Chopper in 1/8"?

Kevin McGovern

Kevin McGovern

Joined
Jul 31, 2015
Messages
3,118
6" blade. Will 1/8" 1080 work? No Batonning maybe?
7a329eb88aa38a7c0bab115339d8242b.jpg
 
i'm no expert but i'd go 3/16 pr maybe even 1/4" Having that lenght blade is handy for splitting wood. I guess it depends what you want it for. I do a lot of hunting on snowshoes in the winter with a pack and, I like multi tasking tools. I'm not sure how a 1/8 blade will endure abuse of batoning. maybe someone with more experience will chime in. I know I'm hard on my bear and some of ghe 3/16 and 1/4" stuff I have suffered a lot!
 
Mostly just around the campsite when car camping, cooking, light chopping. I'm not a fan of a knife this big in the back country on foot, I like to go light in that case.
 
I'd say you'll be ok. For the chores you listed. I live in an extreme remote location in northern canada. a small community that's isolated and the nearest town is a few hundred kilometers away. when i go out it's in the absolute wilderness and I always like to be prepared. Snow shoeing I always make sure I have a big knife I can chop wood , ice to get water or dig , peel bark for sap. I could skin and process game if needed , chop bone etc. To me a camping/survival knife would have to be a good 3/16 or 1/4" blade. You won't notice that much more weight in a pack. Might be worth it going a little wider. Try to think of past trips and what you used. did your past blades hold up to the tasks and what width where they
 
6" blade is in no way a "chopper" IMO.

I think you would be better off with a smaller knife and a small hatchet, or maybe even a folding saw. A Bahco Laplander folding saw will zip through wood like crazy and is very light. I prefer the Bahco saw over a hatchet. You can actually split wood with a saw. See here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSOXU0rrqOM

I've used big knives for as "do all" and am not a big fan of it. IMO knives are for cutting and axes/saws are for processing wood.
 
Bill Moran used to make some lightweight camp knives.
 
When being interviewed about the knife that he and Reggie Barker designed form Browning, Wayne Goddard said that a knife that size can actually be a more effective chopper than the classic "Nessmuk" size belt axe. I don't think that anyone would argue that a Jimmy Fikes Jungle Honey, which is big as hell, but typically made form 3/16 stock, is an inadequate chopper. Your mileage may vary.
JG Custom Metal Works said:
6" blade is in no way a "chopper" IMO.

I think you would be better off with a smaller knife and a small hatchet, or maybe even a folding saw. A Bahco Laplander folding saw will zip through wood like crazy and is very light. I prefer the Bahco saw over a hatchet. You can actually split wood with a saw. See here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSOXU0rrqOM

I've used big knives for as "do all" and am not a big fan of it. IMO knives are for cutting and axes/saws are for processing wood.
Click to expand...
 
jdm61 said:
When being interviewed about the knife that he and Reggie Barker designed form Browning, Wayne Goddard said that a knife that size can actually be a more effective chopper than the classic "Nessmuk" size belt axe. I don't think that anyone would argue that a Jimmy Fikes Jungle Honey, which is big as hell, but typically made form 3/16 stock, is an inadequate chopper. Your mileage may vary.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm, not quite sure what you're saying. Are you saying that a 6" blade should be considered a "chopper" or that the Fikes Jungle Honey is a good chopper?

I never mentioned the Jungle Honey. I'm sure it's a good chopping blade. I'd still much rather have a saw for getting firewood. Also not sure how well a Jungle Honey is gonna work for fine tasks or skinning. If I'm wanting a chopper, and I want to "go light" like the OP said, I'm not gonna want a Jungle Honey either. I'll take my light, hollow handle, Fiskars hatchet. Hell, I bet that Jungle Honey weighs as much as a full size axe. I'm not trying to bash it, Phillip Patton makes one that looks real cool. It's just not my kind of blade.
 
The first and most important question for any knife design project is ALWAYS: What do you want to cut with it? Defining and understanding that will guide you to the correct geometry. We are making tools, not fashion statements. The tool should fit the job. :)

I honestly think medium-size camp/survival/bushcraft/tactical models are the most difficult "outdoor" knives to design and make properly. It's pretty easy to make a thin 4" or less blade perform slicing chores extremely well, and it's even easier to make a thick 9" or longer blade chop with authority. But trying to get a 6"- 8" blade to do either type of task well, let alone both, is a whole lot trickier.

