Batoning

[KingMC]

Nice try.

Maybe read what I've already posted. I've made it very clear here before you discovered me I do 90%+ of my baton work with a sub 4" blade. Guess what! It's .26" thick and it's short. Well gee whilikers would ya look at that. I actually do use a short fat blade for most my baton work. Now here's the kicker. While doing multi night hikes.

Maybe I should carry an axe?

Your baton work, my baton work, and others' baton work differ greatly, so just because you use a sub-4in blade for your kindling doesn't mean that others don't use their 9in blades for splitting 6-8in rounds. Making broad statements like you've been doing just opens it up for others to pitch in their personal experiences that disprove your findings. Just because it works for you doesn't make it the law.

 

[Boris74]

Your baton work, my baton work, and others' baton work differ greatly, so just because you use a sub-4in blade for your kindling doesn't mean that others don't use their 9in blades for splitting 6-8in rounds. Making broad statements like you've been doing just opens it up for others to pitch in their personal experiences that disprove your findings. Just because it works for you doesn't make it the law.

We got over the disprove thing a while back. The people who actually get out easily identify each other, and we did it pretty quick. We all agree (the ones who actually get out) that there is only one right way, and that's the way each individual does it.

Maybe someone who makes YouTube videos splits 8" wide logs. I have no need to other than when I first got my branded knife we don't mention, I tried to break it doing just that. Didn't work out so great for me so it earned a place in my hiking and woods gear. After detailed testing I rarely do anything past 2.5-3". It's all I need to do.

So how about you tell everyone how you do it and why you do it that way. All you'll get up here is a that's great, good to see you are getting out.

 

[KingMC]

We got over the disprove thing a while back. The people who actually get out easily identify each other, and we did it pretty quick. We all agree (the ones who actually get out) that there is only one right way, and that's the way each individual does it.

Maybe someone who makes YouTube videos splits 8" wide logs. I have no need to other than when I first got my branded knife we don't mention, I tried to break it doing just that. Didn't work out so great for me so it earned a place in my hiking and woods gear. After detailed testing I rarely do anything past 2.5-3". It's all I need to do.

So how about you tell everyone how you do it and why you do it that way. All you'll get up here is a that's great, good to see you are getting out.

hypocrite much? You're just trying to avoid saying you spoke too broadly, but I have some statements made by you in this thread that says you did just that:

So if you want thicker, and thicker will always baton better, you get more mass. Thin and long will never be as tough as shorter and fatter.

Say all you want about the right way being whatever way people do it, you can't ignore the statements you made earlier that I was replying to in my responses. Of course I know the best way is whatever way works for you or me, but you seem to be contradicting previous statements you made, thus I am here to make sure I understand what you're trying to say as clearly as possible.

 

[B34NS]

I'm sure natives would have just told you, "just make an adze bro!". I mean what's more bushcrafty than that?!

 

[dogwood dan]

We're talking steel. Not titanium vs steel or steel vs tungsten. A pinch of this and that difference in different steels won't make enough of any change to density. So if you want thicker, and thicker will always baton better, you get more mass, it's unavoidable unless you more than double the length to keep it thin and get it heavier and that adds in its own problems. Thin and long will never be as tough as shorter and fatter. That mass won't go to waste, just so happens to make it a great chopper now. What good does a thin light great batoning blade do for you if its so light you need to pack a chopping tool? Not much good for me.

