- Joined
- Jul 24, 2014
- Messages
- 328
A member of the Ka-Bar forum had a Ka-Bar model 1211 break just above the hilt while trying to chop down a 3-inch birch tree. He seemed willing to accept the idea that this wasn't normal for this knife but someone else suggested the the "hidden tang" comprised a design flaw. Since I discussed the BK7 as well, I mention most of what I wrote over here as well.
No, the Ka-Bar fighting knife doesn't have a full tang, but the fact that the tang goes all the way to the pommel does provide more strength than if it went partially through (which was something some knife manufacturer's did). Why not a full tang? I don't know, but someone liked the stacked leather as a durable handle. Also, the partial tang provided a weight reduction over a full tang (if the full tang was even considered at the time).
Ethan Becker's BK7 was intended to be an improvement over the Ka-Bar fighting knife, and it is in the sense that it can take more abuse without breaking, but the Ka-Bar could take quite a lot of abuse. I am a former engineer and while I'm not sure all this was taken into consideration by the Marines, the Air Force in buying a weapon system wouldn't pay for indestructibility. An aircraft that is 100% safe would be too heavy to get off the ground. They would insist in a set of procedures that would provide some very high assurance (can't recall the figure but something like 99.99%) against cataclysmic failure. There were also a set of procedures to be put in place, periodic testing for example or R&R (Remove and Replace) at certain intervals. But before that they would insist that McDonnell Douglas (for example) demonstrate that the aircraft met the agreed upon requirements.
As to the Ka-Bar USMC fighting knife I imagine it satisfied the initial requirements. There would have been some sort of testing and it obviously satisfied the tests. However, it should be borne in mind that the manufacturer couldn't be 100% sure that every knife that came off the assembly-line was as good as the knife or knives tested. So what would the military have asked for in the way of QC? Testing every knife wouldn't be practical. Sample testing would work, but they may have been satisfied with the practices Ka-Bar already had in place.
So, did this particular knife-break demonstrate that all Ka-Bar knives would break if someone tried to cut through a 3-inch birch tree? I think it more likely that the one that broke was a manufacturing anomaly. Such anomalies undoubtedly occurred in WWII as well, but they must have been pretty rare else this knife wouldn't have come through that war with such a good reputation.
Now, having said all that, Ethan Becker intended the BK7 to be an improvement on the Ka-Bar fighting knife; so let's consider that. The BK7 weighs 13 ounces to the Ka-Bar's 11. It is made of thicker steel. I'm not clear about whether the steel is better than that used on the Ka-Bar from WWII (I know the BK7's steel is equivalent to the Ka-Bar replicas being produced today). Having the two knives before me as I write I know that if I were intent on going out and cutting down a 3-inch birch tree I would definitely take the BK7. On the other hand if I had to hike all day (only a theoretical consideration since I doubt I could do it any more) I would rather take the Ka-Bar. Not only is it two ounces lighter than the BK7 but when we put the two knives in their production sheaths the Ka-Bar weighs 15 1/2 ounces to the BK7's 18 ounces. (I might be slightly off since I am using a very old postage scale.) The WWII Marines would have opted for lightness over indestructibility (IMO) as long as the knife met all its objectives.
But time has moved on and Marines may get to ride in Humvees rather than have to hike all day; so 3 1/2 ounces may not seem like much to them. On the other hand if I were to get into a knife fight (which I will dearly try to avoid since my 80th birthday is almost exactly one month away), I'd probably opt for my Ka-Bar over my BK7. On the other hand the Ka-Bar was not (any more than the BK7 is today) intended as a primary weapon. I haven't kept up with this but the last I heard the M16A4 was the Marines primary weapon. The secondary weapon is the Beretta M9 (equivalent to the 92F), or some improvement on that.
What about knives? Interestingly the Ka-Bar combat knife is still on the list of USMC combat weapons. It was never retired. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_weapons_of_the_United_States_Marine_Corps The Wiki article doesn't define "Ka-Bar Combat knife" but if one does a search on that, wiki provides the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ka-Bar.
Lawrence
No, the Ka-Bar fighting knife doesn't have a full tang, but the fact that the tang goes all the way to the pommel does provide more strength than if it went partially through (which was something some knife manufacturer's did). Why not a full tang? I don't know, but someone liked the stacked leather as a durable handle. Also, the partial tang provided a weight reduction over a full tang (if the full tang was even considered at the time).
Ethan Becker's BK7 was intended to be an improvement over the Ka-Bar fighting knife, and it is in the sense that it can take more abuse without breaking, but the Ka-Bar could take quite a lot of abuse. I am a former engineer and while I'm not sure all this was taken into consideration by the Marines, the Air Force in buying a weapon system wouldn't pay for indestructibility. An aircraft that is 100% safe would be too heavy to get off the ground. They would insist in a set of procedures that would provide some very high assurance (can't recall the figure but something like 99.99%) against cataclysmic failure. There were also a set of procedures to be put in place, periodic testing for example or R&R (Remove and Replace) at certain intervals. But before that they would insist that McDonnell Douglas (for example) demonstrate that the aircraft met the agreed upon requirements.
As to the Ka-Bar USMC fighting knife I imagine it satisfied the initial requirements. There would have been some sort of testing and it obviously satisfied the tests. However, it should be borne in mind that the manufacturer couldn't be 100% sure that every knife that came off the assembly-line was as good as the knife or knives tested. So what would the military have asked for in the way of QC? Testing every knife wouldn't be practical. Sample testing would work, but they may have been satisfied with the practices Ka-Bar already had in place.
So, did this particular knife-break demonstrate that all Ka-Bar knives would break if someone tried to cut through a 3-inch birch tree? I think it more likely that the one that broke was a manufacturing anomaly. Such anomalies undoubtedly occurred in WWII as well, but they must have been pretty rare else this knife wouldn't have come through that war with such a good reputation.
Now, having said all that, Ethan Becker intended the BK7 to be an improvement on the Ka-Bar fighting knife; so let's consider that. The BK7 weighs 13 ounces to the Ka-Bar's 11. It is made of thicker steel. I'm not clear about whether the steel is better than that used on the Ka-Bar from WWII (I know the BK7's steel is equivalent to the Ka-Bar replicas being produced today). Having the two knives before me as I write I know that if I were intent on going out and cutting down a 3-inch birch tree I would definitely take the BK7. On the other hand if I had to hike all day (only a theoretical consideration since I doubt I could do it any more) I would rather take the Ka-Bar. Not only is it two ounces lighter than the BK7 but when we put the two knives in their production sheaths the Ka-Bar weighs 15 1/2 ounces to the BK7's 18 ounces. (I might be slightly off since I am using a very old postage scale.) The WWII Marines would have opted for lightness over indestructibility (IMO) as long as the knife met all its objectives.
But time has moved on and Marines may get to ride in Humvees rather than have to hike all day; so 3 1/2 ounces may not seem like much to them. On the other hand if I were to get into a knife fight (which I will dearly try to avoid since my 80th birthday is almost exactly one month away), I'd probably opt for my Ka-Bar over my BK7. On the other hand the Ka-Bar was not (any more than the BK7 is today) intended as a primary weapon. I haven't kept up with this but the last I heard the M16A4 was the Marines primary weapon. The secondary weapon is the Beretta M9 (equivalent to the 92F), or some improvement on that.
What about knives? Interestingly the Ka-Bar combat knife is still on the list of USMC combat weapons. It was never retired. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_weapons_of_the_United_States_Marine_Corps The Wiki article doesn't define "Ka-Bar Combat knife" but if one does a search on that, wiki provides the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ka-Bar.
Lawrence
}) got together and came up with the final design.
