Sorry, but here's my spine wacks...

[bodog]

I really don't understand ANY company painting itself as top quality with high manufacturing tolerances and made for hard use crazy situations then shipping out a knife obviously not capable of it.

I don't get why people buy knives like that and then defend failures of that company. I don't get why people want a knife billed as a rough duty knife then find unreasonable lock failures acceptable. People keep saying "use the knife as it was intended and you won't have a problem" but that's directly contradictory with the design and stated purpose of the knife. It's supposed to be made for purposes OUTSIDE of what other knives can normally do. If everyone used a knife as it was intended then there'd be a variety of fixed blade knives and slip joints. Locks are put into knives solely for protecting against the knife blade moving the wrong way when used incorrectly. That's the whole point of a lock.

To defend a lock failing under reasonable tests is to defend bad manufacturing processes and shoddy quality control. I don't believe locks are made to turn a folding knife into a fixed blade, but they are there for a purpose and if they fail in that purpose then they fail at what they're supposed to do. It's akin to a fixed skinning blade breaking in half when skinning a deer or a box cutter that can't cut boxes. Asking a fixed skinning blade to skin a deer or a box cutter to cut boxes isn't unreasonable. Asking a fixed skinning blade to chop down a concrete wall is outside of what it is marketed and designed to do. Simply using a tool the way it's supposed to be used in accordance with manufacturer's statements and purported design isn't unreasonable. The only thing unreasonable is defending why the fixed skinning blade breaks when skinning a deer or defending a box cutter that can't cut up boxes, if they can't handle the task, they shouldn't be produced or they should fix what is making that tool fail. A fixed skinning blade can be made of the best materials and they could be made by a company with the best warranty service but there's no excuse if they produce a skinning knife whose handle comes off after 10 minutes of cutting or whatever and it happens over and over again, even if the handle was made of gold and the blade was made of unobtainium and they have a service dept that will almost always replace the knife. None of that helps when you're in the middle of nowhere gutting and field cleaning multiple deer. What you need is a knife that works when you need it to. If a 5 dollar jarbenza will work better than a 1,000,000 dollar custom knife made of some crazy ass materials, common sense says that the jarbenza is a better knife regardless of the materials, fit and finish, and warranty department of the 1,000,000 dollar knife.

Is a carpenter's hammer designed to hammer nails? Sure. Is it designed to pull nails? Sure. If you use it to pry open a crate, should you accept what happens if the hammer breaks with the slightest use outside if what it was designed for? No, you'd call it junk, throw the hammer away, and question the hammer manufacturer, especially if the hammer maker states you can do such things with their hammer. If you liked the hammer company, you wanted to see the hammer company succeed because you, in general, like what they stand for, you'd not defend this failure. You'd not write the company off. You'd say, hey, hammer maker, you're a good company, but this specifc thing about your product sucks, either stop promising your hammers can do these things or actually ensure they can, it will only make your company more trustworthy and/or reliable. And you shouldn't be attacked by a bunch of people who say "well, you shouldn't use a hammer that way" even though the company itself says you can and should trust their hammers to do it.

If the company itself never said or implied that the hammer can and should be used for purposes outside of what hammers should normally be used for, there'd be no problem with the hammer failing at tasks outside of hammering and pulling nails. But that's not the case with some of these companies. They promote certain use, they advocate for certain use, they price their products in a way where you should expect that these tools will hold up to this kind of use. When these tools don't perform, the company who failed should be called out to fix their issues or stop promoting hammers that shouldn't be used outside of hammering and pulling nails. It seems like a pretty easy concept for me, pretty hard for some others.

 

[Insipid Moniker]

I've NEVER understood the attitude that a company is somehow owed the chance to make things right before someone complains about a defective product.

You owe the cost of the knife. Once you've paid that you are owed a functional product. Obligations end there.

If a company has great customer service and a great warranty department that's a definite bonus, as lemons do happen in any industry. But that does not excuse sending out something that's less than functional, it only partially mitigates the offense.

