5th Annual: Help Us Build a Buck: 104 Compadre - Blade Grind

Blade Grind

  • Hollow Grind

    Votes: 4 5.1%

  • Flat Grind

    Votes: 48 60.8%

  • Sabre Grind

    Votes: 27 34.2%
  • Total voters
    79
  • Poll closed .
I'm a little bummed that the flat grind is pulling so far ahead of the sabre grind... But on the other hand, I feel like a flat grind is probably better for the type of tasks I'd be comfortable doing with a D2 knife.

This thread kind of has me thinking though... For you guys, does the steel decide what you designate a knife as or is it the grind? (I should probably ask this is GKD)

For instance, given the choices of; 5160, D2, sabre grind, and flat grind, I would go with 5160 and a sabre grind for a hard use camp knife and D2 and a flat grind for a light use/utility camp knife. But what if the choices were either D2 with a sabre grind or 5160 with a full flat grind?

Would the steel decide the use for you, or would it be the grind?
 
Last edited:
Fixall said:
Would the steel decide the use for you, or would it be the grind?
Click to expand...

For me, steel and grind both need to support my use.

For me, D2 makes perfect sense for a hunting knife. If I were to vote and I'm not, I would pick hollow grind to match the D2 and then use the knife as a hunting knife.

If the blade was 420HC, I would have voted for saber grind as it gives me more to work with to convex the blade to my liking.
 
Last edited:
Fixall said:
I'm a little bummed that the flat grind is pulling so far ahead of the sabre grind... But on the other hand, I feel like a flat grind is probably better for the type of tasks I'd be comfortable doing with a D2 knife.

This thread kind of has me thinking though... For you guys, does the steel decide what you designate a knife as or is it the grind? (I should probably ask this is GKD)

For instance, given the choices of; 5160, D2, sabre grind, and flat grind, I would go with 5160 and a sabre grind for a hard use camp knife and D2 and a flat grind for a light use/utility camp knife. But what if the choices were either D2 with a sabre grind or 5160 with a full flat grind?

Would the steel decide the use for you, or would it be the grind?
Click to expand...

I’m thinking with a thin blade I would like D2 saber grind and if a thicker blade I’d rather have D2 full flat grind. I actually wanted s35vn at the first but price kinda wrecked that idea and I don’t want a non stainless. I know D2 isn’t recognized as stainless but it’s more so than 5160 and for what I intend to use it for will be sufficient. If I were ordering per my own specs I would have went with 420hc 3mm thick, full flat grind, stone washed/ satin no coating,some jibbing on the top rear of spine, brown canvas Micarta, lanyard hole. I’ve used Bucks 420hc in hard use and it is tough and holds a decent edge and easy to sharpen. And the price is hard to beat for what you get.

But I’m still looking forward to seeing what we end up with and I’m sure it will be a great knife. This will give me a chance to try the D2 setup that’s different than anything I have and how it compares with my 420hc hollow grind knives.
 
Flat grind is really pulling ahead down the stretch! For the use this knife will see (at least from me) I really think it will be the best grind:thumbsup:
So when do we get to vote on the handle??
 
BuckShack said:
I'll go with the majority view over one opinion repeated many times.

D2 and Flat grind will make a fine knife.
Click to expand...

Totally. Seeing how the knife comes together collectively is the best part about these forum knives in my opinion! Besides, with the platform we're working with, it'd be very difficult to end up with a stinker for a knife.
 
Despite my better judgement; I will entertain...

But first; if you're lacking a basic knowledge of simple, 6th grade Geometry, you may never get this. That is fine though, because in most cases the minutiae is irrelevant for everyday cutting tasks.

If we go waaaaaaaay back, I asked about the blade thickness because it's going to determine the efficiency of the blade grind, and in some regards it will also determine what you use the knife for. It's not as simple as picking a steel to use and a grind type when the thickness is unknown unless you're just making something for the shelf. Would you use a fillet knife to baton or chop? Probably no more than you would use Buck's Froe to fillet a fish; right?

