Marbles Camp Knife (Lynn's $10 MT Challenge)

[Lynn LeFey]

This tool review is part of a challenge I was issued, to see what the best Multitool was I could find that costs at or under $10, including shipping and tax. Here's a link to the main thread of the challenge, so you can see the other competitors.
https://forum.multitool.org/index.php/topic,75705.0.html

This knife can be found sold individually, but mine was purchased together with a copy of the 'FRED' eating tool/can opener for $11.66 off of Amazon. I have Amazon Prime, so shipping was no extra. For the purposes of this review, I'm going to say the little FRED knockoff is worth $1.66, and just assume this thing is worth $10 dead even.

So... what is 'this thing'? It's a modern Chinese manufactured copy of the U.S. Mil-K pocket knife. Or "Knife, Pocket, General Purpose". Or the "Demo Knife". Whatever you want to call it.

My understanding is that it is patterned after the 'Queen' manufactured version of this knife from the mid-late 1980s. The specification for this knife is Mil-K-818, and by the mid 80s, it was the revision D, so Mil-K-818D. There was an odd bit of wording left out of the MIL-K-818-D specification, that led to an oddity in the Queen produced knife, that also found it's way into THIS knife (and, for the record, the Ontario produced copy as well). I'll get to that later, but if you feel like a ...uh... 'fun' read, here's a link to a site where you can download the Mil-K-818D Military Specifications.
http://everyspec.com/MIL-SPECS/MIL-SPECS-MIL-K/MIL-K-818D_19599/

Here's a look at our little pal.


It weighs 107g (3.8oz). It is a BIG HONKING BEAST for being a two-layer knife. By military definition, it has a 'clevis'. Not a bail, not a shackle... a CLEVIS.

It is all Stainless Steel, including the pins. I only point this out because by Mil-K-818D standards, the pins should be Nickel Silver. Ugh... man, my $10 Chinese knockoff ALREADY fails to meet DOD standards.

When you look at this thing with the tools closed, the blades look... odd. 'Bent', or 'wonky'. The strange thing is, that's not the fault of the Chinese manufacturing. It's how the tool is designed.


The back side of the tool has a pretty nice finish, with all layers being ground fairly flush to one another. The edges of the stainless steel scales are not overly rough or sharp, at least around the bottom and ends. There is a fair amount of sharpness on the topside of the tool. Not 'cut yourself' sharpness, but enough that it seems like it could be extremely uncomfortable under heavy grip force.

I try not to modify tools before I start reviews, but in the case of THIS tool, I felt it necessary. In it's original form, it has 'Marbles' written in big ugly black letters on the side of the blade. I got rid of that, because it was an insult to my eyes.

Peening on the tool is alright. All of the blades have a slight side-to-side play. I have read a fair bit about the 'nail breaker' difficulty of opening tools on the actual Mil-K knives, but the springs on this tool are not too strong. I would go so far as to say the spring for the main blade and awl isn't strong enough for my liking, particularly in regards to retention in the open position.

The tool was stiff when it arrived, but I oiled it and worked the blades, something like 50 times open/closed for each. They, and the clevis, all now move freely.

The biggest problem I've had with Chinese made 'swiss army style' knives in the past was the peening. It has been just terrible to the point of making the tool dangerous. I don't have that fear with this tool. In fact, it seems extraordinarily solid. I might go tap the pins a few times to see if i can get the side-to-side blade play out, but I certainly don't fear the tool falling apart.

So, before any real testing begins, I'm generally happy with this thing. We'll see how long THAT lasts.

[Lynn LeFey]

First up for testing on this, the blade.

The blade has a good shape, good belly, and is thick in the edge to spine dimension. This leads me to believe that it would be a pretty sturdy blade. The thickness of the metal stock is ever so slightly less than that of a 91mm Swiss Army Knife. Therefore, overall, i'd assume a durability close to that of the main blade of a 91mm SAK. But who knows what mystery metal it's made of, or how good the heat treatment is? In any case, it FEELS solid, with VERY little side-to-side flex in the blade.

I took the tool out to the garage, and gave it a few taps with a hammer on the pins. That did indeed take all side-to-side blade play out of it. It also tightened it to the point where it doesn't snap closed or open. So... uhh... oops? It still opens and closes fine, though, so on we go. Before tightening, I felt like the blade retention in open position was too weak. After tightening the pins, it seems reasonable, but it OUGHT to be relying on the strength of the backspring, NOT the tightness of the joint.

