The Deacon wrote:Starting this in an attempt divert the hijack of the Casual Bombshell thread.
Good call.
The Deacon wrote:The knife would probably have to be fully assembled or, at the very least, a kit where all parts were supplied. Either would, as a general rule, add to the cost.
I'd envisioned it as just the blades, with the handles and hardware sold separately. That way, you have the option of buying a handle for each blade or just buying one or two handles and rotating the blades. Reduces materials cost for some; eliminates assembly cost.
I like the Mule idea, but the only one I've ever purchased was the 9Cr because it was so cheap that it could be a "why not" purchase. I've used it in the kitchen a bit, but it sure hasn't been "tested" in the spirit of the program; it's still on its factory edge after almost a year. It's just very hard for me to justify buying fixed blades, especially if they're not ready to go. Since I don't think I'm capable of making a sheath that's good enough to justify the effort, and I already have complete fixed blades ready to go, actually legally carrying my Mule means carrying it boxed in my hand. Needless to say, it doesn't leave my property often.
Sequimite wrote:when the Mule project started I asked Sal if they would do a folder blade that would be interchangeable with a production knife and he replied that they couldn't do that because of legal liability concerns and difficulty in fit between handles made in one batch and blades made in different batches, so I think we're talking about a finished knife with the current Mule blade steel.
That's disappointing. A completed UK Mule would still be good, but it seems less in the spirit of the original, and of course a little more costly. Still, the project began a long time ago, I wonder if the interchangeability side of it still applies so completely now, since the FRN UK seems to be so simple as far as fitment. Liability is something else again.
The General wrote:To be fair, the blade shape would be best as a scaled down version of the Mule IMHO. I see it as the Spyderco blade shape anyway.
To my eyes its almost as much of a trademark as the SpyderHole.
I think the UK's drop point shape is a more useful and effective tool for most uses, but I must admit this is a good point. The leaf shape just screams Spyderco.
Ben_1323 wrote:I think the current fixed blade platform makes more sense for testing purposes. A small folding knife, especially a non-locker, would be more difficult to put to hard use and learn about its edge retention, toughness, etc.
True, but it's about equally true that a fixed blade is more difficult to put to EDC use and learn about its qualities under realistic circumstances. Clearly both is better than either one alone.
Joe Internet wrote:My understanding of the mule team concept is that it allows people to try new steels, with the idea that it generates real world feedback for Spyderco. This feedback helps them with developing future products.
That's the idea, but I kind of have doubts about how successful it's been in gathering feedback. I don't recall ever seeing a thread where someone compared every Mule to date. Actually, I don't think I can remember a comparison of more than two of them at a time. The vast majority of the Mule reports I hear have to do with the pretty scales and sheaths that have been added, not the performance of the steel that's being tested. I get the feeling that the Mule project has been of great value as a platform for modders but of negligible value as the feedback tool it was originally intended to be for Spyderco. A more affordable folding Mule with less "pimpability" might, peradventure, improve that side of things.