I was going to let this go, but it bothers me to see people with good, valid and correct points or questions being shouted down. Some of this has to do with technique, skill, and personal choice for the rest there is proven mathematical and, scientific facts as well as empirical evidence. To that point I would like to rase the fallowing points
1) one can change the mass of a blade with out changing the thickness by adding more length or belly
2) if the blade is not moving like when batonind then it's mass has ether no effect on it ability to preform work or technically it adversely effects it become it adds inertia that has to be over come. how ever it's width dose have great effect. I know this is a little thing but it is important deference.
3) a wedge (wide blade) is only a better botoning tool if one is splitting end grain, a wide blunt edge and blade are treble for batongin cross grain.
4) on my trip to the Amazon last year the indigenous guide did not use a blade any thick then 3/32" they preferred a light thin blade as that they could swing them faster with more energy ( Energy =mass x (velocity x velocity) ) without it fatiguing them. they also like the thin blades because they cut better and after all that is the first purpose of a knife (i know these were machetes but the deference had gotten lost here). At base camp we built a kitchen with tables and benches ,a thatched roof, 3 back palm bow, 2 blow guns, assorted fish spear, fishing poles,built gear storage, harvested food, and building materials, while using nothing but an ax, machetes, wood wedges and a belt knife. Now that i think about it with the exception of felling the tress and the first planks I never used a blade thicker then 3/32.
5) Hell there are places in this wide world wear one dose not need a "chopper"
6) but in many parts of say the north east a hatchet or an tomahawk pared with a belt knife is a better choice. if they are thin and light with hight ginds both tools can wight the same as a big thick chopper
7) as a former infantryman (both mounted and dismounted),a hyper light packer, and some one who grew up going on both long and short hunts I can tell you one would much rather carry a thin light more efficient blade then a thick heavy blade that is less efficient.
8) as prevues posters have mentioned determining the efficiency of the blade is primarily about the geometry, a knife edge is typical a double incline plane and physics tell use the lower the angle the more efficient the incline plain.
9) to reiterate a wide blade would only be better for splitting wood end to end it would be far less effective for cutting cross grin, or cutting in general.
10) if one really need to do a lot of splitting or to split some thing big wedges or a stick with a wedge tip asa very effective wedge freeing one knife up to be a very effective cutting tool. In regards to the stick with a wedge tip if one uses two of them pulling then in opposite direction one gets an amazing amount of leverage,

frustration now purged I will return to my grinder

 

[Boris74]

hypocrite much? You're just trying to avoid saying you spoke too broadly, but I have some statements made by you in this thread that says you did just that:



Say all you want about the right way being whatever way people do it, you can't ignore the statements you made earlier that I was replying to in my responses. Of course I know the best way is whatever way works for you or me, but you seem to be contradicting previous statements you made, thus I am here to make sure I understand what you're trying to say as clearly as possible.

All your saying is I said what I said. That is indeed what I said. Wouldn't have said it unless I had something to say. In case you missed what I said. I said more mass, not near same mass, like you did.

Oh, and lol.

 

[KingMC]

We're talking steel. Not titanium vs steel or steel vs tungsten. A pinch of this and that difference in different steels won't make enough of any change to density. So if you want thicker, and thicker will always baton better, you get more mass, it's unavoidable unless you more than double the length to keep it thin and get it heavier and that adds in its own problems. Thin and long will never be as tough as shorter and fatter. That mass won't go to waste, just so happens to make it a great chopper now. What good does a thin light great batoning blade do for you if its so light you need to pack a chopping tool? Not much good for me.

