Why does the U.S. Military allow their logos on so many junk knives?

They pay for a license, the military needs money. I blame uneducated consumers for thinking it means anything more than that. Just how the market works. If the knife isn't defective, and if the person isn't buying it to use to begin with, I'm not seeing much of a problem. I might find it distasteful but that doesn't mean a whole lot.
 
It's interesting that in the tacti-cool onife world, mil-spec is supposed to be this ultra badass standard. With firearms, it's generally something basic, or "standard" with little or no upgrades.

Often, the military goes with the cheapest domestically made thing that works reliably, snd sometimes not even domestically made. For decades, the 1911 was our service pistol. They could have changed over to a higher capacity gun earlier on, but the 1911 worked well. The the M9 replaced it, snd remained the choice for decades as well.
 
Hashishiin said:
It makes sense to people who know how the military chooses an item, based on cost, or to people into this stuff, but the average Joe is confused. "Military" translates to "tough enough to be the choice of expert fighters who fight wars, and the US Military probably has all kinds of advanced testing". They see "the military" as this big, unknowable, tough monolith that MUST be the best, even if it isn't.

"Put it in a flick, and everyone will want one, after those Hong Kong flicks came out, everyone in the world had to have a .45, and they ain't want one, they want two, cause they wanna be the killa. You can't tell these jokers nothing, the killa had a .45, THEY want a .45
Click to expand...

What's wrong with a .45? I love my .45 Glock.
 
K.O.D. said:
It's interesting that in the tacti-cool onife world, mil-spec is supposed to be this ultra badass standard. With firearms, it's generally something basic, or "standard" with little or no upgrades.

Often, the military goes with the cheapest domestically made thing that works reliably, snd sometimes not even domestically made. For decades, the 1911 was our service pistol. They could have changed over to a higher capacity gun earlier on, but the 1911 worked well. The the M9 replaced it, snd remained the choice for decades as well.
Click to expand...

I thought that the Glock was before the M9. Anyway, I shot my brother in laws M9 one time and couldn't wait to give it back to him and shoot my Glock.
 
000Robert said:
I thought that the Glock was before the M9. Anyway, I shot my brother in laws M9 one time and couldn't wait to give it back to him and shoot my Glock.
Click to expand...
Military never issued the Glock as the standard service pistol. Beretta M9 replaced the 1911 in 1985. Now the Sig M17/P320 has replaced the Beretta a few years ago.
 
The way I see it is the military touches the lives of so many people that it really is just free advertising for something people are proud of. Believe ME you do NOT want to trust some legal process in submitting requests for using the “branding” to the pentagon and they probably don’t have the time nor the interest unless someone is manipulating it maliciously. Do you know how many times units go to vendors to make company t shirts/shorts, etc? That would just be a nightmare.

The way I see it, if someone wants to put “US Army” or the 82nd Airborne unit emblem on a gas station knife, who cares? No one is going to think it’s a reflection of the quality of our armed forces... and most people don’t care about the differences between knives sold at the counter of an auto parts store vs. $500 knives from legendary manufacturers.
 
K.O.D. said:
Military never issued the Glock as the standard service pistol. Beretta M9 replaced the 1911 in 1985. Now the Sig M17/P320 has replaced the Beretta a few years ago.
Click to expand...

I googled it and you are correct. If they were smart they would carry Glocks. I wouldn't join the military or law enforcement now a days if I had to carry a 9mm. Either a G20 or G21 for me.
 
000Robert said:
I googled it and you are correct. If they were smart they would carry Glocks. I wouldn't join the military or law enforcement now a days if I had to carry a 9mm. Either a G20 or G21 for me.
Click to expand...
I'm not a Glock fan myself. My cousin is in the FBI, and carried a G23 for 15 years. A few years back they switched him to the M&P and he likes it a lot better, and likes 9 better than .40. For me, there was a time about ten years ago when my arthritis got bad and I switched from .40 to 9. I still own one .40, but I plan to sell it. An upgraded Beretta PX4.
 
K.O.D. said:
I'm not a Glock fan myself. My cousin is in the FBI, and carried a G23 for 15 years. A few years back they switched him to the M&P and he likes it a lot better, and likes 9 better than .40. For me, there was a time about ten years ago when my arthritis got bad and I switched from .40 to 9. I still own one .40, but I plan to sell it. An upgraded Beretta PX4.
Click to expand...

I didn't really like the M&P, and I'm more of a .45acp guy anyway. My G21sf Gen3 fits my hands perfectly and I shoot it very well, it just feels natural to me. I had a G23 years ago and I think that it kicked worse than my G21 does.
 
K.O.D. said:
It's interesting that in the tacti-cool onife world, mil-spec is supposed to be this ultra badass standard. With firearms, it's generally something basic, or "standard" with little or no upgrades.

Often, the military goes with the cheapest domestically made thing that works reliably, snd sometimes not even domestically made. For decades, the 1911 was our service pistol. They could have changed over to a higher capacity gun earlier on, but the 1911 worked well. The the M9 replaced it, snd remained the choice for decades as well.
Click to expand...

To be fair, knives are by nature far less complex than firearms, and realistically speaking, there aren't many ways to improve upon a sharpened piece of metal.

