Are big knives with thick blades made for inexperienced users?

I've always liked big blades, but thickness hasn't mattered as much. I do have a Busse Battle Mistress, and many Himalayan Imports khukuris, which are overbuilt for super strength. I do like them, but they are not suited to every task.
Recently I posted a review of the Cold Steel Laredo Bowie (1/4" thick) vs. the Camillis OVB 12" Fisk Bowie (3/16" thick) and found the Fisk to be much easier to handle, without any loss of chopping performance vs. the thicker Laredo. I wouldn't use either of those knives to cut anything thicker than 3" saplings unless I had to.
The Fisk, as you would imagine, is a much better design. The belly and acute bevel give it a big advantage over the thick bevel, straight edged Laredo.
 
Originally posted by Mr.BadExample
I've always liked big blades, but thickness hasn't mattered as much. I do have a Busse Battle Mistress, and many Himalayan Imports khukuris, which are overbuilt for super strength. I do like them, but they are not suited to every task.
Recently I posted a review of the Cold Steel Laredo Bowie (1/4" thick) vs. the Camillis OVB 12" Fisk Bowie (3/16" thick) and found the Fisk to be much easier to handle, without any loss of chopping performance vs. the thicker Laredo. I wouldn't use either of those knives to cut anything thicker than 3" saplings unless I had to.
The Fisk, as you would imagine, is a much better design. The belly and acute bevel give it a big advantage over the thick bevel, straight edged Laredo.
Click to expand...

Thanks for referring me to the Laredo vs. Fisk thread. My inclination is to go with 1/4" stock for my knife, but I think I'm going to tell myself to shut up (SLAP! - "okay..") and trust the maker. Barry has a sterling reputation and I've never been disappointed with one of this knives. (I've bought five so far with a sixth on order, and I've bought one from his niece, Lynn.)

As for the strength issue of 3/16" vs. 1/4", I'm just going to back up my Dawson with something like a Glen Parrell camp knife (www.vikingmetalworks.com). If I need to slice, I'll use the Dawson, if I need to hack, I'll use the Parrell.

Thanks everyone for the input and comments. This is a fun thread.
 
Hallo American friends. Have been reading this tread with interest. Seams to be popular with different knives in yours and mine areas. Fallkniven is prodused here and very good and "american style" Usualy we have the Scandinavian style. Flat grind, thin blade, and not full tang. Now how do we use them. For me after reading a lot of posts here I Think harder than the average Blade Forumer. Some friends use them a lot more than me. In this autumn as in other years I have lived in a cottage in the forest for several Weeks With my hunting team. We have been hunting Moose, deer and bird and have shoot some ten mooses and a lot of that smallgame. We eat ower open fire outside. Cant remember seeng a single knife been broken in the aproximatly 30 years I have seen this as a kid and growing up. One man broke his favorit blade in his traktor when he axidently sat on it and a lot of knives gets destroyed in building work and so on. You work With them with this in mind. The knives this men has as their favorits and take care of stands a lot of hard use. I love to handle a thick knife for the feeling but only nead a scandinavian knife for hard use. Hawe had boath i things that the advantage With a thinner blade is bigger than vice verca. Most people i my sorounding has a handmade knife or a Mora 2000. Ca 11 cm blade and 11 cm handle and ca 2-3 mm thick and 2-2,5 cm vide. This seams to be enougn for scandinavian extented hiking and big game hunting. Also the military gives us this type of knife when we do military service. This type of knife is also our heritage since houndreds of years. Most people here dont eaven reflect that a knife should / could look deferently. Folders is striktly toys for light use here in the north. Have never seen a man With only a folder in my neighborhood whwn it comes to buissness. Maybe they have one to have a clean one for hhe food preparation but most commonly We has two fix blades or just wipe of the blood before eating.
Just a few thoughts in this matter.
 
Originally posted by not2sharp
Clearly there are often real advantages in having the extra mass. But, whatever these advantages might be, and whatever their merit; when we look back a half century, or a century, or more, knives were lighter. They may have been as long or longer then some of your favorite knives, but the stock tended to be thinner.
...What doesn't make sense is that after the tremendous progress that we have made in metallurgy, that our blades have actually grown heavier rather than lighter. Souldn't our new alloys allow us to build knives that are lighter and stronger than what our ancestor's used multiple generations ago?

