Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Chris Reeve Knives' started by VERDUGO, Aug 26, 2011.
Seems like Dingbat has found a couple of other troll mates to help him...........
Thanks for the good man.
Well, I can't argue with someone who're saying to been an user of CRK fixed blade for years as a forester & chainsaw operator and!?
That comment alone make you Right.?
CRK has quite a flimsy steel, like many knows and as expected this poor performance on Cliff & Noss test's made people agitated.
Noss’s & Cliff tests provide you with an idea of what kind of abuse a knife can take and from there you can pick and choose the best knife for your needs.
Some people are fair weather campers and some are rough weather campers pick your gear accordingly.
No I don’t buy a knife for it’s concrete cutting ability either. I buy knives based on what I will be using them for and where I will be carrying them. CRK don't fall in my category of a strong knife...
for my need!!!.:foot:
I only have the one CRK , a Shadow lll ,
I have been using it as a knife and can report that it works
as intended , no surprises no breakage , nothing .
I have had to sharpen it now and again , is that a sign of bad heat treatment.
should I send it back ?
So buy what you need.
But anyone considering what Noss does is a test is kidding themselves. Testing is a scientific discipline, it has to be repeatable by other testers. It has to be documented from start to finish. It has to be measurable! How hard did Noss hit the blade each time?
How many times did Noss beat on a CRK on the other side of the knife before he started his video? No, you don't know.
Out of curiosity, what do you use your knives for and where do you take them? I've never watched any Cliff or Noss vids, so can you tell me what makes them credible?
I must be honest and say I'm having a hard time reading into your posts here. Are you calling me a liar or are you saying I am in some other way mistaken in my experiences with CRK products ?
I happen to to know personally a number of professional outdoorsmen, members of the armed forces and knife enthusiasts that have the same opinion as I regarding CRK fixed blades. Does my comment/opinion alone make me right ? Perhaps/probably not, not in every ones eyes any way. Does the same comment made by a number of people that have actually used the knives over a period of time make me right ? I would think that it's starting to look more likely........
You're accusing Noss of fraud? Whats about Cliff?, The test's done by Cliff want get more scientific than that......
Cliff its a fraud too.... Seriously, sad to see just one direction.
Cliff, Noss and scientific should not be used in the same sentence unless the scientific is preceeded by un-.
Ego and Agenda is more suitable to their test methods.
No knife is made to withstand sledge hammer impacts; that's why testers that use them always break the knives. I particularly hate the term "survival knife". It's nothing more than a sham term to sell the knives to those who probably won't use them, but have no problem acting like outdoor experts. The "survival knife" is nothing more than a normal knife, it isn't supposed to do anything a normal knife can't do. Aside from that, I can't see any experienced hiker carrying a sledge hammer. When doing anything outdoors, ounces count, adding a 2-10 pound hammer to your pack is completely ridiculous, hatchets are a lot lighter and they're designed for it. The only people I'd see carrying a hammer are, maybe loggers, or some other such similar profession, and their backpack usually has four wheels and a large engine.
I write this respectfully as a member of the scientific community, myself a biomedical researcher.
To begin, "testing" is not a "scientific discipline", rather scientific disciplines employ "testing" i.e. experimentation to achieve empirical data (results) which are then subject to interpretation in order to reach a conclusion confirming or negating a predetermined theory regarding what the result will be and why.
ANYONE can perform a "test" along whatever parameters they like, with whatever precision and whatever level of repeatability, to conform or not with modern scientific standards. The first key element of performing any test is the rationale behind the test - why are you doing it? what are you trying to see/learn/discover/demonstrate? If you are not seeking to demonstrate anything, just performing the task for amusement, then it is not technically a "test" much less a scientific experiment...
The next key element is determining whether or not the endeavor will actually yield results pertinent to your rationale. If it will not, select an alternate method. Now this is important - you may not actually have a clue as to whether or not the method chosen will yield pertinent results, for indeed that can only be demonstrated empirically. You can draw up a theory regarding this by extrapolating from empirical evidence from other demonstrations, but a theory is not evidence.
So that should clear up whether or not Noss' lengthy demonstrations are "tests". As to whether or not his tests are "documented from start to finish", the videos speak for themselves. Noss does a better job of documenting than any contribution to any scientific journal on the planet. Accusing him of fraud in regard to documentation is utterly ludicrous from an objective stand-point, pure slander with no demonstrable basis whatsoever. One can say anything about anyone on the internet, I just hope that those "listening" will go to the primary source with an open mind and draw their own conclusions based on objective evidence.
