Knifetests.com Project 1 Destruction Test.

Did anyone look at this from the other end? i.e. CRK's claims of the knife versus actual survival needs?

Start with the question:

"If I were lost in the woods with only a CRK what tasks would I need to perform to stay alive?"

I suspect the whole Shelter, Fire, Water, Food etc would come to mind.

I think if we define a Survival Knife as one that is built to perform Survival Tasks then we are fine.

Now if by Survival Knife I am talking Urban Survival i.e. hacking my way out of a building one cinder block at a time then that is a different story. :D

One more thing...

For everyone who says the knife doesn't live up to CRK's claims... How many of you have ever been to any type of formal survival training?
 
One more thing... For everyone who says the knife doesn't live up to CRK's claims... How many of you have ever been to any type of formal survival training?[/QUOTE said:
I have. Both me and my wife took wilderness survival training and did a weekend with only the clothes and equipment I usually have in my day pack. We built our own shelter and that's what we spent the night in. While it was only a weekend, we ate just what extra snacks we normally take with us hiking. i.e. trail mix, meal replacement bars, ect.

Now for the funny part. The knife I brought with me was, my Green Beret. ;)Had no problems using it for typical outdoor survival tasks.
Click to expand...
 
me2 said:
Is there a reason to think you would have trouble?
Click to expand...

Nope.

Seems some folks think that if a knife cannot smash a cinder block or perform some other type of crazy feat then it is not suitable for "survival' purposes.

I think those who have realistically been trained in / practiced actual tasks that one would use in survival situations know that dismissing a knife's ability to perform in a survival situation because it cannot smash a cinder block is a bad decision.

I standby for the attack of the "what if" crowd...
 
I've made my position clear already, that toughness should not be the only contributing factor in choosing a knife. It should also, however, not be overlooked entirely. Stronger is stronger and weaker is weaker--they're results arrived at through geometry, steel type and heat treat. Conditions can exacerbate these results. I've only broken one fixed blade in what most would consider to be 'normal' temperatures. I've broken three in sub-zero temps. Now it's true that all steels become more brittle the colder they get, but that brittleness can be either compensated for or exposed by inherent weaknesses in the design or manufacturing choices. Say what you like, a great big, heavy, expensive fixed blade did not come anywhere close to matching the results of other, similar products from competitors in this particular set of exercises. You can say all you want about what a knife "is supposed to be used for" but let me clue you in---running the steel this soft is a detriment to edge holding in all types of cutting, as it will roll, dent, tear, wear more easily than it otherwise would have. Doing a deep hollow grind on a thick blade like this weakens it, and also limits its effectiveness for cutting as the shoulders of the spine will bind in any kind of cutting medium where the whole blade has to pass through. So even if you wish to adhere to your own version of common sense as to proper knife use, tell me what, precisely, this particular design does exceptionally well if we rule out being tough, staying sharp, or cutting?

It may sound like I'm knocking it and I'm really not, I own a couple of CRK one pieces knives--I'm just trying to make clear what purposes you think this knife was designed for, if you decry these explorations into the limits of its durability.

Oh and survival training...well, does the Army count? Admitting up front, of course, that the principle MO of survival that was drummed into me was "don't get shot." :D
 
Anyone is free to buy what they like, but the lowdown on the matter is if you're looking for a tough knife that can take some serious abuse you can apparently do better than a chris reeve for less money. The design of the one piece line and GB isn't at fault, they certainly are built thick and strong and at least with the project out of a steel known for its toughness, but they just aren't performing well in that aspect compared to the competition. I'm fairly certain that with a revised HT and higher hardness they would be tougher and make better cutting tools than they are now.
 
stanley_white said:
For everyone who says the knife doesn't live up to CRK's claims... How many of you have ever been to any type of formal survival training?
Click to expand...

What in the world does any of this have to do with "survival"? We're talking about the durability of a tool.

Some individuals here feel that the knife in question ought to be more durable, and others think those concerns are irrelevant.

Yes, I have had formal wilderness survival training, and I have lived outdoors for a good number of years. So what?