I'll start us off by arguing that the reason knives have grown heavier is because we have lost many of our skills and our knives have to be overengineered to compensate. We might simply walk into a forest and start hacking on a seasoned oak for firewood, when our ancestors would have used the more suitable pine tree just a few feet away. Or perhaps, they simply knew enough to tempered their swing, when they were forced to use their knives on harder materials. Would you agree?

n2s
Click to expand...

First off, what makes you think knives were generally thinner in the old days? A while back in one of the rags (Knives Illustrated?) there was an article about Jeremiah Johnson's favorite Bowie. It was 3/8" thick! There is an origional antique Bowie in Wilson's books that was made from 1/2" thick steel, and weighs 2 1/2 pounds! I have handled a few dozen origional bigger Sheffield Bowies at shows, and all were made fairly substantial. Read this thread and see how I broke my big Bowie knife during hard use. It was 1/4" thick stock, (though much thinner at that area due to the graceful grinds and distal tapers) and though the main design flaw was the use of stainless steel rather than thickness issues, I'm confident a thinner knife would have broken MUCH sooner.

Knives have always come in a wide range of sizes and thicknesses, and the best examples always used just the right amount of steel for the job. Same today. If your uses don't require a beefy blade, then you'd be unwise to carry one. If you do need a stout knife, you'd be in trouble if you only had a thin knife!
 
FWIW, I have several 19th century Khukris, and comparing them to modern HI (and other) products, they are slightly thinner at the spine (say .38" vs .42" for the same apx. length, but 20% lighter due to blade profile. Still, they are quite stout and were made for, and used by, serious people for serious daily tasks.

I note that in 1976, Ken Warner was reporting the "recent" trend towards thicker knives, citing examples by Randall, Draper, Hibben (pre-fantasy phase), and Moran. Warner used the term "sharpened pry bar." The more things change . . . .

TAL
 
What a facinating thread...I will venture to agree that in the olden days, people used/carried more tools. an axe is vastly superior to a knife in some respects; that's common sense. My Ontario machete is pretty thin, and cuts like a mother, but on hard wood, it binds up. It is not really made for the job. I think that multi-tools are indicative of this line of thought. Really, Multitools suck. they are barely useable, and for only the lightest of tasks. ou should get the toolbox out if you need to fix something. However, they rule in absence of a toolbox. I have used the hell out of mine, because I needed the tool when I wasn't home. At home, though, I can fix more crap with basic tools, and I probably wouldn't use a multi. To bring this ramble back around, Many folks want one knife to do everything, and most of the time, it will excel at one thing, and stink at others. My opinel will out-cut all manner of knives-but if I think about prying, it's history. My endura will cut up all kinds of stuff, and pry a little, but its precision cutting stinks (for me), and it's too hard to use on food. My kabar 110 can cut pretty well, and pry pretty well, but it weighs a ton, and won't keep an edge. They were all designed with different things in mind; many manufacturers know that elu's use knives to screw in screws, and pry, or whatever. This may be the cause of thick knives. Also, as edge-holding ability goes up, so does brittleness. show me a 50 hrc carbon steel blade, and I'll show you an unbreakeable, needing constant sharpening tool.
if anything, I see a return to full flat grinds coming. Ed Fowler, We're not worthy!!--Joe
 
Don't confuse thick blades with thick grinds. My Marbles Fieldcraft is a great example. The steel is 1/4" thick, but the knife is ground with a thinner more efficient cutting edge that most knives produced today.

I loved NirreBosse's post. There a ton of wisdom in his words.
 
Maybe we should look at blade thickness in relation to the blade length?
A 3/8" spine on a 16" bowie knife makes alot more sense than a 1/4" spine on a 3" folder.

Or maybe fear drives the desire for a thick-bladed knife when one goes in to the woods?

