Вот если читаете по Английски я отсуда и перевел.
Кстати это была только часть теста, потом на базе Кадиак Аляска (типо нашего Халулая) было пожесче.
1992 United States Naval Special Warfare Command (NAVSPECWARCOM, NAVSOC or NSWC).
The Ground Zero Knife Trials
The knife trials held by the Naval Special Warfare Group One in April of 1992 include a variety of important tests that typify the tasks that a good field/combat knife should be able to accomplish. We set out to duplicate the trials, to the best of our limited resources, to better assess the performance of some of the combat knives available today. The tests were conducted in as scientific a manner as possible, with the testing protocol and results fully repeatable for anyone who wishes to attempt them.
Our knife test will include:
5 cuts each on ten kinds of rope
550 paracord
3/8" braided poly rope
1/2" twisted poly rope
1/4" cotton sash cord
5/16" braided poly rope
5/8" nylon dock line
3/8" manila rope
1/2" climbing rope
4 sections of bundled 3/8" manila rope (1.5" total thickness)
cotton mop of 4" diameter (similar composition to fast rope)
5 cuts on 1/2" shielded cable
2 cuts on 1.25" nylon webbing
1 cut on G.I. canvas web belt
2 cuts on nylon reinforced PVC hose (similar in composition to Zodiac material)
digging a 4" hole through 1" pine
chopping through two 2"x4"s
the knives were lashed between two beams halfway up their blades so that a man could chin up on it
immersion in lacquer thinner for 15 min.
48 hour immersion in gasoline
a flame test on the grip
The knives tested:
Mad Dog ATAK2 ™
Mad Dog DSU2 ™
Mission Knives MPK - current SEAL issue nonmagnetic dive knife
SOG SEAL 2000 - current SEAL issue knife
Buck Nighthawk - a production version of the knives originally entered in the SEAL trials
KaBar - the traditional field knife, included for comparison
Initial impressions of the production knives (before the tests):
Mission Knives MPK
This titanium knife looks amazingly like the Mad Dog ATAK family knives. Hmm.... Major differences include the lack of forward blade rake, which would serve to enhance edge and point presentation (if present) and handle design. The MPK basically features a straight spine/edge presentation. The handle was reasonably comfortable, but lacked the single finger index (groove) that makes snap cuts easy and positive. The handle cross section felt a little too square for our liking. The lanyard hole was only just large enough to accommodate 550 cord. As far as fit and finish, the corners of spine were quite sharp, and various machine marks were visible at the ricasso area - not what we expect for a knife that retails at about $300. The sheath, while quiet in deployment and resheathing, featured a rubber retention loop that was extremely difficult to get over the handle in a hurry. Retention without secondary devices was adequate. Overall, the knife had the best feel of the four production knives tested.
Buck Nighthawk
The Alcryn inserts in the Zytel handle of this knife feel slimy and lumpy. The subtle finger swells are not placed where they might connect with one's fingers. The handle lacks much of an index in the hand. The blade profile is very thick, and does not look like it will excel at any delicate cutting work. The original Buck entrant to the SEAL trials was 154CM, but the production knives are only 425M (what do you want for $36.95?). We would have gladly paid more for the knife if it would have come with a sturdier sheath. It is flimsy and not worthy of field use.
SOG SEAL 2000
Possibly the worst feeling of the 4 production knives. The handle profile is almost completely square! Tell me where on your hand do you have a square surface? The checkering is a bit much, and we anticipate it will be very abrasive to the user. The guards amount to nothing more than "speed bumps" for your hand as they rush over them toward the blade edge. Balance is poor, leaning towards blade heavy without the appropriate index points in the handle to effect a positive grip. On the bright side, the blade came with a bustin' sharp edge...we'll have to see how long it holds that edge. The tip is needle sharp, and looks ready to snap off with light prying. The sheath is a horrible contraption with many leather gizmos and spacers. Isn't the Cordura supposed to be a water resistant solution to leather? Then why pair ridiculously thin layers of it up with leather (which will rot in water)?
KaBar
The classic. The oval profile handle feels ok in the hand, though it too lacks any real index points. For the price, this old classic still rises to the challenge - on a budget. The KaBar's primary weaknesses include the fragile tip and relatively thin blade. Sheath is nice quality leather and cosmetically pleasing. We are not expecting this knife to succeed in the trials, but rather to serve as a basis of comparison.
