Bushcraft knife

[Martyn]

Martyn,

The Mora 2000 review was interesting because it's edge retention on the cardboard was actually above the carbon variety. Now, seeing as Mora hardens their 12c27 to a slightly lower rating than the carbon, I think Sandvik's wear resistance might have been the determining factor.

I'm not sure how he measures edge retention, but assuming he just felt the ss blade just cut stuff for longer (which is an absolutely valid observation), I would think you are right, it would be down to steel composition. My point is that wear resistance isnt the be-all and end-all. I accept that my carbon blades will wear faster and loose their edge quicker than ss blades, but that doesnt worry me. It's a tradeoff I'm happy to make. I'm happy to add regular little touch-ups with a strop to keep my blade super-keen, in fact I find the process cathartic. I prefer the ease of sharpeing with carbon and the overall springy-toughness of a softer carbon blade.

Like I say, largely down to personal taste.

 

[snock]

Is that the knife you showed me a while back, Dazz?
Are you still selling?

 

[addyb]

Martyn,

I totally feel what you're saying, and it makes sense too. It's all personal preference. For my tastes, I don't particularly like the upkeep and repetitive sharpening that comes with certain blades. That's why I chose the Clipper model that I did. But with all that said and done, the one thing that I wish it DID have is that wonderful springy toughness that carbon has.

You guys have been a big help answering my questions.

Thanks,

Adam

 

[Burnt Ash]

Wal Mart

Hoodoo

Lovely penmanship!

mine is bloody excreable!

But not as execrable as your spelling!

Burnt Ash

 

[Simon E]

 

[TAHAWK]

It appears from my limited experience that the way to keep a D2 blade sharp is "little and often." Never let it go completely dull. I strop my EDC D2 (Queen "Mountain Man") on cardboard after each use. It has remained sharp.

As to Mr. Stamp, he is apparently a Phd in Materials Science and a faculty member at a Canadian university. I simply do not understand much of what he reports.

 

[addyb]

I don't understand a lot of what he writes about, either. I think most of the tests he does have little or no real world value. To put it simply: In many cases, experiments done under laboratory conditions tend not to generalize to the outside world. And as we all know, generalizability is key.

BUT...some of his tests are very useful. Like how a stainless Clipper was able to slice more cardboard than the carbon model. Why? Because of the different carbides in the steel that give it more wear resistance. Or how SAK's have a very high degree of cutting efficiency although the steel is only moderately hard because of the thin ground blades. Little things like that I think are useful for a novice knife enthusiast like myself.

Then again, that's just my two cents.

Adam

 

[mtnfolk mike]

I have three from Gene and none are in D2.

This one is S30V.

[/IMG]

hoodoo-- you have a mighty fine looking collection of knives there...

that is a nice looking ingram.... i recently picked up(after a really long wait) a gene ingram #30 in s30v..... i absolutely love it.... it has become my main knife while out in the woods..... the s30 v steel holds an amazing edge... and the sheath.. the sheath i was thuroughly impressed with.... mine has a firesteel loop on it as well...

cheers... mike

 

[Burnt Ash]

.

Regarding Mr Stamps review, potentially a good review, ruined by all the silly pseudo-science nonesense. Have you ever wondered how he manages to say with such accuracy how many grams of force are required to slice something? Of course I'm not suggesting he makes it up - not me, never!

That is libellous assertion. From what I've seen of his published knife-related material, Dr(?) Stamp employs a recognisably scientific methodology. You ask how he "says with such accuracy how many grams of force are required to slice something?" Well, at a wild guess, he's probably devised a method of measuring it. It's what scientists do.

I'm not in a position to judge whether or not Dr Stamp's science is good, bad or indifferent, but it does appear to be real science. Pseudo science is just that: specious stuff dressed up to appear scientific in order to deceive non-scientists and the gullible. Every year, sales to the tune of billions of dollars of cosmetics and hair care products attest to the persuasive power of pseudo science on consumers who are largely scientifically illiterate.

Burnt Ash

 

[OldJimbo]

Science is about experiments which are easily replicated and hopefully giving the same results. The trouble with knives and sharpening is that variations can be too wide. I've had what appeared to be a well sharpened Mora beat out an also apparently equally well sharpened M2 blade.
It was interesting to figure out why and fix problems, but it does point out an issue with precision of setup.
I like to believe that I'm honest with what I've said in writing about knives. I've sure got thousands of hours into email with people to help them get the same results, though! Well it helped me get a larger sample base for my conclusions. Despite all that, new factors come up all the time which cast a new or even quite different light on things.
Blades and sharpening go together like some sort of odyssey which I'll never see the end of. Luckily I find the trip fun.

 

[Hoodoo]

If you want to read real science, go to a peer reviewed scientific journal. Anyone can put whatever they want on a web page and pretty much call it whatever they want. They can sprinkle in all kinds of nifty little numbers for verisimilitude but if it isn't peer reviewed, it is not acceptable to the scientific community. Real science papers have to be subjected to analysis by the scientific community. Otherwise, it's not science. You can call it science if you want but from where I sit, we call it pseudoscience.