Most of the survival situations I've been in (defined in terms of the extent to which my life was in imminent danger of ending very soon) had nothing at all to do with the use of knives.

The basic concept here is that the P1 is a heavy, general purpose knife. It's the sort of knife that has a broad range of utility, certainly not just simple cutting. It appears that the P1's (and the Pacific's) geometry and heat treat could be improved in that regard.
 
i don't know if this will really add to the conversation, but i just got back from a week of camping and fishing in Killarney Provincial Park, north of Toronto. i used a $20 Gerber Profile from Wally World all week. i used it to cut wood and start fires, build a shelter, cut rope, cord, fishing line, and fish; and even used a rock as a baton to chop down a 4" sapling. it got a little dull and some of the TiNi coating came off, but approximately 30 seconds on a $9 V-sharpener had it shaving the hairs off my arm again.

the bottom line is that knives are cutting tools and all will fail at some point when subjected to extreme use and/or abuse. now, some will fail more quickly than others, but when i can do roughly the same thing with a $20 piece of steel as you can with a $400 piece of steel, then someone has been sold a bill of goods- and that someone isn't me.

somewhere along the line, your high end knife means pretty much the same to me as your exotic car. yes, it's really pretty to look at and goes really fast; but i can spend 1/5th the money on a Mustang or Camaro with a Nitrous kit that will blow your pretty (and really expensive) car out of the water... same with watches. yeah, $9k Breitlings are pretty to look at. they do exactly the same thing as a $90 Fossil- tell you what time it is...

it's all subjective of course, but there's NO WAY i'd carry a $400 knife into the woods with me. it's just not worth it. especially when i can buy a "Chinese piece of crap" that does the job for 1/20th the price, and with no crying if (when) it breaks.

the vids are cool but i don't think any of us really 'learn' anything about the usefulness (or lack thereof) of the knives in real world applications.

meh, i'm rambling here, but i will NEVER buy a knife that i'm not willing to beat the ever-loving piss out of. a knife that's too expensive or pretty to use is useless.

peace.
 
lvbuckeye27 said:
it's all subjective of course, but there's NO WAY i'd carry a $400 knife into the woods with me. it's just not worth it. especially when i can buy a "Chinese piece of crap" that does the job for 1/20th the price, and with no crying if (when) it breaks.
Click to expand...

I am confused why you partake in an internet knife forum, if you think they all equal and do the same job? :confused: Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but I don't understand why anyone would want to discuss knives if their differences really made no difference?
 
stanley_white said:
Nope.

Seems some folks think that if a knife cannot smash a cinder block or perform some other type of crazy feat then it is not suitable for "survival' purposes.

I think those who have realistically been trained in / practiced actual tasks that one would use in survival situations know that dismissing a knife's ability to perform in a survival situation because it cannot smash a cinder block is a bad decision.

I standby for the attack of the "what if" crowd...
Click to expand...

Let it be noted that the CRK knives got nowhere near the cinder blocks that most knives smashed to bits. Both knives broke in half while being tapped through wood with a hammer. This is outside the envelope of normal use, even in a survival situation, but not by far. I think a $300 knife should go further.
 
stanley_white said:
Nope.

Seems some folks think that if a knife cannot smash a cinder block or perform some other type of crazy feat then it is not suitable for "survival' purposes.

I think those who have realistically been trained in / practiced actual tasks that one would use in survival situations know that dismissing a knife's ability to perform in a survival situation because it cannot smash a cinder block is a bad decision.

I standby for the attack of the "what if" crowd...
Click to expand...

Here comes the attack. A normal ax from the hardware store costs, say, $20 and chops just fine for chores. A fireman's ax costs, say, $150 and is touted as the toughest ax for that job. Would someone be nuts to test if it for toughness? I hope it is tested! What ax would you choose, an ax from home depot or the professional ax tested for toughness? They both chop doors fine.

CRK is selling combat grade equipment, here. I see no difference between the fireman's ax and the soldier's knife. They should both go beyond the call of duty when the man using it has an emergency situation.
 
