Why did the US gov't choose Grooved handles on traditional pilot knives?

Joined
Dec 18, 2013
Messages
189
Why did the US gov't decide to use the handle design seen on pilot knife handles? Namely, why use the the spacing/grooves in between the stacked leather? Is it merely to function as traction for the hands, or did it work better for stacked leather? Was it compared and decided to be best or good enough? Thanks in advance

post-70-1327776677.jpg
 
Last edited:
Having been in the military, I can say that all the equipment is made by the lowest bidder. The handle was probably found to be the cheapest to produce and had a reasonably long service life. Also the replacement cost was probably reasonable as well
 
I don't know the answer to your question but the thread title gave me a chuckle.

Why did the US gov't choose handles on traditional pilot knives?

Frankly I am happy they chose handles for their knives.
 
I imagine it's for extra grip. Stacked leather can be very smooth, imagine if it was covered in grease or oil.
 
Most military hardware goes to the lowest bidder or friends of politician! I followed the trials for US armed forces pistol selection. It didn't have much to do with the best sidearm for out soldiers. Was all about politics.

Mike
 
Having been in the military, I can say that all the equipment is made by the lowest bidder. The handle was probably found to be the cheapest to produce and had a reasonably long service life. Also the replacement cost was probably reasonable as well

Most military hardware goes to the lowest bidder or friends of politician! I followed the trials for US armed forces pistol selection. It didn't have much to do with the best sidearm for out soldiers. Was all about politics.

Mike

That's disheartening... You would think that cutting corners when it comes to gear quality would be counterintuitive.

:(
 
I think the OP is asking about the grooves in the stacked leather handle. I'm pretty sure it's part of the military spec, otherwise the manufacturers would save a few cents and not do it.
 
That's disheartening... You would think that cutting corners when it comes to gear quality would be counterintuitive.

:(

There's usually a list of requirements that X has to meet and then they pick the cheapest one (or, as Mike45ACP pointed out, the one that helps them the most politically). Unfortunately, sometimes the requirements are kind of stupid or just don't take real world use into account.
 
Most military hardware goes to the lowest bidder or friends of politician! I followed the trials for US armed forces pistol selection. It didn't have much to do with the best sidearm for out soldiers. Was all about politics.

Mike

This is repeated so often on the internet it's bordering on ridiculous.

Military gear is made to very clearly defined specifications. Steel types, handle materials, RC hardness, for knives. The first prototypes are rigorously tested for failure. If a manufacturers offering fails in field testing, it is rejected. It's up the maker to produce the item to specs and still make the bid. But bottom line is, it has to pass the tests. It is not going to matter how much of a 'friend' the manufacture is to some senator, if the item fails in testing, it's rejected.

In the case of the pilots survival knife, it was designed with a specific performance level in mind. No matter if it's made by Camillus, Ontario, or whoever, it has to be able for any number of them yanked at random and tested to pass the tests. If there is a problem that pops up, then the item is redesigned to eliminate that problem.

Making knives for a few million servicemen who don't care about the fine niceties, was what the pilots survival knives were about. You won't get the latest wonder steel of the month, nor carbon fiber handles. But you will get a very effective tool that will do what it was designed to do. I spent the last 28 years of my working career as a machinist for a defense contractor. You would not believe the amount of certification forms and paper trail of just the material we used. If the specs said 303 stainless, then it better be 303 stainless with the material certificate forms from the manufacturer. Same for all other materials used.

If some firm got a contract, it was because they proved in prototype testing that they could produce the item in question a bit cheaper than the competition. Better higher speed machines, better management in fewer bosses making ridiculous salaries. But they have to deliver to specifications.
 
A lot of people assume that military = best, but that's apparently not necessarily the case.

I intuitively understand the function of the grooves, but here's the more granular thought:

Costs aside, the grooves on the handle seem to be pointless if it is there merely to offset the negative effects of stacked leather, and if a better alternative to leather can be used instead.

