Test for ranger knives please

[kryptonite]

Cliff, why don`t you test a ranger rd9 to destruction. I`d like to see how it holds up. I just noticed them last week and have been interested since.

 

[Doug C]

Yes.
Destruction!

 

[Cliff Stamp]

I have been meaning to pick up some of Justin's knives for awhile now, the Entry Tool, flat ground RD9 and Little Bird all look promising.

-Cliff

 

[Cobalt]

Hey guys, I have a novel idea.....why don't you buy one and use them for what you think you need to use them for. For the money they are an awesome deal and can't beat their steel. Besides you are supporting an american knifemaker.

 

[USAFSP]

Yeah I think a good test is in order, but why to destruction? I don't think we need to do that to see what they are capable of. I would like seeing some hard chopping and medium prying though.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

... why to destruction? I don't think we need to do that to see what they are capable of.

You don't know what they are capable of until you do, pretty much by defination. Justin has done this on his own products, you can see pictures on his forum on Knifeforums. What you do is different depending on the knife, but unless you push it to where it fails to perform you don't know what it can't and can not do. On some knives this could be heavy batoning, on some knives it could just be cutting thick plastic, or even harder woods. On Justin's it is going to be fairly heavy for the tactical line. Thom has done lots of work with his, someone start perstering him to write up a review.

-Cliff

 

[thombrogan]

I would like seeing some hard chopping and medium prying though.

My RD-9's readily handle hard chopping and light-to-hard prying. Chopping included oak, granite, and galvanized steel supports. Don't sharpen the edge to 25 included degrees if chopping steel or rock. Go a little thicker.

Porcupine has reviewed some of Justin's products, the older version of the RD-7 and one of the hawks. Great reviews.

edited to add :

Come on now, Cliff! No one wants to see what a flatground knife in S7 can do. Its high points are that it takes a lot of so-called abuse and stays workably sharp (unless you're a high-yield meat cutter or bowie-knife barber on a tight clock) at a 50-included degrees angle. Everything from cutting foliage and accidentally hitting rocks to intentionally hitting steel pipes and prying shallow roots out of granite soil will be written off as abuse. And leaving the knife wet in its sheath for several hours without seeing any visible corrosion will be ignored because neither S7 nor 5160 are stainless.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

Its high points are that it takes a lot of so-called abuse and stays workably sharp (unless you're a high-yield meat cutter or bowie-knife barber on a tight clock) at a 50-included degrees angle. Everything from cutting foliage and accidentally hitting rocks to intentionally hitting steel pipes and prying shallow roots out of granite soil will be written off as abuse. And leaving the knife wet in its sheath for several hours without seeing any visible corrosion will be ignored because neither S7 nor 5160 are stainless.

But the question is Thom, has any of this been verified by actual "operators" while "in the field", not just in any field of course, but "the field" which you can only move through at high speed - possibly due to being chased by the chupacabra.

-Cliff

 

[thombrogan]

There are chupacabras where I live and I was a directory assistance operator for five and half years, but I can take my time in the field when I'm not competing with a Sawz-All, so, no, nothing I did was valid.

 

[Cobalt]

You don't know what they are capable of until you do, pretty much by defination. Justin has done this on his own products, you can see pictures on his forum on Knifeforums. What you do is different depending on the knife, but unless you push it to where it fails to perform you don't know what it can't and can not do. On some knives this could be heavy batoning, on some knives it could just be cutting thick plastic, or even harder woods. On Justin's it is going to be fairly heavy for the tactical line. Thom has done lots of work with his, someone start perstering him to write up a review.

-Cliff

Actually, when you test your own knife, you don't need to push it to failure, you just need to push it to the limmits you have set. If failure is one then so be it. But in the FIELD failure is not an option so you try to use your tools carefully so that they do not fail due to neglect or improper technique. It is nice that others have tested certain blades to failure to see what they can do. At some point any nife touted as being big and bad needs to be tested to destruction. Probably more than one is a good idea to get an average. I think the RD's have been sufficiently tested in this regard.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

... but I can take my time in the field...

So close, well at least you can get the $10 000 from Dane Cook.

Actually, when you test your own knife, you don't need to push it to failure, you just need to push it to the limmits you have set.

Yes but this doesn't show you what it is capable of, only by exploring the boundries can you find this out. Now to be clear it isn't reasonable to expect this from everyone because obviously it can functionally damage the knife sometimes even completely. The great thing about Justin is that he is willing to do this himself, and there are guys like Thom using his knives for harder work so there isn't the big possible safe queen risk.

