Talk:Fighting knife

Ambiguous

A fighting knife "is a knife ... designed to inflict a lethal injury ... In contrast ... a trench knife ..." (From trench knife article:) " is a ... knife designed to kill or gravely incapacitate..." How is that "in contrast"? It sounds like all 'kill-people' knives can be easily classified into one category, distinguished from butcher knifes, fillet knives, etc. I think the difference, if there is one, should be made more clear. If it's really just splitting hairs, or bs marketing terms, these articles should be merged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.191.86.69 (talk) 07:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not in contrast at all. It is an expansion on the previous Idea. I have changed it. Jazzlw (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

New Article

As a fighting knife encompasses many subcategories of offensive knives (combat knife, trench knife, tactical knife, fighting-utility knife), I have created a separate article per the discussion on the talk page at Combat knife. Dellant (talk) 23:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

"tactical knife"

Here is the earliest mention of this term I could find: [1] It's a Police products handbook, dated 1990. The author is already aware that this is a made-up term to refer to Fairbairn-Sykes lookalikes popular "because of the commando connotations". You can buy a folding knife, or then you can buy a tactical folding knife with "martial features". If you are a would-be tough guy who likes to dress up in "commando" chic, you are obviously going to buy the latter. --dab (𒁳) 11:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, the terminological distinction from combat knife made with so much emphasis in the article is spurious. It dates from an article of 1944. It may or may not have made sense then, it certainly doesn't make sense now. The very term "tactical knife" was coined in the 1990s because of the market of "paramilitary" geeks who want to buy bad-ass "commando" type fighting knives. So the knife producers obliged. Therefore there are now "tactical knives" produced for the private market, as it were sold as "even more military than military knives". --dab (𒁳) 11:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

actually, it should be pointed out that "tactical knife" is a term coined in US American English. Check out its distribution on google books. You will find it is used in this type of paramilitary/survivalist literature, but much more often simply in the trashy thriller genre, e.g. 2004, 2005, 2007, 2010, 2010, 2011, 2011. --dab (𒁳) 12:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

What you are really advocating is that no distinction be made between "tactical knife", "combat knife", and "fighting knife", and that they all redirect to the same article. You are right that the general public tends to use all three terms interchangeably - much like an AK-47, a 9mm Uzi, and a semi-auto AR-15 are all called "high powered automatic weapons". That fact, however, doesn't mean it's correct to do so. Various secondary sources have made such distinctions between these terms over the years, and the fact that a reference dates from 1944 does not make it 'spurious' or any less useful today - it merely indicates how long such distinctions have been in use. A wartime reference, however old, is certainly superior to the practice of inserting one's own opinion without substantiation, a practice which all too often has been used for these types of articles.

The real danger in adopting a common, generalized, popular dictionary definition of several distinctive knife classifications, as you propose, can be seen in the modern definition of Dagger: "any knife or instrument with a sharp point that is designed OR capable of being used as a stabbing weapon". Once this was done, anything from an ice pick to a chef's knife became a "dagger". Not only does this practice make it difficult to distinguish a given knife type from another, it enables overreaching prosecutors to criminalize possession of knife types never envisioned by the elected legislature. In the United Kingdom, the prospect of banning all knives on the idiotic principle that "a knife is a knife is a knife" has already been proposed - see (Knife Crime: Seventh Report of Session 2008-09, Vol. 2, Parliament: House of Commons: Home Affairs Committee'.

Your argument for eliminating all definition of a "tactical knife" would be more persuasive had you cited usable references in support, but the one usable non-fiction reference you do cite for a definition of "tactical knife", Tony Lesce's Police Products Handbook, actually supports the fact that a "tactical knife" has key distinguishing differences from a "fighting knife" or "combat knife": "Actually, the police knife is not a weapon, and the officer should not think of it as a weapon. The police knife is a tool, and the tactical knife even more so. Some of its possible uses are: Cutting foliage, as when opening up a firing position. Cutting shrubs to provide camouflage. As a pry bar, to force drawers, cabinets, and even doors. Cutting upholstery to discover hiding places for contraband or weapons, as when executing a search warrant. Digging...With the aforementioned possible uses in mind, we can begin to write a specification: 1. Compact — considerably less than a foot long. Blade length should be about 4 inches because that's all that's necessary. 2. Light. A tactical officer has to carry enough material without being unnecessarily encumbered by a heavy tool that will rarely be used. 3. Extremely strong, because this knife is going to get abused. This almost dictates a one-piece construction, and marginally rules out folders. 4. The knife should be versatile, adaptable for fine work as well as for rough, heavy cutting. 5. The metal should be of high quality, able to take a keen edge. How long it retains it depends a lot on the use. Stainless steel is preferable for obvious reasons. 6. The sheath should have a flap with snap." Mr. Lesce's reference definition appears to exclude tactical folding knives on the basis of strength and resistance to abuse, although since 1990, several strongly-built "tactical folders" have come to market that are capable of being used in some, if not all extreme use/abuse situations. Nevertheless, he correctly points out that the term "tactical knife" is in no way synonymous with that of "fighting knife". The separate definition of a tactical knife as a "knife with one or more military features designed for extreme use" seems therefore to be entirely correct.

All knife terms are, in a sense, "made-up" terms. They are generally but not always coined because there is a need to make distinctions between certain types of knife designs, and it serves a worthwhile educational purpose for the reader to explain why they exist. A tactical knife may be a 'hybrid', but there is nothing new in this. The Navy/Marine Corps' KA-BAR is also a hybrid - a combination fighting and utility knife, and the military designated it as such. What's more, the current article already acknowledges the overlap between "fighting knife" and "tactical knife" in that the terms are frequently used interchangeably by the general public. It's true that the distinction between "fighting knife" and "combat knife", may be a technical one, but it exists, and is defined rather easily - a "combat knife" is simply a fighting knife designed and/or issued by the military - a subcategory if you will.

And finally, I would ask that you end your practice of removing referenced sentences by other contributors from this and other articles. Put in a dubious or discuss template if you want (along with valid secondary source references to support your argument), but don't excise other people's hard work. Dellant (talk) 15:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)