 

[PURPLEDC]

I've NEVER understood the attitude that a company is somehow owed the chance to make things right before someone complains about a defective product.

You owe the cost of the knife. Once you've paid that you are owed a functional product. Obligations end there.

If a company has great customer service and a great warranty department that's a definite bonus, as lemons do happen in any industry. But that does not excuse sending out something that's less than functional, it only partially mitigates the offense.

To be clear IF the ops knife is truly defective and simply isnt a matter of needing adjustments then i have no problem with someone expressing concern.. But what is the soultion? Send it in. If the owner decides not to do that then does he/she have an eternal right to complain? Zt screws up. The point people are trying to make is that everyone screws up. Chris reeve, hinderer, custom makers, you name it and someone has dropped the ball. Lets be honest though no one particularly enjoys having their mistakes rubbed in their face. And this isnt the first thread he has made on this exact knife and issue. He claims to have no hidden or open agenda or purpose for this thread. So then what is the point of putting it out there for a second time? People were all ready aware, and since he has made no attempt to get it fixed does he just get to keep making threads about it? I can see making the initial thread as a way of venting. But since then he has chosen to do nothing. Some may not like that this conversation evolved into questioning the motives of the op. But under the circumstances what he is saying and what he is doing dont seem to gel with his stated intentions. The whole "i like discussing things like this to figure out what the issue is" thing is ludicrous. No one is going to be able to tell why the knife is doing what it is doing from a simple video. And we didnt need this thread to tell us what it is doing because he made an identical thread sans video. Combine the fact that his main excuse is one of time yet he has wasted so much of it all ready it simply isnt a valid point. Not to mention had he sent it in with his last thread he would have probably had it back by now and his video would have been about the corrected knife rather than whatever this is. No one is saying that defective knives are a good thing. And no one is saying you cant discuss it before sending it in. But isnt there a reasonable limit? When is it tome to quit complaining and do something? Either way even is if zt scored a penalty in this case they no longer have control of the ball. So either make your play or quit the game.

 

[PURPLEDC]

I really don't understand ANY company painting itself as top quality with high manufacturing tolerances and made for hard use crazy situations then shipping out a knife obviously not capable of it.

I don't get why people buy knives like that and then defend failures of that company. I don't get why people want a knife billed as a rough duty knife then find unreasonable lock failures acceptable. People keep saying "use the knife as it was intended and you won't have a problem" but that's directly contradictory with the design and stated purpose of the knife. It's supposed to be made for purposes OUTSIDE of what other knives can normally do. If everyone used a knife as it was intended then there'd be a variety of fixed blade knives and slip joints. Locks are put into knives solely for protecting against the knife blade moving the wrong way when used incorrectly. That's the whole point of a lock.

To defend a lock failing under reasonable tests is to defend bad manufacturing processes and shoddy quality control. I don't believe locks are made to turn a folding knife into a fixed blade, but they are there for a purpose and if they fail in that purpose then they fail at what they're supposed to do. It's akin to a fixed skinning blade breaking in half when skinning a deer or a box cutter that can't cut boxes. Asking a fixed skinning blade to skin a deer or a box cutter to cut boxes isn't unreasonable. Asking a fixed skinning blade to chop down a concrete wall is outside of what it is marketed and designed to do. Simply using a tool the way it's supposed to be used in accordance with manufacturer's statements and purported design isn't unreasonable. The only thing unreasonable is defending why the fixed skinning blade breaks when skinning a deer or defending a box cutter that can't cut up boxes, if they can't handle the task, they shouldn't be produced or they should fix what is making that tool fail. A fixed skinning blade can be made of the best materials and they could be made by a company with the best warranty service but there's no excuse if they produce a skinning knife whose handle comes off after 10 minutes of cutting or whatever and it happens over and over again, even if the handle was made of gold and the blade was made of unobtainium and they have a service dept that will almost always replace the knife. None of that helps when you're in the middle of nowhere gutting and field cleaning multiple deer. What you need is a knife that works when you need it to. If a 5 dollar jarbenza will work better than a 1,000,000 dollar custom knife made of some crazy ass materials, common sense says that the jarbenza is a better knife regardless of the materials, fit and finish, and warranty department of the 1,000,000 dollar knife.