I was going to let this go, but it bothers me to see people with good, valid and correct points or questions being shouted down. Some of this has to do with technique, skill, and personal choice for the rest there is proven mathematical and, scientific facts as well as empirical evidence. To that point I would like to rase the fallowing points
1) one can change the mass of a blade with out changing the thickness by adding more length or belly
2) if the blade is not moving like when batonind then it's mass has ether no effect on it ability to preform work or technically it adversely effects it become it adds inertia that has to be over come. how ever it's width dose have great effect. I know this is a little thing but it is important deference.
3) a wedge (wide blade) is only a better botoning tool if one is splitting end grain, a wide blunt edge and blade are treble for batongin cross grain.
4) on my trip to the Amazon last year the indigents guide did not use a blade any thick then 3/32" they preferred a light thin blade as that they could swing them faster with more energy ( Energy =mass x (velocity x velocity) ) without it fatiguing them. they also like the thin blades because they cut better and after all that is the first purpose of a knife (i know these were machetes but the deference had gotten lost here). At base camp we built a kitchen with tables and benches ,a thatched roof, 3 back palm bow, 2 blow guns, assorted fish spear, fishing poles,built gear storage, harvested food, and building materials, while using nothing but an ax, machetes, wood wedges and a belt knife. Now that i think about it with the exception of felling the tress and the first planks I never used a blade thicker then 3/32.
5) Hell there are places in this wide world wear one dose not need a "chopper"
6) but in many parts of say the north east a hatchet or an tomahawk pared with a belt knife is a better choice. if they are thin and light with hight ginds both tools can wight the same as a big thick chopper
7) as a former infantryman (both mounted and dismounted),a hyper light packer, and some one who grew up going on both long and short hunts I can tell you one would much rather carry a thin light more efficient blade then a thick heavy blade that is less efficient.
8) as prevues posters have mentioned determining the efficiency of the blade is primarily about the geometry, a knife edge is typical a double incline plane and physics tell use the lower the angle the more efficient the incline plain.
9) to reiterate a wide blade would only be better for splitting wood end to end it would be far less effective for cutting cross grin, or cutting in general.
10) if one really need to do a lot of splitting or to split some thing big wedges or a stick with a wedge tip asa very effective wedge freeing one knife up to be a very effective cutting tool. In regards to the stick with a wedge tip if one uses two of them pulling then in opposite direction one gets an amazing amount of leverage,

frustration now purged I will return to my grinder

Glade to see a maker chip in with good points, I know my younger brothers uses a BM CSK II bushcraft knife as his main fixed blade, and was able to out-baton another friend on the same campout who had a 3V BRKT Bravo 1.5 with thicker, tougher steel. It's not really as much about thickness as how you use said thickness, the thin BM outperformed the thick BRKT because the user knew what he was doing.

 

[Boris74]

I was going to let this go, but it bothers me to see people with good, valid and correct points or questions being shouted down. Some of this has to do with technique, skill, and personal choice for the rest there is proven mathematical and, scientific facts as well as empirical evidence. To that point I would like to rase the fallowing points
1) one can change the mass of a blade with out changing the thickness by adding more length or belly
2) if the blade is not moving like when batonind then it's mass has ether no effect on it ability to preform work or technically it adversely effects it become it adds inertia that has to be over come. how ever it's width dose have great effect. I know this is a little thing but it is important deference.
3) a wedge (wide blade) is only a better botoning tool if one is splitting end grain, a wide blunt edge and blade are treble for batongin cross grain.
4) on my trip to the Amazon last year the indigenous guide did not use a blade any thick then 3/32" they preferred a light thin blade as that they could swing them faster with more energy ( Energy =mass x (velocity x velocity) ) without it fatiguing them. they also like the thin blades because they cut better and after all that is the first purpose of a knife (i know these were machetes but the deference had gotten lost here). At base camp we built a kitchen with tables and benches ,a thatched roof, 3 back palm bow, 2 blow guns, assorted fish spear, fishing poles,built gear storage, harvested food, and building materials, while using nothing but an ax, machetes, wood wedges and a belt knife. Now that i think about it with the exception of felling the tress and the first planks I never used a blade thicker then 3/32.
5) Hell there are places in this wide world wear one dose not need a "chopper"
6) but in many parts of say the north east a hatchet or an tomahawk pared with a belt knife is a better choice. if they are thin and light with hight ginds both tools can wight the same as a big thick chopper
7) as a former infantryman (both mounted and dismounted),a hyper light packer, and some one who grew up going on both long and short hunts I can tell you one would much rather carry a thin light more efficient blade then a thick heavy blade that is less efficient.
8) as prevues posters have mentioned determining the efficiency of the blade is primarily about the geometry, a knife edge is typical a double incline plane and physics tell use the lower the angle the more efficient the incline plain.
9) to reiterate a wide blade would only be better for splitting wood end to end it would be far less effective for cutting cross grin, or cutting in general.
10) if one really need to do a lot of splitting or to split some thing big wedges or a stick with a wedge tip asa very effective wedge freeing one knife up to be a very effective cutting tool. In regards to the stick with a wedge tip if one uses two of them pulling then in opposite direction one gets an amazing amount of leverage,

