Chris Reeve Green Beret

[me2]

In the links I provided in an earlier thread Bill stated the following:

"The Green Beret knife by CRK has been subjected to a long duration salt atmosphere test by the United States Navy Testing and proving facility. It came back with a written PASS."

This test indicates that the DoD spec for knifes to be submitted for evaluation demanded long duration use in salt atmospheres. That clearly disqualified any steel not capable of meeting this very specific requirement. Why do people go on and on with "the GB would have been a better hard use knife if such and such non-corrosion resistant steel were use"? The GB is a knife designed to meet very specific requirements and if a civilian buyer needs something that meets different requirements then he/she/it must get something else. To criticize the GB for not meeting requirements it wasn't designed for is just silly and results in these silly debates.

Do you know the pass fail criteria for this test? Do you know who specified this particular test vs. any other corrosion test? Is the test standard given in any of the links?

 

[me2]

a knife that stands up to that insane treatment for a long time is extremely tough, one that only lasts a few seconds is not as tough

Finally someone gets it.

 

[t1mpani]

Hey, I got it a long time ago. And I'll even give a concession---if any of the Busse (or Bussekin) knives he tested had the same serration pattern ground onto them, they wouldn't have faired nearly as well as they did. Is INFI at 60 HRC a whole lot tougher than S30V or S35VN at any hardness? Oh yes, but stress risers will defeat anything, regardless of alloy. Now, bring the S35VN up to 59 HRC and make it a rope slicing test (not push-cutting, slicing) and it will pull ahead of INFI. All alloys have their strengths and weaknesses.

Edit to add---and yes, S35VN is more corrosion resistant than INFI, though INFI is impressively reluctant to rust since they claim that corrosion resistance was never something they were focused on when they selected it.

 

[A Justice]

Interesting. I assume Reeve had his reasons for his initial choice of soft S30V, too, though whatever they were they don't interest me in light of the performance my knife exhibited. Of course, I'm entirely sure you'll lump my experience in with those who "just don't get it." Cutting wood in a controlled manner and having the knife get dull/damaged absurdly quickly is, doubtless, too theoretical a premise upon which to base a conclusion.

You're one of the very people making inaccurate assumptions using nothing more than Rc numbers provided by the manufacturer. Based on a single use of a knife made out of a different steel and a totally different model to boot, you've parlayed that into your entire argument against the GB. Try the S35VN knife that is treated by CRK, forget about your assumptions based on the published specs, and temper any conclusions you come up with with a healthy dose of context. If all this Internet posting hasn't cultivated a bias by then, you're going to find that many of your assumptions are not true.

Nobody takes Noss's testing seriously unless it backs up their bias. You really don't get it if you think bending a knife in a vice with a cheater bar is any indication of its usefulness or resistance do damage during normal use. A rubber hose can be bent back and forth as long as you want without breaking, but that doesn't mean it's a better pry bar than a brittle stick. It looks like AllOutdoor picked up the Knifetests catalog of content, so we're going to be seeing a lot of assumptions based off of poorly performed "testing" a lot more over the next couple of weeks. Both the serrations and the ability to pass a salt spray test were things that were asked for. Your assertion that someone who purchased a new GB knife today and went about using it to chop small pieces of wood would have their knife "dull/damage absurdly quickly" is totally inaccurate, and I can say for certain that I've chopped enough wood with my GB and several other models of similar knives to be certain of that.

It's like the fact that S35VN is superior to S30V in the properties mentioned by MatthewSB. Despite any published data from CPM, or assumptions that can be drawn from data sheets, in reality it's something that can be discerned. The increased machinability may improve the edge in a roundabout way (machines faster, and therefor gives less time for heat to transfer to the steel which could affect the temper or heat treat), but for whatever reason the increase in edge stability in S35VN is noticeable in practice. It has been for me and others, across multiple models (some are identical except for the steel).

 

[chiral.grolim]

... a knife made out of a different steel and a totally different model to boot, you've parlayed that into your entire argument against the GB. Try the S35VN knife that is treated by CRK, forget about your assumptions based on the published specs...

...It's like the fact that S35VN is superior to S30V in the properties mentioned by MatthewSB. Despite any published data from CPM, or assumptions that can be drawn from data sheets, in reality it's something that can be discerned. The increased machinability may improve the edge in a roundabout way (machines faster, and therefor gives less time for heat to transfer to the steel which could affect the temper or heat treat), but for whatever reason the increase in edge stability in S35VN is noticeable in practice. It has been for me and others, across multiple models (some are identical except for the steel).

First off, are you sure that CRK heat-treats their knives in-house rather than contracting that out? Please substantiate.

