Testing that knife, especially the edge....

Gentlemen, I think we have likely just proven why there are custom knives. Certainly the quality of materials and workmanship is a reason, but another is that we all see life, the world, our needs differently. I guess that was the point I failed to make earlier.

Unless the test of a knife's design performance includes a thorough understanding of the objectives sought by the maker and the buyer in their individual and joint endeavor to create a knife that meets that buyer's specific requirements, then the test is falacious and meaningless. The test can not dictate the use. It is not for Cliff or Marion or even me to say what qualties the knife must possess to satisfy the requirements of the person who will use it. The person who pays for it alone is entitled to decide his needs. Certainly we can share our opinions of what might improve a design, but we can not demand that the person buying the knife subscribe to our personal philosophy of utility. To do so is arrogant.

As to whether I am underfocussed, overfocussed or completely unfocussed is irrelevant. I am entirely focussed on the requirements placed on me by those purchasers who like, pay for, and help me design my knives to meet their needs. That, gentlemen, is what CUSTOM knives are all about. And that is why there is a whole world of fine knifemakers, each making knives that satisfy the demands of their individual markets, however small and esoteric those markets may be.

I had a phone call last evening from an instructor at a Filipino Martial Arts school in Los Angeles, who had been "testing" one of my knives. The entire conversation focussed on the handle of the knife. It dealt with their specific fighting styles and how the knife must move for them to fight efficiently. 6 instructors from 3 different FMA styles provided their inputs after a day of flow drills. It was one of the most intense and useful critiques of one of my knives I have ever had. At the end, when I asked, "what did you think about the blade?" The response was, "it's too long."

There was something else said in that conversation that might make this topic more easily grasped by those who are not martial artists, like me. While talking about how the knife moved and needed to move, the instructor said, "a knife fight is over in 10 seconds." That little piece of input helped put this whole issue of feel and handling in perspective. 10 seconds... Does edge retention really matter?


------------------
Jerry Hossom
knifemaker
www.hossom.com


[This message has been edited by GaKnife (edited 02-13-2000).]

[This message has been edited by GaKnife (edited 02-13-2000).]
 
Marion,

Good morning!

Yes, it has been an interesting discussion.

Let me just add some thoughts on the relative effectiveness of various CQC(Close Quarters Combat) weapons.

My partner Sifu/Guru Jason Silverman
http://home.earthlink.net/~grappler
and I just happen to teach a series of courses on edged weapons tactical awareness and knife defense to the Massachusetts State Troopers, various local police agencies as well as DEA and other undercover operatives.

You might be interested to know that there actually has been considerable research done in this country and around the world- notably in Britain- by the military and various law enforcement agencies into which are the most dangerous CQC weapons and attacks.

First, while you were right in that firearm attacks and wounds are much more common in the US than edged weapons attacks and wounds, this is certainly not the case elsewhere. In addition, just taking LEOs in the US, for example, even though their chances of being shot at in the line of duty is significantly higher than being stabbed, the chances that they will be killed or sustain a serious life threatening injury is many times greater in an edged weapon attack than in a firearms attack. This has proven itself true all over the world.

The Pat Wrap and Attack study carried out in England, as well as studies here, have proven that at a range of +/- twenty feet or less, the blade is the most dangerous of all weapons. The handgun is a poor second- there is just too little time to draw the handgun, bring it to target, and fire a fight- stopping round into the knife fighter's center of mass at that range before the knife fighter can close and kill you. This has been demonstrated over and over again.

Now, the baton. The studies are clear that if an LEO is caught at close quarters against a knife wielding opponent, his best chance is to go knife on knife. If, God Forbid, the LEO is not carrying a knife, then its either baton or empty hand. Which is better? That depends on one's empty hand Vs. baton skills against a blade.

IMO, if you train with knifefighters and you practice empty hand knife disarms at full speed, full power against combative, uncooperative opponents regularly, then you are probably better off going empty hand.
what is very clear is that it is extremely difficult to fight an experienced knife fighter with a stick- anyone who has ever done any stick Vs. knife sparring will attest to this. The reason for this is that once I have evaded or parried your stick and gotten inside the range of its tip- which is no great feat believe me- your stick becomes virtually useless as a weapon and I am in and carving you up like the proverbial Christmas Goose. There is not one law enforcement agency that I know of which advocates that its officers defend against a knife attacker with a baton unless there is simply no choice. Officers are correctly taught to disengage as quickly as possible and gain that crucial >20 ft. distance where it is safe to try and draw their sidearm and reengage.

For all the reasons above, it is critical that LEOs learn to be tactically aware of edged weapons and to defend effectively against them. Their lives clearly depend on it. And so do each of ours. That's why we teach it.

