Off Topic What methodology is acceptable/useful for proof testing of "hard use" marketed knives ?

[jbmonkey]

I personally liked Michael Walkers lock tests he did way back when, and more recent Demkos lock tests. they are well done and consistent. I'd like to see more of these myself.

I'm not a fan of free handed knife spine whacking and over striking. except for Demkos setup which uses a machine he made and is consistent.

the rest of these youtuber testers are in it for views, clicks and such and have no consistency and their results are useless to me. to each their own though........

 

[scdub]

I’m kinda shocked that nobody has mentioned the Cold Steel tests.

I gained a LOT of respect for that company when they did their series of measured, repeatable tests and CHALLENGED other manufacturers to do something similar.

(None did)

Don’t tell me, show me.

 

[Cobalt]

I’m kinda shocked that nobody has mentioned the Cold Steel tests.

I gained a LOT of respect for that company when they did their series of measured, repeatable tests and CHALLENGED other manufacturers to do something similar.

(None did)

Don’t tell me, show me.

I might still have their proof vhs somewhere, lol. Busse did a video of tests as well. Had that one eons ago. I would have to look for both and transfer on to current media. Although there really is no need, because there are more hard use videos on youtube showing Busse or Cold Steel, than any other companies. Crazy number of videos.

 

[DocJD]

I’m kinda shocked that nobody has mentioned the Cold Steel tests.

I gained a LOT of respect for that company when they did their series of measured, repeatable tests and CHALLENGED other manufacturers to do something similar.

(None did)

Don’t tell me, show me.

Unfortunately , with GSM at the helm and Demko gone , the newer Cold Steel videos are nearly worthless , IMO .

I believe , a truly unbiased , independent tester is best . Hard to find , of course !

 

[Mako109]

Oh boy! I have Opinions about this subject!

I admit, I've skimmed the thread, so some of this may have been addressed. Since nobody has been able to find a "proper" standard, it's safe to assume one does not exist.

So, what would scienticious testing need to do?

For folding knives, we're mostly interested in lock failure, I suppose.

Prior to testing, all of the physical properties of the blade should be known, obviously.

1) Known and repeatable grip strength.

2) Knife being held the same distance from the lock interface.

3) Edge-strike tests, from blade-on to 20 degrees of deflection on either side. Repeat until failure, or a known, "acceptable" number of ft/lbs. There is data about how hard people can hit things with other things, but most likely, people would want to know exactly how much it takes to break the blade, or the lock.

4) Strain tests, slowly increasing the weight on the blade, at a known and repeatable speed. It should be done with the edge up, and the edge down.

5) Side-loading tests. Same as 3 and 4, with the flat side of the blade taking the shock and the weight, at some repeatable distance from the lock interface, with the handle being clamped and the blade unsupported. If the lock is asymmetrical (framelocks and linerlocks for example), then testing should be done from both sides.

6) Leverage testing. Essentially the same as 5, except that now the point of the blade is driven a constant distance into a material with known qualities, and the handle is unsupported. The results may not be any different from 5, but somebody is going to say "you did it wrong!" because "hard use" includes prying.

7) Reverse shock-load test. The usual nonsense of giving the spine a sharp whack to show that the lock can (or can't) hold up to being asked to do the exact opposite of it's job. It needs to have a technical sounding name, because we're doing science. Keep all the other distances and forces constant while increasing striking force at a constant rate, and so on and so forth.

8) Somebody too much time and money who's willing to fund the purchase and programming of a robot to do this.

9) Somebody who's willing to put on a lab coat and safety glasses, then narrate the testing process with just the right mix of knowing what they're doing, and not taking the whole thing too seriously.

I for one would like to add 10) The tester should have some kind of qualification such as a mechanical, structural, or materials engineering degree or equivalent AND/OR direct product development/QA/QC experience.

 

[DocJD]

I for one would like to add 10) The tester should have some kind of qualification such as a mechanical, structural, or materials engineering degree or equivalent AND/OR direct product development/QA/QC experience.

11) Independently, very wealthy already !

 

[scdub]

11) Independently, very wealthy already !

Ya know - I’m almost afraid to write this down but…

What about a fund?

For destruction testing by a couple of members here that can meet up and record their work.

I’m not volunteering my time, but I’d certainly kick down some $$ for the fund if we could agree on testing protocols…

 

[DocJD]

Ya know - I’m almost afraid to write this down but…

What about a fund?

For destruction testing by a couple of members here that can meet up and record their work.

I’m not volunteering my time, but I’d certainly kick down some $$ for the fund if we could agree on testing protocols…

I love the idea !

But I'm not really able to become a "meaningful" financial supporter .

Might contribute a box of my crappier knives to practice testing !

 

[Steven65]

Here is how I judge.......

Is it made from decent steel and the actual steel it is claimed to be made from.

Is it heat treated correctly to the correct hardness.

Is it ground properly with the correct edge geometry for the particular application.

Is it reasonably easy to sharpen.

Is it well warrantied so if I do eff it up during use I am covered.

If I can say yes to the above I am good.

Putting a blade through stupid tests, it was never made or designed for, proves nothing.

 

[Kryme]

Right now I like this reviewer. He's allegedly a degreed mechanical engineer, a production engineer and a certified machinist, and he can walk the walk and talk the talk. He's the only reviewer (that I know of at least) that will call out issues face-to-face with the manufacturers. He's directly responsible for getting Microtech to fix their ram-lock issue and getting Greg Medford to correct their sharpening process.

That high pitched noise that comes and goes during his videos makes his content torture to watch. Found the video quite interesting so I muted it and used CC, but man I wish he got a better mic/fixed whatever is causing this.

