Becker Brute Concensus

Status
Not open for further replies.
Moine,

I took your post and its intent the wrong way, I then proceded to break my own personal laws of communication for the wrong reason, for that I apologize.

I think product loyalty is great, i myself am loyal to a good deal,and the most bang for the buck.

I have several Gb axes and hatchets, and have taken an interest lately in what is really required in a survival situation.

I have noticed that if you like a blade, chopper, folder, or fighter, that you will usually make mod`s to improve or enhance its performance.

I experimented with different edges on different blades, also modified handles to fit my own hand, something that evidently can`t be asked of manufacturer`s, atleast not at the prices we demand.

That being said, there are many good choices for all income levels, that being my defense of the Brute.

I say, buy what you can afford, then have fun trading until you find the one you have confidence in.

My personal favorites include; camp tramp, brute, RTAK, kukhri, busse, golok and all the ones I haven`t gotten my hands on yet.

"Having a bad day", more than I care to mention, but right now, new knife days are the best.


Rock On!
 
Fish,

You're right. Many mods can be done on a knife to make it closer to what you want from it... but within limits of course. I also agree that one has to make the best possible blade choices according to his budget. As a kid I bought a Tramontina machete. It cost me 7$ and I still use it a lot...

I -- of course -- accept your apology. I didn't think I deserved one, but the least I can do is to accept it and lend you the peace calumet ;) -- Something that would interest me more than apologies, however, would be your detailed views about the Brute. How do you use it, sharpen it, modify it to make it cut better than the CT ? Did you reprofile it ?

Cheers,

David
 
KT,

I was thinking about this when I was out 4wheeling last night. I decided to stop and find fire wood in the worst looking area I could find which was covered with small scrub oaks. Since it was dark already, I thought that I would try this without a light other than a sliver of ambient moonlight. There is still snow on the ground, so finding anything there was out – not that I would look there anyway. Instead I looked for whole standing trees that appeared to be dead and I found one with in seconds which was about 2” in diameter at the base with lots of tiny branches. These were dry enough to easily light with a match despite the fact that we have had snow, rain or freezing rain about every other day since November. I found several other small dead trees like this very close by, but I would have been hard pressed to find large dry logs in this area, at least without a light. Even if I had found some big logs and split them (instead of burning them whole so I could get some sleep without the fire going out), I don’t see how I would be preferable to using the smaller wood.





- Frank
 
Hi Frank,
Because when it is wet out here (think 10 inches of snow on the ground or a week of solid rain though it sounds like you get plenty of wet there too) even standing wood can be wet for the first 1/2", so if you try to make fire with it, you better have a lot of kindling and small dry wood to get it to self sustaining. The outside of the wood is wet, and smolders instead of burns unless you already have a sizeable fire going. Split wood catches much quicker, and the first portion is split much smaller than 2", I usually split a 4" round 3 times (gives you 4 pieces), this ignites much easier than a pile of wet small branches.

Where you split the wood it creates a corner of dry wood, this is laid into the fire, and ignites almost instantly when the wood is good and dry. If I but a whole round wet piece of wood on the fire it would not burn nearly as well, and would also be way more smoky.

Splitting the wood is so easy (and I admit it is also fun) that it really is not much of a chore. Place the wood on the block, stick the knife on top, hit with mallet. Usually it takes 2-3 hits and the wood splits when it is cold out, if it is warm you may need one more hit.

IN just a few minutes, I can have a nice size pile of wood split without much effort, and trust me if there was much effort involved I would not do it.

By using dead standing 4" wood and splitting it and having it ready in advance, which is not hard for for me, I find fire building to be easier, and when I am cold, or have just woken up and badly need my morning coffee an easy fire is a good thing.

You are right of course, that a fire built with 2" wood can be very sufficient. It will be long lasting enough, throw enough heat and produce some nice cooking coals. Once a fire is going well enough I have no problem tossing whole 2" wood onto the fire.

IN the end, whatever method works best for you is great, I suspect that much of it is climate related and te rst just a matter of personal preference. I am not saying what I do is the only way to do it, nor the best way, just what works best for me. I have been using my method since I was a boy scout 25 years ago and it has served me well. '

I am always intereted in hearning about what works well for other people, if it ends up making things more productive or easier, or more fun for me, I have no problem hanging or alternating. I like trying new things, it keeps me open and mentally flexible. It is a corner stone to creativity, and the mindset that I try to adopt.

Thanks for the good disscusion Frank!

KT
 
KT,

The small dead wood doesn’t get that wet, as long as it was standing and not laying on the ground. If you start with the match stick size stuff (and add larger wood gradually), a Vaseline soaked cotton ball will easily get it burning no matter how much rain there was. It is much more important that the wood be seasoned/dry on the inside than dry on the outside. I suppose using split wood might work better under some conditions, but I have never found it necessary.




- Frank
 
Frank,
I agree that 2" wood does burn well enough if you get dry wood. I have a small fire pit in my back yard, used for buring off brush and the like. In the summer it is often used for a nice fire in the evening, either for the kids to roast hotdogs and marshmallows over, or just for me to sit and stare at while I relax. I toss whole 2" chunkks in all the time, and it workls fine. Please don't think I discriminate against small wood.

Heck, with small wood I can make my kids carry it, supervising is easy work.

But in this thread, I was thinking more of a survival context and what I feel the minimum capabilities of a knife should be, in this case I think a wilderness use knife should be able to split wood without functional damage.

Carrying a knife that is capable of handling a wider scope of work, such as splitting (which I don't even consider that hard ona knife unless you are talking about knotty wood) just is better for me than carrying a knife that is not capable of this work.

It is like carrying a condom, better to have it and not need it then to need it and not have it. I guess that is a young/ single man's [or woman's] analogy though. For us married with children type folks it is like a spare tire in your trunk, better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. I guess the same goes for matches and a lighter, extra diapers, baby wipes and a spongebob squarepants DVD.

Getting back to knives, if the choice is a small machete not capable of being used for splitting (and I have never tried it) or a thicker knife about the same size that is, the choice is easy for me. I don't do a lot of grass, reed and small soft vegetation cutting in the outdoors when I am there for recreation, but I do split wood and it is a requirement that a big knife be able to do it for me to rely on it in the woods.

I understand your preference, style, materials and choices are different and that is cool with me, whatever works best for you. I have a friend that hiked the AT trail, he laughs at how much gear I take for a weekend. He spent about 8 months on the trail with a Leatherman Micra as his only cutting tool, he never built a fire once, though he did sit by other people's fires at shelters sometimes.
 
Good point about having some extra capability built into tools used survival KT, but I would still try to avoid batoning or splitting wood or anything else which uses up energy or risks (no matter how slight) injury or damage to my knife in a survival situation....unless I have no other options.



- Frank
 
frank k said:
Good point about having some extra capability built into tools used survival KT, but I would still try to avoid batoning or splitting wood or anything else which uses up energy or risks (no matter how slight) injury or damage to my knife in a survival situation....unless I have no other options.

- Frank
Click to expand...

Frank, you have a logical approach. I cook on a packstove. Fire has an alure but I think it creates a "room" of light that cuts me off from the outdoors. So I build a fire only when needed (typically for a cold, wet kid). If "squaw wood" is available, and it often is, no need for any tool. Ialso carry a pack saw.

All that being said, the risk of batoning with the knives I carry (3/16" thick) --using proper technique (like, keep the knife level, pry almost not at all, and use some sense about how hard you hit) -- is truly slight.

But if you intend to baton when needed, you should practice. First-timers do tend to rock the knife, try to pry the wood apart, AND use a whole lot more force than is required. If you have but one main blade, you sure don't want to break it out in the lonely.
 
As Thomas wrote, batoning is not as stressful on a blade or a person if done smartly. Keep the knife level if you can, if not a little blade forward dip is fine with a heavy duty knife, but don't use lateral pressure. Use a heavy baton and let its weight do the work for you.

I know Frank is a very knowledgable knife user and outdoorsman (I remember his posts well from other forums), so this is nothing new to him. In fact, when someone of his experience writes, I read it very carefully, because I know I am about to learn something!

I also know there are lots of ways to accomplish the same goals, and that sometimes the goals are different anyways. Please don't think I am trying to pass myself off as an expert about anything because I am not by any definition oif the word. I am here to learn and share, hopefully more learning than anything!

Of course we can't choose a survival situation, Mr. Murphy just comes for a visit. So knowledge of lots of techniques is important. When I was younger, I would just take 2" or so dry wood, hold it at an angle and give it a good stomp, dry wood breaks pretty easy like that. Ron Hood and Radio Ray show using a Y in a tree to break bigger wood up in to useable pieces.

I find a fire to be very friendly. While it does isolate one a bit, as Thomas mentioned, it gives me comfort, not just for warmth, but in a primal kind of way. Kind of the "smoothing it" Nessmuk writes about.

THanks for the good disccusion guys.

KT
 
knifetester said:
. . .

Of course we can't choose a survival situation, Mr. Murphy just comes for a visit. So knowledge of lots of techniques is important. When I was younger, I would just take 2" or so dry wood, hold it at an angle and give it a good stomp, dry wood breaks pretty easy like that. Ron Hood and Radio Ray show using a Y in a tree to break bigger wood up in to useable pieces.

KT
Click to expand...

KT's comment reminds me of something. A saw cut half way through the thickness of the piece of wood promotes spliting lengthways when the wood is struck against something "hard" ballbat style. That would spare your knife.
 
Moine said:
Fish,

Something that would interest me more than apologies, however, would be your detailed views about the Brute. How do you use it, sharpen it, modify it to make it cut better than the CT ? Did you reprofile it ?

Cheers,

David
Click to expand...


There are pictures on the general discussion forum that have the handle of the Brute in them for comparison, I mistakenly called the Companion that I modified a BK-7, and that is the title of the thread, I don`t know how to get the thread and provide you a link to it or I would gladly do so.

Figured it out(the link thing) ,I emailed the pictures to Powells85 and he posted the pictures for me www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=330823&page=2&pp=20&highlight=bk-7

One thing that you can not see in the picture is that I filled the cavities with Devcon. Really made the knife, imo, feel much more substantial.

I raised the bevel significantly, also did this on my camp tramp, and feel they are both much better choppers as a result.

I started some time ago sharpening my larger knives on a belt sander. I have always used a belt sander, being in maintenance, and it just took a little practice. Nice toothy, industrial? feeling edge that holds up well.I also took a long narrow fine india stone to the edge and then finished with a strop.

The very day that I replied to your post I had been outside chopping with my CT and Brute. The CT, atleast in my hands, does not trail the Brute by a lot, but neverthe less it does.
One thing that I have not done is take the two out and work them to one edge does fail or loose its bite. Not sure that I have that much enthusiasm, as I have been using both with the current edge for a while and have not noticed any significant edge loss.
We recently had an ice storm and the trail to my deerstand(approx 150yds) was riddled with small oak and pine sapplings that had fallen over in to the trail from the weight. Size of trees was 1/2" to 3" and the Brute got the call to clear the way.
It took me around 3 hours to clear that trail. The edge on the Brute, well, it was in the next room so I went and got it to confirm that it would still shave arm hair and it does, everywhere except the very top of the recurve.

From edge to top of the bevel is 3/16", I also added a finger choil, my thinking was in a survival situation the ability to choke up on the blade might come in handy.

One more thing that needs to be said,
I purchased my Brute in a package deal, maybe even along with the CT, and It was used(not abused) and I think I got it for 55 or 60 bucks. I did get a good deal on the CT, but probably paid a little over double that for it.

The Brute, for me, gets the nod on being a better chopper(slightly) and a better value. If I had to buy one new, my opinion might vary a little.

The CT, for a seven inch blade, absolutlely kicks a$$, and I really like the way it feels in my hand.

Now if that same situation came up with the ice storm, My modified RTAK would get the nod. I completely removed the existing edge and started over, removed a lot of mat`l from the handle, and it is a wicked chopper.

Well, I just realized how long winded this is and so I`m going to close,
 
fish,

Nice handle reprofiling. I will try that.

You didn't have durability problems with the reprofiled Brute, then...

Tell you what. I have to be honest here. After reading your last post I took two hours and reprofiled my Brute a little. I took the camping mat out and bit into the steel with 180 grit sandpaper. It took a long time to remove enough metal (that steel really is 58 RC !!!). Then I resharpened it with 320 grit, and then 600 grit. I gave it a finish using my jeans as a strop, and it came out hair popping sharp.

At first I was worried about toughness, but since I'm not using it as is, I thought it could be worth trying anyways. I didn't make it very very thin, but it's nevertheless much thinner than it was. I gave it a wide convex edge (for toughness AND good penetration in the wood). The results are, predictably, a much better chopping capacity. The blade bit much better, and yes, I have to say it, it not outchops the CT by about 10%.

For my needs, those 10% are not enough to make me carry the Brute instead of the CT (especially since the CT is still much more versatile), but I have to give you the point. The reprofiled Brute does outchop the CT.

Cheers,

David
 
Moine,

I think that your point of versatility(camp tramp) is a good one, and I agree.

I also think that your 10% advantage assessment is an accurate one.For extended periods of hard use, could make a difference in the long run, or when you get tired, pull out the CT

I noticed earlier today while checking on an order from http://www.texasknife.com/store/s-pages/TKS_MainframeStore.htm

That they carry devcon. It is an excellent filler for the cavity on the brute and its superman tough. It will change the feel of your brute(and other Beckers) completely. I finished up with 220 sand paper which gave a little texture for gripping.

I used the handle(conours) of my Ct to improve my Brute handle.

Let me know how it comes out,

fish
 
Rock6,

I remembered the pictures that you had posted,

I have been looking for a machete to chop through a pine thicket(fairly heavy) not much room to swing once you get in there.

So, I have been drooling over your collection and wanted to here your opinion and recommendation based on your collection and how you have used them.

Thanks in advance

fish :cool:
 
scfishr said:
Rock6,

I remembered the pictures that you had posted,

I have been looking for a machete to chop through a pine thicket(fairly heavy) not much room to swing once you get in there.