I hope that this clarifies things a little.

Mario

------------------
Gaucho

Tuvo muy mala suerte...se callo en mi cuchillo.


[This message has been edited by Gaucho (edited 02-13-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Gaucho (edited 02-13-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Gaucho (edited 02-13-2000).]
 
I just looove a good debate!
smile.gif


I think one of the things that's happening here (especially after reading Marion's rebuttal) is that this debate is just a continuation of a longstanding debate across threads. For example, when Don offers a point about not needing to cut the roof off of a car, he's referring to those threads where folks do just that.

Just a point of clarification . . .

Matt

------------------
Waxes Eloquent, Leader of the Terrible Ironic Horde and Sarcastic Brain Spewer
 
Marion my friend, I think you need to make sweet love to Jennifer Lopez!! And maybe then you would understand the power of an edged weapon.

How?

I don't know, but wouldn't it be cool??
biggrin.gif


Seriously, Marion, you need to get a training partner and go over this stuff. And I mean seriously go over this. Research...you're good at that, right? Well, research knife vs. gun. Research why so many LEO's are SCARED of knives, and then research the awesome destructive capabilities of what a knife can do to a human body in less than a second. Research why hunters kill boars with knives...and how fast that 385 lb boar expires. Find out why they called Marines 'leathernecks' and why they invented the .45. Research our penitentiaries and jails and find out how many fatalities by stabbings there are in a year...and THEN make your argument.

A gun can't do it all. Ask any LEO. Neither can a knife. But if you have to depend on these tools, then you want the BEST there is. You wouldn't carry an antiqued six shooter if you were a cop, would you?

If you're ever in Chicago, you're more than welcome to come and train with us. It would be an honor to work out with you.
 
I ditto that Marion.

If you ever find yourself coming to Boston for business or whatever, please don't hesitate to E-mail me beforehand so that we can get together and train. You teach me, I teach you. Everybody wins.

Peace and good training,

Mario

------------------
Gaucho

Tuvo muy mala suerte...se callo en mi cuchillo.


 
Thank you Gentlemen for your kind offers.

And who knows which way my life will blow, I may be able to take you up on those offers....

Though I imagine I would do most of the learning, I have very little to teach. But I always love to train.

------------------
Thank you,
Marion David Poff aka Eye, Cd'A ID, USA mdpoff@hotmail.com

Talonite Information and Resource Page, including other cobalt materials.

"We will either find a way, or make one." Hannibal, 210 B.C.
 
MrG :

Sure, your utility knife will do in a pinch. But will it slice through that BG's leather jacket, sweatshirt, and FLESH?? Huh? Will it?
Click to expand...

Yes. That was pretty much my point. From what I have seen that is on the lower end of cutting difficulty. My question has still been unanswered, what is the blade profile that does lousy on slicing rope, cardboard, whittling wood, fabrics and dead flesh and yet somehow cuts nicely into fabrics and living flesh *and* it does this better than if it had a profile that cut rope, cardboard, fabrics, dead flesh, and whittled wood nicely.

I can see how a fighting blade might need a more robust blade profile that a light utility knife and thus you would want to give up some cutting performance for that, but according to Don that is not his standpoint as he seems really put off by the car cutting which is a far lower stress level than a heavy bone contact for example.

However even if you don't agree with Don and think the reinforced edge profile is necessary, this does nothing to the issue being debated which is the cutting performance of fighting blades and how the edge performance for some reason cannot be extrapolated off of mundane materials.

-Cliff
 
Cliff, your addition of fabric and dead flesh was not included in your original premise, and I doubt any here would disagree they are appropriate targets. You have learned at least one aspect of martial arts from this thread. Don't give them a sitting target.

I keep trying to answer the orginal question which dealt with wood, cardboard and rope. A fine edge with a heavy blade is best there, and better still if it is flat ground. A hollow ground, heavy edged blade will not do well against those targets, but will (as has been demonstrated) do very well against flesh, bone and fabric.

The point Don made quite well was, what any kind of a fighting knife does against a car roof is meaningless. The operative words there are "fighting knife". A fighting knife being one that is intended to function best in a knife fight against flesh, bone and fabric targets. If they cut rope that's cool, but it's just not what bad guys are wearing around the 'hood these days. If the BG is inside a car, I recommend to my customers that they wait until he gets out. Going in through the roof is considered highly unsportsmanlike.

------------------
Jerry Hossom
knifemaker
www.hossom.com




[This message has been edited by GaKnife (edited 02-14-2000).]
 
