CGFBM or FFBM for Batonning?

Joined
Nov 2, 2005
Messages
169
Well, Im down to 1 FFBM and 1 CGFBM, and one of them has to go to sale. Which one is better for battoning through wood? The CG may be better because its slimmer profile might go deeper more easily due to its slim profile. Then again the FFBM might force the split to happen sooner because of its fatter profile. Whats your guys experience?
 
i only have a cg, it batons pretty easily. though i prefer my ruck for splitting wood.
 
I can't comment on the specific comparison, but I will say that, in general, I've found thicker knives much more efficient for batoning. With a thinner knife you have to baton much further through the wood, whereas thicker knives split the wood much sooner. For this particular application I say, "Go Fat":D .
 
Another point to consider is that the fatties do not have a swedge on the top of the blade. It is a nice flat surface. It will not chew up your baton so fast.
 
whichever you like best. I have been beating the liven hell out of my CG for months now and it is ugly as all hell, but no issues at all with it.
 
Go with the fat.

I see more fat splitting wedges than skinny, and I think there's a reason for that.
 
I've used em both and like the Fatty. I'm selling all my CGFBM's and keeping my 2 fatty's. The Fatty is a monster and is actually heftier than the FBMLE (at least to me). It feels like sex in your hand with standard scales :D. It kinda sucks for brush clearing as it's a little weighty and thick for that job but for pure chopping/wood splitting it's a beast. I'm going to use it for the heaviest stuff while the SHBM gets the lighter stuff (or the longer jobs where the FFFBM might tire me out more) while my Eu-17 magnum gets carried shotgun on my backpack and handles the lighter work of the three....probably end up competing with the SHBM though. My Eu-17 is like 1/2 way in between the SH and the BM but with a narrower blade and a little more than .250'' thickness.

I've yet to see a Busse that I don't like :p
 
Back
Top