Is a carpenter's hammer designed to hammer nails? Sure. Is it designed to pull nails? Sure. If you use it to pry open a crate, should you accept what happens if the hammer breaks with the slightest use outside if what it was designed for? No, you'd call it junk, throw the hammer away, and question the hammer manufacturer, especially if the hammer maker states you can do such things with their hammer. If you liked the hammer company, you wanted to see the hammer company succeed because you, in general, like what they stand for, you'd not defend this failure. You'd not write the company off. You'd say, hey, hammer maker, you're a good company, but this specifc thing about your product sucks, either stop promising your hammers can do these things or actually ensure they can, it will only make your company more trustworthy and/or reliable. And you shouldn't be attacked by a bunch of people who say "well, you shouldn't use a hammer that way" even though the company itself says you can and should trust their hammers to do it.

If the company itself never said or implied that the hammer can and should be used for purposes outside of what hammers should normally be used for, there'd be no problem with the hammer failing at tasks outside of hammering and pulling nails. But that's not the case with some of these companies. They promote certain use, they advocate for certain use, they price their products in a way where you should expect that these tools will hold up to this kind of use. When these tools don't perform, the company who failed should be called out to fix their issues or stop promoting hammers that shouldn't be used outside of hammering and pulling nails. It seems like a pretty easy concept for me, pretty hard for some others.

Seriously this again? Do you just copy and paste a template or do you really type that out every couple days? You act like every knife zt sends out is defective. And you act like no other companies make defective products. And you really really take marketing way too seriously. Do you complain to all the zombie tactical companies? I mean thry make and claim to be making zombie warfare weapons yet i have not encountered a single undead to prove it. And bodog this question you ALWAYS seem to miss so i do hope you will reply. Can you Define hard use or built like a tank and explain how it relates to anything you think these knives should do that they dont. If you cant do that then you cant have an expectation for wording you cant define. And if you do come up wih a definition is it yours or ZTS?

 

[bodog]

Seriously this again? Do you just copy and paste a template or do you really type that out every couple days? You act like every knife zt sends out is defective. And you act like no other companies make defective products. And you really really take marketing way too seriously. Do you complain to all the zombie tactical companies? I mean thry make and claim to be making zombie warfare weapons yet i have not encountered a single undead to prove it. And bodog this question you ALWAYS seem to miss so i do hope you will reply. Can you Define hard use or built like a tank and explain how it relates to anything you think these knives should do that they dont. If you cant do that then you cant have an expectation for wording you cant define. And if you do come up wih a definition is it yours or ZTS?

Easy man, I was talking about any company producing something that can't do what they say it should do. No reason to get hostile. Just having a discussion. Phil Wilson produces some good knives, right? He clearly says what his knives are for and what they're not for. I'm saying that you don't see anyone out prying with his knives to prove they can't do it. We're in knife reviews and testing and I brought up a point of testing that seems valid to me. If someone puts a lock on something, that lock should work in at least the most minimal reasonable fashion or else why have a lock? Why have a handle if the handle comes off? Why have a blade if it doesn't cut? Depending on the test those are all valid questions. This thread is about a lock failing. This thread kind of transformed into whether or not a lock should keep a blade open. I equated that to a hammer company and you choose to attack me? Leave it be man. If you want you can open a thread in Whine and cheese to attack me, but don't do it here. And please don't try to deviate from the OP with a ton of random accusations. If you'd just asked me what my definition of hard use is, that'd be a fair question.

My definition of hard use is what a cop, firefighter, or emt may see in the line of duty. Busting windows, cutting seatbelts, impromptu prying, etc. If they said that the knife WASN'T for that then it wouldn't be a problem. I'd post the same thing on a review of a BM Adamas where the lock unreasonably failed or a Spyderco TUFF with a shoddy lock. Don't make it into something it's not.