Out of the package, I tested it cutting standard paper and thin receipt paper. It cut the normal paper with no problem, but wouldn't even hint at cutting the thin receipt paper. I gave it 20 strokes per side on ceramic rods, and it would then cut receipt paper quite cleanly.


Then it went to the cardboard box test. After the first cut through the box, the second cut dragged terribly. I have never in my life experienced a blade dull that fast. Then, when I looked at the blade, I noticed that I'd gotten adhesive on it from a label I cut through. User failure. Not the blade. I cleaned it off, and proceeded to cut a part of the box NOT covered in label. And it worked fine, with a little hesitation on the last few cuts. Still more than I would imagine should be there.


Back to the receipt paper, and... nope. The fine edge is gone. What the...?

So I covered the cutting edge in sharpie marker and ran it through a kitchen knife sharpener. Yup... bad grind. 20 strokes through a kitchen sharpener evened it out, then 20 strokes on the ceramic rods, and it's back to receipt-cutting sharp.

I then went back to the cardboard, to try again. It's going through the cardboard better now, 10 passes through a long piece across the corrugations, then back the the receipt paper. And... now it's holding its edge fine.

I don't mind tapping pins to tighten a tool up, or touching up an edge, but I'm barely into this review, and I've already had to do a fair amount of work to this thing.

Blade: Uhh.... right out of the package, I'm going with FAIL.

Bad edge grind. First and foremost, this thing has to be useful as a KNIFE, and as it comes, it's not very good. It has an initial edge that isn't terrible, but because of the bad grind, that edge went dull almost instantly.

Not good... 

[Lynn LeFey]

The Can Opener.

Here's a look...


I opened 2/3 of a large soup can with this. Only 2/3, because at that point, I realized I also wanted to test the can opener on the FRED knockoff that came with it, and only had the one can sitting around for testing. (Because, you see, I'm crazy, and actually try to keep empty cans around with one unopened end solely for testing can openers in multitool testing threads. Yeah, crazy).

The can opener worked quite well.

And here, I have to put in a historic note. The can opener upon which this is based was designed specifically for the Mil-K knife, and the patent held by Imperial. Imperial and Ulster together formed a company called 'Kingston' solely to fill their military knife contracts. The can opener design was known as the 'Safety Can Opener'. I would call it a great leap ahead in can opener design, compared to previous versions. I would go further in saying that it lives on to this day as the basic design of the can opener on most Leatherman tools, and WAS the same basic design as that on the Wenger knives.

The design still works, and this particular version is quite beefy. I don't think a life time of can opening would make it fail. I'd also point out that there is nothing like a sharp edge on this. It comes to a fair point, but the underside of that hawkbill hook is not sharpened.

Can Opener: Pass

[styx]

so you're revisiting the can opener philosophy?

[Lynn LeFey]

so you're revisiting the can opener philosophy?

I'm not sure what you mean. I'm just testing the can opener on the tool, and I thought some historical side-notes appropriate.

If you're talking about the hookbill vs. Victorinox style can opener, this hookbill was patented in something like 1945, which is 6 years before the Victorinox modern style was rolled out. Huntsman's spreadsheet lists 1951 as when the new style was introduced into the 91mm line. I'll take that as accurate, but at the same time, the 1951 model Soldier knife still had the older style can opener. I guess officers get all the nice new gear. I would go so far as to say that the introduction of the safety can opener likely spurred Victorinox on to make an improved version of their own that didn't infringe upon those copyrights. This, and metal scales seem to have influenced the evolution of the Soldier, which was obviously the tool from which the Mil-K knife evolved. Everybody just seeing everybody else's ideas and taking what was good.

And, a link to the thread where forum member Huntsman made a very awesome spreadsheet of updates to the 91mm Swiss Army Knife timeline by tool changes.
https://forum.multitool.org/index.php/topic,51872.0.html

[Lynn LeFey]

Okay, so... in the first post in this thread, I mentioned that the Marbles knife, and the Ontario made copy were based off of a mid-80s version of the Mil-K knife made by Queen. My understanding, as best as I can piece together is that they got a contract, and things didn't go great, because...

Well...

If you actually READ the Mil-K-818D specification, NOWHERE in it does it actually say that you have to test to make sure the cap lifter will actually WORK as a cap lifter.

The Cap lifter, as produced, on the Queen knife will not open a bottle. Neither will the Ontario version, as i understand it.

