Cold Steel 1917 Frontier Bowie... forged or milled barstock?

6syyra.jpg

The above picture was taken by another forum member of his own 1917 Frontier Bowie Knife. As one can see, it's styling obviously takes cues from Bowies of yesteryear, but adds some touches that make it totally unique in it's own right. It's no copy of any other Bowie knife, but, I do believe others will eventually be made to copy it.

The CS Natchez Bowie definitely has some old school styling, but what I was comparing, when I mentioned it in my previous post, were the methods of it's manufacturing and some of it's materials. The Frontier Bowie is made using a 1055 or 1085 carbon steel blade (which is likely hand forged), a rosewood handle, and an all leather and metal sheath. Where it deviates from Bowie styles of old, (and in my opinion, in a cool way), is in it's having a large fuller, a blued blade, and it's use of screws for handle attachment (instead of pins or rivets). The tang on the Frontier Bowie being the way it is, makes the knife not be reliant on the wooden part of the handle for it's integrity. Even with the wood partially being chipped, or even broken, the use of the blade is not lost. The Natchez, on the other hand, is totally reliant on the synthetic handle material being sound, or it would lose it's integrity (the cable tang requires the handle to remain intact, nature of the beast). The Frontier model is simply more old school in construction method than the Natchez.
The current mono steel Natchez certainly utilizes more modern machinery and technology for it's construction, and it even shows in it's more refined appearance. It is made with an 01 carbon steel blade (which is likely blanked out or some how cut out of steel stock and then machined), but then it has a cable tang, a micarta handle, and comes with a kydex sheath. Overall I was comparing these manufacturing and construction methods (and certain materials), where the Frontier Bowie is a more old school made knife.

Cold Steel Natchez Bowie (mono steel version)
5b5th2.jpg

Features
Blade Length: 11-3/4"
Handle: 5-3/8" Black Micarta
Blade Thickness: 0.315" = 8mm
Steel: O-1 Carbon (earlier version using SK-5)
Weight: 24 oz.

Cold Steel 1917 Frontier Bowie
v6rty1.jpg

Features
Blade Length: 12.25"
Blade Thickness: 0.25" (1/4") = 6.35 mm
Blade Steel: 1085 Carbon (earlier version using 1055)
Weight: 23.8 oz
Handle: 4.625" Rosewood
Sheath: Leather Scabbard With Blued Steel Fittings


There are a couple video reviews about the Frontier knives, but one in particular goes into some details as to the blade having held up to some wood pallet cutting (hacking/chopping), but it did receive a small nick where it met with a nail during that task. It was not a big nick, and the video shows that nick, but I think things like that can be expected with such contact (the Frontier not being made with one of the more modern super steels). That video was one of the more recent ones put out there, and surely more will come out, but the Frontier Bowie is obviously still quite young in it's history ☺
 
Last edited:
What does the 1917 designation actually represent?

What truly surprises me is how many regard Windlass as a single shop and that Cold Steel sources only Windlass for large knives and swords.

Cheers

GC
 
horseclover said:
What truly surprises me is how many regard Windlass as a single shop and that Cold Steel sources only Windlass for large knives and swords.

Cheers

GC
Click to expand...

Sorry to be obtuse, but I don't really understand what you're saying. Pls elaborate.
 
Well, the 1917 name comes from their marketing of their blue bladed "1917 Navy Cutlass". Problem with that is, although the Cold Steel 1917 Cutlass is in many ways like the authentic American 1917 Naval Cutlass, the truth is, the Cold Steel Cutlass is closer to being a copy of a Dutch Klewang, which was the sword that the true 1917 Navy Cutlass was based upon. I know, confusing. But, the 1917 designation for their Bowie is to tie it with the many similarities that carry over from the CS 1917 Cutlass, like... The Rosewood handle, screws also used to secure the handle, blued blade, same type of sheath/scabbard, fuller (although much more pronounced on the Bowie), blued steel guard, and both being made by Windlass Steelcrafts.
In other words, the 1917 Bowie is not a replica of any historical Bowie, but takes some cues from CS' 1917 Cutlass.