It's a tough compromise; right off the bat you're starting with a blade that's too long and unwieldy for really fine work, and simply not long enough for the leverage/tip speed that makes for efficient chopping and slashing. Unless you're determined to make a short chopper, in which case you need to start with stock at least 1/4" thick x 2" wide and make a cleaver... but cleavers aren't very versatile...

That's why, given a choice, when I go camping or "survivaling" or just working in the garden/yard, I very much prefer to have a light, thin keen 4" or less blade AND a big chopping tool (machete, big bowie, tomahawk or hatchet, etc.). That way I always have the optimum tool for the job at hand.

If you want to work with/make medium-size general purpose "outdoorsy" knives (and you should, at least to learn about them, because they're hugely popular), stock thickness and grind style should be determined by whatever you intend to cut most often.

I make my Growl GP/survival knives of 3/16" stock no more than 1.5" wide, with blades 5- 5.5" long, and give them a full-flat or very mild full-convex grind, with a bit of distal taper. I'm convinced that's a good compromise for a general purpose field knife. Almost any well-known "carbon", "stainless" or "tool" steel with top-quality HT will hold up just fine in that configuration.

While my Growls are obviously not as "slicey" as a chef's knife or skinner, nor close to long/heavy enough for a serious tree-knocker-downer, that overall geometry allows for an easy-to-carry/easy-to-use, reasonably lightweight knife. The fairly keen bevel helps them cut pretty dang well in almost all outdoor tasks, including food prep, letting the insides out of fish/game, whittling, making fuzz-sticks and so forth. There's plenty thickness along the spine to provide strength and stiffness for batonning and other rougher chores. There's also enough length of blade to allow for good snap-cutting (like knocking the small branches off a sapling to use it as a ridge-pole for your shelter). But a THK Growl is definitely not a true "chopper", and it's certainly not a pry-bar.

So! Depending on what you want to cut, I say either stick with 1/8" (or thinner) stock and make the blade shorter and handier, or use thicker stock and make it more sturdy. :)
 
Last edited:
Thanks all. I mostly am interested in this type of knife for two reasons. First, I have been camping, hiking hunting for close to thirty years and this type does seam popular with the current outdoor types. Second, I have no real experience with knives of this type and I just like making knives ( OK, three reasons...)
 
kdogmcg said:
this type does seam popular with the current outdoor types.
Click to expand...

This is one flaw I see immediately.

If you are building a knife for Yourself, build Your knife, it one Someone Else thinks you should use.

Make a blank out of cheap mild steel and shape a 2x4 to the handle dimensions you think you are going to end up with and see how it handles.
Just because something is trendy, doesn't make it efficient for how You handle a knife.

I would take a look at your current knives and make a list of your favorite blades (length, width and tip shape), your favorite handle shape, and make a mock up of that and see how the two compare.

You very well may end up with your original idea, or you might find a flaw as soon as you pick it up.
----------
1/8" should work well for your described camping situation. I would keep in mind that with the thinner stock, you might end up sacrificing some edge retention in search of some more toughness if you notice it doesn't agree with knotty wood too much.
 
Its all about your heat treatment and grind geometry. 1/8" 1080 definitely has the potential to make a knife that can do what you want in that situation and in that thickness. A bigger question for me is why. . . It seems small for a camp knife (chopping/digging etc.) and thin (yes you can make it so it won't break, but thicker spine will give you better splitting geometry), and big for anything else except sticking a hog. For my woodswork anything past a 4" blade is better handled by a good hudson bay ax or similar or a thin precise blade for cleaning fish and certain cuts on large game.
 
there's some good advice on this page. As weird as it may sound ... my favorite ... or one of my favorite knives is a 6" boning knife lol. It's a real companion and in 1/8 thick. I take it everywheres with me.
 
As has been mentioned here before...just use an axe on the larger, ultra hard woods. People are always trying to extend the 'reach' of their blade, a sort of do-it-all fantasy. You'll search far and wide, but there are different tools for different jobs. Simple stuff really.

I have a fillet knife that is less than 1/8 thick, but just like grumpy_grinder said, it goes with me on all camping trips, as does the now well worn Basic 9 that rides shotgun to my four pound razor sharp Arvika. A 1/8 inch stock isn't really ideal for chopping hard or frozen wood unless the rockwell is sufficiently low as in an Ontario 18 inch machete.

Come to think of it, my Ontario is still kicking and I have never chipped the blade despite some REALLY abusive tasks. Let's hear a cheer for some low rockwell offerings. Other than that, just use a tool for the job it was designed to do. We'll all be safer campers that way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top