strider

[USAFSP]

I find the ruggedness and function of Strider knives more appealing that the elegance of a Sebenza. I wouldn't be surprised if the SnG would outslice the Sebenza.

Tell it brother! I love to hear statements like that from a mostly Sebenza biased forum. LOL

 

[Chiro75]

I find the ruggedness and function of Strider knives more appealing that the elegance of a Sebenza.

This is why it's nice to have so many manufacturers and makers doing so many different things! I'm like you, and the imperfections in a knife appeal to me when they are handmade. Two of my all-time favorite knifemakers are Fred Perrin and Sean Perkins. Both produce knives that you know, hands-down, are handmade because they aren't perfect. At the same time, I recently got my hands on a Microtech LCC D/A and a Combat Talon 2. Both are arguably perfect in terms of grinds, finish, fit of components, etc. I liked those just as much, which surprised me.

These arguments of "which is better" are silly. The better knife is the one that can perform the task you need it to do at the time you need it to be done. Knives are functional (usually) art, in my opinion, so having a debate on which one is better is like a Picasso fan and a Klee fan trying to convince one another that "their" artist is best. Like I always say "Collect 'em all!" And, anyone who has a Strider PT and thinks it sucks, please get in touch with me as I will take it off your hands...

 

[ric0shay]

A year ago and a bit I bought an Extrema Ratio M.P.C...The thing is an absolute brute. Anyway I had a little bit of "buyer's remorse" The problem isn't really with the knife but rather How I use em. The M.P.C has pretty much a 1/4 in thick blade that is flat ground only part way up the blade. The result is a folding bayonet. Don't get me wrong that's okay too. I would like to do some other tasks with my knife though. Cutting an apple works but it's like using a splitter axe...kinda cool in it's own way. I just ordered a Strider A.R, I think this thing will soundly out slice/cut the Extrema Ratio M.P.C and prove to be a better general purpose knife.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

S30V is an excellent "hard use" stainless steel. By hard use I mean chopping. I do not use knives for prying.

What makes you question S30V ability to take hard use?

Is has low ductility and impact toughness and thus chips out easily and break at a low set, even if left soft like Reeve does. It makes a nice utility folder stainless, similar to how you would use D2.

-Cliff

 

[USAFSP]

I have chopped, plenty at firewood in my house, and have had no problems with chipping. Cliff, I know you do a lot of tests, to show what a knife will fail at. What will chip S30V, other than concrete? J/K What I mean is, I have abused my SNG blade with no problems whatsoever. I am curious what tests you have done to chip a SNG blade, or an AR?

 

[Blop]

I have chopped firewood with my Benchmade 520 which has a much thinner blade and "just" 154CM. So if the wood is clean with no knuts and because of the knife you can´t swing much (you might hit the other hand) it is a job to be done by many knifes exept some lockbacks wich might fail at the impacts (heard of one).

In the german forum there is a beloved thread about a MT Amphibian chopping down little trees (how do you say? birk, björk???).

I mean i do like the looks but never heard of anyone saying, i did this and that and i know by first hand, other knives can´t.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

I have chopped firewood with my Benchmade 520 which has a much thinner blade and "just" 154CM.

You need higher standards for toughness, I have done far more than that with a MILD steel knife with a 12 degree edge angle, including cut around and through poultry bones and tin cans. I know a traditional maker who makes knives out of Al and they can be used to cut and chop woods
[*].

[*] clear ones, and his skill level is high, however if you make the cross section high enough you can work harder on tougher woods, we did use copper for axes for a long time.


Wood chopping can be a decent test for knives however the knife has to be a decent size and weight and the wood hard and of small diameter. If you don't have these conditions you can chop with next to anything without damage. I have chopped soft woods with fillet knives.

What will chip S30V ...

Anything that chips ATS-34 or similar high carbon stainless. It has a similar low flexibility, and little ability for plastic deformation and ability to take impacts. Of course if you limit the cutting to soft materials it doesn't chip, however use it on materials which chip other steels. Tests are only meaningful if they have benchmarks for reference.