Second, the differences in properties MatthewSB proclaimed have been refuted. They stemmed FROM the Crucible data sheets (which you say to ignore) which actually show limited to NO discernible difference between the steels in knife use anyway, and MatthewSB has admitted that he cannot actually discern between the different steels, he only has noted a difference in performance between two very different KNIVES which just happen to also be of different steels. Now you are saying that you experience a difference between the same model of knife in different steels, but again you must temper that observation with your own expectation of improvement.

I am all for improvement :thumbup: But i challenge the assertion that one has been made here between S30V and S35VN for the specific model in question for the tasks which users expect of it BEYOND looking really cool. The primary improvement seems to be one of reputation only. If it has the same geometry, same hardness, same wear-resistance, same toughness ... But it is easier for CRK to sharpen without burning the edge? That doesn't make the rest of the knife any less brittle. *shrug* However, in "normal" use it is unlikely to experience such failures.

And I agree, the rear-guard on the GB is a poor design and vastly improved on the Pacific.

 

[MatthewSB]

Nobody takes Noss's testing seriously unless it backs up their bias. You really don't get it if you think bending a knife in a vice with a cheater bar is any indication of its usefulness or resistance do damage during normal use. A rubber hose can be bent back and forth as long as you want without breaking, but that doesn't mean it's a better pry bar than a brittle stick. It looks like AllOutdoor picked up the Knifetests catalog of content, so we're going to be seeing a lot of assumptions based off of poorly performed "testing" a lot more over the next couple of weeks. Both the serrations and the ability to pass a salt spray test were things that were asked for. Your assertion that someone who purchased a new GB knife today and went about using it to chop small pieces of wood would have their knife "dull/damage absurdly quickly" is totally inaccurate, and I can say for certain that I've chopped enough wood with my GB and several other models of similar knives to be certain of that.

Awesome response, and summarizes the topic of destructive testing very well

... he only has noted a difference in performance between two very different KNIVES which just happen to also be of different steels.

Actually, the Native 5 and Military both have very similar blades, and come from the same factory so I'd assume that their use and sharpening is a far better test than hitting them with a steel hammer or snapping them in half with a vise and a cheater bar.

Second, the differences in properties MatthewSB proclaimed have been refuted. They stemmed FROM the Crucible data sheets (which you say to ignore) which actually show limited to NO discernible difference between the steels in knife use anyway, and MatthewSB has admitted that he cannot actually discern between the different steels,

Actually, I said that I can tell the difference between S35VN and S30V in folders, but with a fixed blade with more material behind the edge I have trouble telling the difference.

To Clarify:

1. There is a definite difference between my S30V Spyderco Military and my S35VN Spyderco Native 5. The S30V edge chips in situations that would roll the edge of the S35VN blade. Both are thin flat ground folders.

2. I cannot tell the difference, during normal use, between my S35VN Bark River Bravo 1, a 440c Randall Model 1, and a 154CM Emerson PUK. All are relatively thick at the edge, and I'm confident that all were properly heat treated for the material and its intended use. "Normal use" includes cutting, carving and batoning wood, and cutting cloth, cardboard, and other materials.

 

[chiral.grolim]

Actually, the Native 5 and Military both have very similar blades, and come from the same factory so I'd assume that their use and sharpening is a far better test than hitting them with a steel hammer or snapping them in half with a vise and a cheater bar...

...There is a definite difference between my S30V Spyderco Military and my S35VN Spyderco Native 5. The S30V edge chips in situations that would roll the edge of the S35VN blade. Both are thin flat ground folders.

Just looking at the knives, they do not appear very similar in a rather important way mentioned before - handle length and blade length. Using the same amount of force on the Military results in much increased leverage on the blade than on the Native. Being both FFG from the same company does not make them all that similar, and the edge-thickness of the Military is ~0.025" which isn't all that thin, I am curious how thin the Native is. Anyway, Spyderco does not publish hardness data but i found testing results for the Native 5 and also the Military both citing ~59 Rc, so if you put the same apex geometry on them then they at least show the same hardness. Others have not seen your results in "normal use" (e.g. Jankerson, who runs the edge-retention comparisons): http://www.spyderco.com/forums/show...know-the-hardness-of-Native-5-Forum-CPM-S110v


Anyway, the question isn't one of which steel rolls or chips slightly at the apex during "normal use" (i.e. edge stability), it is whether one is really any more durable than the other during "hard use".
While the Noss D-tests may be controversial, I don't recall the GB making it to the vise-bending in one piece, though it did better at that than impact stress, and again MANY other knives survived MUCH more beating with the steel hammer, and the GB was even left soft for increased durability. Also keep in mind that the Strider 'tested' was also S30V and survived longer than the GB, prior to catastrophic failure. Yes, the GB's edge seemed ill equipped for cutting compared to other knives, and perhaps S35VN will solve that, but beyond the apex? S35VN is no more tough than S30V. One should not expect any greater durability from the new than from the old. But if you have no need/intention/expectation of ever stressing your knife to such levels, than you should be comfortable with EITHER old or new because, again, there is minimal difference between the steels. *shrug*

 

[Twindog]

Just FYI for the discussion: My Native 5 S110V has edge shoulders 0.020 inches wide.