But this still does not get into "tests" as a matter of "science".
I mentioned earlier the question of whether the techniques or methods employed by the tester are capable of yielding pertinent results. Many will state as a matter of course "No, hitting a knife with a hammer is not capable of yielding pertinent results regarding the durability of that knife! Any knife hit with a hammer will break!" But what evidence exists to support this? In demonstrable reality, the OPPOSITE is in fact the case, i.e. hammer impacts do NOT have the same effect on different knives, for a variety of reasons (most of which can be summarized into "knife design"). So, does this negate the objection? No, it only negates the rationale behind it and people continuing to spout that rationale can be ignored as ignorant of physical reality. And without the rationale of the objection to oppose him, Noss swings the hammer... repeatedly... over and over again. (Does anyone actually watch these videos straight through from start to finish?? Geez.)
Regarding measurement of the hammer impacts as important to proper interpretation of the data generated, that would certainly be more rigorous... but why do it? Again, you distrust the technician for objective reasons? You assume he has an agenda, that he is intentionally hitting some blades harder than others, or using harder materials for some than others, or perhaps the hammer for some knives is actually a rubber mallet painted to look like metal?
The mistake is applying a precise measurement to the technique (something Noss does NOT do) and then objecting to the technique when the data does not comply with hoped for results. If one had objective reasons for assuming that the hammer impacts performed by the technician on a variety of different knives did not average to similar amounts of stress, I can see where such measurement would be requested, but the integrity of the tests does not in itself require it, that level of precision just isn't called for. In my experiments on individual subjects (be they animals, cell cultures, etc.), many of the techniques employed for generating data involve subjective manipulation, e.g. trituration of cells in an enzymatic mixture, using an unknown/unspecified level of force. Why do I not measure this force? Because it has been demonstrated to be irrelevant to the procedure in that it cannot be measured every time with any degree of accuracy, and what truly matters is not knowing the level of force applied but rather the ability of the technician (myself, my predecessors, and those I teach the technique to) to accomplish the desired result. What is the desired result from Noss hitting the knife with a hammer? Well, when cutting into a medium such as wood, metal, or concrete, the desired result is indeed the cutting of said medium, it is NOT the failure of the knife (which is indeed the desired result when Noss finally puts a stubborn blade into a vise and performs side-impacts on the tang). And again, NOT every knife fails from this sort of (ab)use - again, for a variety of reasons which can be summarized into "design of the knife", some can handle this treatment better than others. Observe the video evidence for signs of unfair hammer impacts, or observe the medium being cut. Present these observations as data for discussion of how the knife performed at the task.
I could go into more detail regarding measurements and precision in regard to these tests but have already done so in other threads on the same topic. For my own purposes, which have yet to include hammering a knife blade through concrete, I do not require such precision and am surprised that anyone else would. I am more interested in precise measurement in comparisons of edge retention between steels (e.g. Jankerson's tests). But that is me.
On the issue of repeatability, namely the objection that Noss' tests are intrinsically unrepeatable... How so? What empirical evidence can be presented in this regard? Who has attempted to repeat these tests and can offer the same level of evidence? Okay, that is too rigorous, how about just a little bit of evidence, maybe a detailed write-up with accompanying photographs? Anyone? What about theoretical objections? Can no one else hit a knife with a hammer into wood, metal, and concrete?? If you are worried about performing the exact same techniques with exactly the same amounts of force, do not be so troubled, for it is not required! Indeed, Noss has repeated the procedure many times, and even includes repetition in each test (impact, impact, impact...). Are you concerned that unless you mimic his actions and forces exactly you will not achieve results validly comparable? Do not be so troubled, that level of precision is not required, and only through repetition of the experiment can the data generated truly be called into question.
In conclusion, Noss indeed performs "tests" (just as many others have), his tests have not been demonstrated as unrepeatable, they include sufficient measurement for rough comparative analyses between subject knives, and there is insufficient evidence to negate the integrity of the tests.
NOW, what OBJECTIVE CONCLUSIONS can be drawn from the data Noss has taken such pains to generate (at no cost to us and no profit to himself)? If you discount his method entirely (even without objective reasons for doing so), no conclusions can be drawn. End of story. If you admit the methods and evidence presented, you can discuss what caused each knife to fail in the way it did when it did, be it steel type or heat treatment or stock thickness or edge grind (all encompassed by "knife design") or a bad knot in a piece of wood or an accidental strike on the vise. The ultimate conclusion that can be drawn from a test (avoiding bad hits) is how well the design of the knife handles this particular treatment of it. How you extrapolate its performance to your own potential situations is up to you, and indeed such extrapolations can be done quite easily. But if you conclude from a single test by ANYONE that ALL similar samples will fair similarly, you are jumping to conclusions. This is data, not proof of something.