However, if it is the case that stacked leather is indeed above average or best "overall", and the grooves add an ideal function (hopefully mil specs are researched well enough to prove these points), then I'd think that the concept is good. Even if the contract goes to the lowest bidder, the concept would be ideal and I would be content with that, since higher quality alternatives (i.e. customs) may show up in the market.

But then, I ask myself, why don't we see more grooves on today's custom knives as often as these pilot knives? Perhaps it's only ideal for leather. So, would grooves on, say, G10 handles prove ideal on a custom knife?

If not, then perhaps leather was used because it was the best option or most cost effective alternative that met the minimum requirements back then. If grooves do benefit G10 handles (which already have decent grip), then why don't we see it more often today - is it because of stylistic issues or lack of noticeable benefit?
 
Last edited:
Why did the US gov't decide to use the handle design seen on pilot knife handles? Namely, the spacing between the stacked leather? Is it merely to function as traction for the hands, or did it work better for stacked leather? Was it compared and decided to be best or good enough? Thanks in advance

Have you seen the Cattaraugus 225Q?

IMG_0687.JPG


This is what the handle looks like new from the factory:

IMG_0684.JPG


Each knife was constructed with a stacked-leather handle WITHOUT the gouges and then intentionally damaged at the factory to improve retention because of how slick the handle is without the gouges/grooves.

Here is an image form the web (not mine) of a Catt225Q compared to a Case 337 (note the gouges in this 225Q as well):

000_2272_zpsq7ztmzfm.jpg


Here is a couple of old Kabar military knives:

IMGP0194.jpg


Stacked-leather was the cheapest way to construct a sufficiently durable handle en mass but grooves were deemed necessary for retention so some models had them cut nicely into the leather washers (like that ASEK) while the Catt225Q was rough-cut afterward.
Why didn't they use rubber? Because that was needed for making tires.
 
The grooves provide visual interest, being perpendicular to the fuller.
 
But then, I ask myself, why don't we see more grooves on today's custom knives as often as these pilot knives? Perhaps it's only ideal for leather. So, would grooves on, say, G10 handles prove ideal on a custom knife?

For a while there recently, every "hard use" knife's scales were covered in grooves/gouges.

Has that fallen out of fashion already?
 
There's usually a list of requirements that X has to meet and then they pick the cheapest one (or, as Mike45ACP pointed out, the one that helps them the most politically). Unfortunately, sometimes the requirements are kind of stupid or just don't take real world use into account.

In some cases the requirements are also skewed in a way to only allow one manufacturer's existing product to check all the boxes(for instance if the next military pistol some how needed a grip safety, .45 cal, single stack mags, an external hammer, and single action only, colt would have a huge leg up on just about every one else). This is not military specific, most municipalities go through a very similar purchasing process.
 
Most military hardware goes to the lowest bidder or friends of politician! I followed the trials for US armed forces pistol selection. It didn't have much to do with the best sidearm for out soldiers. Was all about politics.

Mike

If that was your conclusion, you didn't follow the issue very closely. SIG had to have an entire section of mud testing fail thrown out to even bid. S&W was screwed for using the wrong firing pin energy figures, based upon an Army math mistake in the conversion from metric to imperial. Sued in court and lost. No one calls second and third gen S&W autos junk made to be low bidder suitable. Beretta "won" a series of very stupid pistol trials—three different times.
 
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I have numerous versions of the Ontario pilot knife, from the original with stacked leather handle to the SP2, SP25 and ASEK, all with rubber or Kraton or whatever they're calling it these days. All three models have grooves in the material more or less corresponding with those found in the stacked leather of the original. Current KA-BAR knives still have in roughly the same place as on the stacked leather of their classic fighting knife. I suspect it's a case where no more design innovation is warranted, but a change in materials keeps them competitive.
 
Your making my point for me. Did the best win? No!

This is a fairly accurate account written by Peter Gunn. The real travesty was the best gun for military purposes Glock wasn't even allowed in the trials.