Fear that your knife might break and then you would be stuck in the woods without a useful blade?
Or fear that you will need to hack down trees and would be unable to do so with a smaller thin-bladed knife?
Maybe it's fear that you will not be able to improvise with only a thin-bladed knife?

If you spend a week in the woods with only a huge thick-bladed knife and something like a Swiss Army knife, I'll bet you will use the Swiss Army knife the most.
I think it was Buzzbait that once called the Swiss Army knife the "thinking man's survival knife".

Good luck,
Allen.
 
I'm not sure if the spine thickness makes much difference at all, in relation to the length. I have a 1/4" thick Marbles with a 3 1/2" long blade. The spine is thick, but the edge is as thin as a Delica. I think it's all a matter of how you grind the blade.

You're dead on right about the SAK though. In many climates, a SAK is of more use than most any other knife. It's the tool that builds tools.
 
We once checked on equipment use by over twenty crews of 7-12 persons who took 10-14 day backpackers, mostly out west. Very seldom did they indicate any blade use except SAK's, other pocket knives, or blades in multi-tools. Any fixed-blade knives or hand axes carried were not used with the exception of a couple of "kitchen" knives used in food preparation. But neither did any of them use the snake-bite kits they (mostly) carried or cook other than via chemical fuel stoves.
 
Great thread, and yet another reason why BF and the forum members that populate it are great.
 
Originally posted by Buzzbait
I'm not sure if the spine thickness makes much difference at all, in relation to the length. I have a 1/4" thick Marbles with a 3 1/2" long blade. The spine is thick, but the edge is as thin as a Delica. I think it's all a matter of how you grind the blade.
Click to expand...

Though this is not just the case with short blades, the spine thickness will certainly make a difference if you are wanting to make a deep cut. The only way a knife with a thick spine will be an efficient cutter is if it is quite wide (flat or convex grind) or if it has a high, deep hollow grind. With the hollow grind the depth of the cut will be somewhat limited to the distance between the edge and where the grind starts to angle out towards the spine. Of course, if you apply enough down force you will be able to cut deeper, but a knife that is thin at the spine does not have this limitation.
 
You got me Keith. That's it. I'm gonna' start carrying convex ground blades. :D hehehe..... Sometimes I forget that everybody doesn't use convex grinds, or at least flat grinds with convex edges.
 
It depends on what the knife is used for. For instance I have among my collection a Cold Steel Trailmaster and an Al Mar Alaskan.

The Trailmaster, which I got a decade ago, is supreme at cutting wood. I would never dare chop wood with the Al Mar, as the blade is hollow ground and thin as a razor, but with a thick spine. For cutting light brush, skinning, cutting flesh/meat or as a fighter, the Al Mar would win hands down.

Small knives are for the fine jobs, and thin is often better. Example: A.G. Russell's Deer Hunter.

On the other hand, small knives adapted to cut or carve wood are best thick. An example here is my Iisaski Jarvenpaa puuko.

There is NO perfect knife for all jobs. A Trailmaster makes an awfully bad fish filet knife, and a filet knive will not cut wood if your life depended on it. Pick the right knife for the job at hand.
 
Buzzbait said:
I blame overly thick grinds on two factors.

The first offender is Sylvester Stallone. Every greenhorn outdoorsman wants a Rambo knife, whether it actually works or not. After all, it is more important to look like Rambo than to actually cut stuff.
Click to expand...

Randall knives were made out of .25" stock a long time before Sly was around.
 
The thread lives again! :eek:

Ah well. As for me, I like thin on most knives. When I go woodswalking, an Estwing #1, Western #66 and a SAK Soldier or Socut knife keep me company. Good cutters, all. However, if I were pressed into one knife, it'd be my BRKT Rogue. It's a 1/4" spine, heavily convexed, but cuts like a demon on steroids.

That is, I believe, where experience comes to the fore. If I have a choice, I know the right tools for the job. If I don't, I know the wrong tool that'll still get the job done. I can make a fairly good axe out of flint, and have done so many times. However, if I have to walk in the woods with one piece, I could do much worse than a 7" Bowie.
 
It's back! :D

Randall knives were made out of .25" stock a long time before Sly was around.