 

[addyb]

Hooodoo,

Please don't mention peer reviewed journals!!!!! I'm just having my morning coffee now and you made me groan and want to go back to bed. See, I'm doing a psychology degree and just spent the last oh, two and a half weeks working on a massive paper. Do you have any idea how many of those damned peer reviewed journals I had to read? :sulkoff:

heheheh

Adam

 

[Burnt Ash]

If you want to read real science, go to a peer reviewed scientific journal. Anyone can put whatever they want on a web page and pretty much call it whatever they want. They can sprinkle in all kinds of nifty little numbers for verisimilitude but if it isn't peer reviewed, it is not acceptable to the scientific community. Real science papers have to be subjected to analysis by the scientific community. Otherwise, it's not science. You can call it science if you want but from where I sit, we call it pseudoscience.

That is a very narrow definition of science. And, if I may say so, an incredibly arrogant one. And, lest anyone should suppose that the peer-reviewed scientific community is somehow sainted, pure and above reproach, let me assure you that it full of little fiefdoms and riven with rivalries and jealousies.

So what are you saying, Hoodoo? What was I doing out in industry in the years after I graduated? All that time spent experimenting, testing, calibrating, measuring, inferring, predicting and -ultimately- informing and contributing to productivity; big-buck decisions on strategy and major investments in plant and equipment? It's possible that some of my colleagues might have included some of what I was involved in in peer-reviewed scientific papers, but I have no recollection of that. We were too busy. Science? Pseudo-science? It wasn't ****ing witchcraft!

Burnt Ash

 

[Hoodoo]

I'd say if you really are doing signficant scientific work, you should publish it in a scientific journal and let the world know what a real scientific genius you really are. At the very least, you can create one of those "scientific websites" and publish it there.

 

[OldJimbo]

With companies and other organizations, Burnt Ash, you are often too worried about non-disclosure agreements to even say that you had a good day. Peer review is still happening within that system, even if closed, and you know what would have happened after even one mistake in most cases.
Stuff put out onto the Internet could be good or bad - but who is to know without competent review?

 

[TAHAWK]

I'd say if you really are doing signficant scientific work, you should publish it in a scientific journal and let the world know what a real scientific genius you really are. At the very least, you can create one of those "scientific websites" and publish it there.

When you get past " You must be making it all up because I don't agree with it," the most common, coherent criticism of Mr. Stamp is that science is inapplicable to evaluating knives due to uncontrollable variables.

He does publishe his results on a website. www.physics.mun.ca/~sstamp/knives

Do his results get reviewed by peers? Well, they certainly get reviewed.

 

[Burnt Ash]

With companies and other organizations, Burnt Ash, you are often too worried about non-disclosure agreements to even say that you had a good day. Peer review is still happening within that system, even if closed, and you know what would have happened after even one mistake in most cases.
Stuff put out onto the Internet could be good or bad - but who is to know without competent review?

You make a fair point, regarding industrial secrecy. But much of the day-to-day science that real applied scientists are involved in is pretty plodding, hum drum stuff. It is checked by colleagues (sometimes), but mostly would hardly warrant publication in august scientific journals, or (even if allowed) presentation at symposia, etc. But, just because it doesn't fall under the scrutiny of the scientific community at large at all times, doesn't mean that it isn't science.

But what of the myriad occasions that any of us might conduct personal experiments to satisfy curiosities of one sort or another? They may be well within our personal technical competence; measurements taken with care and accuracy; reproducability established, etc., etc.; indeed, all scientific rigour employed. That's not real science? Of course it isn't! It's not science because some pompous bottom says it isn't; because some elementary recorded observations or calculations haven't been checked over by teacher; because they haven't been "peer reviewed". I'm sorry, but that is nonsense.

Burnt Ash

 

[Burnt Ash]

When you get past " You must be making it all up because I don't agree with it," the most common, coherent criticism of Mr. Stamp is that science is inapplicable to evaluating knives due to uncontrollable variables.

He does publishe his results on a website. www.physics.mun.ca/~sstamp/knives

Do his results get reviewed by peers? Well, they certainly get reviewed.

Nonsense! A compact, stable, solid entity like a knife is pretty easy-peasy stuff for a scientist to analyse and evaluate.

Burnt Ash

 

[addyb]

Alright, I need to say one more thing here about knives and then I swear I'm done with this thread.

I was not pleased Mr. Stamp's review of the SAK Rucksack and I was even less pleased with his review of the Opinel. And although I enjoyed his review of the Mora 2000, I think he gave SAK's and Opi's a rather unfair review. He operates a fantastic website, but I think several of his reviews are rather unfair.

Yes, SAK's and Opi's have soft steel. (On the other hand, I've seen far worse steel on Chinese and Pakistani import knives) No, that doesn't mean they're bad knives by any means. I use an SAK probably 75% of the time that I'm using a blade. The edge holds up just fine, thank you very much. My rule of thumb? If I'm cutting something and the blade on my SAK isn't holding up, it's about time for me to switch to a fixed blade.

As long as we're on the topic of "pseudo-science" then I'll bring other blades into the subject. Specifically, the "inexpensive, small pocket stainless category" of blades that seems very much misaligned by others carrying "super steel" blades. I'm referring to Buck pocket knives, Schrade pocket knives, Swiss Army pocket knives, and yes, the odd Leatherman tool. Most of these knives use a similar steel and serve their users faithfully. Why poo-pooh these small knives when they're often the first ones we reach for when we require a blade?

Anyone?

 

[snag68]

Is that the knife you showed me a while back, Dazz?
Are you still selling?

Hi Pete.

Yeah it's the knife I showed you the other week.

What am I supposed to be selling? If you're still after my 'Woody' then "NO"....

Dazz