Bb13 bg vs cg?

S

scrappy

Joined
Jul 7, 2007
Messages
852
Originally some felt the CG version would be too heavy and actually perform worse then the thinner battle grade version. I remember some even used the word "balance". Now that Jerry has improved the balance, what do you think will prove to be considered by more hogs as the better "chopper"?

Personally I had a fbm which at the time I sold it I wanted something heavier, since then I felt the ffbm and nmfb were too heavy. I regret selling them a little, but I really regret selling the fbm. My point is I may prefer a blade more balanced than the ffbm. Since then I have been using a chophouse and 1111. Once again I want something heavier (like a fbm) and I am wondering if the cgbb13 could be that perfect sweet spot for me. Hit harder than the 1111 or 1311 but still not be too heavy and the res c handle might help it feel comfortable even with all that weight swinging down.
Which do you think will be the better chopper of the BG vs CG.
Do you think they will reign with your current top choppers?
Thank you for you opinions.
 
Last edited:
if the basic 11 was any indication, the b13 should be awesome
 
I think the Battle Grade will be the top performer. I'm looking forward to comparing them both to the 1311.
 
I think the bit of extra weight on the CG version will make it a better chopper than the BG version. My hunch is that it will become my third best chopper, behind my Sasquatch and MOAB.

 
I have an 1111 and 1311. Based on those two, I initially thought I'd prefer the BG because I worried that the CG would have too much forward weight to handle comfortably. Not that it would be too heavy to swing around, but that it wouldn't be very agile or versatile.

However, I ended up figuring that with my other blades either one was going to be a dedicated chopper anyway and went with the CG because it was more different than the 1311, INFI, and "go big or go home."

I understand that some people are bummed that the CGs were slimmed down, but I'm optimistic that it's the perfect compromise for me. It's sounds like the shop had concerns about the balance as well and that's why they made the change.

It just seems like at 13", there's a limit on how thick/heavy that blade can be before you'd want full-tang slab construction to put more weight in the handle vs. the slimmed down profile used for the Basics.
 
I'd say it depends,,,
If both have an obtuse factory edge,, the thin BG might do better.
With a reprofile and knock the shoulders down, the CG all day.
 
Nothing outperforms INFI in a chopper... nothing. Weight equals penetration on a chopper. The CG will be the better of the two based on these facts.

But I still bought both! :D

:thumbup:
 
No doubt the CG will perform better simply because of it's weight!!!
kdstrick said:
Nothing outperforms INFI in a chopper... nothing. Weight equals penetration on a chopper. The CG will be the better of the two based on these facts.

But I still bought both! :D

:thumbup:
Click to expand...
 
I think weight without geometry is nullified,, otherwise it just smashes the wood.
Weight behind a nice sharp thin edge and now you're really biting deep.
I've been playing around a lot lately with the thickness behind the edge of my battle mistress and testing how it affects how deep it bites into Pine 2X4's.
It's obvious and goes without saying that a thinner edge will bite deeper, so I've taken mine to a 15° per side with a 20° micro bevel. I won't be smashing into any cinderblocks or metal but it's really dramatically improved the performance in regards to organic material.
 
Last edited:
Forgive my ignorance as I am still a novice in this game, but would convexing the shoulder and doing a high polish be an effective approach for a dedicated chopper?
 
Ianski said:
Forgive my ignorance as I am still a novice in this game, but would convexing the shoulder and doing a high polish be an effective approach for a dedicated chopper?
Click to expand...

I still consider myself a newbie as well, but I've noticed a few things over the years.
When you say "convexing the shoulder" I assume you mean removing material, not just rounding it off. If that is the case then yes it should assist in biting deep.
As to the high polish, it should also prevent striction, and aid in penetrating.

This was the thickness behind the edge on my 1111 before the re profile.
70ac075a5357770076839e8071cf5ce9.jpg


Location of the same thickness post profile.
a6f6173d60186ab8537a7364df52c0b8.jpg


Thickness of the spine of my cgfbm
cbbcfbcc6636e82e8186f6fa33a99cb9.jpg


And how the edge measures post reprofile
https://vimeo.com/196974634
 
rcb2000 said:
I think weight without geometry is nullified,, otherwise it just smashes the wood.
Weight behind a nice sharp thin edge and now you're really biting deep.
Click to expand...

Based on my experience, I have to agree. For example, my Boom Parang chops much better than my D-Guard BM. Both are SR101, blade length is 1" different, but at .250" vs .187" the BM is much heavier and has a much thicker profile. It almost bounces off the wood, where as the Boom Parang really sinks in. That being said, I ordered the CG and I was happy to hear that they're slimming it down a little.
 
inkynate said:
I have an 1111 and 1311. Based on those two, I initially thought I'd prefer the BG because I worried that the CG would have too much forward weight to handle comfortably. Not that it would be too heavy to swing around, but that it wouldn't be very agile or versatile.

However, I ended up figuring that with my other blades either one was going to be a dedicated chopper anyway and went with the CG because it was more different than the 1311, INFI, and "go big or go home."

I understand that some people are bummed that the CGs were slimmed down, but I'm optimistic that it's the perfect compromise for me. It's sounds like the shop had concerns about the balance as well and that's why they made the change.

It just seems like at 13", there's a limit on how thick/heavy that blade can be before you'd want full-tang slab construction to put more weight in the handle vs. the slimmed down profile used for the Basics.
Click to expand...

Nate, I felt the same. I have a 1311 and decided if I am going bigger then it then go big. At first I was sad it's now thinner but upon consideration I am wondering if it will hit the sweet spot,
 
Ryker said:
Based on my experience, I have to agree. For example, my Boom Parang chops much better than my D-Guard BM. Both are SR101, blade length is 1" different, but at .250" vs .187" the BM is much heavier and has a much thicker profile. It almost bounces off the wood, where as the Boom Parang really sinks in. That being said, I ordered the CG and I was happy to hear that they're slimming it down a little.
Click to expand...
Ryker, I don't mind thick spine but not thick edges :)
I think busse has done much better with it these last few years
 
Rcb2000, is the edge thickness 1.39 before and after reprofile? I think I am confused :)
Agreed, geometry can't be under valued here.

/zmbhntr, that's a sweet set of blades.
 
scrappy said:
Rcb2000, is the edge thickness 1.39 before and after reprofile? I think I am confused :)
Click to expand...
Sorry if confusing.
I measured the thickness behind the edge closer to the tip, before the reprofiling.
Just to show the difference, I showed the location on the bevel of the same thickness,, after I reprofiled, to show how much material was removed.
heres the link to that thread with more details.
http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/s...mans-Lansky-UPDATE-pic-heavy?highlight=lansky
 
CG. I was afraid it would be too thick and heavy at the 0.25" thickness. But even though it is only .03" thinner, I believe the BB13CG will be perfect. I had even thought to myself, "If only it was just 0.22" thick."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top