Again with the concrete block, and again that is lame standard. It was easily handled by Swamp Rat in a live test, so your Strider customs which are several times the cost have no where near the durability, that seem sensible. How about the fact that Kirk's bowie which had a radically thin edge and which would out cut the SNG all day long took it easily.

I have done it with Ontario machetes with no significant damage, the same blades that were unable to be used for limbing because they don't have the impact toughness. Realize what this means, it failed to limb hard woods but passed concrete readily. You are balking at the lower of the two stressful tests.

I am curious what tests you have done to chip a SNG blade, or an AR?

I have not used either blade because integrals are not secure under torques so I would not get a heavy use knife out of them and if I wanted a S30V knife for efficient cutting I would use a paramilitary or manix, both of which have far stronger and more secure locks than the SnG.

However there is nothing magical about the SNG that radically alters the performance of S30V. You are using a Buck level heat treament. Solid sure, but nothing magical and easily matched by the other high level production companies such as Spyderco.

Unless of course you could try to argue that Buck's heat treatment is vastly superior to Spyderco's which leaves the knives with a much more inferior toughness, however I would be *very* surprised to see Buck support such a claim.

In regards to S30V, the worse performance I have seen was on Reeves in a Green Beret which got damaged on knotty woods, Micarta and mild steel and broke at a lot flex. However he leaves it really soft, doesn't do cryo, etc. . Spyderco's S30V is solid, nice crisp edge, high wear resistance, good corrosion resistance, etc. .

However still isn't tough then again that isn't how Glesser promotes it, same as with Busse R. J. Martin, Wilson, etc. they will all recommend other steels if you want high toughness because S30V simply doesn't have it.

-Cliff

 

[SteelDriver]

However there is nothing magical about the SNG that radically alters the performance of S30V. You are using a Buck level heat treament. Solid sure, but nothing magical and easily matched by the other high level production companies such as Spyderco.

Paul Bos heat treats Striders as custom knives, which means testing for Rockwell hardness between every temper for every knife. He also uses two different schedules for S30V, a double temper for most knives and a triple temper for knives that will see hard use. I don't know how many tempers and the schedule Spyderco uses on their S30V, but considering that even Buck uses a double temper on the Buck/Mayo which bears Paul's mark, this is also probably true for Spyderco. The strength of Paul's work is consistent, solid HT for all the knives he does. Not to take anything away from Spydercos HT, but testing each knife between every temper for proper hardness is not feasible for any production company. Not even companies with proprietary HTs offer those guarantees of consistency.

Paul worked out his S30V HT schedule alongside with Crucible, Jerry Hossom, and Rob Simonich (among others) for the optimal combination of wear resistance, toughness, and corrosion resistance. There are tradeoffs for these qualities; for example S30V treated for the best corrosion resistance has sub-optimal toughness. You have extrapolated the performance of S30V based on limited experience from a few manufacturers. Should we accept your conclusions for S30V that is heat treated by someone other than those? Not to mention that you have extrapolated far more on other topics in your reviews.

 

[Chiro75]

SteelDriver, that's pretty interesting information! I had no idea that much work goes into the Bos process. Just out of curiosity, what does he charge for, say, a "regular" sized knife using this process? Maybe a fixed blade with a 4" blade?

Of course, so many factors go into a knife, I think it's next to impossible to realistically compare one knife to another for anything beyond gross generalizations like "I just like Knife A more than I do Knife B..." I mean, the grind, the shape, the edge geometry, the original steel's consistency, the heat treat, the handle.... everything has a big impact. I think comparied identical knives with one factor changed is the only real way to evaluate the various factors. Otherwise, you're guessing at what makes one perform better than the other. Is it the blade grind? Thickness of the steel? Heat treat? All of it? None of it?

 

[SteelDriver]

Chiro75,

Paul has a brochure with details:
http://www.buckknives.com/downloads/Paul_Bos_Brochure.pdf

 

[Cliff Stamp]

Paul Bos heat treats Striders as custom knives, which means

The Buck line gets the same procedure, heats and times. I asked Bos. He also sample HRC tests the regular Buck line. Have you ever seen a statement from him that the QC is less on the Buck line, that the variance he allows for Buck is significantly higher than for the blades he hardens for other makers or that the measured variance is even higher. Have you ever seen a public statement from Buck, Bos or Strider that the performance of the Buck steel is significantly inferior to the Strider line.