Picture of an authentic 1917 US Naval Cutlass (notice the solid handguard that differs from the Klewang and the Cold Steel version)
24yx1l1.jpg


Picture of a Dutch Klewang
33mols3.jpg


Picture of my Cold Steel 1917 Cutlass (which is more like the Dutch Klewang)
28a3hpj.jpg


The Cold Steel 1917 Cutlass and 1917 Bowie scabbard/sheath are made the same way... The Bowie's only being shorter in length and having some steel instead of brass fittings.

Btw, the CS Cutlass is made using 1055 steel, which is also the way the CS Frontier Bowie started off with (now the Bowies being in the 1085).
 
Last edited:
You are right the half tang + cable of the older Natchez is a concern. It's a good thing they all come with black Micarta as standard now. Fortunately for me cold steel upgraded mine to the latest Micarta O1 version after I noticed a couple of hairline cracks on my original wood handle version.

I would say that a tiny nick when hacking into a steel nail is reasonable with a decent heat treat. My experience of their 1055 steel have been solid. My bowie machete will shave slivers off a brass rod without any rolling or significant dulling of the edge.
 
ichor said:
Sorry to be obtuse, but I don't really understand what you're saying. Pls elaborate.
Click to expand...

When one compares the Dynasty Forge medieval swords with the Cold Steel medieval swords, there is little doubt that they both come from similar sources in China (not that there is anything wrong with that). Also realize that Windlass sources from several forges/shops. See Weapon Edge and Universal Sword as makers of stuff like the CS "1917", dirks and spadroons. While I am well aware of the Windlass connection (see Hank Reinhardt disclosures more than a decade ago). I am more a sword guy than knife guy, so let's just say I try to keep track.

Cheers

GC
 
Well, the 1917 name comes from their marketing of their blue bladed "1917 Navy Cutlass".
Click to expand...

Gotcha. I guess the "Frontier" was just added as more fluff. Regardless, a fairly formidable blade. Would rather see a reproduction of the Ames rifleman's knife and call that one a frontier knife.

Cheers

GC
 
horseclover said:
Gotcha. I guess the "Frontier" was just added as more fluff. Regardless, a fairly formidable blade. Would rather see a reproduction of the Ames rifleman's knife and call that one a frontier knife.

Cheers

GC
Click to expand...

I actually like the fact that their "Frontier" Bowie is not a replica of any particular historical Bowie, but rather a Bowie with much uniqueness and a flair of it's own. Using the title "Frontier" seems kosher enough on this one, since it fits it's more mountain man/primitive/frontier appearance (it not having embellishments that would be more likely found on knives owned by the more well to do city gentlemen). With that said, I think these knives will make for a perfect blank canvas for those wanting to do some embellishing. The handle being an easy on/off thing, will likely see these being customized quite a bit 👍😉👍
As for Windlass... I own some Windlass knives that are marked as being made in China. On the other hand, the 1917 Frontier Bowie came tagged as a made in India product. Outsourcing happens, but, it seems that both the 1917 Cutlass and 1917 Bowie are Windlass of India made products. I would guess that Windlass has a fondness in having some of Cold Steel's contracts, and it would also make sense that they themselves would make as many of those contracted products in house as possible (as to more carefully control the end result). That's not to say that some of the lesser products Windlass sells through their own catalogs are not sourced out to other Indian makers. Obviously it's only Windlass and Cold Steel that knows the exact details of their conections, so we may never know what they all entail (and even that may be a fluid thing, with contracts and outsourcing changing at any time). I do imagine that Windlass losing the Cold Steel contract would not be in their best interest, and we all know that CS is not afraid of moving production elsewhere if there is reason to do so (for financial costs, or for better quality control). Windlass purchased the Marto company of Spain some years ago, hence their offering such an array of quality presentation swords (beautiful, but not made as weapons)... So, yes, Windlass has expanded it's horizons since first starting in India many decades ago 👍☺