For a folder, I'd rather have the edge slightly more prone to chipping than rolling. I'm skeptical that a roll can be repaired without weakening the steel.

 

[t1mpani]

Okay, really and truly, do you suffer from some sort of attention deficit disorder, or what? You keep saying that I am basing my opinions on nothing but Rockwell numbers, in spite of being told repeatedly that I arrived at my opinion after USING a CRK fixed blade. After that you sort of catch yourself, remembering that I had used it, and then mention that it was only a SINGLE use. Well yes--after that piss-poor performance I was just hoping to unload the thing, and the fewer scratches the better. I guess it's possible that if I'd just pulled it out again and tried it, it would have suddenly been awesome, but I doubt it. You then go on to lambast me for putting stock in Noss's tests, after I spent an entire paragraph talking about how Noss's tests are filled with human error, inconsistencies and immeasurable data, and that people shouldn't try to garner much from them.

As to Noss's "testing", I still assert that a knife manufacturer whose products consistently last the longest when exposed to this inane treatment (Busse, Scrap Yard and Swamp Rat), is possibly doing a better job of delivering a "tough tool" than a manufacturer whose products lasted almost no time at all--in fact, were so conspicuously fragile when compared to almost all of the other knives featured that it caused the internet firestorm that it did. Again, I think the serrations were the most to blame--and I fully understand that they were requested and CRK simply accommodated that request. Doesn't change the fact that it creates a stress riser in the blade, and that the OP had asked why he saw something where it "soon broke". The military originally requested that the manufacturers of M16s not do the chrome lining that Stoner had incorporated, it wasn't Colt or Armalite that came up with that--whose idea it was didn't really matter, the result was a gun which quickly corroded and froze up in Vietnam. In both cases, I don't blame the manufacturers, I blame the military for the spec they requested. Blame aside, it's still worth mentioning the problem.

My experience with different knives and steels is vast, and yours might be too. I've been a knife/outdoor enthusiast for more than a quarter century, hunting/fishing/hiking (and yes, deploying, since people seem to think that means something in this argument even though it doesn't), and a contributing member of this and other knife boards for about twelve years. I'm really sorry if you don't like it, but based on my own experiences with these alloys in a wide variety of knives, my experience with another under-hardened "combat" knife from CRK, and the fact that I can't think of another respected maker who is tempering these alloys in this way, I can't arrive at the conclusion that Chris is right and the rest of the industry is wrong. I'm glad you're happy with your knife, but I'm not going to sink hundreds of dollars into another one of them so that I most likely again have to take a loss on it after I've used it and arrived at the now expected conclusion. It was a "Chris Reeve knows what he's doing, don't listen to the doubters" guy who talked me into the Pacific; and no--I'm not persuaded that the GB would be any different than the Pacific in terms of performance, other than having slightly more mass out front with the extra length, they're almost identical in terms of geometry. Again, I do believe S35VN is an improvement over S30V; but I also have enough knives in both steels to know that the improvement is slight.

I'm sure you'll answer me again, but I've offered my viewpoints and don't feel like repeating them yet again in the vain hope that you might finally pay attention; if you want to believe that having the last word will mean that you "won" the debate, then I'm happy for you.
T1mpani thinks there are lots better knives, folks; A Justice thinks these knives are incredible. A navy seal of my acquaintance thinks expensive knives are stupid. You decide.

You're one of the very people making inaccurate assumptions using nothing more than Rc numbers provided by the manufacturer. Based on a single use of a knife made out of a different steel and a totally different model to boot, you've parlayed that into your entire argument against the GB. Try the S35VN knife that is treated by CRK, forget about your assumptions based on the published specs, and temper any conclusions you come up with with a healthy dose of context. If all this Internet posting hasn't cultivated a bias by then, you're going to find that many of your assumptions are not true.

Nobody takes Noss's testing seriously unless it backs up their bias. You really don't get it if you think bending a knife in a vice with a cheater bar is any indication of its usefulness or resistance do damage during normal use. A rubber hose can be bent back and forth as long as you want without breaking, but that doesn't mean it's a better pry bar than a brittle stick. It looks like AllOutdoor picked up the Knifetests catalog of content, so we're going to be seeing a lot of assumptions based off of poorly performed "testing" a lot more over the next couple of weeks. Both the serrations and the ability to pass a salt spray test were things that were asked for. Your assertion that someone who purchased a new GB knife today and went about using it to chop small pieces of wood would have their knife "dull/damage absurdly quickly" is totally inaccurate, and I can say for certain that I've chopped enough wood with my GB and several other models of similar knives to be certain of that.