ASPs are fine weapons. I have a couple of them myself. When I worked for an alarm company full time on midnight shift, I was prohibited from carrying a firearm and that really pushed me into this game. I began to do a lot of research on various CQC weapons and scenarios.

I have picked the brains of LEO's on facts, opinions and attitudes relating to close combat with various weapons. I have likewise picked the brains of Trauma Surgeons, Vascular Surgeons and Orthopedic Surgeons as well as highly trained Trauma Nurses...and this has been at Union Memorial Hospital Sports Clinic (Orthopedic), University of Maryland's Shock Trauma (A pioneer in the field of Trauma Medicine) and Johns Hopkins. It is not an easy thing to get anyone in that field to talk, especially when they don't really know if you are using the information for good or bad. The Anti-Gun attitude is the norm in these places, they do not give up information like this easy. I have managed to get some really great information from them regarding GSW's, blunt force trauma and sharp force injuries.

The LEO's that I have worked with, and traded information with are of the opinion that in extreme close quarters combat the argument can be made that the edged weapon is King of the Hill.

There seems to be some weird notion that the Defender is going to always dictate tange in the few golden seconds you have when someone jumps on you. The ASP is negated when the man jumps on you and to a great degree, it has been proven that once the situation (maybe from the start) has deteriorated to the degree that you are being punctured, the handgun is clearly not the answer. I might add this ties in with the "Sniper Cult" that thinks that reverse grip is useless...not necessarily anyone in this thread though...just a thought.

In the Rodney King incident, we see an unarmed man being beaten severely by several men "trained" with the Baton, we also seen them using two-handed holds on the weapon (which is one of the things that put them in how water, read about the trial). King is alive. He continued to get back up after receving a brutal beating with batons...in other words, he remained viable.

There were two unarmed people in Brentwood, California who are dead from one person wielding a blade.

All of the information in Atlanta is not in yet, but it looks pretty bad as well.

Edged Weapons are better stoppers then Impact Weapons unless your impact weapon is your vehicle.

You train to fight where you will be attacked, you train "high and low" in stairways, in between parked vehicles, getting in and out of your vehicle, alleys, areas such as this. This is where it is going to happen. Life is full of "fatal funnels," learn to be comfortable in them.

Now, you can sit for the next few hours with a slide rule, pen and pad and pick this post apart, you can analyize it, probably find some inconsistencies, because life is full of them. Then you can begin the Cutting & Pasting Campaign and try and tear apart and re-work, take out of context...what I have been saying. If this is your favorite pasttime, by all means, knock yourself out. I am probably not going to respond to that, because quite frankly, the approach and flavor of it leads me to believe that without a cut and paste feature, this thread would not be as long. It is a Spin Cycle. Try putting some originality into your reponses...try to actually defeat the argument instead of sifting through the actual words and taking what you want and discarding the rest. I respectfully submit that you are picking gnat sh*t out of pepper.

And, if that was not enough, you think that anyone with a brain that dare proceed farther than mere basic motor function is going to admit to cutting, thrusting, shooting or bludgeoning anyone, regardless of justification on an Internet Forum...in an attempt to counter your "street experience" doing same...if you think that. You are truly on another Planet.

I have faced blades, had firearms pulled on me, I have suffered broken bones, and I would suggest to you that I am not impressed by Internet Muscle~Flexing or Forum Tag.

Please respond with something intelligent and don't lock & load your Internet version of a Sniper Rifle and begin to froth at the mouth, cutting & pasting and trying to discredit people with snide, whining replies. Don't tell me if you have damaged anyone, for your own good.

..lastly, please, PLEASE, learn about fighting knives and what makes a knife a fighting knife, and the differences in tasks. A human rib cage is not a vise locked down on a work bench, and if I have to explain that to you, then it just goes to show that I am wasting my time here.

By the way, there is a distinct difference between deliberately cutting a material such as leather and trying to get a good cut on a piece of meat encased in leather, be the flesh living or deceased. If you are kneeling on the guys chest and he has leather on, your test wins.
 
Don-
You bring up some very interesting and converstion changing points. I would love to discuss the details of what you have brought up.

But I feel that I am in a, damned if I do and damned if I don't, position.

I was cutting and pasting for clarity, and too keep straight what I was replying to, not to anger you or distort your words. I find it hard to believe that you honestly feel that I am trying do that. If you have problems with the very method of our discourse, then I don't know what to do.

I had thought that I was speaking my mind as I saw it, and it is bordering on insulting to suggest that I have nothing original or intelligent.

The only reason I brought up my experience was to stave off the inevitable comment, "How do you know, you ya da, ya da..." The fact is, it was my brother, and it was an accident. Public record.

