Spyderco Tuff Review: 5 months in. WARNING HUNTING pics

[yowzer]

Reviews like this make me really want to take up hunting. Problem is all the money I'd spend on a deer rifle ends up going towards knives. :rolleyes: Maybe rabbits...

[JLS]

Thank you for an excellent and very thorough review. It's good to see a knife really getting used without regard to a few scratches.

[JNewell]

Nice work (and a lot of it) - thank you!

[prime77]

I always love taking the time to read your reviews. You really show that you put the knives you review to work.

[KardinalSyn]

I enjoyed reading this comprehensive review of the Tuff. Thank you for doing this and It is very much appreciated.

[Minibear453]

Very great review. It's also very considerate and thoughtful of you to post a warning. Much respect for that sir.

Side note: What is the rifle on top of the deer? Just curious. I'm a lover of firearms too.

The warning's somewhat redundant though. If no one here has been bit.. well, if that's you, welcome to the forums! :D

[Brock O Lee]

Now thats a proper real-life review. Very entertaining, thanks!

[Revival]

Reviews dont get any better than this.

[Cliff Stamp]

While I appreciate the wealth of commentary and very broad scope of work, this thread does make a very obvious point about the lack of consistency and even outright hypocritical nature of many of the posters.

This Tuff was used over an extended period of time for lots of work, far beyond simple cutting, including chopping vegetation with a rear grip; the knife held up well, the owner was pleased and there were no comments against such as folding knives are not to be used for chopping from the posters. However a thread awhile ago was deleted by the OP after he used a Tuff for similar work (but much less extensive) and the lock had issues. The response to that thread was to attacking not only the way he used this same knife but against the poster personally so much so that it caused them to deleted the thread and leave the forum.

When a complaint against a certain type of use is made only when that use reveals a problem, it shows that the complaint, and even the complainer, is completely biased as they are using the outcome of a test to dictate validity of the test - that is one of the most basic flaws in critical analysis. When a test shows failure, the test is invalid - it should be fairly obvious why this logic can not be used (because if it is then the product can never fail a "valid" test, it is the "no true Scotsman" fallacy)

Back to the OP, nice writeup and great job.

[xavierdoc]

When a complaint against a certain type of use is made only when that use reveals a problem, it shows that the complaint, and even the complainer, is completely biased as they are using the outcome of a test to dictate validity of the test - that is one of the most basic flaws in critical analysis. When a test shows failure, the test is invalid - it should be fairly obvious why this logic can not be used (because if it is then the product can never fail a "valid" test, it is the "no true Scotsman" fallacy)

Back to the OP, nice writeup and great job.

This effect will lead to positive publication bias, of which I know I will be inadvertently guilty. I acknowledged earlier in the thread:

There is an element of publication bias- I tend to get rid of knives I'm not using/don't like, so I don't end up writing a review.

[Fred Sanford]

The warning's somewhat redundant though. If no one here has been bit.. well, if that's you, welcome to the forums! :D

Your post makes no sense to me at all. Are you in another country where English is not your first language?

[Cliff Stamp]

This effect will lead to positive publication bias...

That is one of the issues, the most common side effect of that is assumption of quality - he said nothing therefore there were no problems. A well known example of this was a review of an ATAK by Nemo and Fred who received the knife but never did write a review. They would be referenced though in discussions and the implications were that the knife had to be decent or else they would have said. The reality revealed itself later on when Mike Turber did a very public review which showed the knife to have problems, problems with Nemo verified they had saw as well but never wrote about as they didn't want conflict and thus they clarified if there was a problem they just didn't write anything hence the reason why their reviews were in general very positive. As long as this is known clearly then the results can be interpreted taking that into account, the common reference to - he never met a knife he didn't like.

Any features of the Tuff which made it stand out to you for the type of work it was used for?

[jabba359]

While I appreciate the wealth of commentary and very broad scope of work, this thread does make a very obvious point about the lack of consistency and even outright hypocritical nature of many of the posters.

This Tuff was used over an extended period of time for lots of work, far beyond simple cutting, including chopping vegetation with a rear grip; the knife held up well, the owner was pleased and there were no comments against such as folding knives are not to be used for chopping from the posters. However a thread awhile ago was deleted by the OP after he used a Tuff for similar work (but much less extensive) and the lock had issues. The response to that thread was to attacking not only the way he used this same knife but against the poster personally so much so that it caused them to deleted the thread and leave the forum.