So, I have been drooling over your collection and wanted to here your opinion and recommendation based on your collection and how you have used them.

Thanks in advance

fish :cool:
Click to expand...

Fish, good question...I typically go with short blades due to backpacking, but they're also more advantageous in dense vegetation where you can't get a full swing with larger blades.

I really like the forward-weighted designs of the Khukuri, Woodman's Pal or Golock. They don't require a full swing, you can get a short chopping stroke that's pretty effective on the harder stuff, of course the heavier they are the more fatigued you'll get, so there is some trade off. Thin blades just require too much work on hardwood, so I avoid the Martindale and Ontario...I'm getting more and more surprised from the rubber handled Golock, which has a much thicker/heavier blade. I haven't seen much advantage of the RTAK (mine is a Livesay) over a standard Ontario machete for clearing...it does much better on regular chopping though.

I really like the Woodman's Pal for what you're describing, it seems to have a little shorter reach though and depending on the density, the sickle edge my get hung up. I haven't done much yet with the Brute or EVO1, but given the shorter length, they may be more maneuverable, and the Brute would probably do quite well with a re-profiled edge and some handle work like you've already done.

Hope that helps...

ROCK6
 
Rock6,

Thanks for the response,

I agree that the RTAK is a good chopper.

What I need to do is take the blades that I have out there and try them out.

What is the name of the rubber handle golok that you referred to.

The brute, with reprofiled edge, and modified handle is a good all around tool.
 
Fish,

First let me welcome you back to this thread. It takes a big man to step up after stepping on it, ands we all have bad days. That shows guts and class.

The handle mods you did on the Brute look very nice. Like you, I don't care for the Becker handle design.

One question, the Devcon you used to fill the handle hollows, how does it effect the balance of the knife? It seems that filling the substantial hollows with Devcon (which is pretty dense stuff and nuclear tough) would shift the balance of the blade back towards the handle and make it more neuteral handling? That probablly makes it much easier to use on brush and for heavy machete work and reduces fatigue when using it for smaller taks, but how does it effect heavy chopping perfromance?

The reason I ask is that for heavy chopping, I find that blades that have very heavy forward seem to chop best for me. That may be because of the technique I use (slower, big movements using large muscle like the shoulders and hips) rather than a wrist/ arm snappy type chop. So a blade heavy balde seems to gather more momentum and get better penetration for me.

Any details and insght you can provide would be appreciated.

KT
 
Rock6,

thanks for the link, I am now trying to decide whether or not to step up to 18" for clearing thicket. Now that I`ve whittled my RTAK down to size, its very close to fitting the 10-12"niche, Some very good points have been made in favor of the 18".

KT,

You are correct in that devcon is "nuclear" tough. As for changing the balance:


it added a heft to the companion that made it feel like I really had something(self defense or tool) in my hand, it rides in my truck in the center console. The devcon handle makes it formiddable at either end, but also allowed me to deeply contour the handle to literally custom fit it to my hand(wanted to be able to hang on to it). The companion(per dollars spent)is one of my favorites. Its been reprofiled and stropped to a surprizing edge.

The devcon did change the brute( but the brute had enough heft,imo), to still have a weight forward feel in a full grip. I like a weight forward feel also, one reason that I like my CT so well. I removed a good bit of mat`l from the brute handle, but left a nice pronounced and smoothed heel.
This allows me to slide back to a 3 or 4 finger grip when I want to get some chopping done quick, and in this position the added weight of the handle actually adds to the chopping ability. My technique for most chopping is a combination of arm swing and some wrist snap.

I have learned to let the blade do the work(as I`m sure most have), being more patient and focusing on good hits that maximize removal of wood(angles).

I still enjoy getting out in the fall with a pair of overhauls and a cup of coffee and using my various tools to split a pile of wood.(some kind of therapy) not that I need it :D

Alright, I couldn`t stand it, went out to the truck and got the companion, took it out back and did a little chopping (3 finger grip) on a fig tree, a small pine, a dead fig, and a small oak sappling, I feel that it did a good job, but did not chop with it prior to mods. Still shaves effortlessly(the dead fig was much harder than I thought it would be), figured it would have rolled the fine edge, but no.

If any one here wants to do a side by side of the brute or companion with the filled cavities, let me know, I would gladly send either or both for comparison.
 
Please correct me is I am wrong in this matter, but it would seem to me to be a matter of simple materials engineering that the more highly polished an edge is, the less prone it is to failure of any type (other than abrasion) because the polish reduces the size of defects from which miro- (or macro-, for that matter) cracks tend to propagate. All else being equal, of course.

It comes under the heading on stopping a crack by drilling a nice round stress relieving hole.

That, then brings up a sub-point of a knife intended purely to cut meat which is best edged like a micro-saw . . . .

Do ya'll believe this to be so, or not so?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top