And that is the end of my response, I guess I have done something to offend you, but I don't what it is or how to remedy it, but I am having difficulties staying polite given the tone of your post.

------------------
Thank you,
Marion David Poff aka Eye, Cd'A ID, USA mdpoff@hotmail.com

Talonite Information and Resource Page, including other cobalt materials.

"We will either find a way, or make one." Hannibal, 210 B.C.
 
Jerry :

[wood / cardboard / rope]

A fine edge with a heavy blade is best there, and better still if it is flat ground.
Click to expand...

From this it would seem to me that you are talking about chopping motions as that is the only way the weight is an advantage. That is a fairly unrealistic estimation of regular utility work. I have never taken a blade and chopped through cardboard or rope, these are all cut with slicing motions (difference motions for the two, with different motions for variations among them) and I would want the thinnest blade possible both to give me greater control and to reduce pressure from the material which will resist the deformation of the blade trying to pass through it. Same with whittling wood. Now chopping wood is another matter I would not want that type of blade but neither would I want the one you describe except on very soft woods as it would bind far too readily.

A hollow ground, heavy edged blade will not do well against those targets, but will (as has been demonstrated) do very well against flesh, bone and fabric.
Click to expand...

Flesh and fabric are easily cut by full flat grinds with thin edges, the exact same one that easily slices up rope and cardboard and whittles wood deeply with little effort. You would need to be careful in seperating the performance of the primary and secondary grinds as they influence the cutting on the various materials very differently. Light fabrics (or any non rigid non elastic material) for example are not influenced by the primary grind much at all. All of this is stated in above posts as well as why I can understand why you would want to reduce cutting ability so as to reinforce the edge. And this is why I mentioned in my first post that you need to think carefully about what exactly you are evaluating before you judge the blade.

One thing that does interest me is that it seems you are saying that a hollow grind is a better performer than a flat (assuming equal edge profiles) on flesh, bone and fabric. Is this the case? I can understand how it might make shallow cuts easier but not why deep cuts would require less effort, unless you are talking about some weight/balance/control issue due to the lighter hollow ground blade.

The point Don made quite well was, what any kind of a fighting knife does against a car roof is meaningless.
Click to expand...

Hardly, it would allow an estimate of the strength, toughness and ductility of the steel by examining what happened to the edge. This assumes of course that you have done it enough times to be able to judge the results.

Don :

there is a distinct difference between deliberately cutting a material such as leather and trying to get a good cut on a piece of meat encased in leather, be the flesh living or deceased.
Click to expand...

There is also a great difference in chopping pine and spruce. Still I can very easily judge the performance on one by a blades performance on the other, as I have done them before and know what it takes to do both.

-Cliff


[This message has been edited by Cliff Stamp (edited 02-15-2000).]
 
Cliff, where did I say I wanted to reduce cutting ability? I don't think you understand me any better than I understand what you just wrote.

------------------
Jerry Hossom
www.hossom.com
 
Jerry, in the thread about cutting the leg of lamb :

http://www.bladeforums.com/ubb/Forum3/HTML/001219.html

you note :

Immediately behind the edge, the blade is about 0.030-0.040" thick. This is a little misleading since the edge is somewhat bullet shaped, as the Moran edge typically is. The sharpening angle is somewhere around 20-22 degrees.
Click to expand...

You note that this is done to give the required strength and toughness because of impacts and bone and such. This is what I was referring to in the above. While I can see why this is done, there is a clear loss in cutting ability because of the need for high durability. That edge profile would be what I would describe as one for medium strength impacts and is significantly behind in terms of cutting ability as compared to light utility blades which have profiles about .01" or thinner.

This is why I said in the first place that you need to think about what you are evaluating when you review a blade. If someone compared a fighting knife (of type being discussed here) to a light utility blade in terms of low stress slicing the utility blade should easily come out on top. This is not because it is a "better" knife, it simply does not need the durability the other blade does and so can optomize its geometry accordingly.

Now as to what place this has in a review. It would not make a complete review obviously, far from it as it is not even the main intent of one of the blades but would be of benefit to have in both as it clearly shows how edge geometry must be matched to the intended stress level and the kind of tradeoffs and such that result.

-Cliff
 
Originally posted by Cliff Stamp:

You note that this is done to give the required strength and toughness because of impacts and bone and such. This is what I was referring to in the above. While I can see why this is done, there is a clear loss in cutting ability because of the need for high durability. That edge profile would be what I would describe as one for medium strength impacts and is significantly behind in terms of cutting ability as compared to light utility blades which have profiles about .01" or thinner.
____________________________________________


Cliff, please tell me where in the more recent lamb cutting review you found the cutting ability of my knives lacking.