When a complaint against a certain type of use is made only when that use reveals a problem, it shows that the complaint, and even the complainer, is completely biased as they are using the outcome of a test to dictate validity of the test - that is one of the most basic flaws in critical analysis. When a test shows failure, the test is invalid - it should be fairly obvious why this logic can not be used (because if it is then the product can never fail a "valid" test, it is the "no true Scotsman" fallacy)

Back to the OP, nice writeup and great job.

You must not correctly remember the original thread. The knife that failed was from someone who admitted modifying his knives (and I admired much of the work he had done), there was evidence that he had modified the knife that failed, he provided no picture evidence of the knife, and when offered by Spyderco to examine his knife, he refused. He also claimed that the main reason he was leaving the forum because he was extremely busy and didn't have time to participate any more, not solely because he was forced out by forum members calling for evidence to back up his claims that the knife was faulty. I will admit that some people were overly harsh and a small minority made claims that the knife wasn't designed for chopping. Just because a few made these claims doesn't mean the general population of the forums concurs with this sentiment.

I don't think you have a right to call the forum members hypocrites and your "critical analysis" is as flawed as those you are accusing. These are two completely differently documented scenarios (insofar as this one is highly documented photographically while the failed knife had no such evidence) and unless you have proof that the same exact forum members who chastised the type of use on the failed one are now the very same people praising this review, you are merely lumping the responses of some in the former thread with what is potentially a completely different set of forum members now commenting on this thread.

As an aside, I defended the character of the OP of the knife that failed in the deleted thread (I had enjoyed his mods and many contributions in the forums), as I prefer to reserve judgement until sufficient evidence it provided. Unfortunately, none ever materialized in that case, so I have no idea whether it was a knife defect or user initiated failure and it appears we will never know.

So yes, I certainly appreciate and applaud the review in this thread and the use the knife went through. I hope that other people don't feel that they can't also share in the praise of this review without being labeled as hypocritical. If anything, we should use well documented tests like this as a basis for improving our own reviews and perceptions of how the knives should be used.

[jabba359]

Your post makes no sense to me at all. Are you in another country where English is not your first language?

It made sense to me... :)

[Minibear453]

Your post makes no sense to me at all. Are you in another country where English is not your first language?

Does California count? I really need to stop commenting that late.. but I was trying to say everyone here should be used to the sight of blood-especially their own, after getting bit by a spydie... :o

[Cliff Stamp]

The knife that failed was from someone who admitted modifying his knives (and I admired much of the work he had done), there was evidence that he had modified the knife that failed, he provided no picture evidence of the knife, and when offered by Spyderco to examine his knife, he refused.

None of that is relevant to commentary on the work itself being abusive in that case but accepted in this case.

I don't think you have a right to call the forum members hypocrites and your "critical analysis" is as flawed as those you are accusing. These are two completely differently documented scenarios (insofar as this one is highly documented photographically while the failed knife had no such evidence) and unless you have proof that the same exact forum members who chastised the type of use on the failed one are now the very same people praising this review, you are merely lumping the responses of some in the former thread with what is potentially a completely different set of forum members now commenting on this thread.

The fact that it failed then and didn't now is precisely not relevant as noted, making that relevant shows that you have the same bias of focus as you are letting that dictate your opinion of the test/work. The absence of those same members would very quickly and very heavily responded in criticism of such work - but are in complete silence here is the point, again the outcome of the test/work is influencing the opinion/posts on its validity.

As an example, if you are someone who believes that cutting 3/8" hemp rope for example is not something that can be used to gauge edge retention and :

-when someone does hemp rope a a knife brand you support does poorly you make this argument

-when someone does hemp rope work and a knife brand you support does very well you do not make this argument

This clearly shows the behavior argued and the nature of the individual as someone who is simply and apologist, and as noted by the OP, produces systematic misinformation because it produces a positive skew and clearly sends a clear message to OP's.

[Evil D]

Excellent review. Makes me wanna go hunting :D

[JudasD]

I love the review! Thank you for the thorough picture work.

JD

[Fred Sanford]

Does California count? I really need to stop commenting that late.. but I was trying to say everyone here should be used to the sight of blood-especially their own, after getting bit by a spydie... :o

LOL. Whoops. I also need to quit reading things when I'm super tired. I needed sleep bad. It makes sense now when I re-read it. Not sure what I was thinking. Regardless, sorry if I came across rude or anything. Not my intention. :)

[Zenith]

Thanks for the writeup. I am glad to see someone else also using the choked up grip with the finger over the tip as seen here



I learned this technique years ago and have applied it ever since with knives.

Thank you once again. One of the best working reviews I have read in a long time.