The difference is that one is grounded in a real appreciation, and the the other contributes to the adoption of the same poor design elements that we keep seeing.
I like skulls on stuff. I must be of the common types then. The fact that the human skull is one of the most interesting and beautiful natural geometries is seemingly not appreciated by the more sophisticated specimens of our species of which I am then not one.
Stereotypes ....
There are excellent tactical knives out there and the schmuckatelli skulls are great.
Al Mar, Eric Tullis, Sal Glesser, ... all mall ninja nutcases? Direware = tacticool BS? SERE 2000 = tacticool BS?
When I see comments like those made by Mr Randall I see bitterness and resentment and not a level headed person stating truth.
I apologize if my lack of appreciation for skulls offended you, but to be sure the majority of people who want skulls want them because they're masculine and tough looking, because they look threatening and "intimidating" (much like tactical knives?) but who are they trying to intimidate? Skulls are definitely an overused design element.
I sincerely doubt that a majority of direware knives will even go to people who will carry them
so yes, tacticool BS. Is it well put together? Probably. But it is ABSOLUTELY preying on the market's current fascination with titanium tactical framelocks. After it is purchased, it will just go to tactically protect people from tactical threats in its tactical location in a tactical chest or safe
and tactical knives are unique in this.
Other highly expensive safe queens aren't designed for stabbing people. They are very honest. They are meant to be owned and appreciated and occasionally used. When will high-dollar "tactical" designs EVER be used
tactically?
The Schrade depicted above does not cut any more or less effectively simply because of its appearance.
I disagree. That's a pretty strong statement. You're telling me that the tanto geometry isn't over utilized? It absolutely is. It is not a useful geometry for 99% of applications, and people need to stop pretending it is. You're going to tell me that the ergonomics of that handle contribute to a strong, efficient overall design?
Nonsense.
1) Gun costs can be prohibitive.
2) Many guns are not intuitive and require practice to use.
3) Guns are extraordinarily regulated/restricted in many areas, and entirely outlawed in others.
4) People have been using knives as weapons from time immemorial.
5) Familiarize yourself with the Tueller Drill before you assume that a gun will save you.
Yes, a gun requires a lot of attention. So does a knife. A knife requires much more training to be effective for personal protection than a firearm. And if we're honest, the majority of the people who can afford a tactical microtech, benchmade, ZT, or emerson can afford a turkish made handgun. Heck, most of those people already own firearms. Despite how "cool" (?) protecting yourself with a knife looks in the movies (which you mention) it isn't a good defensive weapon.
And acknowledging that a knife can be used as a weapon sullies the reputation of knife owners? No, Hollywood sullies the public perception of knife owners. Very seldom are knives depicted in a good light in movies, television shows, or books.
And knife people rush to love the same knives that get attention in those movies. Just look at all the threads on here about which knives show up in which movies and TV shows.
Actually, those comments were penned by James Keating, and he was addressing a specific design element of certain tactical knives, not tactical knives as a whole. Lynn Thompson's assessments of the double-edged dagger in the follow-on article were similarly specific to design limitations. Both Keating and Thompson know more than a little about knife use in the real world. Their experiences certainly qualify them to make observations about knife attributes, at least as much as those of Jeff Randall (if not more so, considering that they've been in the knife industry much longer than Randall has).
You don't have to get it. If it's not your thing, so be it. But please don't deride those who enjoy tactical knives. Likewise, please don't join the throngs of those who paint tactical knife owners as wannabes or children. I assure you that I am neither.
Different knives are different things to different people. Every knife, like every person, is unique. There's room aplenty in the knife marketplace for various tastes, needs, wants, and ideas. I, for one, am glad that such freedom exists in the knife industry, as it holds my interest in a hobby that's been a lifelong fixation.
-Steve
I apologize, the article clearly states the author, but the page says "By Lynn C. Thompson", thank you for the clarification. That said, the article also addresses the hype surrounding "chisel ground" knives, and his first couple of paragraphs talk about what is "cool" driving the knife industry. This is the pot calling the kettle black though, his company makes an awful lot of weird, medieval period weapons to deride other products as being "fantasy" (REALLY? A war hammer?) There IS, however, quite a lot of room for different designs in the knife market. I can't help but feel that YES, the market is driven by consumers, but as
informed consumers, we have to educate people on what contributes to a useable design versus hype, and thus influence the market. But ISN'T the market for tactical blades largely wannabes? How often do you need to stab somebody? How often is a knife a better tool for defense than a gun? Why are YOU not a wannabe? Or a poser? Now, I don't mean this as a personal attack, certainly, but it seems that if 99% of people answer this question honestly, tacticool knives would be a niche thing, instead of the driving force in the market. You have every right to WANT to carry a tactical knife, I just think you're probably wrong. Of course, I could be way off base
you could be LEO, or a military contractor. If so, please do correct me. I wonder if we couldn't get someone who
is LEO or military to chime in, what they think.
