Little confused by these tests

[dani]

http://www.emersonknives.com/MyViewThousand.html

Did anyone read the whole article on Messer Magazine?
I am surprised by performances of CRKT and Spyderco (blade broken! :confused: )...

[silverback]

Ah, it's back to haunt us. :D
There has been discussion about this article and the test before.
Suffice to say that the magazine took the "tactical" in the description of the knives very (ridiculously?) seriously and devised a sort of prybar test.
Not surprisingly, some blades bent, some broke, lock play was inflicted - only the rather overbuilt blades survived.
The surprise was that the CRKT M16 won the test, despite being the least expensive knife. I'll have to get one of those, they represent a good mix and compromise.
The A.T.R., by the way, scored a very close second place despite losing massive points due to breaking. :) In the cutting (= most important) tests it scored highest. The comp. lock withstood all the abuse, all other locks except for the CRKT's showed play afterwards. AND the A.T.R.'s tip only broke when 250 Newton were applied. By overbuilding the blade, Sal could have made it a prybar, but would it have the same awesome cutting ability?
This article more than anything convinced me to buy one, because I don't expect my knives to be prybars. It's important to read these tests according to what you want from a knife.

[BlackNinja]

I don't plan on buying a $100+ knife to use as a prybar. I use them to cut things. I really can't see what that article is trying to proove. If I want a prybar, I'll buy a prybar. Are they gonna do some tests on how well certain prybars do cutting.
I read it three times, and still don't get what they are trying to do. Am I going to put 6000lbs of pressure on my knife. NO!!! I don't care who won the test, I just don't get it. Every warranty I've ever read say "This is not intended for use as a prybar" or something like that.

[dani]

Thanks for the clearing up, I think you are right.

[silverback]

The term tactical means "to utilize the tools/resources at hand to achieve the desired end".
So a "tactical" knife must withstand abuse because it's probably the only remotely suitable tool you carry. Maybe you need to pry a car door open to save someone in distress?
Special forces have to travel lightly and still have versatile equipment, thus tactical knives were devised.
Like it or not, a test for tactical knives may be extreme due to this definition, some people want a truly "indestructible" knife. How well it cuts is another issue. :rolleyes:
Again, when evaluating the test, you extract the information YOU need.

[Vincent]

But if you coiuld put 600lbs of pressure on a knife, it would be a better knife. These crazy tests, are worth somthing.

[HoB]

But if you coiuld put 600lbs of pressure on a knife, it would be a better knife. These crazy tests, are worth somthing.

True, but you have to take a close look at the parameters. If you take two identical steel bars, one 4mm thick the other 3 mm thick, I would hope that you would expect the 3mm to break sooner and I doubt that you would need to test that. Again if you had two steel bars, both 3mm thick but one 1" wide the other 1.5", again you would expect the 1" one to break first. So by simply looking at the shapes and profiles of the blades tested, you could have made a resonable guess which will break first. With the same look you could have deduced that these blades were optimized for very different tasks. Or in other words you are not really making a fair comparison here. You don't compare quality, you compare stock thickness. Finally, if you take into account the variation in hardness between the blades, the test really becomes a bit silly. The CRKT blades for example are fairly soft at 56-58 Rc.

So just as a thought experiment, you could make a knife with a 2" wide, 6mm thick blade out of a shock steel (which has a low abrasion resistance) hardened to its toughness maximum which is probably in the lower 50s Rc and a very steep tanto tip and you could win any breaking competition hands down.....it would be pretty poor at cutting though. In the end it is always the means to an end. You got to know what you want from a knife, what kind of purpose you going to use it mostly for and whether you are willing to carry a second tool. If you are willing to carry an Atwood bug out bar and a Caly Jr. you will win both any prying competition AND every cutting competition. If you ask a single tool to do both jobs, you are looking at a trade-off and it becomes a question where you put that trade-off. If they had tested a Chinook or a Lil'T instead of the ATR I think that particular test would have ended probably a bit differently.

[Senate]

the way I see it, this test is useless.
they took different blade width and shape: those which didn't break were thicker than the others, and the ATR starts at 3 mm but is probably 2 mm thin where they broke it as opposed to the tantos and commander which keep their thickness all along the blade spine.
different steel: yeah different steel have different breaking point, woww call the press. even the same steel with different hardness can differ.

it's like trying to compare a Manix with a Delica, it's not because they're both knife that you can compare them.

[Titus]

Something must be wrong with the test. The ATR would have almost certainly broken before the BM. :confused: The knives weren't really in the same class. :rolleyes:

It is strange that Emerson posted this when their knife didn't do very well. :rolleyes:

[silverback]

Something must be wrong with the test. The ATR would have almost certainly broken before the BM. :confused: The knives weren't really in the same class. :rolleyes:

It is strange that Emerson posted this when their knife didn't do very well. :rolleyes:
Actually the Emerson did OK. It tied for second place with the A.T.R. - it didn't break (but suffered some lock play), and didn't cut as well.
I wonder if this test would have gotten the same responses if the A.T.R. hadn't broken? :rolleyes:
I bet in that case no one would complain! :D

[flipe8]

I have a CRKT M16 CF and this little knife always seems to outperform its abilities and I have always found it funny in that way. I have said on other forums that I know this knife is inferior to Spyderco and BM, but it still manages to find itself in my pocket very often.The fact that a 1.6oz 2.5" knife has not only survived, but thrived in hard work situations speaks volumes to the quality of it.I have used it at MVAs cutting various materials during auto extrications with no damage to the knife whatsoever and it has made short work of double jacketed fire hose without needing any resharpening.After deciding I was going to start "collecting" with a heavy emphasis on Spyderco, I almost felt like I shouldn't even let the M16 rest along side the other knives in my small collection. After reading the article, I think I'll let it join the gang! But I too wonder if the results would be questioned had the ATR came out on top...

[fret]

:eek: :eek: :eek:

[Piet.S]

The tests of Messer Magazin are allright, but you have to read them and draw your own conclusions. I think they are not out to make a spectacular show but really want to find out things and compare. They also respond to criticism. Funny thing is that Spyderco's are always the best cutters off the lot. But we all know that, don't we?

[zenheretic]

Ah, it's back to haunt us. :D
...The surprise was that the CRKT M16 won the test, despite being the least expensive knife. I'll have to get one of those, they represent a good mix and compromise...
The funny thing, to me, about CRKT in general and the M16 specifically is that it is knife that drove me back to Spyderco. I had carried my trusty Police model for 14 years and there was nothing wrong but I had grown bored with it. :eek: I went searching for a new knife and the gizmos of the M16 caught my eye. (I'm sure Spyderco spends tons on advertising but none of it reached my eyes and I read quite a few gun mags. All gun/outdoor stores I ever bothered to look in over the years only carried the same old Police and Delica models, leading me to conclude that Spyderco was one of those companies that never changed their designs. Basically, I was blissfully ignorant of the great designs I was missing.) Anyhow I bought the M16 and carried it for maybe 5 days. Nothing wrong with the blade or its strength but I thought,"This thumstud sucks, I want a spydie hole in my blade." You see the thumbstud is so close to the pivot that it is rather difficult to open (compared to a :spyder: )
I got smart and checked the Spyderco website. That was around June. Now I got over 60 spydies and I can't stop buying them. I've never carried my M16 since. Now, whenever I look at the gorgeous customs etc. that everyone posts in the Off-Topic area I think,"wow, what a great knife. Too bad it has a thumbstud/disk/divot instead of a proper spydie hole. :D :spyder: