Are big knives with thick blades made for inexperienced users?

What has anyone had to pry in the woods?
(By had I mean if you couldn't pry (what ever) you'd be at risk of hypothermia, hunger, medical emergency, etc.
Not if, but had. Not in case, not could, but had, as in been there, done that, there was no other way out.)

Also there is a second half to the "Jack of all trades" line (as taught to me by my father....)
"Jack of all trades, master of none."

For the record, alot of the old Sheffield era knives were quite thick.
It's not a new idea...I just wonder why, with all of the new uber steels, knives aren't getting thinner.

Maybe buyers want thick so they feel they are getting their $$$'s worth?
 
Ebbtide said:
What has anyone had to pry in the woods?
Click to expand...
You never *have* to, in the sense that you can't do it any other way. You can built a shelter without a knife if it comes to that, you just have to use deadfall. A knife gives you more options, a knife which enough lateral stiffness to pry significant gives more, specifically it allows you to break apart wood more readily.

-Cliff
 
What to make of my BRKT Gameskeepers? They are thick. And stout. And hefty. And posses the thinnest, but most supported, cutting edges I own.

Is a full convex grind a mini-axe or a really sharp prybar? Or is it something that was just too hard (or steel expensive) to make on a large scale in the past?

I think it is pretty clear that geometry and intended use are more reliable indicators of how thick a knife is rather than general end user incompetence. Unlike the days of yore, we can afford (and hence carry) more than one knife but many want one do-it-all instead. THe thickness debate is largely one about personal comfort level.

It is a rare day in the woods that I don't carry three edged implements: A SAK or Leatherman; one of my Gameskeepers; and some sort of machete-esque knife in case I want to clear brambles or do other chopping duties. Sometimes a Roselli fills the big tool role. Other people I know just take some flavor of lock blade knife and trust that they won't be tasking it to its design limits. I am too paranoid for that. OTOH, I am not paranoid enough to own a TEOTWAWKI battle prybar as my primary outdoor carry.

The great thing about today, much like in the past, is we don't have to choose to do it just one way. Many in the good old days carried a knife and some sort of axe or hawk for chopping out of economic and practical necessity. Modern folks can afford, in survival terms, to replace the axe in the smaller, less wild boondocks, and have tended to make the light chopper a big knife rather than some type of axe. I do carry a big knife backpacking or on those occassions when I hunt, or a small axe, but not both. It depends on what I think I might encounter.

I'd say the wintry half the year in the woods I would take an axe because that's when I might have to clear blown down trees or limbs if they aren't too large or quarter a deer. In the summer or along the beach, a big knife compression strapped to the day/backpack is a better choice if the heaviest chopping is going to be some brambles in the path or driftwood for a clam bake.

We get to use what we want instead of what is on offer at the local smithy or general stores.
 
no....for example good dive knives are thick because they will enevitably b used for prying....you could b the best diver and a knife nut and you could still use a knife lik that.....also the tac-tool is thick but it is used differently...it all depends on the use
 
Prying, hacking, and chopping are a lot easier with a thick blade. Some items need more than careful slicing or cutting.
 
I own both heavy and light blades.I have 2 large outdoor knives 1 thick mother and a thinner bolo for the light stuff.I live in the Canadian back country and we have a lot of different types of bush here and i've found that sometimes 1 bush knife may not be right for all jobs.
 
I think everyone has a point here. Allow me to kowtow:

Yes, newbies like thick blades because of the machismo factor. Some people buy them because they feel solid, and better worth their money. Some want to hack stuff with them. Some want to pry. Some want to split wood.

I like a hefty blade, myself. Why? Because I have had some blades break and chip on me. They might have been cheap, yes. But it forms an opinion. I abuse my blades every day at work operating a 10 ton recovery wrecker. I currently go between a Lone Wolf T2 and a Camillus HEAT. Both are relatively thick, but ground to a decent edge. They could be sharper, but I NEED them to be stronger and only adequately sharp. I don't ever find a need to cut paper suspended in air during my normal daily routines. I don't ever find myself needing to shave my arm hair during my normal daily routines. But, I do have to pry a little, and I do have to hack very tough nylon and cut very thick plastics to free people or vehicles - which occasionally means I may slip and hit the metal parts these are attached to. Slipping off of a bumper and hitting a radiator brace kills a blade very quickly; prying - even faster. But having one tool I can go to for nearly all my tasks is literally priceless due to time and ease of carry. When I have 'real' prying or cutting jobs I go to my power or much larger equipment in one of the tool boxes. The small jobs all go to a single tool I can whip out in an instant when needed without having to run back to a truck that may have to be 100 yards away up a ravine - the knife.

I have reprofiled the T2 3 times so far due to chipping. I think mine had a bad draw on it. The Camillus HEAT in the frowned upon AUS8 has been doing fine, though. No chips yet. It just gets sharpened more often, and the acid that tends to seep from damaged batteries from car crashes has really etched the blade badly. The S-30V seems to be more resistant.

