Testing knives

[golok]

I understand the ABS and the Knifemakers Guild have their own standards for testing knives.

I believe that as far as testing knives is concerned, surely the various procedures could not be the same for different kinds of knives.

Take for example, the bowie. Its size and length would subject it to the type of tests which won't be applied to say 4inch skinners.

Or a tactical folder may see other testing methods peculiar to its geometry and design. All this bearing in mind, the field work that awaits it.

Because different kinds of knives are designed for different kinds of jobs, the tests too must be different. This is being fair to the purpose for which the knife is designed and made.

Am I correct in saying this?

 

[knifenerd]

I would love to see some reasonably objective standards that could be used to evaluate knife performance. I know this would not be easy, but they seem to be able to do it in the automotive industry and autos are far more complex than knives.

 

[Ed Fowler]

Golok: Good questions! While each knife is an independant issue, there are some basic attributes that could be easily communicated between maker and client.

Cut: simple to test and can be done in the makers shop. Standards could easily be developed and communicated. All that would be required is some reference testing.

Tough: How far the blade will flex before failure?
again a simple test, easily acompolished in every makers shop.

Strength: How many foot pounds to flex and or to break.

Rockwell: actually not as significant as the above, but a well established standard. ie some thermal treatments will achieve a 60 blade that outcuts a 62 Rc blade. Rockwell could be stated in reference to the above standards.

The advantage of these and possibly more tests would be to achieve some standards of performance that would render communication more meaningful.

Call it truth in advertising or whatever handle we can come up with, it would be of great advantage in our commuity.

As I have stated several tines, the terrorist in the world of knives is the misrepresented blade.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

golok :

I believe that as far as testing knives is concerned, surely the various procedures could not be the same for different kinds of knives.

If the same tests were used on all knives it would give a very clear indication of exactly where the blade fit in terms of overall performance. Where it excelled and where it didn't. What abilities had to be given up in order for to the blade to excell in another area.

This is being fair to the purpose for which the knife is designed and made.

Decided by who, the maker? What about if two makers produce idential knives, but promote them for very different uses? How do you compare the two knives, which makers perspective should dominate the testing? The answer is obvious, neither one. It is a very odd perspective that the maker of a product should be the one to judge its quality, why not have the ABS guys judge themselves if they are qualified for a Mastersmith level?

If a maker influences the testing of their knives by another individual in any way, it induces a biased perspective, usually promotional, as it is very rare for makers to suggest tests which showcase the relative poor performance of their knives. It does happen though, I know a number of makers who have read my comments on their knives and pointed out weak points that I had overlooked. This is why I do ask makers and manufacturers for suggestions on what should be done, as their viewpoint should be included, it should however not be the dominant criteria.

The real problem is in how the results are interpreted, not in what is done. For example if I take a slim machete and do some work felling and bucking, it will perform very poorly. There is nothing wrong or "unfair" about this, it just showcases the performance in one specific area and leads to an understanding of what is requried for a strong ability in that area - which should be the ultimate goal, not promotion of the product being reviewed. In this specific case the machete would wedge too much, and bend too easily. What would be unfair would be to state that this is a "poor" knife because of its inability in this field, but as I said, this is a problem with interpretation only.

The goal is to present a balanced perspective. Specific to the above example, you would cut some very light vegetation with the machete and a heavier chopping blade which does very well in felling anc bucking like a parang/golok. Now you would see the relative performance reverse as the slimmer machete readily excells and the heavier blades have a much higher fatigue rate.

In all matters of performance, you give up something to make gains in another area, anyone who tells you differently is selling you something. Because this is a fundamental fact, it becomes obvious that a knowledge of blades strengths is also one of their weaknesses, and vice versa. To be "fair", you use the blade in a wide range of tasks, covering basically as much as possible (obviously durability being the main limitation as you can't break the knife more than once). The reader can look at what was done, and then interpret the work based on what they need a blade to do. Any testing done otherwise, is a skewed perspective, usually done to promote a knife, though the opposite is done on occasion as well.

