Bark River Northstar, first impressions.

[knifetester]

I have batoned 1/16" knives (ie L6 Mike Mann's IKW Cliff Knife) with no ill effect. As well, I have batoned with mora knives on many occasions, and have used slightly thicker blades (3/32") on MANY occasions with batons, as well as larger thin bladed knives (Tramontia Bolo, Martindale Golok) with a baton witout issue.


A thicker knife does give a greater margin of error, true enough. But a thin knife can be used to good effect as well.

You know the old saying: thin will get you in, but thick will do the trick.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

I think it would be helpful for discussions of limitations. How were the <3/16" thick knives broken during batoning. Could it have been prevented with better technique or knowledge of the wood. I'd also like to know how much of it is based on actual broken knives or just something that is assumed to be necessary.

-Cliff

 

[Orion]

Well, I've always just been of the opinion that on most all outdoorsy stuff that the bigger and thicker the better. I have only broken two knives, one was faulty heat treat with hairline fracture and the other was when I chopped a brick that was buried in the ground. So neither one was broken due to my technique... or lack thereof...LOL.

I just think it's assumed that anything like batoning would be better suited for larger/thicker blades.

Which is why it's always good to have more than 1 or 5 knives. And I think we can all agree on that. I would never baton with a Northstar. I have a golok for that or many other numerous larger knives.

If I wanted a Jack of All Trades type knife it would be a tad larger than the Northstar. I would say more along the lines of 7 inch blade and at least 3/16 thick. Even the Aurora would not fit my "one knife to do all" category. But that's just me. I'm sure there are old timer mountain men out there that could build an entire village with a Buck 110.

Peace-
Cam

 

[Thomas Linton]

And so it would be absurd to claim that is the only way and that anything else "ruins" the knife.

And, Cliff, I made no such claim. Another strawman. I'm surprised.

Thak you for the clarification of "mechanical advantage." Very clear, as is revisiting the difference that the task makes.

That's fine, but this isn't the whole of what is stated which is 1/16" knives won't last and will break implying that it is impossible to use them for such work. - Cliff

But I neither said nor implied any such thing. I suspect you are refighting an old battle., Cliff. Those of us who get caught in the crossfire can only duck, I suppose.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

I made no such claim.

I would be surprised if you did, however both assertions were made by others in this thread which is what I was responding to :

And a 1/16" blade may be able to baton, but chances are it will not last. And it does not take much of a bad angle (during batoning) to destroy the blade.

They have a convex edge. You'll ruin that beautiful edge is you sharpen it normally.

... the other was when I chopped a brick that was buried in the ground.

That's pretty common in general brush work. It is why large blades should be very tough because there are lots of things covered in the brush even in remote areas. The really amusing thing is when you just finish a perfect edge for some comparison cutting and the first cut goes through the wood and clanks off of a rock or piece of metallic garbage.

I just think it's assumed that anything like batoning would be better suited for larger/thicker blades.

When you are batoning you are loading the knife mainly through its width and not its thickness. A Mora 2000 is actually much stronger through its width than the Northstar is through the thickness because strength is quadratic through the dimension loaded. You can see this readily if you try to bend a butter knife both ways. It is easy to bend through the thickness but very difficult through its width as it is actually more than ten times stronger through that axis. The biggest concern with those knives is shattering the plastic handles so you have to watch the impacts especially when it is really cold.

-Cliff

 

[db]

I had always assumed a thicker blade was better for batonning/splitting because of the wedgeing effect, not necessarily for strength.

 

[hardheart]

true, but I believe the grind will influence that a good deal. A full flat grind would bind more easily, so using thinner stock might help. Thin and fully convexed would probably baton and split really well.

 

[G3]

The Northstar is my favorite BR knife. Good luck with it.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

A full flat grind would bind more easily, so using thinner stock might help. Thin and fully convexed would probably baton and split really well.

In order to get the benefit of reduced wedging often you generally need a really large cross section and then you get the combined effect of the increased cracking effect and the required impact energy to drive the heavy cross section through the wood. This is how a splitting maul works for example. Because the cross section of the maul is so large it will crack the wood and the massive weight allows for the necessary energy to drive the head into the wood. However just try to baton a splitting maul through a round and see if the extra cross section is still effective.

Rigidity can be an issue on some blades because a long machete can actually bend in tight and knotty wood where a stiffer blade will cause the wood to crack. This helps when splitting really knotty wood, I have shown pictures of this in various reviews. But once you have the necessary stiffness then going thicker tends to be more of a drawback because it now just takes more force to drive the blade through the wood. However if the blade is really strong it means you can be a lot less critical of where you place the blade and allow brute force to replace skill.