But in the FIELD failure is not an option so you try to use your tools carefully so that they do not fail due to neglect or improper technique.

Yeah, and if you have broken them you know where the limits are, exactly what you can do and how far you can go, without this you don't so in tough situations where you have to make difficult decisions you don't find yourself wondering do I push a little harder as it is wet and I am cold and risk breaking the knife.

-Cliff

 

[Cobalt]

Yes, but there is always that doubt that the one you have not tested to failure may be defective, so you still need to be more careful in the field than when you test. In a situation where the knife is all you got, you dare not take wonton chances with it unless you have a backup. Even if it can take the abuse, only a last ditch attempt will justify taking that chance.

As I said above you need to test to failure to see how far to take the blade and for comparison purposes, I just don't think you need to do it to your own personal knife. If everyone that received a makers knife decided to take it out and break it to see how far it can go and the expect a replacement, then every and I mean EVERY knifemaker would go out of business. The maker should do that for you or his reps should. Or a bonafide tester like yourself should with knives donated for that purpose.

PROBLEM: One knife or even a few of each type isn't enough and we both know that. You need a fairly large sampling to get any kind of idea as to the characteristics of any product. So what knifemaker is going to pony up 50 blades of each type so you can get conclusions using the law of large numbers.

And then you think wiell, I can just test 5160 steel in any knife to get those results, but the truth is that unless the design is the same, the steel comes from the same place and the heat treat is done by the same place, the samples are like comparing apples to oranges.

So you may test an RD9 or RD7 and it may fail at point X, but that next RD9 may fail at point X+2 std deviaton and so on until you get a large enough sample size.

So if you are going to do any kind of scientific testing you must:

1. Create a testing regime that is exact everytime for every blade. There can be no deviations. If you use carpet, then it all must come from the same batch at the same time and be used for all samples.

2. Postulate what expected results are to be based on Material, design and heat treat.

3. Test a fairly sizeable sample to get an idea of the deviation in results. If the deviation is low then you are doing good, if it isn't, then the sample size needed may be larger than you can ever hope to use.

4. These results are good only for the batch of knives made at that time. Any additional knives produced later would fall into another batch of testing

I guess my point is that unless you are going to go to that extreme, testing one or two to failure is only slightly helpful. But if you add to those two your knowledge of what the performance of the metal is, and you can search out how reputable the knifemaker is and draw the conclusion that based on those factors your knife should be able to stand up to the abuse you have in mind for it.

This is where a small operation or custom maker has an advantage. The chances of getting a POS from a small custom or semi/custom operation is quite low compared to the chances of getting a POS from CS, Ontario, Camillus, and all other super high production makers.

Having just said all that BS above, I know that the jury is still out on a lot of newer steels, but I also know that steels like A2, A8, 5160, 52100, INFI, etc, are proven and the guys that make knives out of them have perfected their heat treat, thus I feel comfortable knowing that the product will perform to the highest level THAT STEEL CAN ATTAIN, regardless of whether I break it or not.

If the maker did his part and the steel is not flawed, then the knife will perform as best as it can regardless of whether you can break it or not. If it fails earlier than you expected then it did not measure up to your needs. but that is no ones fault as who is to blame for the laws of physics?

If you want a knife that will not fail ever, then you need to overdesign and build it to the point where it may be to unwieldy. A 24 inch Full tang Ang Khola maybe? 7/8 inch thick spine? Insane! Lug that 5 lb behemoth all day and tell me it's worth it.

I like all inclusive guarantees because it shows me that the knifemaker has confidence in his product, but to expect that product not to fail is ludicrous. They all fail eventually. And Murphys law dictates when not you so you must minimize your chance in the field by taking care of your equipment so it can take care of you.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

Yes, but there is always that doubt that the one you have not tested to failure may be defective, so you still need to be more careful in the field than when you test.

Yes, I would always be a lot more restrictive of use in a situation where you can't just "go home" when things go bad. Yes there is always the case that failure could still be an option, it is all about reducing the chance. If you buy from a maker who had a reputation for actual use, is open about what they can do, you have used one, others have as well, the chances of you getting a lemon is far less than if none of these conditions are met.

If everyone that received a makers knife decided to take it out and break it to see how far it can go and the expect a replacement, then every and I mean EVERY knifemaker would go out of business.

No one mentioned replacement, I break lots of knives I buy and don't return them. If they failed under a reasonable load and the performance was to be expected then you just move on and the money you spent was for the information you gained.

PROBLEM: One knife or even a few of each type isn't enough and we both know that.