And neither will the Marbles.

It doesn't take much work to remedy the problem. You just have to knock a milimeter or so off the hook with a file, like...


Like that. And while you're at it, you might as well flaten that over-rounded flathead screwdriver, too.

Once that's done, it pops caps like a champ.

So... I don't know if this is a function-fail, or historical accuracy win.

I'm going with...

Cap lifter as purchased: Fail
Cap lifter after saying hello to my little friend, the file: Pass
Queen, as manufacturers of military goods: FAIL!!!!!

[Don Pablo]

 

[Zhenchok]

Good read


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lynn LeFey]

Well, without some modification, that tool doesn't work great as a cap lifter, but how does it work as a Screwdriver and pry tool?

As I mentioned above, as received, the flathead tip was more rounded than I like. A bit of testing on a stubborn screw made me think it would want to cam out less if I flattened the head a bit. Which I did. After that minor tweak, it held into stubborn screws quite well, and I'd put it up with a Victorinox 93mm (Pioneer/Farmer/older Soldier) at that point. Very good. Despite not having the strongest tool retention in on open position, I had no problem with it trying to collapse. This was just my impression, after a few uses. Under less ideal conditions, issues might show themselves, because frankly, I can't imagine it staying open very well under severe force, with its retention being as light as it is.

Regardless, it did a great job on the screws holding my house's doors on the hinges. It also has great reach for a flathead, which might be obvious just looking at it.

So it's a good screw driver. How is it at prying? I gave it a run prying open a crusty paint can.


It was very good at this. In fact, it was SO good at this, I was curious how it would do under basically abusive conditions. So, I wedged the flathead blade between two 2x10 boards in my basement and flexed it.


I gave it maybe a 15 to 20 degree bend. And it sprang right back into shape. Nice. Really REALLY nice. Shocking, in fact. I don't do this test on knife-based tools much, because they are not held together with steel pins or bolts, and doing it will stretch or mangle the brass pins, usually. This knife, I felt, could handle it. And it did. So this thing pries more like a bigger multitool than a SAK-knockoff. There was a little side-to-side play in the blades before the test. There was a little after, and I can't tell if it was more, but doesn't seem like it. I think there was no damage to the pins.

As a bonus function, after prying the paint can open, I used the butt-end of the tool as an impact tool to smack the paint can lid back down. Warning, the picture you are about to see confirms that I have arm hair. You ain't married to me, so I don't CARE if it's not sexy. This is a tool review, not a beauty contest! 


Both ends of the tool form pretty good impact surfaces, but I used the side facing away from the clevis. Not a mark on it.


This is a time when you realize the heavy weight of the tool is an advantage.

I have done drop tests before, dropping a tool 10 times onto my concrete basement floor to see how it holds up. I won't be doing that with this tool. Not for fear of damaging the tool, but for fear of damaging my FLOOR.

So, how do I rank it?

Flathead as screw driver, as received: Mediocre pass
Flathead with a little file work: Solid pass
Flathead as lightweight pry tool: Pass with distinction
Tool as light impact device: Pass
Lynn's gorilla arms: 

[SteveC]

Nice review Lynn !     

[Fuzzbucket]

I have to say, I quite like the look of that knife. 

[Lynn LeFey]

Thanks, guys.

We are coming down to final functions here.

One of the tools that is absolutely NOT mil spec is the awl on this thing. The design on the Mil-K knife, listed in the specs, is that the awl will be scooped on the inside. This thing is flat.

While it's not mil spec, the next question is, 'does it work'.

Well, the tip is sharp, and it will punch through material like denim or thick leather quite convincingly. My 'hard' test for an awl is trying to bore a hole through a half inch or so of aged Ash. And the Awl will do that... slowly.

Here is the side that ought to be scooped.


And the side with the edge taper. Although, it doesn't come to a sharp edge...


Drilling the hole in the wood took a good bit of time and a good bit of force, but it was a good test. Holding the tool with a lot of grip, over a fairly extended amount of time wasn't as uncomfortable as I feared it might be. The awl tried to collapse a couple of times, but I felt it happening, and no problems came of it. I think if the tapered edge were actually sharp, this thing would have chewed through the wood much faster. The TIP is sharp. In fact, you can use it a bit like a chisel.

