Testing Protocol

there are several hundred thousand US servicemen who might particularly NEED a good knife like that currently, and I am sorry you find that boring...be glad they are there and you are here being bored ....
Click to expand...

First off, I appreciate everyone in the service and make it a point to tell them to their faces whenever I see them. When I went into Manhattan (to pick up my daughter) on 9/11 I offered my recon scout to a National Guard sargent who was in front of the armory on Lex. He politely declined, said something about "LT don't like knives"
No kidding.
And there are plenty of vets who swear by the tried and true Kabar.
There are plenty of troops that can't afford more than a kabar.
So why do you think that those vets loved their kabars? Because that's all there was at the time or because they understood the limitations of a knife?
The reason that I asked why it always comes back to "tactical/survival" blades is because there is more to the world of knives than SPB's.
Look at knifecenter.com and see.
The thread is about test mediums, consistancy and relevance.
If you were to test this knife
bucktails.jpg

would chopping a cinder block or digging roots make sense?
The same goes for my sub 3" EDC
rocksK9.jpg


Now if you do want to go the SPB route, good for you.
But they aint the only knives out there.

Now wouldn't tests that work on all knives be better? And then, like I mentioned above, add further testing in the specialized area that the knife was designed for.

Because they are knives, and when you talk about evaluation of knives in general you should not restrain the testing to media which are specifically focused on one group and exclude others.
Click to expand...

I guess you didn't get the part about common tests & test materials and add'l testing in the arena that each particular knife was designed for.
Here it is again:
Now, back to knives &cutting.
Standard materials like Mr. Clark mentioned are great.
Mr. Talmadge adds the base line knife to judge against.
This too is great.
I'll add: in addition to the standard tests mentioned above, use the knife for what it is intended for. Clean a bunch of fish with a fillet knife.
Cut meat with a butcher knife.
Whittle with a whittler.
Utill with a utility.
Click to expand...

If the only tool you have is a hammer, all your problems look like nails.
If you must include 'hard use' tests for non hard use knives, only the hard use knives will 'win'
Hmmmmm
There is more to the knife world than just SPB's
:D
 
Ebbtide said:
So why do you think that those vets loved their kabars?
Click to expand...
Because they never used a better knife.

If you were to test this knife
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v259/ebbtide/bucktails.jpg
would chopping a cinder block or digging roots make sense?
Click to expand...
See a lot of people doing that do you, and then judging the knife poorly because it didn't do it well?

I guess you didn't get the part about common tests & test materials and add'l testing in the arena that each particular knife was designed for.
Click to expand...
Yeah, since I have been doing that for about ten years now. The reviews contain a basic section of stock work, rope and hardwood cutting, wood chopping, tip penetration and then extended use over a broad scope of work.

Some times knives are excluded from some of the stock work when it is fairly clear it is radically outside the scope of work and it would trivially break them. For such knives it is just stated that they can't do such things and better tools are available.

Some times makers specifically ask them to be used outside their scope of work to illustrate that while they will break, the manner and nature of the break are of interest.


If you must include 'hard use' tests for non hard use knives, only the hard use knives will 'win'
Click to expand...
That holds for any specific group of tests you which to specifically promote. If you focus on light cutting only, the knives that *win* are 1/16", full hollow grinds, no secondary edge, and full hard steels, everything else is overbuilt.

You must include tests that are within the scope of work of the knife being evaluated, these are different for a fillet knife than a camp bowie and different again for an emergency/survival knife.

And again no one is arguing that only heavy work should be done, nor is it even part of the testing scheme of every knife.

-Cliff
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ebbtide
So why do you think that those vets loved their kabars?


Because they never used a better knife.
Click to expand...

My point exactly. A knife.
And the vets that I talked to, (including my uncle who was an engineer on the Burma road and the VN vet that I used to camp with), said that they'd reach for their entrenching tool first, either in a fight or when they had to dig a hole.


You must include tests that are within the scope of work of the knife being evaluated, these are different for a fillet knife than a camp bowie and different again for an emergency/survival knife.
Click to expand...
Isn't this what I've been saying all along?

Have a nice day, I'm glad we agree.
:D
 
I figured this thread was dead (ie way off track) when some people decided it was a good place to discuss cooking. Dispite the best efforts of some to bring it back to the original topic it seems like it will continue to slide into off topic oblivion.

I will leave this thread with this thought.

It is a wonder to me that in a world where some tend to believe that a "survival" blade needs to be a end all be all tank killing, window bashing, car door cutting, cinder block crushing animal; how did our primative ancestors ever REALLY TRUELY survive with knives that had two inch blades made of brittle glass and stone? And unlike today those where people who used their knives every day in life and death survival.

Survival is a skill not a tool.
 
R.W.Clark said:
how did our primative ancestors ever REALLY TRUELY survive with knives that had two inch blades made of brittle glass and stone?
Click to expand...
They didn't always have these either, thus you can argue that making knives at all is a waste of time because you can survive without them by the same logic. Don't need fire either by the same reasoning.