frustration now purged I will return to my grinder

1. Won't help wedge the wood out more, it's still thin.
2. That's where a thicker blade comes in. Mass is just along for the ride.
3. A thick blade with a shallow hollow grind will cross grain chop or baton better. Learned that in the woods doing it.
4. I don't live in a jungle.
5. That's why it stays on my pack until I need it.
6. A knife is more multi purpose. Same weight (actually less most the time), performs more tasks=less tools brought on my hikes. Learned that one in The woods too.
7. As a former infantryman myself for three tours and a few days shy of four years deployed in active war zones I carried a Glock field knife every step of the way. That's inane to batoning on my hikes.
8. That's why my primary belt knife is .26" thick and just under 4" long. It batons almost everything I need to.
9. I learned in the woods grind can make a difference, and it does.
10. I said I use wedges earlier.

 

[Cobalt]

Mass doesn't add more volume, because by definition mass = volume * density. Adding more volume increases mass if density remains the same, but technically adding volume while reducing density could decrease mass. So, adding mass will not always add volume, if the density is increased as well. If you understand any of that, that is.

As for batoning, mass has no bearing on whether a blade is a good batoning blade or not, the only thing is geometry. It doesn't matter how much a knife weighs when you aren't swinging it, only what angle the grind is at. The fatter the blade's shoulders are, the better of a splitter it will be, but the harder it will be to initially drive into the log. Once the wood gets past the shoulder of the main grind, it's really more an issue of thickness than anything else.

A full-flat ground 0.25in blade won't baton as well as a 0.18in saber ground blade, simply because the top edge of the main grind is so much higher on the FFG blade that the angle the wood gets split apart at is more acute than the saber ground blade. Hence, it's really more about grind than thickness unless the thickness is really over-the-top.

Bolded part response as the formula you posted above is indisputable. Anyway, I have experienced exactly what you just stated. I prefer thick flat ground blades, but I have noticed that my thinner saber ground blades actually baton better. They seem to wedge the wood better and there is little to no friction on the flat sided part. Unlike my flat ground blades that have friction up the entire side. This is more noticeable on wet woods. The difference is not enough for me to care but it is certainly noticeable.

 

[Thomas Linton]

What he (Boris) said was:

[T]ticker will always baton better....

True, yes? All other things being equal, thicker is better.

Those who teach batoning routinely advocate using wedges. You can go to his forum and argue with Mors about that, but to what end?

Please don't get bogged down with personal issues and flame what has been a relatively civilized thread. Plenty of scope for the personal stuff at W&C

 

[KingMC]

What he (Boris) said was: True, yes? All other things being equal, thicker is better.

As was touched on by Dogwood Dan and Cobalt, thicker doesn't always perform better, specifically when going cross-grain. Now, that might not be very common, but when making broad statements they have to be true across the whole spectrum or else they are inherently false.

Taking 2 knives of the same steel, same grind, and same height (belly), than thickness plays a roll in helping split the wood better; if the height (belly) of the thicker one is shorter than the thinner one, the thinner one very easily might baton better due to a more reasonable angle of split.

There's a lot of variables beyond raw thickness of the stock.

 

[dogwood dan]

1. Won't help wedge the wood out more, it's still thin.
2. That's where a thicker blade comes in. Mass is just along for the ride.
3. A thick blade with a shallow hollow grind will cross grain chop or baton better. Learned that in the woods doing it.
4. I don't live in a jungle.
5. That's why it stays on my pack until I need it.
6. A knife is more multi purpose. Same weight (actually less most the time), performs more tasks=less tools brought on my hikes. Learned that one in The woods too.
7. As a former infantryman myself for three tours and a few days shy of four years deployed in active war zones I carried a Glock field knife every step of the way. That's inane to batoning on my hikes.
8. That's why my primary belt knife is .26" thick and just under 4" long. It batons almost everything I need to.
9. I learned in the woods grind can make a difference, and it does.
10. I said I use wedges earlier.