When it comes to blades of old, it all depends again. Bowies began life as 'frontier blades'. They were relatively thick and handled a great many chores. I doubt Jim Bowie was often seen with an axe. He didn't really need one most the time, as he wasn't with Lewis and Clarke. But he had his Bowie. All the historical Bowies I have seen at the Alamo and from various other historical venues in Texas have been rather thick. They were designed to hack and slash bone, wood, and people as well as pierce and cut. I find even today that 3/16-1/4" thick blades help to balance a Bowie well, retaining the ability to slash and hack, as well as be fast in the hand. Many old Bowies(and old daggers/long knives before the US came to be) were fabricated from broken swords, sabers, cutlasses, etc. That is one of the reasons some of the southern D Guards have such a downward profile - they were made from sabres and cutlasses which had large bellies, as well as being Sheffield inspired. These sabers weren't very thin. They had to hit other sabers or axes or pikes etc. at a gallop when used on horseback. I doubt many we're 5/16th thick(which is the true spine thickness of the Cold Steel Bowies and trailmasters mentioned in previous posts), but I doubt any were 1/8th thick. When you reprofile a wide grind onto such a thick blade, it becomes much lighter than it appears, and yet retains great chopping and hacking ability and strength. This is one of the reasons Striders smaller knives have such wide blades - to allow a 3/16th to 1/4" thick spine to taper(usually flat ground) to a very thin edge, yet still be strong enough for some abuse.
Parrying daggers were almost insanely thin by todays standards, and very very strong still. Made of medium carbon, and often without the requirement of holding an edge for more than 1-2 duels, they could afford to use lower carbon steel and gain some strength vs edge holding. I am currently making a circa 17th century parrying dagger from 5160 barstock specifically for the strength. It will be rather thin in the middle. So I hope the heat treat goes well ;) This brings me to another point - older knives often had a much lower carbon content(with the notable exception of some Japanese weapons), this would make them stronger for a given thickness VS. some of the high carbon steels available today. Keep that in mind when you compare new to old.

All things being equal, the thicker blade has the advantage in an abusive relationship. But, if one uses the right tool for the job one can go with a thinner blade and not have any problems. But how many Americans go by the rules? ;)

WYK
 
I think WYK is right.Your situation/enviroment has a lot to do with your blades.For example:Take a fellow from say from Arazona with the knife/machete that he uses and trusts and move him to my stomping grounds in eastern Canada.If he didn't freeze to death he would find that his knives would work as well in this enviroment.The same would be true for me and my knives might not do me much good in the Arazona backcountry.But on the bright side I'd get a great tan.
 
For what is worth (2¢?) I based my comments regarding knife antique blade thicknesses on my conversations with Alex Daniels, Bruce Evans & Steven Rapp. All 3 of those guys make a nice antique style bowie and have handled some originals too ;)

I do think there would/could be a difference in the knives that were used in the field, before the Civil War, and the knives that were imported here after the war and Bowie's fame.

IMNSHO...thick blades help provide the consumer with a feeling of worth.
They look stronger. They feel worth the price.

When the guys that started KFC were putting the whole franchising/marketing plan together, they felt that the bag of product too light.
It didn't feel worth the price.
That's when they decided to add the container of gravy.
That made the perceived value match the price.
 
Ebbtide said:
When the guys that started KFC were putting the whole franchising/marketing plan together, they felt that the bag of product too light.
It didn't feel worth the price.
That's when they decided to add the container of gravy.
That made the perceived value match the price.
Click to expand...

Hey! That gravy's worth it's weight in gold. Mmm...gravvvvyyy....

WYK
 
Ebbtide said:
What has anyone had to pry in the woods?
(By had I mean if you couldn't pry (what ever) you'd be at risk of hypothermia, hunger, medical emergency, etc.
Not if, but had. Not in case, not could, but had, as in been there, done that, there was no other way out.)

Also there is a second half to the "Jack of all trades" line (as taught to me by my father....)
"Jack of all trades, master of none."

For the record, alot of the old Sheffield era knives were quite thick.
It's not a new idea...I just wonder why, with all of the new uber steels, knives aren't getting thinner.

Maybe buyers want thick so they feel they are getting their $$$'s worth?
Click to expand...
Here is a link to an example where having a thick bladed knife was critical: vehicle crash
Thin blades have their uses, and so do thick blades. In the example above, a thin blade would have failed miserably, with disastrous results if they were in a remote area. I'm sure featherstone45 did not plan to have an emergency and possibly did not even think he would use his 1/4" thick, heavy-duty knife, but fortunately he was prepared for the unexpected. If I'm far from home in the outdoors, I have 1/4" thick Busse knife with a 7"-9" long blade, along with a couple of smaller folders.

Gene
 
I remember that thread.
There is also another about a trucker cutting his way out of his semi with either a Fowler or a Burke.
I believe that was in shop talk from 2 or 3 years ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top