As to CRK, it sounds like his warranty is good, and his own words suggest that his marketed "hard use" knives should not be allowed to encounter substances harder than wood? So keep them away from rocks/concrete/metal/etc. and be ready to warranty them otherwise. If this restriction fits into your idea of "hard use", :thumbup:, if not then find a different tool as he suggested (jackhammer, axe, whatever). I imagine that the same is true of most makers and manufacturers (excepting Bussekin?).
I hope the OP enjoys his CRK investment to the fullest and never experiences a failure. :thumbup:
Whether or not knives are specifically made to withstand the impacts (did the maker have that in mind), there are those that DO. The testers do NOT "always break the knives". This may surprise you, but your assertion is demonstrably (and repeatedly) false, as research into the matter will evince. Just letting you know.
Although you are correct that there are many such shams out there (along with "tactical"), this is not always the case - there ARE knives designed for these specific purposes, knives designed to do things a "normal" knife (whatever that is) will not do as well as easily. But there are many other threads discussing what a "survival" knife is/isn't.
What's your "survival" knife?
i came here , posted some i want , i never insult anyone , and i suposed you are all gentlmen , be polite . no more "idiot" or "stupid" words come out from you , thanks. and i think that is a violelation of the rules here.
now , thomason , where is your vid ?
from the pic you posted , i got that it is not a conrete , just cement sand block. look at your neat cut , look at the contour like a straight line , if there were rocks in it , that will means you cut the rocks aparted (through with no single damage or wound left)with you lovely little knife . right ? now what you did have proven some beyong CR boss man's statement above.
you are the man you rock.
one more thing , i am in waiting of your amazing vid , do not let me down.thanks
PS: is it repeatible ? is it scientific ?
so there's no mis-communication, if you are interested.
Where is the video of the Mnandi going through the block??
I don't think the offer to translate for him is really needed, he only shows up here when a thread like this is happenng so, to me at least, his intentions are clear.
To attempt to answer the OP's question about s30v vs s30vn, I seem to recall reading somewhere that s35vn is approx 15% tougher, and has slightly better edge holding ability than s30v when both are heat treated correctly and to the same hardness. I don't remember where I saw that, but it sticks in my mind that I read it somewhere. I have heard a rumor that Crucible steel is going to phase out s30v entirely to be replaced by s35vn, but this is a word of mouth rumor I heard in a knife shop so should be taken with a large grain of salt. I only post this since I didn't see where anybody took the time to answer the OP's question during all the argument about the testing/abuse/fake knives/personal integrity/etc. going on in this thread.
man, tons of thanks to ya, but i think there is no need to clearfied some thing i said above .
initially i just wanta ask some old stories about the breakage of GB, but i unintenally eat the balls of the fanboys , you know it . then there comes out some insult words toward me , like dingbat, idiot , stupid .
no matter what those guys insulted me before , i give them a Forgiveness.
you , all of fanboys , please show me the evidence of CRKs are though , no more offensive words , please.
ps: i willingly say sorry , if i hurt your inner feelings by ruined your "tough hero ". and i can leave .
First off you don't need to use the word "fan boys" to describe every member here that hasn't had a problem with Chris Reeve knives, especially when you're going on about people using disparaging language against your self.
I and others in this thread have stated that we have been able to use CRK fixed blades for years with out issue. I personally find them quite though enough for my uses as do many others.
Answer me this Dingy, how many Chris Reeve Knives do you own and how long have you been using them ?
Now quit with the trolling of this forum by popping up with your noss/stamp links every time a thread like this gets started and you will be treated with less hostility. So far you have come across as nothing short of obnoxious and unecissarily condescending with you use of "fan boy" "tough hero" and "hurt feelings".........
i'm still curious as to get an answer from ishiyumisan
Haze- do you have a pacific or green berret? If so, or any others, i've been wanting to pick one up, but are there any other differences besides the double serrations and glass breaker on the pacific. i feel like the pacific is just a medium green beret with those 2 modifications. Would anyone lean more towards one or the other for camping/outdoor usage?
I really want one, but get a little torn between which >.<