Talk:Ka-Bar/Archives/2012

Not sturdy?
In the article it says it is not sturdy, why does it say that? Can any evidence be cited to justify that claim. If some isn't I intend to edit it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.200.30 (talk • contribs) 05:25 UTC, January 1, 2006
 * Removed as uncited. Kafziel 13:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The mentioned "fact"
Just to mention a fact : The "K" is because the metallic part of the knife extending inti the handle has got a "K"-profile!

Should this be a part of this article? It sounds like the person that added this "fact" is arguing with the original editor. This type of disagreement should be aired out on the talk page, or the new editor should modify the article in a more appropriate fashion. I will delete this section if it is not. --Boothcat4320 22:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Removed as uncited. Kafziel 13:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Dating claims
would have been considered unremarkable in 1820.

Shouldn't there be a reference for that? What, exactly, is so particular about 1820? Would it not make mroe sense just to say something like 'would not have looked out of place in armouries from the beginning of the nineteenth century'? 172.214.164.27 20:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agreee; in fact, in the early 19th century the Bowie knife was actually quite remarkable - Jim Bowie's use of one in 1827 remains legendary. Changed from 1820 to "at that time" (i.e., 1890). Kafziel 13:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

originally designed as a hunting knife in 1315 BC

That seems a bit early. Can a more accurate date be found?

Yah. I just deleted that portion of the sentence. Clearly nonsensical vandalism.CsCran 16:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

O.k. Just reviewed history and reverted to previous date of 1746. There is no citation for this, however. That "fact" also contradicts the date of the founding of the company that is supposed to have made the knife since before it's use in combat...(I was only reading this article in passing and realized it had been vandalized. I have seen this on a couple of occaisions, so decided to register to help the cause. I am not interested in the subject enough to research this issue or contribute to the article further. Sorry.)CsCran 16:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am perfectionist enough to go back through the edits to make a little more sense of this. Found a date of 1898 which makes more sense. Still no citation though. (sorry. new at this)CsCran 16:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Title
KA-BAR is meant to be written in all caps (per how the company spells it). I edited the article to address this issue, but I am unsure of how to (or if I am able to) edit the title. Would someone please edit it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.121.136 (talk • contribs)
 * Very good catch, I never noticed that before. Fixed. -- Armadillo From Hell 06:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the company used a variety of stampings on its knives - not just KA-BAR. Mostly notably, the common tang stamp in the sixties and later was Kabar in italics. . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.23.64.14 (talk) 13:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Other Models?
Alright this article makes no mention about any other models made by the company. In fact in my opinion it implies that the company only makes that one model when in fact they make dozens of models. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TomDG (talk • contribs) 03:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

Very good point....KA-BAR is a full-line brand. Folders, fixed blades, etc. This Wiki article is highly misleading in that regard.... also misleading in regard to the link to Emerson Knives which 'almost' suggests Emerson is the next evolutionary step to KA-BAR.71.68.45.238 20:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This Article could potentially be split, as Ka-Bar is the corporate name for the manufacturer of the primary-subject knife plus other knife designs; and Knife Mk 2 Mod 1, jointly developed by the United States Marine Corps and Ka-Bar and later subcontracted to Camillus Cutlery, Ontario Knife Company, &c., is the legal name of the primary-subject knife. Recommend reading History.jsp at KaBar.com before further discussion on a split proposal, as the Editor community has a judgment call to make on a decision whether to split this Article. &mdash; B. C. Schmerker (talk) 22:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the USMC 1219C2 Combat Knife or as it was later designated, the Mark 2 Combat Knife or USMC Knife, Fighting Utility was developed not by 'KA-BAR' (this was only a trademark in 1942) and not by the Union Cutlery Co. but by two Marine Corps officers working in conjunction with Camillus Cutlery Co. It was Camillus which received the first military order for this knife.  Only later did Union Cutlery, Robeson, and PAL Cutlery Co. receive wartime military production contracts for the 1219C2 (Mark 2) knife.Dellant (talk) 23:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

See Also...Emerson Knives??
I see no reason for Emerson Knives to be linked here... The fact (even if true) that Emerson designed a 'new' knife for search and rescue has absolutely no bearing on the development or history of Ka-BAR. (You have to follow the link to Emerson to understand the connection they make). Point is, the KA-BAR wasn't designed as a SAR knife, and the link/reference to Emerson seems purely anecdotal.

This is merely free advertising for Emerson Knives. Could someone undo this?? I'm not sure how! Engr105th 18:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I deleted this topic/link...based on the above..Let me know if this is incorrect:)


 * I agree, I was the primary author on the Ernest Emerson article and didn't agree with the way that link was worded. The fact remains that when the Ka-Bars were used in that incident they cut the men that were trying to be saved and eventually broke to the point of becoming unusable through catastrophic failure.  I don't understand the free advertising quip.  It's not a link to a commercial site it was a link to Ernest Emerson's biography page. Thanks for removing it all the same. --Mike Searson 13:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Repeating
The fact that the blade is 7 inches is mentioned twice in the first paragraph. Im just pointing this out. 75.26.200.199 03:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the meaning of the parenthesis after the very first word in the first intro paragraph. It says something like "KA-BAR (trademarked as capitalized KA-BAR)," when both words are in fact capitalized, which I think removes the need for the parenthesis. Parablooper (talk) 22:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Parablooper

Standard Issue
I was an active duty Marine from 1995 to 2000 and the KA-BAR was absolutely not "standard issue" then. They were available at most PX stores and many of us (myself included) bought them, but it was strictly an optional purchase. They may have been standard issue for certain MOSes (military occupational specialties,) but not mine.

I was Active Duty in the Infantry (mid 1980's to mid 1990's) you were issued a KaBar and an M7 Bayonet along with your other weapons. I've had sharper butterknives than what was issued, so bought my own blades.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008
Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 13:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Self Contradiction?
The following passage at the beginning of the Service section seems superfluous and non-NPOV: "Today, KA-BAR makes Army and Navy versions as well but USMC versions are better.[1] They are virtually identical to the Marine version except for different initials at the bottom of the blade and different symbols on the sheath." Recommend replacing with just the following: "Today, KA-BAR makes Army and Navy versions, in addition to their USMC version." Further recommend review for NPOV for all other points using the same source as above. -EvilEdDead (talk) 21:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Measurements
The measurements of this article are entirely imperial measurements should metric measurements be provided? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.58.148 (talk) 03:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Rework needed
This article could be made much better with a better writer. I have done my best to remove the falsities (such as that KA BAR is an acronym and that there is a "typical KA BAR") and cited my sources but writing is not my strong point and WP is very new to me.

As a knife dealer, I'm constantly faced with people asking for a Mark II style knife by asking "You got any KA-BARs?" This article does virtually nothing to differentiate between the KA-BAR company, which was merely one of several manufacturers of this design. Ironically, KA-BAR is neither the designer nor the provider of the most Mark IIs, but Camillus is, yet nobody ever asks for a "Camillus". This article smacks of a thinly-veiled advertisement for the KA-BAR company. Searching for Mark I, Wikipedia provides an unbiased, generic article for the trench knife that is no longer used rather than shilling for one particular manufacturer. Conversely, a search for the Mark II redirects to an article that capitalizes on and galvanizes popular ignorance to benefit a corporation which no longer holds any military contracts for the Mark II and didn't invent the model. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WeaponGuy (talk • contribs) 09:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)