It's like the fact that S35VN is superior to S30V in the properties mentioned by MatthewSB. Despite any published data from CPM, or assumptions that can be drawn from data sheets, in reality it's something that can be discerned. The increased machinability may improve the edge in a roundabout way (machines faster, and therefor gives less time for heat to transfer to the steel which could affect the temper or heat treat), but for whatever reason the increase in edge stability in S35VN is noticeable in practice. It has been for me and others, across multiple models (some are identical except for the steel).

 

[fbhandler]

I like 1095

 

[Wolf1524]

So, is it true that Busse offers the toughest shit (not meant offensively) in the hard use knife industry? I already started saving money for their TGLB.

 

[mete]

In defense of C.Stamp --NONE

The powder steels have no difference in longitudinal VS transferse [to the rolling direction] toughness. Steels made the traditional way can have a very different property.
Powder steels also don't have the 'banding ' problem .
Powder steels have smaller .more evenly distributed carbides. That increases toughness also .
There are other benefits also.

Choice of steels to fit the use is important . I have a kukri of 440B , works fine ! A smaller non-impact knife 440A is the choice. 440A is for cheap Chinese knifes !

Edge shape is VERY important .Pick the right one for the steel and application.

 

[Unicorn161]

I have an idea. Why doesn't someone ask the people the knife was made for how they like it? You know, Army SF.
I've done that.
Most just have them in a display case or on a shelf someplace, but some guys do carry them in the field. And those guys do say they like them and haven't had problems. They aren't doing all this silly crap that some of these tests claim is realistic, or is hard use. I've never met an 18, 12, or 11 series use a knife to try and breach doors. That's what hammers, axes, hatchets, battering rams, 12 gauges, det cord, or C4 are for. Chopping wood, cutting cord, cutting webbing, stabbing people, opening boxes, opening MREs, cutting leather... those are uses for a knife.

Deploying does mean everything with this knife. It wasn't meant to be a bushcraft knife whatever definition you want to use for that. Nor was it meant to be a tool for cutting down trees and chopping through doors. It's not an outdoors knife. It's a combat and utility knife. Stabbing people and cutting open your lunch.

 

[midnight flyer]

In the links I provided in an earlier thread Bill stated the following:

"The Green Beret knife by CRK has been subjected to a long duration salt atmosphere test by the United States Navy Testing and proving facility. It came back with a written PASS."

This test indicates that the DoD spec for knifes to be submitted for evaluation demanded long duration use in salt atmospheres. That clearly disqualified any steel not capable of meeting this very specific requirement. Why do people go on and on with "the GB would have been a better hard use knife if such and such non-corrosion resistant steel were use"? The GB is a knife designed to meet very specific requirements and if a civilian buyer needs something that meets different requirements then he/she/it must get something else. To criticize the GB for not meeting requirements it wasn't designed for is just silly and results in these silly debates.

This should really be as much of the debate as all the Google found reports on metallurgy and speculation on steel comparisons. Having had some experience in contracting with the government, their own criteria can make some or little sense, depending on who was in charge of the project. If CRK was trying to get a contract to make money for his company, he has NO, NONE, ZERO input on the project unless it collapses and they need to start over. He bids to specs with an eye on price point.

I don't think he was considering the weekend "operators" that needed a heavy use combat knife while fishing and camping. Probably never intended that the knife be driven though the hood of a car or driven into a cinder block to prove its capability while on part time preparedness training for the big SHTF day we are all aware is coming.

More than likely this knife (examined by me and determined it didn't fit my personal needs) was designed to fill a specific requirement and offered to the public as a way to maximize profits and to offset costs.

Robert

 

[Wolf1524]

I have an idea. Why doesn't someone ask the people the knife was made for how they like it? You know, Army SF.
I've done that.
Most just have them in a display case or on a shelf someplace, but some guys do carry them in the field. And those guys do say they like them and haven't had problems. They aren't doing all this silly crap that some of these tests claim is realistic, or is hard use. I've never met an 18, 12, or 11 series use a knife to try and breach doors. That's what hammers, axes, hatchets, battering rams, 12 gauges, det cord, or C4 are for. Chopping wood, cutting cord, cutting webbing, stabbing people, opening boxes, opening MREs, cutting leather... those are uses for a knife.

Deploying does mean everything with this knife. It wasn't meant to be a bushcraft knife whatever definition you want to use for that. Nor was it meant to be a tool for cutting down trees and chopping through doors. It's not an outdoors knife. It's a combat and utility knife. Stabbing people and cutting open your lunch.

As a new mall ninja I ll take something I can open those doors with and still be able to cut than just fancy name thing which can t stand to abuse.