I feel as though perhaps I did not make myself clear, and there are a few of your points I wanted to get clarification on, in regard to;
2) I was unclear on your point here or I did not communicate that more mass has no or a negative effect if the blade is not moving
3) are you saying you have or do use a thick blade with a hollow grind to baton with or just that if somebody wants to that it is possible and if they did you think that it would be a good grind to baton with
6) are you saying a knife is more multi purpose then a knife and a hatchet together and that a knife alone is better for the northeast US.
8)are you saying that you carry a thick short blade because you only baton the end grain of wood


there seem to be a few things I did not clearly communicate I will try again to see if I can be more clear

3) the wedge effect you keep referring to only works on the end grain of wood. When I said end grain I meant the part where you can see the rings. The wedge helps separate the fibers of the wood causing it to split. on side grain the part were the bark is one has to cut the fibers for this a high grind on a thinner blade will perform better as that it will better cut the fibers.
4) i did not assume that you did live in the jungle but this was empirical evidence to refute your statement that a thick blade is always better for chopping and batoning. in this case, as in many others cases that I have both studied and experienced first hand, a thin light blade was preferable to a thick heavy blade. I do not claim that this is always the case, but it is overly sometimes the case, there for it cannot be never the case.
7) my reference to my service was to underscore that I had experience having to carry all my tools on my person and know the value of a carrying a lighter tool,

I do not expect to change your mind or refute that your falcon works well for you. I only wanted to point out that some of the general statements you made may not have been correct in every situation, and politely suggest that you make allowances for other peoples experiences and back ground.

 

[stabman]

Thinner goes into it easier (less resistance).
Thicker splits it better (wedges and all that jazz.).

So, depending on the thickness and length of what you're batonning through, thinner or thicker might be better.

 

[Boris74]

I feel as though perhaps I did not make myself clear, and there are a few of your points I wanted to get clarification on, in regard to;
2) I was unclear on your point here or I did not communicate that more mass has no or a negative effect if the blade is not moving
3) are you saying you have or do use a thick blade with a hollow grind to baton with or just that if somebody wants to that it is possible and if they did you think that it would be a good grind to baton with
6) are you saying a knife is more multi purpose the a knife and a hatchet and that a knife alone is better for the northeast US. ugh
8)are you saying that you carry a thick short blade because you only baton the end grain of wood


there seem to be a few things I did not clearly communicate I will try again to see if I can be more clear

3) the wedge effect you keep referring to only works on the end grain of wood. When I said end grain I meant the part where you can see the rings. The wedge helps separate the fibers of the wood causing it to split. on side grain the part were the bark is one has to cut the fibers for this a high grind on a thinner blade will perform better as that it will better cut the fibers.
4) i did not assume that you did live in the jungle but this was empirical evidence to refute your statement that a thick blade is always better for chopping and batoning. in this case, as in many others cases that I have both studied and experienced first hand, a thin light blade was preferable to a thick heavy blade. I do not claim that this is always the case, but it is overly sometimes the case, there for it cannot be never the case.
7) my reference to my service was to underscore that I had experience having to carry all my tools on my person and know the value of a carrying a lighter tool,

I do not expect to change your mind or refute that your falcon works well for you. I only wanted to point out that some of the general statements you made may not have been correct in every situation, and politely suggest that you make allowances for other peoples experiences and back ground.

3. I'm not discussing possibilities. The learned that in the woods cleared that up, it's why I added it, to make it clear.
6. Yes I said exactly that. Many hikers who can pack a tool that performs many tasks do so. It's not uncommon at all and extremely uncommon for people to make a reason to carry extra tools.
8. I do way more than that with it.

3. I know the mechanics behind how wood splits. That's why if I notch, I use a shallow hollow ground blade, I even have a deep hollow grind blade I use time to time, both 1095.
4. My long blade chopper is 2" shorter than a BK9 and 1/4# lighter. Go back far enough and you will see me posting it chops better than a BK9. It also has a shallow hollow grind and I know how to sharpen it.
7. That's why I carried a Glock field knife.

