Talk:KA-BAR

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. --ArmadilloFromHell 06:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Be-Bunking "Ka-Bar"

In the last lines of the article regarding the "ka-bar" fighting knife, it is suggested that the name comes from 'knife attachment, browning automatic rifle'. It is my feeling that this is a terribly deceptive fiction. At the time of the acceptance of the Ka-Bar bayonets were separate, much longer pieces of cutlery from a soldiers fighting knife. Provisions on the knife for bayonet lug attachment in some models are a recent occurrence, to accommodate a knife to the M-16 platform. The original knife, and most examples still in service were never intended, nor designed to be rifle mounted. Secondly, to my knowledge, The BAR, or browning automatic rifle, never had a provision for bayonet mounting. The BAR is a large, heavy magazine fed .30-06 medium machine gun. It would be difficult to use in hand to hand combat for all but the largest of persons, and its sheer mass as a bludgeon would be more than sufficient if it were. But most importantly the BAR was equipped with an integral bi-pod mount at the muzzle, which left no room for a bayonet lug. The BAR is a squad support weapon, and mounting a bayonet on it would be as sensible as attaching a sword to a tank's main gun. You could, but why would you want to? The Ka-Bar companies claims about the name's origins may itself be a fiction, but it is at least not a fiction that contradicts observable facts. Facts that seem to include, by no small consequence, that the knife bore the name Ka-Bar BEFORE it was accepted for military service. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.229.148.149 (talk) 05:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC).

I must agree with the above...KA-BAR probably never meant "knife attachment - browning automatic rifle". Wonder if the KA might be "knife, accessory" or some such? (think how the military uses the commas when making official supply descriptions).... But anyway my guess (uneducated) is that KA-BAR is a phrase from the civilian side, not the military. Anybody know who the actual designer was?Engr105th 18:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Mine definitely has no bayonet attachment. Generally our "official" Marine Corps gear had alpha-numerical designations such as M16 for our rifles or M9 for our pistols. While I concede that the original KA-BAR knifes were well before my time, I highly doubt that they were ever used as bayonets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.64.128 (talk) 02:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm extremely skeptical of the statement in the article that all knives in the U.S. military were originally bayonets. I'm pretty sure this statement is flat out wrong. I have asked for a citation of the statement in the article. Also, the "more likely" part of the statement sounds more like an editorial comment than a fact. --HarryHenryGebel 07:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 13:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)