It depends on what you are after, if it is to gauge the variance in the product and the mean behavior then you need a large sample and you have to consider run lots, steel samples and so forth, but this isn't what you are after as an ELU. In fact simply saying you are going to use it and asking public questions goes a very long way in elimination of hype.

As a user you take what you know, combine it with the other knives you have used, compare steels and geometry, talk to other people, talk to the maker, ask him about expected performance. You don't simply consider the one shot result of what you did but the *much* larger data pool you have available.

And then you think wiell, I can just test 5160 steel in any knife to get those results, but the truth is that unless the design is the same, the steel comes from the same place and the heat treat is done by the same place, the samples are like comparing apples to oranges.

Not exactly, an apple should never be an orange, the two steels should be within tolerances, tool steels have known variances, and thus you can use them to judge expected performance, what is good and what is bad. Plus you can refer to materials data and then cross compare that to other materials data on other steels. Thus if I use steel X and know its materials data and I know the materials data on steel Y I should be able to make deductions on its performance.

If you use carpet, then it all must come from the same batch at the same time and be used for all samples.

You can adjust for sample differences by using benchmark knives, you can also adjust for sample differences by random sampling from a large pool and the average effect will be very stable. Simply collect all the carpet until you have a fairly large pool of different types, cut it up into sections then random sample from it, adding to the pile as it gets used up. This of course is how people actually judge performance in everyday life.

If I was to give my brother a knife and watch its performance after one day on a construction site and compare this to another knife on another day then the variance in what was done is likely too large to reach a decent level of precision. However if I compare over a week, over a month, over a year, then it gets more and more stable as the *average* effect becomes the same even though the day to day activites differ.

Test a fairly sizeable sample ...

Yes and do it a few times to check for consistency. When I do runs on carpet, the results after a hundred slices are fairly large in variance, method difference as as much an influence as materials. However comparing after 300 hundred gives a much more stable result, averaging 3-4 runs now gives me the effect of 1000 random sample cuts and that average is quite stable, if I do about five runs I can get to within 5% usually and the steel differences are usually way larger.

This is where a small operation or custom maker has an advantage. The chances of getting a POS from a small custom or semi/custom operation is quite low compared to the chances of getting a POS from CS, Ontario, Camillus, and all other super high production makers.

Depends on the maker, not all of them actually test their blades, some do, and some production companies do as well, more so than custom makers. It isn't difficult to judge though, makers who hype are very hesitant to talk about their products in public, won't discuss performance, get very defensive, will be very vague, etc. .

I like all inclusive guarantees because it shows me that the knifemaker has confidence in his product ...

I have seen gaurantees change after use, however with a few key PUBLIC questions you can usually sort facts from hype.

... but to expect that product not to fail is ludicrous.

It isn't that it can't break, it is how and when it breaks, the level of performance, just like all knives blunt in use, some take longer than others and blunt in different ways.

-Cliff

 

[Cobalt]

Here is an example of having a chance to compare steel types. Ranger knives can most likely make the RD9 out of 5160, S7, and who knows what else. If so, then that would be a good way to test the different steels with the same blade design. A true comparison of steels. but that is costly.

Look at Johannings A8 piece of steel. The design of that knife is all about strength. To compare that steel with another you'd have to get similar designs as I believe that blade design would have a huge advantage over some others in strength.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

Ranger knives can most likely make the RD9 out of 5160, S7, and who knows what else.

Yes and the more fanatic guys like Thom have even had them outsourced to look at bainite heat treatment. It isn't really that expensive if you consider that the secondary market is available, so you buy a couple of the knives, work with them and sell the one you don't need for 75% of cost.

To compare that steel with another you'd have to get similar designs as I believe that blade design would have a huge advantage over some others in strength.

The cross section is pretty heavy both in primary and edge grind and there is a lot of full stock thickness. It is a nice nice, the only real issue is one of ergonomics.

You can compare other steels taking into account differences in geometry. For example if another blade has less cross section and is equal or more durable then you can make inferences about the steel, strength is also easily to scale numerically because you can just calculate the required moments

However toughness, impact especially is more complicated and the differences in steels is so extreme that it usually swamps out cross section, it can easily be more than 10:1. How thick at M2 blade for example would you need to take the same shock as bainite L6, it probably would not be even knife like.

It gets difficult when you are trying to compare different steels which are fairly similar like 440C and ATS-34, unless the knives are fairly close in design the geometry differences will likely be larger than the steel.