I don't expect anyone to do it my way. I don't expect anyone should convince me I need to carry an axe or hatchet. I don't expect anyone to do it my way. I do expect people to understand I can get the same end product without an axe. I know I can, been doing it a long time. Doesn't mean a single one of us is right. I just like hiking (light). I like a fire to cook or warm up with. I prefer to split wood with a knife I have with me and not carry an axe or hatchet. That's pretty clear how I do it. I'd love to hear how you do it on your multi night over night hikes though, so please share.

 

[Steve6387]

Hey all I'm kinda new to knives although I do own a kabar short I'm trying to find a good batoning/bushcraft knife I like the esee5 and 6 but am still looking any one suggestions please

My kabar would be fine but the false edge I highly dislike

Batoning does not equal bushcraft. I think it's way overblown here on the forums.

You want a great example of bushcraft? ... With a KA-BAR no less??? Check out LostVikings post on his Dogshead. We could all learn a lot about real bushcraft from him... And nowhere is he trying to baton through a sequoia.

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1300572

 

[KingMC]

3. I'm not discussing possibilities. The learned that in the woods cleared that up, it's why I added it, to make it clear.
6. Yes I said exactly that. Many hikers who can pack a tool that performs many tasks do so. It's not uncommon at all and extremely uncommon for people to make a reason to carry extra tools.
8. I do way more than that with it.

3. I know the mechanics behind how wood splits. That's why if I notch, I use a shallow hollow ground blade, I even have a deep hollow grind blade I use time to time, both 1095.
4. My long blade chopper is 2" shorter than a BK9 and 1/4# lighter. Go back far enough and you will see me posting it chops better than a BK9. It also has a shallow hollow grind and I know how to sharpen it.
7. That's why I carried a Glock field knife.

I don't expect anyone to do it my way. I don't expect anyone should convince me I need to carry an axe or hatchet. I don't expect anyone to do it my way. I do expect people to understand I can get the same end product without an axe. I know I can, been doing it a long time. Doesn't mean a single one of us is right. I just like hiking (light). I like a fire to cook or warm up with. I prefer to split wood with a knife I have with me and not carry an axe or hatchet. That's pretty clear how I do it. I'd love to hear how you do it on your multi night over night hikes though, so please share.

Remind me what your big chopper knife is. Or did you upgrade to a Busse since the last time you posted?

 

[Cobalt]

Thinner goes into it easier (less resistance).
Thicker splits it better (wedges and all that jazz.).

So, depending on the thickness and length of what you're batonning through, thinner or thicker might be better.

Yes, both accounts are true, with some exceptions. For example, when I go through dryer woods, thicker blades seem to split them better and much easier. When I go through wet wood or denser, softer wood, thicker blades bind more and I have a tough time batoning through. It will work but the thinner blades that have a saber grind seem to go though easier, except( I know, again), polished or satin blades that have a bit of polish to them bind less. I still prefer a thick blades because I chop more than I baton.

 

[Thomas Linton]

Fire-making does not equal bushcraft.
Carving spoons ditto
Making and using traps ditto.

Just a -potential part of the package.


Good point about cross cutting/bucking via batoning, Dan. That's cutting rather than splitting. I was guilty of thinking only of splitting. Lots of videos of folks batoning across grain with MORAs.

Dan, when you say "wider," do you sometimes mean "thicker"?

 

[dogwood dan]

Fire-making does not equal bushcraft.
Carving spoons ditto
Making and using traps ditto.

Just a -potential part of the package.

Good point about cross cutting/bucking via batoning, Dan. That's cutting rather than splitting. I was guilty of thinking only of splitting. Lots of videos of folks batoning across grain with MORAs.

Dan, when you say "wider," do you sometimes mean "thicker"?

I am having trouble finding the line you are referring to but yes I probable meant thicker. one of these days someone is going to write a defining text of terms for the knife community

 

[Thomas Linton]

"[O]ne of these days some is going to write a defining text of terms for the knife community "

It's been tried, but someone always knows "better."