Not all splitting however is so focused though. When you are splitting wood for shaping and not for burning, a thin blade like the Mora 2000 is actually much better than a thicker blade like the Ratwelier because it is more efficient at making precision splits as you are more cutting than splitting. Similar if you are making small splits for fire starting, it is much easier to start and continue splits with the smaller blade. Small blades like that are so light/inexpensive anyway it is hard to see why you would not own/carry one.

-Cliff

 

[HoB]

true, but I believe the grind will influence that a good deal. A full flat grind would bind more easily, so using thinner stock might help. Thin and fully convexed would probably baton and split really well.

Well, I would expect the splitting/batoning-with-the-grain efficiency to undergo a minimum as a function of thickness: A thin, wide knife presenting a small cross section and showing a small wedging effect will be more efficient than a thicker, less wide blade, but you have to baton the blade all the way through, you don't really split. At some thickness though you just have to baton the blade part-way and the wedging effect (just like a splitting maul or splitting axe) will drive the log apart and efficience increases again. However, batoning against the grain a thin, wide blade should always be more efficient. However, I think the drawback of a wide and thick blade during chopping is often overlooked: Wide, and thick blades tend to turn in your hand especially on not so ideally excecuted strikes.

Convexing or ideally a median ridge geometry should help to minimize binding, by reducing the contact area.

As to the BRKT grind in particular. I do think that BRKTs (as far as I have seen them) set a positive example for grinds on production knifes, but not because most of them are convex, but because of the geometry of the convex grind. Just like all other grinds you can make thick and thin convex grinds with different angles (as measure as tangents to the curve). A convex grind is essentially nothing but a multibevel with blended transitions and the key is what these bevels are. As far as I have seen them the actual edge angle (tangent to the curve at the edge) on a BRKT grind is about 12 deg per side (they are hand ground so some variation is expected) and tapering quickly back - much more accute than your run of the mill tactical fixed blade factory edge. And even their heavier knives are under 0.25" at the spine...thinner than many of the big "tactical" choppers. So, all in all we are actually talking about a fairly trim blade and in particular edge geometry. That combined with fairly fine grained steels is in my opinion why they cut so well. Yet, BRKT is heavily endorsing batoning of their knives, including point-first batoning which seems like madness and deliberate knife abuse to me (the subsequent splitting more than the batoning though) but, hey, what do I know . Really the only argument you could make specifically for a convex grind as opposed to a multibevel geometry is that you elimiate the friction from the sharp transitions on the shoulders, which I would think, is a rather small effect though.

EDIT: Just in case I didn't get my point across: I am impressed by the fact that BRKT is endorsing and encouraging heavy batoning of their knives, even though they run their edges and blades pretty lean and trim when compared to other production companies. Which means that they are confident in their edge and blade stability and are willing to back it up. Which, not coincidentally, is the reason I have another BRKT blade in the mail.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

... about 12 deg per side (they are hand ground so some variation is expected) and tapering quickly back - much more accute than your run of the mill tactical fixed blade factory edge.

That is the kind of information I wish would be given by the manufacturer rather than just "convex". It isn't like when people talk about Spyderco they praise the edges as they are "flat" but because they are thin/acute. I have heard some complaints the edge geometry was much thicker on some BRK&T but in general the vast majority of people tend to be very positive about the cutting ability which would tend to simply the edges are fairly acute.

Really the only argument you could make specifically for a convex grind as opposed to a multibevel geometry is that you elimiate the friction from the sharp transitions on the shoulders, which I would think, is a rather small effect though.

You can calculate this directly by a simple work calculation. For woods the majority of the force is just the hook's law force which pushs the wood apart. You can estimate this directly by trying to pull it apart. You can also measure the frictional coefficients with a simple incline plane stability test and check it directly by lubricating the blade and seeing how much of a difference it makes on the force as you push a knife through the wood.

-Cliff

 

[LaBella]

Cliff I have to jump in here....

you are OBVIOUSLY bought and paid for.

your opinions are all scientific mumbo jumbo.:jerkit:

if you are so smart why do you constantly misspell words?:foot:

God you are a tool ( just my opinion I dont have any theories to pretend to test against)

Bark Rivers are fine cutters and you get a hell of a lot of knife for the price.:thumbup:

How is THAT for a review? you argue endlessly and you don't change anyone's opinions except for the weak minded sheeple.:grumpy:

thank you, please drive through


sincerely,

Ronald P LaBella Jr ( not your biggest fan obviously ):barf:

oh and the Dungeons and Dragons Club called .........they want your picture back

 

[MVF]

Just out of curiousity, who is it you think bought him? Is never making a typo your measure of intelligence? If so, please discount yourself for the missing apostrophe in your first use of the word "don't". Also, if spelling is so important, why all the missing capitalization?