Not to take anything away from Spydercos HT, but testing each knife between every temper for proper hardness is not feasible for any production company. Not even companies with proprietary HTs offer those guarantees of consistency.

Phil Wilson heat treats his blades individually including one at a time hand quenches and yes multiple HRC tests. So does this mean they are that much more higher quality over Bos's? Have you discussed with Busse how they worked out their heat treatment with S30V and the testing procedures they use? Have you asked Spyderco about the variance tolerance that they set for the sampling procedures they use. Do you realize what this means in regards to the probability of outside of bounds on variance the user can see? Have you ever seen a direct statement from Strider that their S30V heat treatment produces a superior steel than Spyderco, R. J. Martin, Busse, and Phil Wilson?

You have extrapolated the performance of S30V based on limited experience from a few manufacturers.

I have used over a dozen S30V blades, many to ultimate failure from several manufacturers, and discussed the performance with many custom makers like Wilson, Martin and others who are known for frank perspectives on performance and who will *guarantee* what they say.

And I have direct statements from Bos about the quality of Buck's heat treatment compared to the outside work he does, and I have seen *NO* statement from Strider which would indicate that you should expect higher performance from the steel in their knives.

In fact you can't even nail down with Strider what to expect in terms of performance, the other makers I listed are however always ready to give frank details about performance including performance in limits.

Not to mention that in regards to toughness Mick Strider has personally stated that his knives are "abused" by tasks which are easily handled by other knives so you can't claim any high standard of toughness for that steel, and he has also noted that the performance of S30V is within a few percent of ATS-34.

-Cliff

 

[Chiro75]

THANK YOU! I've always been curious about their services, but frustrated by lack of website, etc. You made my day, SD!

 

[SteelDriver]

The Buck line gets the same procedure, heats and times. I asked Bos. He also sample HRC tests the regular Buck line. Have you ever seen a statement from him that the QC is less on the Buck line, that the variance he allows for Buck is significantly higher than for the blades he hardens for other makers or that the measured variance is even higher. Have you ever seen a public statement from Buck, Bos or Strider that the performance of the Buck steel is significantly inferior to the Strider line.

The Buck/Strider line is ATS-34, not S30V. How can it get the same procedure, heats and times? I know that some Bucks are checked for HRC, just like every factory. But is every knife tested between each temper? Not even Paul Bos can do that. Why should Paul or Buck release any statement as you have described? Clearly, Buck heat treats to a QC level consistent with factory production. Am I missing something here, or has Buck released an S30V Buck/Strider which you have tested?

Phil Wilson heat treats his blades individually including one at a time hand quenches and yes multiple HRC tests. So does this mean they are that much more higher quality over Bos's? Have you discussed with Busse how they worked out their heat treatment with S30V and the testing procedures they use? Have you asked Spyderco about the variance tolerance that they set for the sampling procedures they use. Do you realize what this means in regards to the probability of outside of bounds on variance the user can see? Have you ever seen a direct statement from Strider that their S30V heat treatment produces a superior steel than Spyderco, R. J. Martin, Busse, and Phil Wilson?

Have you? Obviously such companies do not disclose this information nor do they foolishly make statements about their HT being 'superior' than others. Like I said, there is no 'best' way to HT S30V, only schedules to balance the properties you're looking for. Multiple HRC test give you a measure of consistency. Phil Wilson, Spyderco, R. J. Martin, and Busse have not disclosed their variance tolerance, and may not do so even when asked. Why don't you ask Paul, maybe he'll tell you his?

I have used over a dozen S30V blades, many to ultimate failure from several manufacturers, and discussed the performance with many custom makers like Wilson, Martin and others who are known for frank perspectives on performance and who will *guarantee* what they say.

