that no such work, regardless of how it is performed, should be in a review. And also as noted in the above you are limiting your viewpoint to just one aspect - this is again biased.

As for your apology, you have also apologized to me in the past for comments made in the Recondo thread, and noted that you would refrain from doing so in the future and yet you are repeating the same behavior again here.

-Cliff

 

[Ron Andersen]

Hi Cliff,

Quoted From Cliff Stamp

As for your apology, you have also apologized to me in the past for comments made in the Recondo thread, and noted that you would refrain from doing so in the future and yet you are repeating the same behavior again here.

You are very correct about the past apology. But in my wildest dreams, I never conceived that you would continue to spread your disinformation, making me need to clear the air for both newcomers and those who can be unfortunately influenced by your scatty "science" praxis.

But Cliff, you may notice that this apology was not extended to you! You must have used the same research techniques in reading my apology above as you use in evaluating knives.

 

[Bobby B]

Cliff,
First off, I will clear any questions (unasked) of bias. I have a number of SOG knives and have been happy them, and certainly with the service SOG (through Ron) has provided.

That being said, my only issue is the method. You, like everyone else are entitled to your opinion. Your tests probably answer the questions you have about certain knives, and maybe those of others as well. Destructive testing certainly has its uses, but must be carried out in such a manner as to give meaningful information, or you may as well just mail the knives to me...

You had some concerns with my post, allow me to answer:

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.

My comment with regards to the bar / hammer are thus:
As you know, in simplest terms kinetic energy is a function of 1/2 mass x the square of the velocity. This (as you suggested) leaves out the question of whether the bar is hardened/annealed, etc...)
Thus one swing of the bar may impact at (for example 2 m/s) giving an impact energy of 2x the mass. Increasing the speed to 3m/s would increase the energy transmitted to 4.5x the mass, more than double.

If you include that the bar travels in an arc, the further along the bar you go, the higher the velocity. If you combine this with the variance in swing speed, there is a very wide differential in the amount of energy the blade is being subjected to. That is why impact tests are very difficult to do accurately, requiring precise machines...

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.

Yes, the math is similar to above. You are holding a knife weighing ounces still against a bar weighing pounds being swung hard. My bet goes on the kinetic energy of the bar It would be uncomfortable, and I commend you in even wanting to prove this... I'll happily take your word on it.

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.

My disagreement stems from some of the points you just listed. You are changing too may variables to draw reliable conclusions. If you are concerned about the steel, you'd need to have two knives of similar (better yet identical) size and shape, in the 2 different steels. If comparing geometries, then they should be in the same steel, if RC, then same steel with different hardness. Only then can you say that geometry did this, hardness that, and steel the other. It's an apples and oranges comparison: too many variables, combined with a wide variation in testing repeatability.

As I started with, these tests may well answer your questions, and perhaps some others'. They express your opinions in numerical fashion, but are not in my opinion scientific, based on the reasons above.

Those are my thoughts, for what they're worth... ($0.02)
Regards,
Rob

Edited for typos...not my strength...

 

[The Bear]

I didn’t think to stir up such a mess with my simple request of opinions! I’m sorry on one side and I find your dispute quite funny on the other one.
Thank you and take it easy!
Bye

 

[Sergiusz Mitin]

... but I couldn’t resist to say: Well done, Rob!
Certainly worth far, far more than $0.02
You are right at 100% about test reliability, scientific approach and drawn conclusion reasonableness. This is why I never call my reviews scientific and share my subjective impressions on particular knife only. Of course trying to keep them within probable reader’s perception ability and common sense borders...

 

[bladefixation]

my new fallkniven A1 would cut that knife in half!! (sorry just boasting about owning an amazing knife...)

 

[Cliff Stamp]

Bobby :

If you combine this with the variance in swing speed, there is a very wide differential in the amount of energy the blade is being subjected to.

Yes, which I noted in the above, and is simply a matter of precision, nothing more. There is no argument (beyond undergraduate level) which links precison to bias or gives a specific level of precision as necessary for something being "scientific". However, yes, when you are first introduced to the scientific method, it is often stated that a high precision is necessary probably even fundamental, but this is like when you are told that you can't take the square root of a negative number.

It is the same thing as the comment that you will often hear which goes like "It is fundamental to science that an experiment be able to be repeated at any time by any body and get the same results." There is some validity to this at a very simple level, and it is a very good place to start when you are introducing the scientific method, but it is not to be used beyond that as it falls apart very rapidly. The best take on this was by Feynman in "Six Easy Pieces".

The confidence intervals, are also probably not as wide as you might think though, as you can be very repeatable, given experience. For example watch a carpenter driving nails and and note how consistent they can be in both hit placement and effort used. But this is a side issue nothing more as noted in the above, its just precision and has no link to bias or a determination of something being "scientific" or not.

And again, to repeat, Ron has clearly stated that no such testing has any place in a review regardless of how it is performed. So all of this is just an issue of misdirection.

You are changing too may variables to draw reliable conclusions.

There is no need to restrict data collection to one variable changing at a time in order to draw conclusions. This is again, something that you are introduced to at first because the statistcal methods that you use on such data are very simplistic. However there is nothing to stop you from moving beyond this level. Many experiments are done in which dozens of variables are changed at the same time. What is necessary is to understand how each aspect influences the result and be able to drawn on other work so as to quantify them. This is central to multiple regression techniques for example.

My disagreement stems from some of the points you just listed.

Which conclusions? I used the specific work you reference as an example of how the greater impact toughness of 440A allows greater durablity specifically in preventing fracture under impact, as well as how reduced stock thickness does the same by allowing bends instead of breaks. Do you argue that this is false? As noted in the above, this is something I have seen in many other times, which you can see in the other reviews, as well as something that you can argue just from basic physical principles.

As for the argument that the reviews don't illustrate safe methods of knife use, well yes this is true. I have never made much commentary about safe knife use and I have stated openly many times that in general all work which can induce breakage is very dangerous and should not be attempted without extreme care.

Ron, as for me keeping making the comments, my perspective is the same now as it was then, as is the core of the argument.

-Cliff

 

[bensano]

Originally posted by Cliff Stamp

(good stuff removed)
The best take on this was by Feynman in "Six Easy Pieces".
(more good stuff lost forever)
-Cliff

Here is a pretty good place to start your reading list on the

web:http://www.santafe.edu/~shalizi/notebooks/scientific-method.html


Ben

 

[Architect]

I innocently looked at this thread to see if there were any opinions on the X-42 Field Knife. Boy, what an idiot I was.

Instead, the usual dose of BF BS.


Hey Serg, Cliff and Ron, thanks for your great contributions to the thread about the X-42.