Awl as leather punch: Pass
Awl as reamer or 'drill': mediocre Pass

And that really just leaves the Clevis. You can call it a bail or shackle if you want. The Mil-K spec says 'clevis'.
It is solid. I don't know how I feel about it. Sometimes it feels like it's in the way. It WILL fold pretty well clear of any tool, but you have to fold it away, instead of just getting to your tool immediately. If you need a lanyard to ensure that you don't lose a tool, the clevis is a very secure connection point. I understand that it was a great addition to the tool for comms guys in the military who had to string wire. They would throw a line over a branch, using the Mil-K knife as their weight. The closest modern equivalent I can think of is throwing a line while hiking to string up a bear bag. I suppose this could be done with the split ring on most SAKs and SAK-like knives, but none of those seem nearly as sturdy as this clevis.

Now... okay, don't laugh. This brings up a strange possible application for this knife. I have gone on and on (and ON and ON) about just how bad, how utterly stupid it is to consider pocket knives as a self defense tool. Except this one. Not as a blade, but as part of a Kusari-fundo, a weight on a short length of chain (or possibly strong cord). If this knife were on a lanyard, or 2 or so feet of light chain, I would take it 10 times out of 10 over a blade of any reasonable length for self defense. Considering the stoutness of the clevis, I don't think it would break being used in that way.

And there you have it. All of the various functions of the Marbles Camp Knife.

[Lynn LeFey]

So, here's my wrap-up thoughts.

First, I said in the initial post, this thing comes in a set with a knock-off of the Austrailian 'Field Ration Eating Device', or 'FRED'. The Marbles one is a spork, instead of just a spoon. It's not of the review, but here's a look.


This knife seems about 85% finished. It needs some help right out of the package, but none of its deficiencies are all that hard to fix. It feels solid. It feels ROCK solid. It's a tool that I would not hesitate to maybe mistreat a little. It's cheap enough to replace without any real heartache. It's rugged enough to handle crappy storage, rough handling, and some abuse. At about $10 brand new, I think this tool is worth it.

But, I think I can do better.

The one, maybe obvious question would be... if this is a copy of a Mil-K knife, and they made literally millions of the Mil-K, then could an actual Mil-K knife be found at the $10 price point, and if so, how does it stack up against this Chinese made knock-off?

[Gareth]

Great write-up Lynn.    Sounds like a good 'project' knife for someone who doesn't mind a bit of work.

[Higgins617]

I have about 4-5 Demo knives of various ages, and all have been abused and haven't aged super well.

I love the premise and like that you can get "new" ones for short cash. Just sucks a little that you had to put decent effort into making it work correctly.

Carrying my Ulster today because of this

[Lynn LeFey]

Carrying my Ulster today because of this

 

[Lynn LeFey]

The one, maybe obvious question would be... if this is a copy of a Mil-K knife, and they made literally millions of the Mil-K, then could an actual Mil-K knife be found at the $10 price point, and if so, how does it stack up against this Chinese made knock-off?

And to answer my own question... Yes. The next competitor is a legitimate Camillus made Mil-K knife.
https://forum.multitool.org/index.php/topic,75741.0.html

[Lynn LeFey]

I am about to make what I assume is an unpopular argument.

I think, dollar for dollar, the Marbles Camp Knife is a better value than the Victorinox Pioneer.

Understand, I am in NO WAY saying the Marbles is a better knife. It quite obviously is NOT. I'm just saying that by dollars spent, you get more bang for your buck with the Marbles.

While I was gathering tools for this $10 Challenge, I ALSO purchased the Pioneer that's in these following pictures. During a month of watching, I got it for the best price I'd seen on ebay for new OR used, in anything like decent condition. It cost me $29.99. So, it cost me THREE TIMES as much as the Marbles knife, and that was BY FAR the best price for one I found, with the normal price on Amazon being $35.

These two knives are essentially the same tool, a Soldier Knife. The Pioneer is literally a modern made version of the 1961 model Soldier. The Marbles is a copy of the Queen manufactured Mil-K knife, which clearly shows its tool selection taken from the Swiss Soldier.

Having handled the Legitimate Mil-K knife in this challenge, I can only say that while the tools are essentially the same in function, they differ in terms of finish to an extraordinary degree. There is no doubt. Even the better finished Marbles Camp Knife (compared to the legitimate Camillus made one) is still a good deal less refined than the Pioneer.