In 1979, the United States Air Force was assigned to testing 9mm pistol designs for the Joint Services Small Arms Program (JSSAP) with an eye to replace all .38 Special revolvers and all M1911A1 pistols in the entire military inventory. For this test, Beretta submitted a modified 92S to compete against many other designs: Colt SSP; Smith & Wesson Model 459; Fabrique Nationale DA, FA and High Power; Star M28; and the Heckler and Koch P95 and VP70. At the end of testing in 1980, the USAF declared the Beretta Model 92S-1 the winner, but in 1981, the U.S. Army challenged the Air Force’s test results. The Army said the Air Force had used "the wrong kind of mud" in its testing and generally favored the Beretta in its tests, so the Department of Defense voided all previous tests and ordered the Army to start from scratch. In 1982, the Army began testing once again, but by May, declared all the submitted pistols had failed and testing was halted again.

In 1983, the U.S. Congress urged the Army to start tests again. The testing was now given the designation of the XM9 Service Pistol Trial. In the meantime, Beretta revised the 92SB again, with a matte black Bruniton protective finish, chrome-plated barrel and chamber, recurved triggerguard and a new grip shape and grips, calling the result the Model 92SB-F, later shortened to the Model 92F.

In early 1984, Beretta submitted the 92F to compete against a new group of designs: Smith & Wesson Model 459A, Sig-Sauer P226, Heckler & Koch P7M8 and P7M13, Walther P88, Steyr GB and Fabrique Nationale ADA. Testing lasted until September, but the announcement of the winner was delayed by legal action on behalf of both Smith & Wesson and Heckler & Koch, whose designs were eliminated early in the testing.

On 14 January 1985, the U.S. Army adopted the Beretta Model 92F as the United States Pistol, Caliber 9mm, M9. Beretta received a five-year contract worth $75 million for 315,930 pistols. It should be noted the 92F won based solely on a lower price per unit basis because the Sig-Sauer P226 also completed all the tests satisfactorily. With this announcement, the M9 became the first handgun to be adopted by all branches of the military. The contract also had provisions for domestic production, so Beretta USA Corporation would take over full production of the M9 by the start of the contract’s third year.

This did not sit well with Smith & Wesson, who convinced Congress to reopen the tests as the XM10 trials. With the new trials set to begin, a major problem occurred with service use of the M9. Several pistols used by Navy SEALs suffered catastrophic slide failures, where the slide split in two after firing and the back half of the slide struck the shooter in the face. (The SEAL sense of humor was quite apparent after this incident with the catch phrase "You’re not a Navy SEAL until you’ve tasted Italian steel" coined rather quickly afterward...) Supply of the M9 to the military was halted until the cause of these accidents was determined. The investigation took a few months before the cause was determined to be the ammunition used in the SEALs’ pistols. Normal firing pressures for the 9mm Parabellum round are in the order of between 31,000 to 35,000 PSI. The ammunition used by the SEALs was found to be of an extremely high pressure, in excess of 70,000 PSI. But this failure caused Beretta designers to develop a slide over-travel stop for the pistol. While the stop cannot prevent a failure due to faulty ammunition, it prevents a damaged slide from striking a shooter in the face in the event of failure. The revised pistol was named the 92FS.

In early 1989, the XM10 trials began. Ruger submitted its P85 pistol, Smith & Wesson submitted another modified Model 459 and the Army randomly selected 30 M9s for the trials. Testing began and was quickly concluded as the M9 won yet again. On 22 May 1989, Beretta received another contract for 57,000 M9s worth $9.9 million.

If that was your conclusion, you didn't follow the issue very closely. SIG had to have an entire section of mud testing fail thrown out to even bid. S&W was screwed for using the wrong firing pin energy figures, based upon an Army math mistake in the conversion from metric to imperial. Sued in court and lost. No one calls second and third gen S&W autos junk made to be low bidder suitable. Beretta "won" a series of very stupid pistol trials—three different times.
 
Your making my point for me. Did the best win? No!

The Army said the Air Force had used "the wrong kind of mud" in its testing and generally favored the Beretta in its tests, so the Department of Defense voided all previous tests and ordered the Army to start from scratch. In 1982, the Army began testing once again, but by May, declared all the submitted pistols had failed and testing was halted again.

.

"Wrong kind of mud" Awesome.
 
Back
Top