can someone explain the shape of the nessmuk to me?

my experience using one to skin (even a thin, pointy one) is that this is not an ideal knife for the task....except on maybe the largest game (elk, etc)

To me, it has always had more practical application as a general outdoors knife.
 
BarberFobic1992 said:
I think that it provides a kukhuri effect, putting the weight forward in case of some light chopping
Click to expand...

In certain knives (large and thick) maybe. But Sears knife was thin bladed, and wasn't used for chopping at all.
 
I have no idea why George Sears actually wanted the design
Click to expand...
For having written so little on the subject, I have never been able to understand why he has such a following as to knives.
Everything about the knife is pure guess work since there was never an explanation on size, thickness, etc. That one little image is all we have to go on and to be honest, the design doesn't do a thing for me. It looks as if it may be a decent skinner but I would opt for others.
I would be more willing to follow the suggestions of someone like Marty Simon. He spends as much time in the woods and has a much better reputation. Maybe if I changed my style of writting and spoke more in terms of absolute, some day there would be the "Hoffman Trilogy". A chainsaw, Leatherman Wave, and Ritter/Benchmade fixed blade.
 
I made one for my brother in law who used it to tan some buffalo hides.
CCKnives120807%20206.jpg

He wrote me to say "it is the best tool I have ever used to flesh hides I have fleshed almost 1 complete hide and have skinned two buffalo heads. It has very good control and works well with the wrist."

I also made a fancy Nessmuk for my wife to use in the kitchen and she loves it for food prep.
KarensNessie1.jpg
 
I have one, and I like it very much. It's a nice "general purpose" knife for many things. It's not the be-all end-all, but it's handy. Mine is in O1 and takes and holds an edge well. I find that it's shape is well suited to my hands and very ergonomic. But that's all subjective, YMMV.

I do think that Sears, along with other people, have a sort of cult following. I've never understood the reason for this, but to each their own. I don't subscribe to one style or another, but enjoy trying them all, where possible.
 
He was a practical outdoorsman. He used a small knife for small jobs, a hatchet for light chopping, and a sheath knife (with a thin blade) for stuff in between. This practicality shows in the blade profile.

The front third of a blade is most vulnerable to lateral forces due to leverage. An alternative to greater thickness for greater strength and rigidity is greater width. Look at the original profile: the forward third where leverage in bending is the greatest is wide rather than thick to provide strength. He did not detail (obviously:D) the design theory, but it's an effective practical solution for a strong yet thin blade. The drop point, popular for hunting, is a less exaggerated version of the principle: it's more than just a profile to avoid puncturing the innards while field dressing. Opening the abdomen is actually a very easy and brief part of the process. Blade strength in the front third is required for jointing, quartering, and butchering. That's my take on it.:) Regards, ss.
 
One thing that I would like to add is that the shape of a nessmuk is easily made when forgeing , it kinda happens naturally when hammering out a bevel with out clipping the top .

Maybe the shape has more to do with what could be made easily and cheaply at the time rather specific task needed, look at many large knives of that time and alot of them have that "hump" , I look at this style of blade as a shorter"buffalo skinner"

just my thoughts
cya
jimi
 
Daniel Koster said:
my experience using one to skin (even a thin, pointy one) is that this is not an ideal knife for the task....except on maybe the largest game (elk, etc).
Click to expand...

In general, skinning knives with an upswept edge (of whatever general blade style) are indeed favored for skinning game in the medium to large categories (I say that because I can't classify FL deer as "big game"). Reason being, you start your cut at the base of the blade near the handle, and due to the upswept tip, the curve of the blade allows you to use one long stroke to completely or nearly completely slice the belly of the skin in one smooth motion, rather than have to sut, shift over, cut, shift over. . .for someone who wants nice pelts, they work well. IMO that kind of knife, unless unusually small, sucks at small game.

I think in general we glamorize the "old-timey" types because we'd like to be able to roam about as they did, and have some unexplored wilderness to, well, explore. What I've read of the old-timey types, they didn't put a lot of effort into choosing some things that we agonize over. They usually had general specifications for some things and go into great detail on others.

For instance, most didn't agonize over knives. But, like Nessmuk, they did agonize over their hatchet/axe and the bag they used to carry things. IMO that's because they considered the axe/hatchet the survival tool, knives as more of a convienence tool. You can skin and butcher (messily) game and such with an axe or hatchet. Chopping down trees (or chopping up deadfall) for wood when your coat and your fire were the things keeping you alive on an unexpected overnighter, is not something you wanted to do with your skinner.

Keep in mind that if you went into Wal*Mart and picked up the SAK (or Buck 109/110), a Buck Vanguard and an Estwing hatchet, you'd be "better knifed" than a lot of the old-timey guys.

We have the advantage of being able to surf the 'net and have what we want delivered to our doorstep in a few days. Buy what you like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top