 

[DocJD]

Putting a blade through stupid tests, it was never made or designed for, proves nothing.

For only the third time : this thread was meant to apply only to "hard use" type knives , that are marketed as such .

So they should, theoretically, be both "made and designed " for abnormally hard use .

That's the entire justification for their niche .

Proper testing should sort out the knives that fit the bill from the pretenders .

But, I agree that lots of the testing I see, is not very useful ... except for entertainment value maybe .

 

[Steven65]

For only the third time : this thread was meant to apply only to "hard use" type knives , that are marketed as such .

So they should, theoretically, be both "made and designed " for abnormally hard use .

That's the entire justification for their niche .

Proper testing should sort out the knives that fit the bill from the pretenders .

But, I agree that lots of the testing I see, is not very useful ... except for entertainment value maybe .

I am commenting on hard use knives. If the knife meets my above criteria then that is generally all I require to prove to me it is acceptable for hard use.
Any further methodology is basically that use.
I do have other criteria around the reputation and business ethics of the company but that falls outside the strict physical criteria of the knife I stated above.

Knives that disappoint me (very few), or fail in their service are discarded.

I see no value in someone else's tests. Their use is not my use.

 

[DocJD]

I am commenting on hard use knives. If the knife meets my above criteria then that is generally all I require to prove to me it is acceptable for hard use.
Any further methodology is basically that use.
I do have other criteria around the reputation and business ethics of the company but that falls outside the strict physical criteria of the knife I stated above.

Knives that disappoint me (very few), or fail in their service are discarded.

I see no value in someone else's tests. Their use is not my use.

Thanks for the clarification !

I ultimately trust my own tests ,and experience /use , the most , also .

 

[The Grendels]

There have been all sorts of marketing driven knife demonstrations and destruction testing done for a very long time, but with the rise of access to video sharing platforms it's exploded. Knives cut things. It's kind of their purpose. I'm more interested in testing that focuses on their use as a tool and not how much abuse they can take when used by tools, but some people really are of the give us the job and we'll finish the tools school of work. For these people, destruction vids are foreshadowing as much as entertainment.

If it's a hard use hack and whack kind of blade, there is some value to destruction vids, but only to a point and we're all capable of seeing how tough they, before things get a bit crazy. When I see someone batoning with a thin hunting knife I'm not seeing anything worth learning from other than them being a bad example of how to test a knife. On the other hand, when someone did a destruction test to prove how tough the Benchmade Bugout was, to dispel all the word of mouth about the flexy handles meant it was fragile, that was worthwhile.

Why would you do this to a skinner?

A hunter gives you a proper review of a skinner

Destruction Testing the Benchmade Bugout with a purpose

 

[not2sharp]

Thanks for the clarification !

I ultimately trust my own tests ,and experience /use , the most , also .

Technique counts as well. Just because a knife is big, heavy, well tempered, sharp, made from good materials and well designed does not mean that it would survive being slammed against hard materials at full force. With larger choppers you need to let the knife do most of the work. If you start swinging the thing like a Caribbean machete the momentum will destroy the knife. The amount of force that can drive the knife inches into the target wood is a direct reflection of the forces acting on the edge and the steel can only resist deformation to a finite amount.

N2s

 

[The Grendels]

Technique counts as well. Just because a knife is big, heavy, well tempered, sharp, made from good materials and well designed does not mean that it would survive being slammed against hard materials at full force. With larger choppers you need to let the knife do most of the work. If you start swinging the thing like a Caribbean machete the momentum will destroy the knife. The amount of force that can drive the knife inches into the target wood is a direct reflection of the forces acting on the edge and the steel can only resist deformation to a finite amount.

N2s

I feel the same way about people using axes. It's not a club!

Last summer I was using my Opinel 15 Slim to cut a few thick blackberry vines because it was what was in my pocket and needed to clear a footprint for a ladder. As long as I used focused, angled cuts it worked just fine, because it's a thin knife that cuts things. If I was cutting more than 6-8 vines I would have gone inside to get something else, because while I might experiment and test my knives from time to time, I don't want to do any destruction testing with them.

 

[Wild Willie]

The methods I use to determine what knives are "hard use" are the same as I've used to narrow how anything else I use on a regular basis will hold up... I observe old hands at whatever game I happen to be involved in, see what they're using, and try it. If it works, I stick with it. If not I move on.

This system has gotten me through so far. Blue collar jobs have a knack for winnowing out the weak links in an EDC load out.

 

[Another Shepherd]

Here is how I judge.......
Is it made from decent steel and the actual steel it is claimed to be made from.
Is it heat treated correctly to the correct hardness.
Is it ground properly with the correct edge geometry for the particular application.
Is it reasonably easy to sharpen.
Is it well warrantied so if I do eff it up during use I am covered.
If I can say yes to the above I am good.
Putting a blade through stupid tests, it was never made or designed for, proves nothing.

All that tells you nothing about how reliable the lock is.

 

[Daedric Panther]

The methods I use to determine what knives are "hard use" are the same as I've used to narrow how anything else I use on a regular basis will hold up... I observe old hands at whatever game I happen to be involved in, see what they're using, and try it. If it works, I stick with it. If not I move on.

This system has gotten me through so far. Blue collar jobs have a knack for winnowing out the weak links in an EDC load out.

This ^^^

 

[calm]

The last testing I liked and trusted was the one done by Demko for Cold Steel. Maybe he can do that again one day.

People were moaning about Lynn being over the top and so on, and now, many of the same are moaning about GSM spoiling Cold Steel, which they did not like to begin with. ......