Bkultra said:
I am confused why you partake in an internet knife forum, if you think they all equal and do the same job? :confused: Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but I don't understand why anyone would want to discuss knives if their differences really made no difference?
Click to expand...

it's not that i don't think there's a difference, because there obviously IS. that old adage "you get what you pay for" certainly comes to mind. however, i agree with the previous poster who stated that he believes that there is a point of diminishing returns when it comes to expensive knives. (i know 'expensive' is relative.)

of course i was using a low-end extreme example when i mentioned the $20 Gerber that i took camping. BUT, the question must be asked, with equal blade length is there really anything that a semi-production knife can do that the little Gerber could not? i would posit that it actually goes the other way. there's no way in hell i'd try the Bear Grylls approach of using a rock for a baton with a Bark River. with the Gerber, no problem. i wouldn't care one way or another if i busted up a $20 knife; busting up a $200 knife would make me want to cry.

i like knives. i like reading the reviews. i like checking out the new products. i like buying knives, and i like USING my knives. maybe in that sense, i'm not as knife knutty as some others on this site (or maybe i haven't achieved the elite 'knife snob' status yet :p ), but i view knives as tools, and the only knives i have are 'users.' maybe that puts some limits on what i'm willing to spend for some new steel, but if that's the case, so be it.

i guess all i'm really doing here is posing the question if CRs (or other high-end knives) are really worth the money, and it really doesn't have anything to do with the destruction test. at what point does your cutting tool become a form of masculine jewelry?

i was looking for a small fixed blade. i read the reviews and the thread, and put off the purchase because i was having trouble making a decision. i picked up the Gerber on a whim because it was cheap. at this point, after spending a week in the bush with it, i'm wondering if those $100+ knives i was considering are really *that much better.* (after all, everyone sings the praises of Moras, and they're dirt cheap- and i have several.) then i get home and read this thread, and that only adds more fuel to the fire... that's all... forgive me for musing on a public forum.

(FWIW, my EDC is a Benchmade.)
 
lvbuckeye27 said:
it's not that i don't think there's a difference, because there obviously IS. that old adage "you get what you pay for" certainly comes to mind. however, i agree with the previous poster who stated that he believes that there is a point of diminishing returns when it comes to expensive knives. (i know 'expensive' is relative.)

of course i was using a low-end extreme example when i mentioned the $20 Gerber that i took camping. BUT, the question must be asked, with equal blade length is there really anything that a semi-production knife can do that the little Gerber could not? i would posit that it actually goes the other way. there's no way in hell i'd try the Bear Grylls approach of using a rock for a baton with a Bark River. with the Gerber, no problem. i wouldn't care one way or another if i busted up a $20 knife; busting up a $200 knife would make me want to cry.

i like knives. i like reading the reviews. i like checking out the new products. i like buying knives, and i like USING my knives. maybe in that sense, i'm not as knife knutty as some others on this site (or maybe i haven't achieved the elite 'knife snob' status yet :p ), but i view knives as tools, and the only knives i have are 'users.' maybe that puts some limits on what i'm willing to spend for some new steel, but if that's the case, so be it.

i guess all i'm really doing here is posing the question if CRs (or other high-end knives) are really worth the money, and it really doesn't have anything to do with the destruction test. at what point does your cutting tool become a form of masculine jewelry?

i was looking for a small fixed blade. i read the reviews and the thread, and put off the purchase because i was having trouble making a decision. i picked up the Gerber on a whim because it was cheap. at this point, after spending a week in the bush with it, i'm wondering if those $100+ knives i was considering are really *that much better.* (after all, everyone sings the praises of Moras, and they're dirt cheap- and i have several.) then i get home and read this thread, and that only adds more fuel to the fire... that's all... forgive me for musing on a public forum.

(FWIW, my EDC is a Benchmade.)
Click to expand...