 

[PURPLEDC]

Easy man, I was talking about any company producing something that can't do what they say it should do. No reason to get hostile. Just having a discussion. Phil Wilson produces some good knives, right? He clearly says what his knives are for and what they're not for. I'm saying that you don't see anyone out prying with his knives to prove they can't do it. We're in knife reviews and testing and I brought up a point of testing that seems valid to me. If someone puts a lock on something, that lock should work in at least the most minimal reasonable fashion or else why have a lock? Why have a handle if the handle comes off? Why have a blade if it doesn't cut? Depending on the test those are all valid questions. This thread is about a lock failing. This thread kind of transformed into whether or not a lock should keep a blade open. I equated that to a hammer company and you choose to attack me? Leave it be man. If you want you can open a thread in Whine and cheese to attack me, but don't do it here. And please don't try to deviate from the OP with a ton of random accusations. If you'd just asked me what my definition of hard use is, that'd be a fair question.

My definition of hard use is what a cop, firefighter, or emt may see in the line of duty. Busting windows, cutting seatbelts, impromptu prying, etc. If they said that the knife WASN'T for that then it wouldn't be a problem. I'd post the same thing on a review of a BM Adamas where the lock unreasonably failed or a Spyderco TUFF with a shoddy lock. Don't make it into something it's not.

What happens in W&C stays in W&C and what is said there is all in good fun and its advised if you take things personal its not the place to be posting. The only person getting the two places confused is you. If you see my comments as personal attacks I would say you just have thin skin which is no ones problem but your own. And you can play coy if you want but you know exactly what you are doing and members as well as moderators have pointed it out numerous times. And hostile? I know you have an active imagination but thats a bit of a reach even for you.

Either way back on topic you are quoted as saying "if they said the knife WASN'T for that then it wouldnt be a problem" is total cop out. You NEED a company to define exactly what you can and cant use it for? Even past what the warranty guide? Im sorry man. I just think its an excuse. Because even when charmin says "soft as a cloud, or the most squeezable" or any of the other ridiculous associations they compare their toilet paper to, I have never needed someone to spell out what it will and wont wipe". I guess some people just need a little more guidance through life. But if someone needs their hand held and need what a knife is supposed to be used for spelled out for them I feel they probably should avoid sharp objects to begin with.

 

[bodog]

Yeah, exactly my point. I shouldn't NEED to define hard use for a knife either but you asked for that. I would say that a lock should be able to be at least lightly tapped and resist closing. If not the lock is junk and needs to go back to the drawing board. Whoever us cutting their lock faces needs to be retrained or something. There are currently too many people complaining about that specific issue for it to be a fluke. The OP is correct for asking if that's an inherent flaw with liner and frame locks or it's a manufacturing problem or what. I'd say that liner and frame locks are just fine, even for "hard use" if done correctly. M. Walker even said that it's hard for a custom maker to get it right, let alone a production maker, and even more questionable is a production maker who is pushing knives out as fast as they can. It's a good discussion topic regardless of the companies involved that's why I'm not saying any specific company is more guilty than another or whatever. It just so happens that the specific knife in question is built for "hard use." No matter how you define "hard use" it should require a lock that doesn't fail quite so easily. This same discussion would be had if it was any company, not just the one you keep trying to bring up.

 

[cncpro11]

.....

 

[asdf12345]

Yeah, exactly my point. I shouldn't NEED to define hard use for a knife either but you asked for that. I would say that a lock should be able to be at least lightly tapped and resist closing. If not the lock is junk and needs to go back to the drawing board. Whoever us cutting their lock faces needs to be retrained or something. There are currently too many people complaining about that specific issue for it to be a fluke. The OP is correct for asking if that's an inherent flaw with liner and frame locks or it's a manufacturing problem or what. I'd say that liner and frame locks are just fine, even for "hard use" if done correctly. M. Walker even said that it's hard for a custom maker to get it right, let alone a production maker, and even more questionable is a production maker who is pushing knives out as fast as they can. It's a good discussion topic regardless of the companies involved that's why I'm not saying any specific company is more guilty than another or whatever. It just so happens that the specific knife in question is built for "hard use." No matter how you define "hard use" it should require a lock that doesn't fail quite so easily. This same discussion would be had if it was any company, not just the one you keep trying to bring up.

