Aniversary mistresses 11.25 inch blade in length?

T

TIERRAVENTURA

Joined
Oct 6, 2012
Messages
394
Good Morning Gents...Very slooow shift this is... longing for a Mistress of the battle kind, and having a look at the Blade magazine pictures published in this forum, I noticed the following:

Standard 2001 BME is 9.5 inches in blade lenght and 15 overall, so the blade is roughly 60% of the total length.
Captura%2520de%2520pantalla%2520completa%252006012013%2520013831%2520a.m..bmp.jpg


According to the pictures, (it could be a perspective distortion,), the blade seems to be 75% of the total length. (5.3-1.3=4, 4/5,3=75%)

BME.jpg



Since handles tend to be standard lenght due to ergonomics, the blade lenght seems to be roughly:

60*9
75*X, X=75*9/60, X=11,25 inches...

If my aproximations were right, we might be seing the birth of the most awsome BM ever existed.... a simple but a mighty machete...I suggest we all kneel before the allmighty satin, aniversary marked, choil-less BM.
 
make mine with a choil please. But a little longer is just fine. 0.27 inch thick would be perfect. zero edge or assymetrical is fine too.
 
if that is true i would FINALLY handle my first own busse knife. This is the flavour that drew me to this place :)
 
I believe your assessment is pretty close to what the blade length spec will be. I've seen a photo of the ASHBM sitting next to the CGFBM and it looks to have about an inch more in blade length than the CGFBM at 10".

I just hope Jerry doesn't make this thing too thick, or it would be a definite deal breaker for me.:foot:
 
TIERRAVENTURA said:
60*9
75*X, X=75*9/60, X=11,25 inches...

If my aproximations were right, we might be seing the birth of the most awsome BM ever existed.... a simple but a mighty machete...I suggest we all kneel before the allmighty satin, aniversary marked, choil-less BM.
Click to expand...

That's been announced...

Jerry indicated the NMSHBM (LB) will have an 11-inch blade length here:

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/s...e-Do-You-Want-To-See-First?highlight=Mistress

…and as aaaa_cccc says above, photos of prototypes on display at the 2012 Blade Show indicate the blade is about an inch longer than an FBM, which is 10”+. See photos in Post 112 by dericdesmond here:

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/s...de-Show-Picture-Thread/page6?highlight=NMSHBM

So yeah, 11” is the prospective blade length per past indicators. Many of the actual blade lengths in the past few years have run about ¼” longer than spec, so that’s also probable (11.25”).

Remember that the NMFBM has that exact same blade length but with the fusion handle rather than the straight handle, so we’ve already seen that blade length in Battle Mistress format (with choil) and in many different stock thicknesses. The difference will be the handle shape and the fact that this handle is to have the weight-reducing Light Brigade treatment.
 
Will York said:
That's been announced...

Jerry indicated the NMSHBM (LB) will have an 11-inch blade length here:

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/s...e-Do-You-Want-To-See-First?highlight=Mistress

…and as aaaa_cccc says above, photos of prototypes on display at the 2012 Blade Show indicate the blade is about an inch longer than an FBM, which is 10”+. See photos in Post 112 by dericdesmond here:

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/s...de-Show-Picture-Thread/page6?highlight=NMSHBM

So yeah, 11” is the prospective blade length per past indicators. Many of the actual blade lengths in the past few years have run about ¼” longer than spec, so that’s also probable (11.25”).

Remember that the NMFBM has that exact same blade length but with the fusion handle rather than the straight handle, so we’ve already seen that blade length in Battle Mistress format (with choil) and in many different stock thicknesses. The difference will be the handle shape and the fact that this handle is to have the weight-reducing Light Brigade treatment.
Click to expand...

How can you remember all that stuff?...anyway...thanks again...and let the mistresses come!!!...

I hope they dont come in many color/thickness choices, because I cant afford my indesition again...
 
I think the thickness will be important. I definitely prefer to be closer to 0.25-0.27". I would love it if they also HT'd to the old Rc of 60-62. But I doubt that will happen and that's not so important.
 
TIERRAVENTURA said:
How can you remember all that stuff?
Click to expand...

My addiction is older than yours by an order of magnitude--I've learned I either manage the info or become hopelessly and deliriously lost in Jerry's manifest endless possibilities. Such a beautiful disease.

My real interest is in how the LB handle will affect balance and how the new straight handle will compare comfort-wise for chopping with the fusion handle at this blade length. For instance, I can't imagine an NMFBM that has even more weight-forward balance--that's one of the few knives I've thought really benefited from more steel/weight in the handle, so lightening the NMSHBM handle with the LB treatment still puzzles me. But if he goes with a thin, full-height flat grind on the NMSHBM it might very well turn out to be a screaming performer. As far as the handle shape goes, everyone (except Cobalt and Cliff Stamp) complained about "Busse pinky" with the old straight BM's, because of the battering the rear talon gives your little finger during extended chopping. I preferred the Basic 9 as a chopper because its ergonomics were so superior to the original SHBM. In fact, the progressive improvement in ergonomics from the E-handles and then the fusion handles came primarily from opening up that rear angle to reduce pinky wear-and-tear, at least in my mind. Contouring the mag handle slab thickness also helped a great deal on the fusion handles.