-Cliff

 

[Cobalt]

bainite heat treatment? Ok, what the hell is going on there. I have not heard of a specific type of Nainitic heat treat for steels, only irons. What is going on with this heat treat.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

Bainite is an intermediate structure between pearlite and martensite which is harder and stronger than pearlite but softer and weaker than martensite. Its main advantage is that is it *much* tougher than martensite, many to one, so if you are seeing brittle failure it might be something to consider. The heat treatment is harder than martensite though because you need to quickly get the steel down in temp to prevent pearlite formation and then hold it there while it transforms, salt pots are commonly used.

-Cliff

 

[Cliff Nieporte]

Hi all:
WOW...after reading some of the previous posts,I don't know if I'm qualified to do this or not , but here goes.
First the boring stuff:yawn: .
I'm certainly no expert on the many different types of steels that are used to make knives these days , although I do own a good number of knives made from different steels , so I guess I at least have some basis for comparison.
I own both an RD6 & an RD7. Had them for only a short time (a month or so) so I can't do any long term use review.
I like to look at products as an entire "package". In this case , to me that means Customer service , the knife itself , the sheath , all that kind of stuff.
OK...here we go.
Blade length:
RD6-6 3/4" from handle to tip & 6" cutting edge.
RD7-8 1/4" from handle to tip & 7 1/4" cutting edge.
Both are 5160 steel , flat ground , coated with a black epoxy like substance.
Handle slabs are black micarta & are comfortable (to me) in use.
Both edges came to me sharp enough that I didn't feel the need to touch them up before I used them.
The sheath is a black , heavy duty cordura type with plastic insert & a pouch that will hold fire starters or a multi-tool or SAK or whatever else you would typically have in there. It's held closed with a "fastek" type buckle.
There's a handy strap running the length of the sheath on the back for multiple carry options.
Customer service:
Well , as anyone that's dealt with Justin probably knows , his approach to service is TOP NOTCH!!!
After some of what I would consider fairly hard use of these blades , I can offer the following observations:
First let me say that I didn't go out & try to break these things. My wife won't let me buy anymore for a while.
Both knives (at different times) were used to chop & split some Osage Orange that's been snagging my head for the last few years.
The first stab into the tree chipped off about 1/2" of the RD6's black coating on both sides of the blades tip. Not a big deal to me as I'll explain later.
After about 30 minutes of chopping & prying the tree apart , there was no further chipping.
The edge felt as sharp as it was when it was new & would easily shave curls off the wood.
Prying this stuff apart was difficult to say the least , but there was no bending of the blade or damage to the edge.
The handle slabs were comfortable & provided a secure grip through this whole test, although I was wearing lightweight gloves as I normally do when dealing with thorny stuff like osage orange.
I'll just say that I liked the RD6 so much that once I got back insided I ordered an RD7 to go with it.
However I did not like the way the blade looked after the black stuff chipped off the tip. So I decided to take ALL of the black stuff off of it.
Well...20 minutes & 4 razor blades later I finished that chore.
I've got to tell you that there was one GOOD LOOKIN' knife under there!!!
No heavy tool marks like I've seen under some other coated blades , nice metal finish & I think maybe it even slices better. I was also happy to see the Ranger Knives logo on the metal itself & not just on the blade coating.
I don't know if you all will see the blade coating being chipped as a defect or not , but to me it was a blessing.
Once the RD7 arrived I put it through the same routine to get an idea of how the 2 would compare to one another.
RD 7 chopped better , not that the 6 was bad. The extra length helped out with that.Edge retention was good on this one also.
The blade coating showed no chipping & little wear on the 7. But I decided to take it off anyway since I was so happy with the looks of the 6.
Same thing...really GOOD LOOKING blade under that black stuff.
I wasn't at all interested in testing these blades to destruction , just trying them out doing things that I bought them for & most likely be using them for.
Bottom line for me is that I got 2 heavy duty knife packages that will do what I expect them to do for a very fair price.
Will I buy more of Justins stuff? As soon as my wife lets me!!!
Thanks for reading.
Cliff Nieporte

 

[Cobalt]

good review cliff. It is amazing what 1-2 extra inches will do. However, the RD6 is slightly easier to carry. :thumbup:

 

[Cliff Stamp]

I don't know if you all will see the blade coating being chipped as a defect or not ...

It should wear slowly, not chip, if the finish is smooth under the coating that could be why it came off easier, that is usually left really rough to allow for a better bond. In general though, no matter how it is applied, all of those coatings will come off readily through chopping/splitting.

Bottom line for me is that I got 2 heavy duty knife packages that will do what I expect them to do for a very fair price.

Yes, that seems to be the common opinion. Nice work.

-Cliff