Here's an exerpt from Gaucho's review:

"First, I cut a single hanging piece of paper. Each cut was perfectly straight and clean at any angle of attack with no snagging.

Encouraged, I hung a sheet of flimsy tissue paper. Again the cuts were perfect with no snagging whatsoever. Outstanding.

Next, I made a single layer roll of newpaper and stood it up on a table and cut it horizontally- this is a common test of the cutting ability of Japanese Nihonto(swords). The fighter transected it cleanly! With only an 8 1/2" blade! That's truly awesome. The CPM's thin blade profile and Jerry's wonderful reinforced-edge hollow grind did the trick."

It then went on to bisect a partially frozen leg of lamb in a single stroke.

When you have accomplished this with your little utility knife, then you can tell me about cutting edges.

------------------
Jerry Hossom
www.hossom.com
Click to expand...
 
Sheesh ... nobody said your knife lacked cutting ability, Jerry.... There must be some way I could clarify this ... if you had made it with an edge only .01" thick (.254mm) it would have had superior ability to cut soft materials such as meat, at the sacrifice of durability in cutting bone (or a belt buckle). A knife like that might work very well for some purposes but wouldn't be a good fighter. That's one of the compromises involved in designing a knife. It illustrates how if someone tested and developed fighting knives on meat and cloth without doing any testing on bone (or belt buckles) the unrealistic testing would lead to developing the wrong kind of design. That's all....

There are some real points of disagreement in this thread ... we're not so hard up for something to argue about that we need misunderstandings to stave off boredom....



------------------
-Cougar Allen :{)
--------------------------------------
This post is not merely the author's opinions; it is the trrrrrruth. This post is intended to cause dissension and unrest and upset people, and ultimately drive them mad. Please do not misinterpret my intentions in posting this.
 
Jerry, yes I can do all of that except the bone contacts. And yes it will make the cuts with far less effort that your blade simply because the profile is much thinner. And yes I realize there is a tradeoff to this which is what I was referring to in the above.

Cougar :

It illustrates how if someone tested
and developed fighting knives on meat and cloth without doing any testing on bone (or belt buckles) the unrealistic testing would lead to developing the wrong kind of design.
Click to expand...

Pretty much yes, that is why I like to use a very large scope of work. That and the fact I am interested in more than the question of "is this a good knife" and what to know what I can learn about the design and materials so it can be applied to other blades and thus judge for example how the geometry / temper / materials need to be adjusted if I want to do regular utility work in another stress level.

As an example, the Trailmaster has a much thinner tip than the Battle Mistress. If you do penetration tests you can see this difference in performance easily. And if you stress the blade laterally you will see even more drastically what is lost by having this profile. If you do one without the other you are skewing the review.

-Cliff
 
Good morning all!

Couger Allen- nice post!

One of my main concerns regarding the CPM-3V fighter was whether a blade just a hair over 1/8" thick would actually be able to handle impact against bone, manau rattan, and aluminum- even with Jerry's reinforced-edge arrow-like hollow grind. In my experience over the years,such thin blades always either snap, chip, or at the very least seriously roll their edges after just a few cuts in tests like the De Cuerda or the Leg of Lamb. That's what makes the results I obtained with Jerrys's CPM-3V fighter so impressive. Plus, I don't know if its the CPM-3V or Jerry has reached sharpening Nirvana, but this is hands down the sharpest blade outside of a scalpel that I've ever used.

This stuff is truly amazing. After I pounded this fighter for nearly 3 hrs, my partner Jason used it that night to literally slice and dice his cutting tree to bits. And it didn't even need to be resharpened after that! In fact, just for the hell of it, I used the fighter in the kitchen Monday night to slice and dice veggies and debone a chicken for soup- it makes an awesome chef's knife.

I think that it would be interesting to test a CPM-3V blade at some point that Jerry hollow grinds all the way to the edge and see how it fares in comparison.

Mario

------------------
Gaucho

Tuvo muy mala suerte...se callo en mi cuchillo.


 
If you back up 150 years and look at the blades that are still in existance you will find the shape, edge type and thickness that did keep the owner alive. Not to take away from modern steels and methods, but the bottom line is will it keep you alive when you need it. The area west of (and some east of)the Missippi river had their share of bad asses during that era. The tools to keep you alive then had to be the best the same as now. What Fisk and the ABS school test for is those attributes that those blades of the 1850s proved to have in keeping their owners alive. If a blade looks like a turd but keeps you alive when you need it what else can you ask for??

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