Also, the main appeal of MilSpec equipment is that it adheres to a standard of quality established by an authority figure. Granted that Military Specifications aren't necessarily all that stringent and more often than not, civilian grade products are more refined, especially in cases such as the 1911 in which the Military Specifications which it adhered to are over a century old/out-of-date, but the average person looking for a self-defense weapon probably doesn't know nor understand that.

000Robert said:
I thought that the Glock was before the M9. Anyway, I shot my brother in laws M9 one time and couldn't wait to give it back to him and shoot my Glock.
Click to expand...

Not exactly, the Glock 17 was released in 1982, whereas the M9 is just a variation of the Beretta 92, which dates back to 1975. However, the M9 is a variation of the 92FS, which is a 5th Generation improvement over the original 1975 design released in 1985, so technically the M9 was newer than the Glock 17 Gen 1 which was available in 1985.
 
000Robert said:
I didn't really like the M&P, and I'm more of a .45acp guy anyway. My G21sf Gen3 fits my hands perfectly and I shoot it very well, it just feels natural to me. I had a G23 years ago and I think that it kicked worse than my G21 does.
Click to expand...
To be honest, I'm a weirdo, and every semi-auto I own is quite different from the other, except being polymer. My primary carry (when I get it back from the gov't, long story) is a customized Sig P365 SAS XL. Winter carry is a first gen Steyr M9-A1. Then there is my Canik TP9 SFX Whiteout.

As with my knife collection, I like things that are different from the run of the mill.

One of these days, when I have the money, I'll be getting a 1911 in .45. I just have so many other expenses right now.
 
shane45-1911 said:
Sorry, I trust BudK's word about as much as I trust the knives they sell. They can say what they want, but I highly question that anything that BudK carries or sells has any level of approval or authorization from anyone in the DoD - or at least from someone that is qualified to give said authorization or licensing approval.

As long as it is made in China, they can put whatever logo or stamp on it with little fear of any repercussion. And that is BudK's out - "it is made in China, we didn't put the logo on it."
Click to expand...

Hashishiin said:
I hope that's the case! The idea of being able to buy the logo and pump these sorts of items out is just depressing.
Click to expand...

Arathol said:
This is what the DoD has to say about this -

I doubt that BudK has the proper licensing to distribute (thats the key word here, its not just manufacture) merchandise with military logos. Its just not worth the effort to stop them......
Click to expand...
The USMC's program is laid out here: https://www.hqmc.marines.mil/Portals/134/Trademark Licensing Qualification Standards 2020_1.pdf

As long as you're willing to pay the required royalties and don't fall under a prohibited category, they'll license their trademarks to you.
 
OrangeBlueOrangeBlue said:
As long as you're willing to pay the required royalties and don't fall under a prohibited category, they'll license their trademarks to you.
Click to expand...

Still leaves me scratching my head that if - BIG IF - BudK got the necessary approvals, why don't any other bona-fide AMERICAN (as in Made in USA) makers or manufacturers have it, and offer quality USA made licensed blades that have a chance of being a legitimate consideration for use by the Marines - or at least worthy of the USMC trademarks???

Seems like anyone can get it, if BudK can. This sounds like something that would have been right up Mick and Ernie's alley as well. Does Kabar or Ontario or Chris Reeve, etc. have the licensing approval?

Why am I only seeing so much junk with trademarks, if it is so easy to get? Certainly Benchmade/Spyderco could afford the licensing if BudK could.

There's something missing here.....
 
Last edited:
shane45-1911 said:
Still leaves me scratching my head that if - BIG IF - BudK got the necessary approvals, why don't any other bona-fide AMERICAN (as in Made in USA) makers or manufacturers have it, and offer quality USA made licensed blades that at least have a chance of being a legitimate consideration for use by the Marines - or at least worthy of the USMC trademarks???

Seems like anyone can get it, if BudK can. This sounds like something that would have been right up Mick and Ernie's alley as well. Does Kabar or Ontario or Chris Reeve, etc. have the licensing approval?

Why am I only seeing so much junk with trademarks, if it is so easy to get?
Click to expand...
Why does McDonalds do so well?

You'll never go broke catering to the lowest common denominator.
 
Here is a link to the official USMC website. If you scroll down to "Official USMC Licensees" and click "click here" you can download the entire 2022 list of licensees.


United Cutlery is number 267 on that list. Unfortunately I can only access the list for a few seconds before Microsoft freezes it and says I need to accept some kid of software to continue, but screw that. So this picture of the list, with United Cutlery on the left side of the screen, is the best I can offer.

Of course people can always download the list for themselves if they want.

o5Kna5m.jpg
 
The military doesn't want to buy a 300 dollar fixed blade for the countless people in the ranks
They will be used as tools. Last bayonet charge was in 2003, they will likely not be used as a weapon
So the military powers that be decided to buy knives made of Reynolds wrap

Too bad we can't be known as the military that uses the ka-bar usmc
Along the lines people got cheap
And the value of a person was adjusted accordingly

You don't want to outfit a marine with an excellent knife just to be shot by some kid in the middle east.
All that money is therefore gone
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top