-Cliff

 

[Jerry Hossom]

IMO the best tests are those done by experts in a knife's intended use, preferably those who have used and tested such knives over a number of years and are comparing their results with a foundation of relevant experience. If it's a hunter, then expert or professional hunters will tell you what is right or wrong after they've used it in the field for a couple years. If it's a fighter, then only those knowledeable in knife combatives can tell you if the knife has handling qualities required of such. They are also uniquely qualified to stress test a knife under conditions they anticipate the knife to experience. Someone with limited hand speed is simply incapable of generating representative stresses such a knife will endure in typical impacts. Knowing how to deliver a backcut is a prerequisite for determining that a knife has a properly designed and executed back edge. Thrusting capabilities must be gauged not only by point durability but by its accuracy in a thrust. If it's to be used in military conditions, only military personnel are aware of the tasks they will undertake and can test the knife for those uses (well most of them anyway). If it's a woodscraft knife, then the person testing it must be an experienced woodsman to know what tasks need to be performed and under what conditions. Intangibles that may make a knife a pleasure to own or an anchor to drag along can only be determined by user feedback, representing a wide range of subjective experiences. No single individual can answer all the necessary questions regarding a knife's performance and certainly not its individual appeal as a useful tool for a specific list of purposes. If this were simple we'd all be making the same knife in the same way from the same materials for the same purposes. Recognizing this is why I often refer interested knife buyers to other makers whose products are better suited to their needs, interests, and tastes.

If car testing provided ALL the answers, we'd likely all be driving the same car. The same is generally true of every consumer product made for every purpose. If you want to buy a race car, I don't think you'll want to ask the little old lady school teacher from Pasadena which one is best, no matter how well intended are her observations. If you want to buy a hammer, don't ask the guy in the hardware store or someone who writes magazine articles, ask the carpenter who frames up houses all day. If you want to buy a knife, ask those who use them for the purpose you want the knife. Most importantly, make sure the source of your answers possesses the same integrity as you want from the knife you are contemplating buying. Most custom knives come with money back guarantees. Opinions don't.

 

[Keith Montgomery]

I think there should be tests that are standard to all knives. These tests should have to do with toughness, strength, wear resistance, edge holding and other such useful information. It is also my belief that knives should also be put to the test in the uses they are intended for. That way you can find out how each knife fares in the basic tests, but also how it will perform when used for what it was designed to do.

 

[ExamonLyf]

Very important thread you guys.., and thanks for all the posts. I'm personally framing Mr. Hossoms contribution.., and hope others at least re-read it several times!

We certainly live in a time period where just about everything gets tested by some relatively obscure/fuzzy criteria, that may or may not offer pragmatic assistance in giving the consummer relevant information.., and worse.., may result in "Paralysis-through-Analysis" <~~ i.e., an inability to identify a single important variable among a barrage of tests performed by persons that may actually use the product in question..., solely for the purpose of testing.

When "the smoke clears".., using "Science".., and/or scientific representations is merely a tool. Tools can be used with infinite wisdom.., and also in a recklace fashion that can not only damage a product.., but also be simply wrong.

In fact.., "Science"...is not.., and never has been.., equated with REALITY. The best science.., done by the best of it's practioners.., is only a closer and closer approximation of what's real, as demonstrated by the obvious paradigm shifts across all domains of science in recents decades.

That said.., it is nice, and valuable in my opinion, to have some basic data available about the various components and techniques that go into making this tool we call a knife. This helps us understand the generalities significant in producing a fine knife, and also gives us a knowledge base on which to build.

I am not a knifemaker.., nor a "Expert" on the testing of knives. I am a scientist. -AND-.., if I was in the market for the best all-purpose combat knife, you can certainly believe I'd be getting my primary feedback from a few squads of Force Recon Marines, Navy Seals.., Rangers.., etc., etc.,.., and not from some very competent research physicist that owns two Forschner kitchen knives that the maid uses daily!

Edited to include:

I'd ask the maid about the Forschners..




"Hunters seek what they [WANT].., Seekers hunt what they [NEED]"

 

[marcangel]

I think Mr. Hossom's post was excellent, but missed a few points. The foremost being subjective. I think the most important thing for a buyer/collector is very simple. Do you like it? Does the knife perform the tasks YOU need it to perform? Do you like the way it looks and feels?

I'm a "gent's folder" guy so I'm not whacking down trees with my knives, but they have to have an edge. I can admire a piece of artwork all day, but a knife is a cutting tool. If it doesn't have an edge and can't hold it, I don't want it, no matter HOW pretty it is. Folders for me, have to function like glass. If I feel a detent ball grind, I'm instantaly turned off by the knife even if it is the most beautiful piece in the world, built by one of the most famous makers. Ditto on an inconsistent lock.

So how can you really test them? After speaking with other collectors and shop owners it would be embarassing to tell you how many knives have gone to a professional sharpener or back to the maker for the above reasons. Could we come up with a "force opening coefficient" for a folder, probably yes. Would it mean much, I'm afraid not, because that "sticky" detent ball on damascus wouldn't show up as a number.

If you look at the custom folder market there seems to be a pattern around Lake, Sawby, Pease, Minnick, Osborne, Horn et al. They don't build the fanciest folders all the time, but they sure command some hefty prices.....