I've seen too many ZTs with excellent locks that truly hold up to hard use & abuse including spinewhacks to think that they necessarily have a fatal design flaw.

Perhaps the particular way ZT builds their frame- and liner-locks makes it more conducive to problems.

However, ultimately it is manufacturing practices that allows locks with problems to be made, and QC that allows locks with problems to be sold. Lack of care & attention in either or both result in a greater than average percentage of a particular knife model having serious problems such as the one on OPs knife.

You are correct in that faulty locks are especially frustrating on a knife purchased specifically for its 'hard-use' aesthetics & characteristics.

 

[bodog]

I've seen too many ZTs with excellent locks that truly hold up to hard use & abuse including spinewhacks to think that they necessarily have a fatal design flaw.

Perhaps the particular way ZT builds their frame- and liner-locks makes it more conducive to problems.

However, ultimately it is manufacturing practices that allows locks with problems to be made, and QC that allows locks with problems to be sold. Lack of care & attention in either or both result in a greater than average percentage of a particular knife model having serious problems such as the one on OPs knife.

You are correct in that faulty locks are especially frustrating on a knife purchased specifically for its 'hard-use' aesthetics & characteristics.

Agreed.

 

[knifedude802]

Seriously this again? Do you just copy and paste a template or do you really type that out every couple days? You act like every knife zt sends out is defective. And you act like no other companies make defective products. And you really really take marketing way too seriously. Do you complain to all the zombie tactical companies? I mean thry make and claim to be making zombie warfare weapons yet i have not encountered a single undead to prove it. And bodog this question you ALWAYS seem to miss so i do hope you will reply. Can you Define hard use or built like a tank and explain how it relates to anything you think these knives should do that they dont. If you cant do that then you cant have an expectation for wording you cant define. And if you do come up wih a definition is it yours or ZTS?

I don't find anything wrong with ZT's marketing personally. I don't think they really toot their own horn (see Coldsteel for example ((I still like CS's knives, if not their marketing))). I only started this thread because I never followed up with the first one because I was busy. After it was closed I did see many of the responses, so that's why I followed up with this post, the video and the thread. I saw there were a lot of people that wanted my input about something on the first thread, and I didn't give it so I've tried to be responsive on this one.

It seems I've found myself in the middle of a conflict between ZT lovers and haters, and I don't really want any part of it. I personally love ZT, but I don't stand behind every single thing they do. They seem like a good company to me though. KAI in general puts out a ton of knives that are completely worth buying. Some of my first cheaper (relative term, I know) were Kershaw knives, and they rocked.

I also think that in my case, the 0300 is an "overbuilt" knife. It's designed to take a beating. Like PURPLE said, everyone makes mistakes, it just seemed to me that this was a common one. Note that I'm not going to try to prove anything, and it may be completely wrong -- who knows, I'm just going based off what I see in the forums and online in general and MY EXPERIENCES with them. I also have to say, I've never seen it advertised as anything but a cutting tool, and they do bring up that it should never be used as anything but a cutting tool. That's just not how I use my knives though. I use my knives for whatever I use my knives for and I want them to hold up to those conditions. Do I abuse my knives? Sometimes, I absolutely do, no doubt about it (granted, I ain't abusing anything over $200). But they hold up. I saw a thread where someone had taken a Busse and chopped through a chain. And you know what Busse said? He said good job, keep at it. KAI knows that people are not always going to be using their knives just for cutting. Makers advertise them this way and put warning labels on the boxes to limit their liability. Ever noticed that a lot of knife boxes say "CAUTION: EXTREMELY SHARP BLADE INSIDE"....really now? It's unnecessary, but they've gotta have it to cover their @$$es.