And I have direct statements from Bos about the quality of Buck's heat treatment compared to the outside work he does, and I have seen *NO* statement from Strider which would indicate that you should expect higher performance from the steel in their knives.

Have you used S30V with a triple temper from Paul? How do you know the HT schedules and number of tempers for the S30V blades you have used?

In fact you can't even nail down with Strider what to expect in terms of performance, the other makers I listed are however always ready to give frank details about performance including performance in limits.

Not to mention that in regards to toughness Mick Strider has personally stated that his knives are "abused" by tasks which are easily handled by other knives so you can't claim any high standard of toughness for that steel, and he has also noted that the performance of S30V is within a few percent of ATS-34.

So, Mick's statements become representative of your idea of S30V performance, when you have never even reviewed one of his knives in S30V?

 

[Blop]

In the unofficial Strider FAQ there is the test from the german knife magazin. There you find the Strider blade breaking after beeing bend to 30°. I do not consider the force onto it because the knife magazin itself claimed they failed to get information how to compare it to former tests. They simply don´t know what their parameters mean.

But, in a former test one of the Buck Alpha Hunter blades made from ATS34 broke after 30° too. The force to bend this around 3mm blade was not much higher than on other around 3mm blades that indicates me, that the flexibility and resistance to bending of ATS34 is not exotic.

If someone could translate the Strider testing into a comparision to common "fixed in a vice" test, i wouldn´t be surprised, if the result is fairly average considering a around 4.5 mm blade stock.

Looking at the datas from crucible you find S30V being a bit stiffer, meaning harder to bend than 154CM. Their further and well known advertising is only based on relative low hardness with no information how it develops with higher or lower hardness.

I do have understood Strider the same way, that the advantage of S30V is not much over ATS34 and therefor i do respect him more than i would do regarding some of the models. That´s quite frankly and true, what he said.

Double tempering a high alloyed steel is normal. First temper is to change retained austenite into martensit and the second to temper this martensit aswell. A third temper might be done but is not necessesary. A good cryo helps more. The right heating temperature is more important.

I do believe that Cliff gets clear information about the way some manufacturers do the ht. I do so because Benchmade told me how they do with D2 and 154CM. Why shouldn´t others do so?

Guess what BM does. They follow the recommendations as you can read them everywhere.

Hardness only is not telling you much about the quality and expected performance of a blade. High heating and then tempering to 60HRC leads to a different blade compared to lower heating and tempering to the same level or high heating and then tempering high to get the same HRC is again different.

Puma claims to check every blade for hardness. Is Puma = Strider?

Herder (german kitchen knifes) checks every blade by looking if the edge forms a small wave over your finger nail and go back straight with no cracking or deforming. This indicates a balance of hardness and toughness (to soft= it deforms, too hard = it cracks).

I don´t see much performance beyond blade thickness and the tip is as thick as on my 806D2. Benchmade covers damages on a case to case basis, so does Strider.

Where is the magic?

 

[Cliff Stamp]

The Buck/Strider line is ATS-34, not S30V. How can it get the same procedure, heats and times?

Strider has stated the performance is only 5% between ATS-34 and S30V, so it is nothing to change perspective on use.

But is every knife tested between each temper?

You keep saying that, this does not mean what you think it means.

Blades can be at the same hardness and have very different internal structures. HRC checks for example can't catch cracks that the testing that Busse does.

...do not disclose this information ...

People disclose a lot of it to me, R&D, testing etc., it must be my charming personality.

In general, small shop production also has such a low rejection rate on heat treating that inherent steel issues are more significant (carbide aggregates and such which will not be detected on any HRC test).

This is why you have to do small sample tests to destruction, how many custom blades does Bos do this on - what does this say then, compared to small shop production which does it?

...nor do they foolishly make statements about their HT being 'superior' than others.

Some make direct statements of superior performance, Busse does it all the time, including to Strider when Mick went on a rant about testing video's being meaningless recently.

Like I said, there is no 'best' way to HT S30V ...

Try again.

There are lots of directly superior heat treating methods, you are looking at for example minimization of spatial temperature variations, minimization of temperature gradients in a quench, reduction of quench to temper lag, etc. .