So who knows--if the new straight handle gets more grip control from contoured mag handles and if the rear talon doesn't bite the pinky as on the original--and if the blade gets a thinner grind than the NMFBM for less weight and more bite--this one may very well be the performer you envision. I certainly hope so--looks drop-dead gorgeous in the photos, that's for sure.
 
BTW, AZTimT scored the promotional give-away NMSHBM at Blade and said it weighed about 21.5 oz, which is lighter than the original SHBM’s, even with the extra blade length on the new one.

Also lighter than the CG BWM (which was only 3/16" thick).

So I am hopeful.
 
Last edited:
Will you are the man to follow, I´ll gladly take you as my Jedi master...LOL... but I have to admit...I´m a sucker for thick knives, sharpened pry bars or whatever name you want on them... I have had my fare share of thin long machetes in my life already... a long thick BM will be much thankful... .27 is ok...closer to .3 much better, if it doesn´t work, at least you can marvel looking at it...

As far as ergos and fusion vs straight handle...well, We all know it´s not a matter of preference...It has been stated before which one is best...The end.
 
Will York said:
BTW, AZTimT scored the promotional give-away NMSHBM at Blade and said it weighed about 21.5 oz, which is lighter than the original SHBM’s, even with the extra blade length on the new one.

Also lighter than the CG BWM (which was only 3/16" thick).

So I am hopeful.
Click to expand...


I'd hazard a guess and say that if it does end up weighing 21.5 oz. that it is probably going to be at least 1/4" thick. I should still be very, very sharp at 1/4" thick because of the full flat grind. Should be an awesome chunk of INFI, but I'm afraid to see the price tag for this one as I'm probably going to want one.....:foot:
 
aaaa_cccc said:
I'd hazard a guess and say that if it does end up weighing 21.5 oz. that it is probably going to be at least 1/4" thick. I should still be very, very sharp at 1/4" thick because of the full flat grind. Should be an awesome chunk of INFI, but I'm afraid to see the price tag for this one as I'm probably going to want one.....:foot:
Click to expand...



aaaa_cccc, in your experience, how far do you think it´ll deviate from list price?
 
original SHBM weights were not standard. They varied considerably in weight initially, until they started machine grinding them and even then the weight was fully dependent on thickness. I have SHBM's as thin as 0.24" and as thick as 0.29" and these SHBM were not all perfectly flat ground, some where and are more of a slight convex grind down to the edge(usually the really early hand ground ones). I once measured about 20 of my SHBM's and found that there were few that were the same thickness.
 
Cobalt said:
original SHBM weights were not standard. They varied considerably in weight initially, until they started machine grinding them and even then the weight was fully dependent on thickness. I have SHBM's as thin as 0.24" and as thick as 0.29" and these SHBM were not all perfectly flat ground, some where and are more of a slight convex grind down to the edge(usually the really early hand ground ones). I once measured about 20 of my SHBM's and found that there were few that were the same thickness.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I recall someone trying to put together a weight chart on Busse knives at one time and the weights on the SHBM varied all the way up to 26 oz IIRC. A couple of years ago I recorded the weight of a .25” thick (on my calipers) SHBM you (Cobalt) sold me that was originally coated and later satin finished by the factory I believe you said. That one was 22 oz.

.25” thickness sounds right for the NMSHBM to me with the LB treatment, an extra inch of blade and hopefully a nice thin full-height primary grind like they put on the SARGE 7.
 
Will York said:
Yeah, I recall someone trying to put together a weight chart on Busse knives at one time and the weights on the SHBM varied all the way up to 26 oz IIRC. A couple of years ago I recorded the weight of a .25” thick (on my calipers) SHBM you (Cobalt) sold me that was originally coated and later satin finished by the factory I believe you said. That one was 22 oz.

.25” thickness sounds right for the NMSHBM to me with the LB treatment, an extra inch of blade and hopefully a nice thin full-height primary grind like they put on the SARGE 7.
Click to expand...


Will, I am not positive, but I think the one I sold you was a factory satin, I have it's twin. I could be wrong. I think that if busse stays within the SHBM weight of approx 22 oz with all the lightening treatments and one extra inch of blade, it would be very nice. But I still want it to be no more than 0.25-0.27.
 
Cobalt said:
Will, I am not positive, but I think the one I sold you was a factory satin, I have it's twin. I could be wrong. I think that if busse stays within the SHBM weight of approx 22 oz with all the lightening treatments and one extra inch of blade, it would be very nice. But I still want it to be no more than 0.25-0.27.
Click to expand...

Will, I am wrong, yours is a slotted bolt, which is not factory satin so you were right. I was thinking about the satin hollow tube one that was factory that I have and sold it's twin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top