indestructable knives

[Raukodur]

This is the point, roughly speaking, there are two properties of the blade, its cutting ability and edge retention, and its strength/toughness/abilities to take damage or punishment and not fail or break.

The first set of characteristics require a hard metal, but the downside to that is brittleness. The second set of characteristics require a soft metal, but the downside to that is poor edge retention and cutting ability.

Differentially heated/hardened knives mix the two to have the best of both worlds, from ancient katanas and real damascus blades (not pattern welded modern 'fake damascus' stuff) to modern day techniques like friction forging. So the cutting part of the blade is hard and holds an edge, and the spine is soft and gives the blade some flexibility and ability to withstand abuse (or as in the case of damascus, the metal itself combines these properties).

So 'indestructable' blades can either have a good edge which will cost a lot more, or have poor edge retention, but this makes them easier to sharpen, and cost a lot less. I would say the cold steel kukri machete, and most of the other blades mentioned here fall into the latter category, but I may be wrong, please correct me if so.

Would still be interesting to know how cold steel treat the metal they make the kukri machete from, I was rewatching the knifetests video for it the other day, I highly recommend it even though I know the dislike some members have for what he is doing with the knife, and the way it even cuts through the thick metal piping at the end, or bends at 90 degrees+ without failing is quite surreal or a £25 knife.

[asupernothing]

because sometimes when your chopping things you can hit stones/rocks or something harder than you intended and may want a blade that can take it and last.

Accidentally hitting a rock is one thing, but intentionally chopping at a concrete block seems rather pointless.
That being said, if he has the kind of money to throw away on destruction tests for the sake of the destruction rather than the test, its his choice.
I just don't think that the tests he runs should be a final decision maker for anyone.

What he does to knives is the equivalent of driving a Ferrari into a brick wall and expecting it to continue driving.

[Raukodur]

Your analogy doesn't work. A Ferrari in the knife world would be a knife advertised for being very sharp. The knives he tests are the equivalent of 4x4s, humvees, tanks etc, in the car/vehicle world.

So testing them by banging them into a brick wall isn't out of the question.

You watch Top Gear? Even if not, watch a clip on youtube about the Bowler Wildcat. Its not long, and the driver mentions the tests they run on that car and you can see why its relevant when you see the kind of use/abuse they put the car through.

[asupernothing]

Your analogy doesn't work. 

I do agree that its not a perfect analogy. The point I was trying to make is that he seems to be destroying knives for the sake of destroying them. I am not opposed to destruction tests either, a good test should be tough enough that destruction is a likely outcome. If you review his writeup of the Battlemistress test, its makes it through the test and he then destroys it anyway.

If he can afford to destroy knives, that is his right and I don't have a problem with that. I am not arguing against his right to do whatever he wants with his knives. I am simply questioning the scientific validity of the tests.