I totally agree with you. I think it seems that many buy knives with different priorities than myself. I, like you, seem to buy knives based more on getting the best bang for the buck. While other more collector types seem to have certain brand loyalty and just like less common more expensive knives. I think it goes back to the fact that they are not shopping for the best cost/performance ratio. They shop with their own tastes in mind, so if they want to pay a lot more for something that doesn't perform noticably better, then more power to them. I certainly can't set their priorities for them.
 
stanley_white said:
Nope.

Seems some folks think that if a knife cannot smash a cinder block or perform some other type of crazy feat then it is not suitable for "survival' purposes.

I think those who have realistically been trained in / practiced actual tasks that one would use in survival situations know that dismissing a knife's ability to perform in a survival situation because it cannot smash a cinder block is a bad decision.

I standby for the attack of the "what if" crowd...
Click to expand...

I can’t think of any situations where I have needed to hack through a cinder block while out in the woods or in the city for that matter however, neither of CR knives made it that far in the test so I guess the point is moot.

However I can think of hundreds of times over the years that I have had the need to hack down saplings or tree limbs in the 1-2" range to use for everything from tent poles to walking sticks. The fact that the CR knife broke on a 2x4 while being hammered with not a lot of force doesn’t do much for my confidence in it’s ability to perform.

Noss’e tests are not about destroying a knife but rather about showing just how well a knife is designed and engineered. There is a lot going on when Noss chops , strikes the cinder block or when he strikes the knife with the hammer all you have to do is “look”.

For the vast majority of campers the CR fixed knives are probably fine, given that most people are afraid to scratch a $400 knife let alone actually us it. For the rest of us well we just like having a little more knife on our belts because we like to use them......

Dismissing any tool for possible performance issues especially one your life or the lives of others might depend on is not a bad decision.....

It's the only decision......

Question.......
Which is a better “Value” a $400 fixed blade CR knife or $400 Busse. Which gives you more knife for the money?
 
at what point does your cutting tool become a form of masculine jewelry?
Click to expand...
to me, it's not about showing off a knife, it's about the time and attention that the maker put into that piece of steel that is now a finely crafted tool. Like the difference between a ford(with the exeption of the GT) and a Ferrari, fit and finish materials, etc.


Noss’e tests are not about destroying a knife but rather about showing just how well a knife is designed and engineered.
Click to expand...

I have to dissagree here, they are labeled destruction tests, and as far as I can tell he has never not destroyed a knife. They are about destroying a knife, I mean come on, he took a Mora and hammered it through a cinder block. And as for the CR knives breaking, yeah it was a bit suprising to me that they broke so soon, HOWEVER take a look at the video, he is using a sledge hammer, steel on steel is not that bright, also he has the handle lower than the rest of the blade, this puts insane amounts of stress right in the area both knives broke in. Why he uses a steel sledge is beyond me, I'd bet if he had used a mallet or a wood baton they would not have broke when they did
 
true, I'm just saying why use the sledge? I don't get that? no matter what knife you are using thats going to hurt it, even the Busse family knives all broke.
 
lvbuckeye27 said:
somewhere along the line, your high end knife means pretty much the same to me as your exotic car. yes, it's really pretty to look at and goes really fast; but i can spend 1/5th the money on a Mustang or Camaro with a Nitrous kit that will blow your pretty (and really expensive) car out of the water...
Click to expand...

Save for drag racing, "fast" is something that doesn't really happen until after the car starts to turn, and it's going to take a lot more than nos (no pun intended) to make your F-body do that well. A *lot* more.

This is actually kind of an interesting analogy, because it illuminates the fact that real performance is often about balancing conflicting objectives. There is also a very steep rate of diminishing return on investment, so it gets more and more expensive to acquire each additional unit of increased performance.

The way I look at it, there are four fundamental characteristics for a field knife: Toughness, ability to take an edge, ability to hold an edge and corrosion resistance. Of course there are all sorts of other physical criteria, like geometry, balance, heat treat, etc.

If you're willing to drop or mitigate one or more of those four basic characteristics, it becomes much easier (less expensive) to produce an effective knife. If you want to maximize all of them, it's going to be costly, and (as we see here) there may be some issues with how the four are balanced.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top