Battle Saw or ASHBM

Rob_Mob

Rob_Mob

Joined
Oct 16, 2013
Messages
2,087
Hey Guys,

Does anyone know what the weight is for the Battle Saw and whether the Battle Saw or ASHBM chops better?

Should I trade my 2008 Special Edition Sarsquatch for one of the two??
 
Funny you should ask, at our little get together I did a head to head between the ASHBM, Battle Saw, and the 1111.
91b4418f41b201dd196829e1ba3a7378.jpg


The ASHBM was the winner IMO.
It's a beast for sure!
 
Awesome! Thank you for that --- now the big question is --- should I trade my Sarsquatch for one??
 
Rob,
I don't have any technical specs for you with regards to weight but I do have a couple BS's and ASHBM's. I'm a straight handle fan so I'm a biG fan of both those blades. For me, the Saw is a more multi-purpose tool being that it seems to lop off limbs better due to the thinner blade and lighter weight. The ASHBM seems to be a better hardwoods chopper for something like oak or walnut but does not get the same swing velocity due to the weight difference and that difference is very noticeable.
If you can trade a squatch for either of those two blades, I wouldn't hesitate. The squatch feels great in the hand but the blade is not super useful for my purposes. I'd get the SAW bro. Good luck my friend

Joel
 
+1 for the ASHBM, as for as the squatch why not keep her and get the ASHBM or SAW?
 
Sigarett said:
Rob,
I don't have any technical specs for you with regards to weight but I do have a couple BS's and ASHBM's. I'm a straight handle fan so I'm a biG fan of both those blades. For me, the Saw is a more multi-purpose tool being that it seems to lop off limbs better due to the thinner blade and lighter weight. The ASHBM seems to be a better hardwoods chopper for something like oak or walnut but does not get the same swing velocity due to the weight difference and that difference is very noticeable.
If you can trade a squatch for either of those two blades, I wouldn't hesitate. The squatch feels great in the hand but the blade is not super useful for my purposes. I'd get the SAW bro. Good luck my friend

Joel
Click to expand...

Joel!!! Thanks for weighing in brother! You've just made the decision harder!!! Haha

I have a Hall of Fame lineup in a HHFSH at 24 oz, a HOGFSH at 25 oz, the CGFBM at 26 oz, the B.I.G NMFSH at 27.85 oz

I'm looking for a niche 28-29 oz chopper. However, if you think the Battle Saw -- which is lighter than the ASHBM -- can out chop it or at least beat it in a weight to performance ratio --- I think I might just be willing to bite and have some weight class redundancy

Lol sorry I'm making this complicated
 
If you don't have an ASHBM, you should. It is the larger 20th anniversary sister to the knife that started it all.
 
I've owned it before --- and I really miss it --- the question is -- does it chop better and is it more efficient than the battle saw with respect to performance to weight ratio
 
SARSquatch, ASHBM, and BS are all legendary blades and unlike anything any other maker is offering!

Between the ASHBM and BS, I'm giving the edge to the Saw. The sawback is ingeniously engineered...Jerry really did his homework on the forward canted teeth. It adds a very useful option to chopping and slicing everything, IMHO. With the added bonus of almost never gonna have to be sharpened. The only drawback would be chewing up your maul if you batoned directly downward on the spine. Of course most of the time you'll be hitting near the tip, so that's largely a non-issue.

I challenge anyone to find a blade as long and heavy duty yet that feels as lithe and light in hand. :thumbup:
 
I hate to throw a wrench in the works...but I find the Battle Saw to be the coolest release since the NMFBM :foot:

ASHBM meets cgFBM meets Rambo knife. EPIC!
 
The ashbm thickness added to the full height grind male it hit so much harder and bite deeper. No question.

Battle saw won't take no for an answer either, but the ASHBM wins by a hair in my book
 
Battle Saw, Battle Saw, Battle Saw! Do it brother! Get a BS and you won't regret it! For me, the extra length made it chop better than the cgfbm.

That said, I've said it before and I'll say it again, the ASHBM is THAT big knife for me. If the BS came first, it would be the one.
 
I only have the 1111 and the BS, and by far the BS bites much deeper than the 1111. With a 13asic 13olo, TG-P, and a BG WTF on the way I will probably never find myself in need of an ASHBM.

I can tell you that I was bummed when the ASHBM was no longer offered on the site, then came the BS and I have never regretted missing out on the ASHBM since.

Best of luck Rob, I have some user videos of the BS I have posted here before you could check out.
 
I haven't owned a Battle Saw but LOVED the ASHBM. The FFG on the ASHBM is awesome and would buy another before buying the Battle Saw just because i prefer heavier choppers and the Battle Saw is obviously lighter. Only slight problem was the straight handle as i much prefer the Fusion handle but honestly not a dealbreaker
 
Rob_Mob said:
I've owned it before --- and I really miss it --- the question is -- does it chop better and is it more efficient than the battle saw with respect to performance to weight ratio
Click to expand...

Well, I sure can't say. I don't have a battle saw. But both being straight handles, it will be simple physics.
 
The battle saw is almost a quarter pound lighter than the ASHBM at 25 ounces, and it just handles and balances perfectly! It bites DEEP and chews through wood like butter. The ASBH doesn't quite feel as nice in hand or chop as smoothly due to the extra weight / different balance. The battle saw also has the CBT, that plus a wider blade gives it another edge in performance over the ASHBM IMHO. The Saw sticks less in thick hardwood as a result of those two factors and is less likely to bind. The battle saw is a knife that feels and handles much lighter than it is.

Personally, I think if the ASHBM was similar in specs to the original SHBM (.25" thick, 10" blade, same width) it would perform and handle better than the ASHBM. I just think the ASHBM is bulkier than it should be and unduly large. I think it actually hurts its performance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top