I'll bet he helps a lot of people form more intelligent and informed opinions than you just did!

See how easy it is to attack? But seriously, if you want to argue against Cliff, please at least bring an argument- his opinions are "scientific mumbo jumbo" and he's a "tool"- how articulate!

Thank you, please dive off.

Yours truly,
Mike

PS. You are right about the Bark Rivers.

 

[hardheart]

I should watch my terminology I meant split as just that the thinner blade would more easily drive through the wood, separating/splitting it with each blow, but not that it would cause a fracture far ahead of the edge.

My thinking was more that a 'knife' should have a sharp edge and appropriate geometry. You could take thick stock and hollow grind the hell out of it to do that, while leaving a heavy spine for impacting and wedging, but that doesn't make any sense. Also, you can convex grind and get yourself an edge, but it wouldn't be all that fine comparatively if you're working with 5/16" stock or something. Wedges split well, but don't cut worth a darn. A knife should cut well, but that means it probably shouldn't 'split' so well as defined here-unless you like cracking all your firm vegetables while cutting them.

 

[HoB]

Sorry, hardheart, I didn't mean to disagree with you, I was simply musing because I just held a splitting axe in my hand, wouldn't want to cut my veggies with it either, though .

LaBella: Sometime, like in this case, I am really surprised to see these random attacks...where the hell did this come from? If your orthography is so good, why is your reading comprehension so weak that you did not realize that Cliff never said anything against a BRKT product? To bring you up to speed: Cliff only complained against the hype of the term "convex grind", which was not directly related to BRKT. Just because a blade is convex ground, does not mean that the blade makes a good cutter or that it would out-cut another blade, just because it is convex. If you make a convex grind that is shaped like the bow of a ship, it won't make a good cutter. I assume we all agree on that? We also agree (at least the people that have spoken up in this thread) that BRKT thankfully does shape their convex grinds such that their knives make for really good cutters. Now, where is the mumbo-jumbo? If you are referring to his comments about the friction calculation, that was in response to my post and I am happy to tell you that it wasn't mumbo-jumbo (Though I disagree with Cliff that it would be an easy test.).

Your post seems to be a pointless form of aggression completely devoid of any meaningful information and entailing a personal attack. In particular your remark about the picture really has no place on any forum outside of whine&cheese and I was tempted for a moment to report you to the moderators for it :thumbdn:.

 

[hardheart]

Not a problem. I needed to correct that statement anyway, as splitting wood is just what you said.

 

[knifetester]

Although I don't care for Bark River knives for different reasons, they are ground to very acute edges in most cases. If you look at Mike Stewrats hiostory you will see that all the knife companies he ran established reputations for extreme sharpness, blackjack, marbles, etc.

While you may see uneven primary grinds at times, and other fit and finish/HT/QC issues, handle design issues (for my hands), sheath problems, etc, I don't recall EVER seeing a dull Bark River knife from the "factory". The edges are ussually very well formed, and always hair popping sharp.

Of all the BRKT knives, the Aroura and the Fox river (I think that is the name) are probably the best looking designs to my eye, without having used either. I would like to try their golok one day.

As well, BArk River has developed quite a following, and some people loudly proclaim the customer service and warranty. They do seem open to design submissions from the ELU, which is rather unique.

 

[db]

Although I don't care for Bark River knives for different reasons, they are ground to very acute edges in most cases. If you look at Mike Stewrats hiostory you will see that all the knife companies he ran established reputations for extreme sharpness, blackjack, marbles, etc.

While you may see uneven primary grinds at times, and other fit and finish/HT/QC issues, handle design issues (for my hands), sheath problems, etc, I don't recall EVER seeing a dull Bark River knife from the "factory". The edges are ussually very well formed, and always hair popping sharp.

Same here I cann't remember ever hearing or reading complaints about one having too thick of an edge or being dull. Probably very rare if it has happened at all.

 

[Ben Dover]

Dear Mr. LaBella,

You are absolutely correct about Bark River knives being a great value for the money.

Otherwise, your post is very poorly thought out, and even more poorly executed, and you're pretty full of yourself !

I have learned more about knives, steel, sharpening, etc. from Mr. Stamp than from anyone else on the forum. Or elsewhere for that matter. I've taken his advice, and IT WORKS!

I believe that you (and the forum) would be better served by making constructive comments of your own, based on your own experience, than by attacking someone whose knowledge is several orders of magnitude superior to your own.

Whle amateurs like you and me can have valuable information and experience to contribute to the discussions here, we accomplish nothing constructive by personal ad hominem attacks on professionals.

Please clean up your act, sir. Lest the rest of us decide that you're full of shit.

 

[knarfeng]

I find Mr. LaBella's note lacking in everything except offensiveness.