Ratings Scale:
1=Poor 2=Fair 3=Average 4=Good 5=Excellent
KaBar Nighthawk SOG 2000 MPK ATAK2 DSU2
Cutting rope 1 3 3 3 4 5
Cutting cable 3 1 3 4 5 5
Cutting webbing 5 3 5 4 5 5
Cutting PVC hose 4 1 4 4 5 5
Digging in pine 2 4 2 5 5 5
Chopping 2x4's 1 1 2 4 5 5
Lateral blade strength 3 1 4 5 5 5
-with 140 lbs pass pass pass pass pass pass
-with 225 lbs fail fail fail pass pass pass
Solvent immersion 2 1 5 4 5 5
Handle flame test 2 1 5 4 5 5
Cutting Rope:
On partially serrated blades, cuts were initially performed using only the plain portion of the blade. Any partial serrations were employed only if the primary edge failed. Of the various types of rope, the manila and some braided poly rope with a hardened outer layer were the toughest for all the plain edged knives. The presence of serrations on the SOG, MPK, ATAK2 vastly improved their performance on these ropes. The fully serrated DSU2 was able to effortlessly cut all the types of rope, vastly outperforming all the other knives. The Buck lost its aggressive edge after 4 sets of rope cuts (total of only 20 cuts).
Cutting Cable:
The Buck was the only knife that failed to cut the cable, bouncing off the shielding with only minor penetration. The SOG's poor ergonomics made chopping relatively difficult. The MPK was a little light for chopping, but still penetrated the cable adequately.
Cutting Webbing:
All the knives performed without incident. The edge retention was evident on the nylon webbing cuts, as the duller knives left frayed edges on the cuts. When we got to the DSU2, the canvas web belt was reduced to a length of double thickness near the buckle. We were able to cut cleanly through BOTH layers of the belt as easily as cutting ONE layer with the other knives.
Cutting PVC hose:
The Buck was the only knife that failed to cut through the hose.
Digging through pine board:
In the reverse grip, the cross guard of the KaBar dug painfully into the user's hand, making this task rather fatiguing. The KaBar sustained minor tip damage. The Buck actually performed well in this task, its thick blade penetrating the pine rather easily. The SOG was quite a nightmare in this test, as the guards did little to prevent the user's hand from sliding down onto the blade during heavy digging. Minor tip damage was also seen on the SOG. The MPK blade visibly flexed during the prying and digging, but returned to true each time. The knife sustained very minor tip damage. Neither Mad Dog model sustained any damage during this test.
Chopping of 2x4's:
The KaBar was an extremely poor chopper. The smooth oval handle allowed the blade to rotate in the user's hand, presenting the side of the blade as we chopped. The handle also tended to slip out of the hand, leaving the user grasping the knife only by the pommel cap. The Buck was beyond miserable, as it had lost any semblance of an edge with which to cut the wood. The SOG blade was reasonably aggressive on the wood, but lost its hair popping edge as the cutting progressed. The square handle profile and sharp checkering wore painfully into the user's thumb after only limited chopping. The MPK's ergonomics made it more comfortable than the first 3 knives, even though it was too light to do serious damage with each stroke. It also experienced a detectable loss of edge as the chopping progressed. The ATAK2 was the most aggressive chopper of the lot, removing wood easily even from the areas burnished by previous blade impacts. We considered this a good indicator of blade edge efficiency, as most of the other blades were not able to chip wood as quickly from the burnished regions. The DSU2 also turned in a good performance in the chopping, with the teeth undamaged by the repeated impacts.
Lateral strength (chinups):
Each blade was tested by a 140 lb and a 225 lb individual. All blades were able to support 140 lbs. The KaBar and MPK blades flexed noticeably with the 140 lb load. After only one chin up with 225 lbs, the KaBar bent about 30 degrees at the tang/blade shoulder junction. That's what happens when you don't harden the tang. The Buck blade snapped about 2 inches back from the tip with 225 lbs on it. The SOG blade bent at about 5-10 degrees 2.5" inches back from the tip with 225 lbs. It would still have been serviceable in this condition. The MPK flexed rather severely with the 225 lbs load, but returned immediately to true. The Mad Dog blades flexed moderately under the 225 lb load and returned to true without any damage. The DSU2 suffered a mishap in which the knife slipped out of the apparatus during the 225 lb tester's final chinup. This resulted in the knife sliding out and momentarily supporting 225 lbs on the last 1/4" of its tip. The tip bent about 5 degrees, but was readily able to be straightened out in a vise. We do not consider this a failure, as the knife was not permanently damaged from this rather extreme abuse.