In regards to best performance you just have to define the performance criteria, and of what importance each aspect has, then you can rate the heat treatments.

How do you know the HT schedules and number of tempers for the S30V blades you have used?

I ask people that kind of thing, it is what I talk with makers and manufactures about.

Mick's statements become representative of your idea of S30V performance

Like all makers statements they set an upper bound, few people undercut the performance of their knives.

...when you have never even reviewed one of his knives in S30V?

Why would I when he describes performance I can easily find the better of elsewhere or the equal of at 1/4 the price. If he claims superior performance, and guarantees it, then I would be interested.

-Cliff

 

[SteelDriver]

Try again.

There are lots of directly superior heat treating methods, you are looking at for example minimization of spatial temperature variations, minimization of temperature gradients in a quench, reduction of quench to temper lag, etc. .

In regards to best performance you just have to define the performance criteria, and of what importance each aspect has, then you can rate the heat treatments.

I'm not talking about HT technique. I'm talking about different HT schedules that balance performance characteristics possible with a certain steel. You try again.

I ask people that kind of thing, it is what I talk with makers and manufactures about.

So tell us then, if you have such special revelation that the rest of us are lacking. For each of your knife reviews, where is the section on heat treating?

Some make direct statements of superior performance, Busse does it all the time, including to Strider when Mick went on a rant about testing video's being meaningless recently.

Where has Busse made a statement that their HT is superior? As far as we know, they are the only ones using INFI and thus theirs is the only HT for INFI. You are taking my comment out of context, which is different HT schedules for S30V by different makers.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

I'm not talking about HT technique.

You challenged a statement I made which simply stated heat treatments can be judged as better or best, and they can because :

a) there are methods which are directly superior regardless of the properties you are looking for

b) you can define a best set of properties once you define the required performance and thus define a best heat treat schedule

For each of your knife reviews, where is the section on heat treating?

I have posted up such details before, for example a complete description of the process that Phil Wilson uses on S30V, I have the details for Mel Sorg, Ed Caffrey, Ray Kirk, Allen Blade, etc., when the makers are ok with making the details public I go ahead and do so.

This is a side issue though, the main contention you had was that it was unsound of me to bound Strider's S30V performance based on work that I had done with other S30V blades and various testing exchanges with other makers and users.

This is only valid if you propose that Strider's heat treatment is so vastly superior that the performance would be significantly different (and of course superior). This arguement is totally without support and contradicts statements from those involved which support my viewpoint.

You are taking my comment out of context, which is different HT schedules for S30V by different makers.

No, you simply said manufacturers would not make statements of superiority, you didn't limit it to S30V. You can find such statements on the forums from makers, I can recall them readily from various makers for both types of heat treating arguements I noted in the above. A lot of times those involved will be vague, not naming the individuals involved, like McClung's detrimental critisim of the "heat and beat" crowd.


-Cliff

 

[SteelDriver]

You challenged a statement I made which simply stated heat treatments can be judged as better or best, and they can because :

a) there are methods which are directly superior regardless of the properties you are looking for

b) you can define a best set of properties once you define the required performance and thus define a best heat treat schedule

My point was there is no better or best HT directly because there is no best set of properties. Of course once those properties are defined, you can choose the optimal HT schedule.

This is a side issue though, the main contention you had was that it was unsound of me to bound Strider's S30V performance based on work that I had done with other S30V blades and various testing exchanges with other makers and users.

This is only valid if you propose that Strider's heat treatment is so vastly superior that the performance would be significantly different (and of course superior). This arguement is totally without support and contradicts statements from those involved which support my viewpoint.

There is no need to propose that Strider's (more precisely, Bos's) HT is vastly superior and produces significantly superior performance. As I said before, HT schedules can be tailored for the balance of properties desired. As you mentioned, the other side of superior HT is directly superior methods. You seem to play down the significance of HRC testing during the HT process:

You keep saying that, this does not mean what you think it means.

Blades can be at the same hardness and have very different internal structures. HRC checks for example can't catch cracks that the testing that Busse does.