A more sensible question would be, how did those people who used flint and glass react to the introduction of metal alloys, in particular steel knives to various natives. In general they were highly prized.

Of course if you think survival with modern tools is too easy you can always restrict yourself in any situation, refuse to use modern knives and hand knapp your own, don't light a fire because people survived without it for a long time, etc. .

I know if I had to build a bough cave with a two inch flint knife and a small steel hatchet I would pick the hatchet fairly quickly. I could do it with a flint knife, or even with no knife, but in any real situation I have enough challenges to not make life more difficult.

There was an intresting show on discovery awhile back where a guy studing the evolution of hand axes tools took a bunch of them, stone and metal alloys and showed how the materials got better the work required by the user was reduced as the tools became more efficient.

It always come back to heavy use knives, because people set out to intentionally bias tests against them, and others realize that and point it out.

They are also knives, if you don't want that performance in your knives that is fine, everyone makes what they feel is a good knife, just realize that the properties that you favor are not necessarily going to be uniform to every maker and user.

In particular right now, heavy use tacticals are a huge part of the knife market so it seems kind of insensible to leave out a major part of the knife industry.

-Cliff
 
Recently posted on one of our forums:

"If you want to chop wood get an axe; if you want to clear a rainforest get a machete; if you want a camp knife get a 4" blade."

We live on one of the harshest, driest and unpopulated continents on the planet with environments ranging from rainforest to desert and for those of us who go bush most of us would carry nothing bigger than a 4" blade, some of us who want a knife with steroids might go as far as a Kabar USMC or similar. In the gold rush era many of the miners would have carried a Sheffield Bowie and a "pen knife" with the Bowie used mainly for scratching for gold.
 
I mentioned "carrot" tests before. Here are some results extracted from my records. You can judge for yourself.

Spyderco Moran FB01 - clean cut;
Byrd Meadowlark - started to split at 3/4 the way through;
Spyderco Pacific Salt - started to split in the last 1/8";
Benchmade Griptilian Tanto BM553 - started to split at half way;
Blackjack Slick - started to split at 3/4;
Kabar Dozier - started to split at 3/4;
Spyderco Delica - clean cut; and
Buck MiniStrider SP - started to split at 1/3 the way through.

As far as slicing goes I judge:

Clean cuts = top;
3/4 and over = good;
1/2 to 3/4 = fair; and
anything under 1/2 to be a bad slicer.

Of course you have to take the "carrot" results in conjuction with all the other mediums to properly rate a blade.

NB. All carrots used are fresh (crispy), about 1-1/4" at the widest and the cut is made at the widest section (normally 1/2-3/4" from the top).
 
Off topic, I'm sorry...


Cliff Stamp said:
Their axes are custom, they cost $500 for the head. The guys sell them, you can find them on the web. Carson in particular I recall runs a store where you can buy new and used ones. Note that these are *NOT* and I repeat *NOT* axes you would use to actually working cut wood, they are cast stainless.
-Cliff
Click to expand...


I'm very surprised! I was sure they were made out of 5160 or one of the 10xx series! Why do they use stainless steel? And why the heck are they cast? Wouldn't it be better if they were machined (stock removal)? Cast steels, especially SS, are really brittle and weak, aren't they?
 
JDBLADE said:
Recently posted on one of our forums:

"If you want to chop wood get an axe; if you want to clear a rainforest get a machete; if you want a camp knife get a 4" blade."

We live on one of the harshest, driest and unpopulated continents on the planet with environments ranging from rainforest to desert and for those of us who go bush most of us would carry nothing bigger than a 4" blade, some of us who want a knife with steroids might go as far as a Kabar USMC or similar. In the gold rush era many of the miners would have carried a Sheffield Bowie and a "pen knife" with the Bowie used mainly for scratching for gold.
Click to expand...
i think that is a great point ;) but since i usually carry a big honkin' gladiator survival knife (busse bm-e) with me in the woods here is my reasoning. it will do most of the chores all of the other tools will while not as good as, but still good enough in just one tool.

it is easier to carry one knife and a multitool than an axe, machete,shovel,cleaver,and a kitchen knife plus it is easier to care for one tool such as cleaning and sharpening.

it is worth mentioning though that i am of the pack light freeze at night type so i try and make what i need with minimum of equipment.

i carry a 4 1/2" fixed blade as my edc and it will handle a survival situation too just not as efficiently as the big knife :)
 
There are lots of chopping type work that a long blade does better than an axe, building a shelter for example usually only requires pole sized woods, and these are easily taken down by a blade and an actual axe is way overkill, and problematic because the sticks are so small you end up taking more energy to use the axe because you have to reduce effort on the swing as even a light one will go right through 2-3" wood easily. Plus limbing out such stick is easier with a blade. Their main advantage is their multi-purpose nature, they are essentially short goloks, or parangs.

-Cliff
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top