I think the ZT 0300 is easily capable of more than just cutting. I know, I've used them for more than just cutting (not the one in the discussion, that one is new). I think the ZT 0300 is a pretty solid knife overall. I certainly wouldn't mind if they made a few more like it. The 0200, 0350, 300....all good lookin knives right?

Also, yes I would have posted this if any of my $200+ knives had done this. It just happened to be this one. If one of my $400-500+ knives had done this....I'd be

 

[bodog]

I don't find anything wrong with ZT's marketing personally. I don't think they really toot their own horn (see Coldsteel for example ((I still like CS's knives, if not their marketing))). I only started this thread because I never followed up with the first one because I was busy. After it was closed I did see many of the responses, so that's why I followed up with this post, the video and the thread. I saw there were a lot of people that wanted my input about something on the first thread, and I didn't give it so I've tried to be responsive on this one.

It seems I've found myself in the middle of a conflict between ZT lovers and haters, and I don't really want any part of it. I personally love ZT, but I don't stand behind every single thing they do. They seem like a good company to me though. KAI in general puts out a ton of knives that are completely worth buying. Some of my first cheaper (relative term, I know) were Kershaw knives, and they rocked.

I also think that in my case, the 0300 is an "overbuilt" knife. It's designed to take a beating. Like PURPLE said, everyone makes mistakes, it just seemed to me that this was a common one. Note that I'm not going to try to prove anything, and it may be completely wrong -- who knows, I'm just going based off what I see in the forums and online in general and MY EXPERIENCES with them. I also have to say, I've never seen it advertised as anything but a cutting tool, and they do bring up that it should never be used as anything but a cutting tool. That's just not how I use my knives though. I use my knives for whatever I use my knives for and I want them to hold up to those conditions. Do I abuse my knives? Sometimes, I absolutely do, no doubt about it (granted, I ain't abusing anything over $200). But they hold up. I saw a thread where someone had taken a Busse and chopped through a chain. And you know what Busse said? He said good job, keep at it. KAI knows that people are not always going to be using their knives just for cutting. Makers advertise them this way and put warning labels on the boxes to limit their liability. Ever noticed that a lot of knife boxes say "CAUTION: EXTREMELY SHARP BLADE INSIDE"....really now? It's unnecessary, but they've gotta have it to cover their @$$es.

I think the ZT 0300 is easily capable of more than just cutting. I know, I've used them for more than just cutting (not the one in the discussion, that one is new). I think the ZT 0300 is a pretty solid knife overall. I certainly wouldn't mind if they made a few more like it. The 0200, 0350, 300....all good lookin knives right?

Also, yes I would have posted this if any of my $200+ knives had done this. It just happened to be this one. If one of my $400-500+ knives had done this....I'd be

Thanks for taking the time to post the video. It sucks that this kind of stuff starts arguments but it is what it is. Like you, I support KAI too, I don't think it's a KAI lovers vs. KAI haters as much as what it is people who see a knife as an artful tool vs a simple piece of art. Obviously you're in the camp of looking at a knife as a tool much like a hammer or screwdriver and can see it with a sense of detachment and objectivity.

Hopefully KAI takes care of you, I'm sure they will.

 

[craytab]

Lack of care & attention in either or both result in a greater than average percentage of a particular knife model having serious problems such as the one on OPs knife.

Again, if you or anyone else is going to use words like average, percentage, common, greater, or whatever, you actually need to know the numbers otherwise this is just your opinion. Percentages aren't opinions yet you guys are parading factual terms which are actually opinions as if they were fact. This is writing 101 stuff. If you make a claim as fact you must provide evidence to substantiate said claim. Or you could admit it is you opinion. And you know what? You don't know the numbers. You can't.

And as for the marketing stuff, again, guys, stop drinking the marketing cool-aid. Take a tool for its actual merits rather than some ad-copy.