In general, small shop production also has such a low rejection rate on heat treating that inherent steel issues are more significant (carbide aggregates and such which will not be detected on any HRC test).

This is why you have to do small sample tests to destruction, how many custom blades does Bos do this on - what does this say then, compared to small shop production which does it?

HRC is measured as a quality assurance indication. At this point, the HT process has been repeated and refined so the heat treater knows what the HRC should be at every step. HRC is not a measure of HT quality, only of its consistency. For example, I could try HTing S30V in my toaster oven and if I really get my technique down, I can get the same HRC every time in my secret, patented process. That doesn't imply anything about their performance.

When a heat treater attempts a new HT schedule, is he going to fill his oven with custom blades for his first try? Neither is Bos going to destruction test custom blades he does; it would make more sense to use scrap steel of the same type and thickness (and perhaps ground with a bevel). Breaking test pieces to examine grain would be very useful in the research stage. It would still be useful (albeit less practical) in production. I can't say if Bos does this. As an experienced heat treater though, I give him the benefit of the doubt that the HRC testing he does is an acceptable measure of HT consistency. Perhaps Phil Wilson would agree?

No, you simply said manufacturers would not make statements of superiority, you didn't limit it to S30V. You can find such statements on the forums from makers, I can recall them readily from various makers for both types of heat treating arguements I noted in the above. A lot of times those involved will be vague, not naming the individuals involved, like McClung's detrimental critisim of the "heat and beat" crowd.

No I did, take another look at the context of that exchange:

Originally Posted by Cliff Stamp
Phil Wilson heat treats his blades individually including one at a time hand quenches and yes multiple HRC tests. So does this mean they are that much more higher quality over Bos's? Have you discussed with Busse how they worked out their heat treatment with S30V and the testing procedures they use? Have you asked Spyderco about the variance tolerance that they set for the sampling procedures they use. Do you realize what this means in regards to the probability of outside of bounds on variance the user can see? Have you ever seen a direct statement from Strider that their S30V heat treatment produces a superior steel than Spyderco, R. J. Martin, Busse, and Phil Wilson?

Have you? Obviously such companies do not disclose this information nor do they foolishly make statements about their HT being 'superior' than others. Like I said, there is no 'best' way to HT S30V, only schedules to balance the properties you're looking for. Multiple HRC test give you a measure of consistency. Phil Wilson, Spyderco, R. J. Martin, and Busse have not disclosed their variance tolerance, and may not do so even when asked. Why don't you ask Paul, maybe he'll tell you his?

Your comments were about S30V HT, and my comments were about S30V HT. "Such companies" refered to the manufacturers and individuals you mentioned above (Spyderco, R. J. Martin, Busse, Phil Wilson, Paul Bos). I made it clear again in my third sentence that I meant S30V HT.

 

[SteelDriver]

Look Cliff, we can go back and forth on this issue ad nauseam, but it would be more productive to look directly at the performance of S30V as done by Mr. Bos. Now Paul does not HT many brands of production S30V knives other than Buck and Strider, but he did HT the Simonich Midtech line. I found a review of the Combat Raven by Rob and witnessed by Terrill Hoffman and others that included concrete block chopping, digging, hammering through a steel bar, and prying in a stump.

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=214377&highlight=raven

Rob lists the Raven's stock thickness, edge angle, and edge thickness before sharpening. Rob certainly didn't hold anything back while putting that knife to hard use, including what most would consider abuse. It broke during the second hammering through the tension bar.

Strider makes a few fixed blades of about the same size as the Raven using thicker stock, the same steel and HT, and probably similar edge thickness and angle. We could easily ask Strider and Raven owners for these exact measurements. Isn't it reasonable that Striders would perform these performance tests similarly well? Given the same geometry of S30V, would you expect all S30V heat treaters to be able to consistently produce knives that duplicate this level of performance?

Since you are not interested in reviewing a Strider, a Simonich Midtech is an alternative that is still available if you look around. IIRC Christine will continue producing Midtechs such as the Urban Raven in the near future.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

I give him the benefit of the doubt that the HRC testing he does is an acceptable measure of HT consistency.