I would suggest that the trend towards heavier general purpose knives Started with the WWII Kabar, the Q225, and the like. If we look at the knives that were in general use before the war, they tended to be smaller and relatively thin. There were bolo knives, cleavers, khukuries, and heavy Bill hooks before WWII; but these tended to be percieved more as specialized tools.

The military probably took one look at the 19 and 20 year old kids they were going to place into combat and decided that the only way their personal knives would survive for more then 5 seconds was if they made them sturdy enough to survive the adrenaline rush of these green troops. Then after the war these kids came home with an entirely different perception of what a good knife was, and they have been the ones driving our perception of knives ever since.

n2s
 
how come it took me so long to find this thread?
Very interesting reading and lots of food for thought now that I am getting more and more interested in studying knife performance and the factors that affect it.
 
yeah, that was a very interesting thread. (and old ;) )

But after reading it, I feel compelled to drop $.02

I find myself on both sides of the fence. I find that carrying a large, "thick and wide" bladed Knife while camping is a pretty decent replacement for an axe, with less weight- and as long as I am not felling trees or building a cabin, It will handle any chopping chore I need to accomplish. At the same time, I definitely will have a thin bladed knife along. The right Knife for the job, I guess. The many historical arguements presented here were interesting to read.
I personally think that most Knives in the past were inferior to their modern counterparts in just about every way. Knives have become "overengineered" perhaps, but this is due to consumer demand/preference. Makers are compelled to make a niche for themselves in the midst of fierce competition in what is unfortunatly a niche market -most sheeple dont have much use for, and/or are afraid of, knives, Most people who dont know much about knives end up buying garbage- the niche market has become a tiny crack now. making your knives indestructable can only help with marketing, How many people in the past had hundreds or thousands of smiths competing for their money?
In the past, people carried and used knives constantly. As stated before, larger and thicker knives were considered specialized tools. This is still the case today, IMO. People simply use knives for less generalized uses. In the past, you might only have one knife, so a thinner blade would make it more suitable for a variety of tasks. if you wanted to chop, you grabbed your axe. Nowdays if you want to cut trees, you grab your chainsaw. People still use a variety of tools, but when it comes to knives we have a wide selection, and are not stuck with one general purpose knife, but an endless assortment of specialized tools for different tasks. Choppers for chopping, slicers for slicing, etc. (and Dork-Ops for Covertly De-Animating) ;)

Not sure if I am being at all clear in my opinion. I am kind of tired.(standard cop-out) :D Sorry if It rambles too much.
:yawn: Good Night.
 
Hey, cool thread, I'm glad it was discovered :) Here's what I think:

'twould appear that thick blades are here to stay. As someone pointed out, Randall has been making thick blades for some decades, now. The fact that makers are still producing them and that users are still using them bears at least some testament to the usefulness of a thick-bladed knife.
You only have to be let down once by a little bitty blade to appreciate a strong one.
Click to expand...
This is a large part of the driving motivation for a big knife. I took a wilderness survival course. In the course, we used a knife, a camp shovel, and a multitool to accomplish all of the activities essential for sustaining life. We constructed shelters, of both all natural material and using a tarp (the lap of luxury :D ); we made fires using our knife, a firesteel, and all natural material for tinder, kindling, and fuel; we made traps and snares and cleaned any came, including fish; and any other activity required. The purpose of the experience was to teach us both concrete skills and the ability to think and adapt as needed.
In the course, we were issued a Cold Steel Bushman. It's a relatively thin knife, for its 7 1/2" blade. One characteristic I determined I would like in a wilderness survival knife is a thick blade of at least 3/16". This allows for better prying and chopping. Granted, a prybar is better for prying and an axe is better for chopping; however, in a survival situation, you use what you have available to accomplish the necessary tasks. In lieu of that, a big knife can be used for a whole lot of different activites, everything from cleaning game (it can be done, just takes more skill and practice... ) to chopping branches for an improvizational shelter. A large camp knife is a jack-of-all-trades tool. It can do what it needs to, even if it is less adept than other tools. This, I believe, is the main strength and purpose of a large, thick knife.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top