Solvent immersion:
All the handle materials and blade finishes survived the prolonged immersion in solvents. The KaBar's leather ring handle was the most absorbent of the knives tested. The Kevlar fibers used to reinforce the MPK's Hytrel handle absorbed some solvent, leaving the knife with a strong lingering odor of gasoline. The Zytel and glass epoxy composite handles did not absorb any solvent and were totally undamaged.
Flame test:
Each knife was subjected to a flame test immediately following each immersion in solvent. Each knife was ignited and allowed to burn until it extinguished on its own. The KaBar's absorption of solvent caused increased flammability, especially with the gasoline. The knife burned for several minutes until the gasoline was expended, leaving the leather handle split and charred. The Buck's Alcryn inserts proved to be EXTREMELY flammable, burning fiercely long after the solvent had been exhausted. The Alcryn burned so completely that the handle inserts were almost completely destroyed, leaving very little of the handle intact. The SOG's Zytel handle was very flame resistant, barely igniting when covered in gasoline. No damage was sustained. The MPK's Kevlar reinforced Hytrel absorbed the solvents to a limited degree and burned briefly, causing limited damage to the area of the handle near the drilled lanyard hole (this area has exposed Kevlar fibers, which are flammable). With their glass/epoxy composite handles, both the ATAK2 and DSU2 were completely unaffected by the flame tests.
Final thoughts...
We found the KaBar to be a very functional blade at a reasonable price. Its 1095 carbon steel blade cuts well and takes a fair bit of abuse. Its primary drawbacks include the lack of index points on the smooth oval handle, the softness of the tang, and the obtrusive double guard. If you only had about $40 to spend on a knife, the KaBar would be an adequate choice.
The Buck Nighthawk was the worst of our entrants. It was a miserable performer, with hardly any edgeholding to speak of, poor ergonomics, a highly flammable handle, and brittle blade steel. We felt that this knife was a waste of money at any price.
The SOG SEAL 2000 performed better than we thought it would. The 440A blade retained a usable edge after the trials, though the bend in the blade would make it a little harder to use. We felt that SOG did a good job with the heat treat on the blade, even if they chose the most economical steel. The Zytel handle material on the knife is a success, resisting impact, solvent, and flame. The knife as a whole, unfortunately, is an ergonomic monstrosity. The handle's checkering, diminutive guards, and square profile are extremely user-hostile. No tool is useful if it can't be safely and comfortably wielded by its user.
The Mission Knives MPK, design similarities to the Mad Dog ATAK not withstanding, proved to be a functional field knife. The handle was comfortable in use and fairly resistant to solvents and flame. The blade was a little on the light side for serious chopping, and lacked the aggressive edge of the better steel blades. On the positive side, the MPK retained about 80% of its mediocre factory edge throughout the trials. The MPK's key features are its light weight and corrosion resistance. Since titanium is a compromise as a blade material, the user needs to evaluate what the needs are for the task at hand. Still, we would rate this particular titanium alloy blade superior to the high chromium, low carbon alloys that are all too popular in most production knives (see above...).
We felt that both Mad Dog knives were excellent in the trials. The DSU2's unfortunate mishap aside, both knives were remarkably undamaged during the trials. The ATAK2 maintained an aggressive edge through the entire trial, still shaving hair after all the abuse. The ergonomics of the knives made even the most wearisome of our tests much easier to perform. Without sharp corners or excessive texturing, the handles did not wear on the user's hand at all. The handle design allowed for complete confidence and safety when digging and chopping. When cutting fibrous material, the DSU2 clearly demonstrated to us the value of having serrations on a utility knife. There simply was no comparison to its performance on cutting rope and webbing. The Mad Dog knives are a fine exhibition of thoughtful ergonomics, good steel, and excellent edge geometry.
If your safety depends on a knife, it may be worth your while to use your chosen blade to failure to see if it's something on which you are willing to stake your life. While some may scoff at our tests as being "ridiculous" or "too extreme," it is nonetheless important to understand the limitations of one's equipment. Are you willing to accept failure in a such a potentially critical tool? I'm not. Buy discount gear and get discount performance.
.png.370fa2c657443a46f0eb80c66dce0fdb.png.a4bc84e9fe55c76d73ea52d25517b41e.png){kind=logo}