It measures one aspect of heat treating, the required hardness, it doesn't check for the vast array of properties that can effect performance and are not caught by hardness checks which is why makers like Phil Wilson and the higher end production companies do lots of others tests.

These then insure a much higher guarantee on performance than a HRC check, though that of course is much better than nothing and would catch a lot of the lemons that pass through and get into the hands of the customer.

As for letting makers decide standards of testing on their products, that is really not logical. There is a reason why independent bodies do this kind of thing. Anyone who relied simply on HRC tests for QC is only testing a small fraction of performance.

One of the main reasons why destructive testing isn't done is simply cost. You have to fully grind and heat treat a blade, which costs time and money, and then be willing to throw all that away, and keep doing it over and over. You can't simply take a blank, because you have to know how the grind effects the flex, the strength and the edge impacts.

Being specific, I have broken several blades which passed HRC checks and failed due to geometry issues, or steel aggregates. These issues would be much reduced with small sample destructive testing.

Isn't it reasonable that Striders would perform these performance tests similarly well? Given the same geometry of S30V, would you expect all S30V heat treaters to be able to consistently produce knives that duplicate this level of performance?

Yes, those that aim for it with similar heat treating goals.

Since you are not interested in reviewing a Strider...

I am not interested in reviewing a Strider because the performance statements from the manufacturer dictate such a conclusion as stated in the above, plus feedback from other users and my own expereince with their other knives and collaborations. For similar reasons I am not interested in a lot of knives on the market.

I only have so much time, obviously I spend it on the blades from makers who make statements of performance which interest me and guarantee them, not those that do the opposite, and I don't even have enough time or money to look at all the blades I would want to, there are too many to name.

This isn't a hard concept. I have used ATS-34 by Bos, I have used S30V from custom and production manufacturers, none of it I would call tough or flexible. Now I am not going to keep investigating this trying to prove to a manufacturer that the performance is actually better than they are promoting when I have never seen anything to indicate otherwise.

If a manufacturer wants to openly state that you can expect significantly higher performance than I have described in the above and *guarantee it*, then ok then I would be interested. This means they state it is significantly tougher than the custom and production S30V I have used and guarantee it.

As for the Raven test, I discussed that here publically when Rob was alive as it was being used to promote the extreme toughness of S30V for awhile, there are a couple of problems with it which are *GENERAL* issues I have noted elsewhere, including comments on past reviews I have done in the updates :

1) bending a knife in wood is problematic for flex tests because the wood bends and thus how much of the bend is the wood and how much is the knife. I bent a Voyager to 90 degrees in wood, does this mean it is flexible - it would not come near this in a vice. You could easily bend any knife to 90 if the wood was soft enough.

2) impact work and chopping depends on effort and method, I have chopped 3.5" nails with a Deerhunter (very slim knife), by cutting gently and taking care for the impacts to be perpendicular, get sloppy or fast and the edge buckles and loses huge chips. You need to use other knives for benchmarks and have some way to measure impact strength such as number of hits to cut the tension bar and amount of concrete removed on the chopping.

For example, during the WB concrete chopping when I went light the WB did better than Kirk's bowie because it was harder and had a thicker edge, but when the force was increased the edge started to fracture while Kirk's kept indenting and thus at high impacts the bowie did better. If I just used the WB I could have stopped after the initial work and the picture of performance would have been very different.

If the arguement was that this was showing the ability of S30V, the advancement that this steel allowed, then use an ATS-34 Raven along side the S30V one and show how the performance had improved. Without a benchmark it is difficult to judge the performance. I cut tension bar with a few knives after this came out, I could break some stainless blades if I hit them fast, or cut it if I went slow. With some really tough blades I could go all out and cut it in under 6 hits with no problems.

You need references, some way to have perspective. Just like if I said I cut a 2x4 in 20 seconds with a 10" bowie, is this impressive or not. Well it depends on the wood, it is pretty sad if it is fresh clear pine, lightning fast if it is a piece of ironwood.

-Cliff