These are scale drawings. What I can't provide is specifically what radius is used for someone's full hollow grinding because, well... there are options there. The rest is simple, 6th grade Geometry.

Key:
The 3 on the left are drawn with ~.120" stock (same as a 110).
The 3 on the right are drawn with ~.188" stock (roughly 3/16").
The two in the center are drawn 2" tall.
The next shorter ones are drawn 1.75" tall.
The shortest ones are drawn 1.5" tall.
The red is a full hollow ground profile.
The pink is a full flat ground profile.
The blue is a saber grind at 1/3 blade height.
(Scandi because of the lack of a secondary bevel, if you're following the rhetoric.)​
The yellow is a convex grind at 1/3 blade height.
None have secondary bevels. No, I will not redraw them with secondary cutting edge bevels. Use your imagination...
The "shoulder" is where the saber and convex grinds start.

grinds (002).jpg
Something to think about:
The .188" thick blade that is 1.5" tall and hollow ground (red on right) is similar in thickness to the full flat ground .120" thick 1.5" tall blade (pink on the left). The same can be true for each when you compare the hollow ground .188" to it's flat ground .120" counterpart.

Draw your own conclusions.

That's all I got...
 
For me I think grind and geometry are more factors of a knifes functions than steel but you do need to pair the right steel and HT to the use. On this knife I pictured my use best suited by D2 or 5160 with a Sabre grind with Flat following and Hollow trailing. I would have most preferred a Convex but it isn't an options and maybe if I use and dull this enough I can change it up to convex the edge.
 
MT_Pokt said:
Despite my better judgement; I will entertain...

But first; if you're lacking a basic knowledge of simple, 6th grade Geometry, you may never get this. That is fine though, because in most cases the minutiae is irrelevant for everyday cutting tasks.

If we go waaaaaaaay back, I asked about the blade thickness because it's going to determine the efficiency of the blade grind, and in some regards it will also determine what you use the knife for. It's not as simple as picking a steel to use and a grind type when the thickness is unknown unless you're just making something for the shelf. Would you use a fillet knife to baton or chop? Probably no more than you would use Buck's Froe to fillet a fish; right?

These are scale drawings. What I can't provide is specifically what radius is used for someone's full hollow grinding because, well... there are options there. The rest is simple, 6th grade Geometry.

Key:
The 3 on the left are drawn with ~.120" stock (same as a 110).
The 3 on the right are drawn with ~.188" stock (roughly 3/16").
The two in the center are drawn 2" tall.
The next shorter ones are drawn 1.75" tall.
The shortest ones are drawn 1.5" tall.
The red is a full hollow ground profile.
The pink is a full flat ground profile.
The blue is a saber grind at 1/3 blade height.
(Scandi because of the lack of a secondary bevel, if you're following the rhetoric.)​
The yellow is a convex grind at 1/3 blade height.
None have secondary bevels. No, I will not redraw them with secondary cutting edge bevels. Use your imagination...
The "shoulder" is where the saber and convex grinds start.

View attachment 1098664
Something to think about:
The .188" thick blade that is 1.5" tall and hollow ground (red on right) is similar in thickness to the full flat ground .120" thick 1.5" tall blade (pink on the left). The same can be true for each when you compare the hollow ground .188" to it's flat ground .120" counterpart.

Draw your own conclusions.

That's all I got...
Click to expand...
I need to see it drawn with a secondary bevel. Without a secondary bevel drawn I don't get it. :D
 
MT_Pokt said:
Despite my better judgement; I will entertain...

But first; if you're lacking a basic knowledge of simple, 6th grade Geometry, you may never get this. That is fine though, because in most cases the minutiae is irrelevant for everyday cutting tasks.

If we go waaaaaaaay back, I asked about the blade thickness because it's going to determine the efficiency of the blade grind, and in some regards it will also determine what you use the knife for. It's not as simple as picking a steel to use and a grind type when the thickness is unknown unless you're just making something for the shelf. Would you use a fillet knife to baton or chop? Probably no more than you would use Buck's Froe to fillet a fish; right?