 

[craytab]

I don't find anything wrong with ZT's marketing personally. I don't think they really toot their own horn (see Coldsteel for example ((I still like CS's knives, if not their marketing))). I only started this thread because I never followed up with the first one because I was busy. After it was closed I did see many of the responses, so that's why I followed up with this post, the video and the thread. I saw there were a lot of people that wanted my input about something on the first thread, and I didn't give it so I've tried to be responsive on this one.

It seems I've found myself in the middle of a conflict between ZT lovers and haters, and I don't really want any part of it. I personally love ZT, but I don't stand behind every single thing they do. They seem like a good company to me though. KAI in general puts out a ton of knives that are completely worth buying. Some of my first cheaper (relative term, I know) were Kershaw knives, and they rocked.

I also think that in my case, the 0300 is an "overbuilt" knife. It's designed to take a beating. Like PURPLE said, everyone makes mistakes, it just seemed to me that this was a common one. Note that I'm not going to try to prove anything, and it may be completely wrong -- who knows, I'm just going based off what I see in the forums and online in general and MY EXPERIENCES with them. I also have to say, I've never seen it advertised as anything but a cutting tool, and they do bring up that it should never be used as anything but a cutting tool. That's just not how I use my knives though. I use my knives for whatever I use my knives for and I want them to hold up to those conditions. Do I abuse my knives? Sometimes, I absolutely do, no doubt about it (granted, I ain't abusing anything over $200). But they hold up. I saw a thread where someone had taken a Busse and chopped through a chain. And you know what Busse said? He said good job, keep at it. KAI knows that people are not always going to be using their knives just for cutting. Makers advertise them this way and put warning labels on the boxes to limit their liability. Ever noticed that a lot of knife boxes say "CAUTION: EXTREMELY SHARP BLADE INSIDE"....really now? It's unnecessary, but they've gotta have it to cover their @$$es.

I think the ZT 0300 is easily capable of more than just cutting. I know, I've used them for more than just cutting (not the one in the discussion, that one is new). I think the ZT 0300 is a pretty solid knife overall. I certainly wouldn't mind if they made a few more like it. The 0200, 0350, 300....all good lookin knives right?

Also, yes I would have posted this if any of my $200+ knives had done this. It just happened to be this one. If one of my $400-500+ knives had done this....I'd be

The time it took you to write all this you could have been well on your way through the return process. Quit posting mad red faces and send the freaking knife in. Rocket science it is not.

 

[knifedude802]

The time it took you to write all this you could have been well on your way through the return process. Quit posting mad red faces and send the freaking knife in. Rocket science it is not.

Planning on it. Dunno who you're accusing of drink the Kool-Aid. I think everyone was agreeing that KAI's marketing is fair, and not puffed up. I've said half a hundred times now, anything I've posted so far has just been my opinion. I don't know how many times I need to write that. It's my opinion. What I'm writing is what I think. It's my opinion. Il est de mon avis. My $.02, nothing more. Take it at face value or less. And no one ever said or implied this was difficult. Quit posting off topic replies and unsubscribe if you don't want to be a part of the conversation -- rocket science it is not.

 

[craytab]

Planning on it. Dunno who you're accusing of drink the Kool-Aid. I think everyone was agreeing that KAI's marketing is fair, and not puffed up. I've said half a hundred times now, anything I've posted so far has just been my opinion. I don't know how many times I need to write that. It's my opinion. What I'm writing is what I think. It's my opinion. Il est de mon avis. My $.02, nothing more. Take it at face value or less. And no one ever said or implied this was difficult. Quit posting off topic replies and unsubscribe if you don't want to be a part of the conversation -- rocket science it is not.

Look, you don't like people commenting on your opinion? Don't put it out on the internet! I guess you want folks to just agree with you?

Guess what, your defective knife doesn't work correctly. Big surprise. My advice would be to quit making threads and videos complaining about it and send it in. Did you do that today? Yesterday? Are you planing on doing it tomorrow? The day after tomorrow? Are you going to make more videos and threads on the knife before YOU get it taken care of?