Let's look at the blade. Out of the package, the Pioneer had a 'perfect' edge on it. It cleanly cuts phonebook paper. The grind is fine. The Marbles came with a grind that was off, but not badly. It required a few minutes work to get to function at the same level. Blade retention is weak on the Marbles, compared to the strong snap and solid 'lockup' of the Pioneer.

But that doesn't really affect function. Both are slipjoints.

Actual cutting edge is about the same length.


As for the awls, this picture shows the result of each, boring a hole through half inch thick aged ash.


The Pioneer was better. Both faster, and less prone to collapse under force, but both passed. Once again, we don't see a lack of function, only that the Pioneer does it better. And for less thick materials like punching a hole in leather, there is essentially no difference in performance.

Then on to the can opener.


They both open cans fine. I know it's been a bit of a hot topic in the past, but I generally find that I'm faster with the Marble's style opener than the Pioneer. But a few seconds difference in the time it takes to open a can is really kind of irrelevant.

The small flathead driver on the tip of the Pioneer's can opener is a function that the Marble's Camp Knife has no answer for. It functions as a very reasonable light-duty phillips driver as well, and that can be an important function. This is one place where the Pioneer has a clear advantage.

I've discussed before about the caplifter on the Marbles, but again, a problem that took a few minutes to rectify. Testing them as they are now, they both open caps, and both do it well. When we move on to the flathead driver paired with the caplifter, I must honestly give it to the Marble's knife, both for reach, AND as being a better pry tool.


Simple physics tell you that the longer lever is going to be the better for prying, but along with just the length of the driver, the steel pins of the Marble's knife make it more robust for this function, which will be trying to force the layers of the tool apart. As much as the can-opener-as-phillips is a clear point toward the Pioneer, the long flathead is a clear point to the Marble's Camp Knife.

It should probably be called another clear advantage of the Marble's clevis versus the Pioneer's split ring lanyard attachments.

I would call the weight difference significant, but adding an ounce and a third still has the Marble's knife under 4 oz. And while slightly thicker than the Pioneer, it's still as slim as a 91mm Victorinox Tinker. It is still quite pocketable.

Let me say again, for the money, it's not that you're getting a better knife. It's that for that money, and a few minutes work, you're getting essentially all of the functionality, and in some cases, the Marble's knife does it better.

If you ever lost the tool, you're out a lot less money. If you break one, same thing.

I expect so many tomatoes to now fly my way that I plan to start a salsa factory.

If I had the choice, I would clearly choose the Pioneer. But sometimes you DON'T have the funds. The Marble's Camp Knife gets you most of the function at about 1/3 of the cost, it just doesn't look or feel as good doing it.

[Steinar]

 

First tomato: The "demo knives" are well known for their horrible back springs with a tendency to self destruct. I wouldn't be surprised if the service life of a Pioneer is far beyond three times that of the Marbles.

Good luck with the salsa factory! 

[Mechanickal]

And, If you break 3 Marble knives, you're still without a knife.

With a Vic, you're not only buying the knife, but also the lifetime warranty...

[Lynn LeFey]

And, If you break 3 Marble knives, you're still without a knife.

With a Vic, you're not only buying the knife, but also the lifetime warranty...

Direct quote from Victorinox's website: " guarantees a life time against any defects in material and workmanship (save for electronic components 2 years). Damage caused by normal wear and tear, misuse or abuse are not covered by this guarantee."

So... no. Vic is not on the hook if you break your tool doing crazy stuff. Whether they WILL fix it or not, I don't know. As far as I know, that's usually yes.

[Mechanickal]

And, If you break 3 Marble knives, you're still without a knife.

With a Vic, you're not only buying the knife, but also the lifetime warranty...

Direct quote from Victorinox's website: " guarantees a life time against any defects in material and workmanship (save for electronic components 2 years). Damage caused by normal wear and tear, misuse or abuse are not covered by this guarantee."

So... no. Vic is not on the hook if you break your tool doing crazy stuff. Whether they WILL fix it or not, I don't know. As far as I know, that's usually yes.

They never returned a SAK to me unrepaired.
Only shipping needed to be payed.
Broken awl, broken blade... that is NOT normal use

But I understand your reasoning as well

[Lynn LeFey]

Only shipping needed to be payed.

And the difference in shipping cost and just buying a Marble's knife is... $3 I think, where I'm at. Or -$2 if I ensure the package against loss on its way there? And that assumes the problem was damage not 'dropped it in a lake'.

But yes, Vic does have outstanding customer service.