These are scale drawings. What I can't provide is specifically what radius is used for someone's full hollow grinding because, well... there are options there. The rest is simple, 6th grade Geometry.

Key:
The 3 on the left are drawn with ~.120" stock (same as a 110).
The 3 on the right are drawn with ~.188" stock (roughly 3/16").
The two in the center are drawn 2" tall.
The next shorter ones are drawn 1.75" tall.
The shortest ones are drawn 1.5" tall.
The red is a full hollow ground profile.
The pink is a full flat ground profile.
The blue is a saber grind at 1/3 blade height.
(Scandi because of the lack of a secondary bevel, if you're following the rhetoric.)​
The yellow is a convex grind at 1/3 blade height.
None have secondary bevels. No, I will not redraw them with secondary cutting edge bevels. Use your imagination...
The "shoulder" is where the saber and convex grinds start.

View attachment 1098664
Something to think about:
The .188" thick blade that is 1.5" tall and hollow ground (red on right) is similar in thickness to the full flat ground .120" thick 1.5" tall blade (pink on the left). The same can be true for each when you compare the hollow ground .188" to it's flat ground .120" counterpart.

Draw your own conclusions.

That's all I got...
Click to expand...
good post, Sir. thank you.
 
MT_Pokt said:
Despite my better judgement; I will entertain...

But first; if you're lacking a basic knowledge of simple, 6th grade Geometry, you may never get this. That is fine though, because in most cases the minutiae is irrelevant for everyday cutting tasks.

If we go waaaaaaaay back, I asked about the blade thickness because it's going to determine the efficiency of the blade grind, and in some regards it will also determine what you use the knife for. It's not as simple as picking a steel to use and a grind type when the thickness is unknown unless you're just making something for the shelf. Would you use a fillet knife to baton or chop? Probably no more than you would use Buck's Froe to fillet a fish; right?

These are scale drawings. What I can't provide is specifically what radius is used for someone's full hollow grinding because, well... there are options there. The rest is simple, 6th grade Geometry.

Key:
The 3 on the left are drawn with ~.120" stock (same as a 110).
The 3 on the right are drawn with ~.188" stock (roughly 3/16").
The two in the center are drawn 2" tall.
The next shorter ones are drawn 1.75" tall.
The shortest ones are drawn 1.5" tall.
The red is a full hollow ground profile.
The pink is a full flat ground profile.
The blue is a saber grind at 1/3 blade height.
(Scandi because of the lack of a secondary bevel, if you're following the rhetoric.)​
The yellow is a convex grind at 1/3 blade height.
None have secondary bevels. No, I will not redraw them with secondary cutting edge bevels. Use your imagination...
The "shoulder" is where the saber and convex grinds start.

View attachment 1098664
Something to think about:
The .188" thick blade that is 1.5" tall and hollow ground (red on right) is similar in thickness to the full flat ground .120" thick 1.5" tall blade (pink on the left). The same can be true for each when you compare the hollow ground .188" to it's flat ground .120" counterpart.

Draw your own conclusions.

That's all I got...
Click to expand...

This rocks. Thanks for posting it.
 
it's a done deal now but MT_Pokt MT_Pokt post got me thinking....is d2 best choice for the ffg? sure work well enough or buck would say nope to it........ but did we all vote for best choices? maybe wrong thread for this discussion.....sorry if going off topic too much......
 
jbmonkey said:
it's a done deal now but MT_Pokt MT_Pokt post got me thinking....is d2 best choice for the ffg? sure work well enough or buck would say nope to it........ but did we all vote for best choices? maybe wrong thread for this discussion.....sorry if going off topic too much......
Click to expand...

I would think that either full flat grind or the traditional Buck hollow grind would be good matches for D2 on a knife like this. I actually think this knife has ended up in a sensible configuration. I don't see full height hollow or saber being particularly good choices. YMMV.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top