All I got out of this thread is that you have a defective knife that you have "put up with" for over a month and rather than send it in, during your short time here, you have made multiple threads about it and at least one video. Sure it sucks that it didn't come "right" from the factory, but just letting it sit there isn't going to fix anything. And nor is arguing with me. Send it the freak in already!

 

[PURPLEDC]

I don't find anything wrong with ZT's marketing personally. I don't think they really toot their own horn (see Coldsteel for example ((I still like CS's knives, if not their marketing))). I only started this thread because I never followed up with the first one because I was busy. After it was closed I did see many of the responses, so that's why I followed up with this post, the video and the thread. I saw there were a lot of people that wanted my input about something on the first thread, and I didn't give it so I've tried to be responsive on this one.

It seems I've found myself in the middle of a conflict between ZT lovers and haters, and I don't really want any part of it. I personally love ZT, but I don't stand behind every single thing they do. They seem like a good company to me though. KAI in general puts out a ton of knives that are completely worth buying. Some of my first cheaper (relative term, I know) were Kershaw knives, and they rocked.

I also think that in my case, the 0300 is an "overbuilt" knife. It's designed to take a beating. Like PURPLE said, everyone makes mistakes, it just seemed to me that this was a common one. Note that I'm not going to try to prove anything, and it may be completely wrong -- who knows, I'm just going based off what I see in the forums and online in general and MY EXPERIENCES with them. I also have to say, I've never seen it advertised as anything but a cutting tool, and they do bring up that it should never be used as anything but a cutting tool. That's just not how I use my knives though. I use my knives for whatever I use my knives for and I want them to hold up to those conditions. Do I abuse my knives? Sometimes, I absolutely do, no doubt about it (granted, I ain't abusing anything over $200). But they hold up. I saw a thread where someone had taken a Busse and chopped through a chain. And you know what Busse said? He said good job, keep at it. KAI knows that people are not always going to be using their knives just for cutting. Makers advertise them this way and put warning labels on the boxes to limit their liability. Ever noticed that a lot of knife boxes say "CAUTION: EXTREMELY SHARP BLADE INSIDE"....really now? It's unnecessary, but they've gotta have it to cover their @$$es.

I think the ZT 0300 is easily capable of more than just cutting. I know, I've used them for more than just cutting (not the one in the discussion, that one is new). I think the ZT 0300 is a pretty solid knife overall. I certainly wouldn't mind if they made a few more like it. The 0200, 0350, 300....all good lookin knives right?

Also, yes I would have posted this if any of my $200+ knives had done this. It just happened to be this one. If one of my $400-500+ knives had done this....I'd be

Threads get closed for a reason. Whether you are late to the party or not doesnt matter to the bouncers. In fact im surprised they let this thread slide since its a carbon copy of the last thread that was closed for the same arguing. And again with this time garbage. Everytime you make a five paragraph post all arguments about time are moot.

 

[Geneo]

Not only that. This is certainly not a review as it is labeled. It isn't really even a test - a faulty knife does not qualify for testing. It doesn't even belong in the Review and testing forum. It belongs in either feedback or WC forum. The latter I think. I am surprised the moderators haven't moved it or the original post.

 

[craytab]

Not only that. This is certainly not a review as it is labeled. It isn't really even a test - a faulty knife does not qualify for testing. It doesn't even belong in the Review and testing forum. It belongs in either feedback or WC forum. The latter I think. I am surprised the moderators haven't moved it or the original post.

It was originally in general which is where most of the KAI stuff ends up. This is a better fit but you are right that W&C might be a nice option.

 

[Geneo]

It was originally in general which is where most of the KAI stuff ends up. This is a better fit but you are right that W&C might be a nice option.

IMO it is not a review - only one aspect of a knife was discussed - and obviously an aspect that was defective. It is not a test either. Hard spine-whacking a knife is a questionable test of anything in the first place, but to do it against a known defective knife is not a test. So how does it belong in this forum? If there was a ZT forum it would go there as a complaint, but since there isn't I think general would be better.

I have an better suggestion - it doesn't belong in any forum as-is.

.