Here is a picture of one of my Cold Steel 1917 Frontier Bowies. It is displayed here amongst some other Bowies (including some Windlass branded miniatures). The big one at the bottom is an Ontario SP-10 (Marine Raider Bowie). Up until I received my first 1917 Frontier Bowie, the Marine Raider was my biggest Bowie type knife. I even remember my first impressions of the Ontario Marine Raider when I first handled it. It was like "WOW, this is a beast!" (visual size and feel). But, as one can see, the Frontier is even more "WOW!"... lol! 😉

2q1gdav.jpg
 
Last edited:
PocketKnifeJimmy said:
I was glancing at Cold Steel's updated website today, and while they still do not mention if the 1917 Frontier Bowie is a forged or milled from steel stock knife, they have updated the steel info as now being 1085 (rather than the 1055). Actually, the description says 1085, but clicking onto the "details", it has the steel as being 1090. So, they are now officially listed as 1085 or 1090... one of those grades of carbon steel, but no longer the 1055.
Click to expand...

Awesome news. Definitely haven't purchased a CS product in a while
 
Needless to say, modern 1055 or 1085 is superior to the steels that knifemakers were working with 150 years ago. It was to their credit that they were able to do so much with so little.
 
PocketKnifeJimmy said:
I have read many reviews about the early 1055 version Frontiers having their cross guards more brownish in their bluing than their blades. Mine shows this too. I am guessing that the guards on these knives are of a different steel than the 1055 used for making the blades. That may explain why the guards are not blue/black like the blades. In any case, the guards with this brownish look are not made of a darkened brass, as some folks have suggested... They are steel guards. As for my two more recent specimens, their guards do match the same blue/black look of the blades. These are both likely the 1085 steel blade versions, and maybe the steel of the guards are more in line with being like the steel for the blades, and hence may explain the bluing matching (blade and guard). I like the look of both, with my 1055 Frontier's more brownish guard look only adding to the rustic look of the knife in general (atleast in my eyes).
Click to expand...

I had written the above in an earlier posting in this thread. I am showing that more closely here in one of the pics shared by someone else on the internet. This is more apparent in brighter light, like outdoor sunlight. The brownish color of the blued steel cross guard is pretty easy to notice in this picture. Again, my 1055 Bowie cross guard is similar in color to the one in this picture (under bright lighting). Where as my other two specimens, which were purchased later on and feel they are likely 1085 steel specimens, have their guards as blue/black as their blades.

34ngyhh.jpg


I do wonder if this was common when the Frontier Bowie was being made in the 1055 steel, and if it was totally rectified when they switched to the 1085. If that is the case, it would make identifying the earlier 1055 specimens an easy task ☺

Btw, I'm pretty sure that the CS Frontier Bowie was only made in 1055 steel for it's first year of production (2014), then switching to 1085 early in 2015.
Actually, to quote the Cold Steel Representative here on the Cold Steel Forum, the following was his answer to my question concerning when the change from 1055 to 1085 steel was made (the answer being posted on October 20, 2015)...
"OK, it appears that was a rolling change in materials in the second quarter of this year. All blades from then onwards will the 1085"
 
Last edited:
I was reading some posts here and there on the internet where some folks were a bit on the negative about Cold Steel's products all being outsourced to other manufacturing companies. I mean, yes, Cold Steel designs the products and sets the specs, but Cold Steel does not manufacture these items. Now, I know it's okay to feel anyway one wants about that, since the potential buyer of products is the one that must decide how and where their money is spent. That said, the Cold Steel practice of doing this sort of thing is nothing new. One famous brand example of such practices, was the original Auto Ordnance Thompson submachine gun. General Thompson had hired some folks to help in his designing guns, and the famous Tommy Gun was born out of that crew. Anyhow, Thompson's Auto Ordnance company did not have a manufacturing facility to make his new offering, so they contracted the Colt firearms company to make them. The famous 1921 (full auto), 1927 (semi auto), and 1928 (full auto) models were all initially made by Colt. They were marked with Auto Ordnance and Colt (Auto Ordnance the company behind the design, and Colt the makers of the gun). Later, during WW2, the Auto Ordnance Company hired Savage arms to produce their guns, and Auto Ordnance also set up manufacturing to finally make them on their own too. They made the 1928 Thompson and the more simplified M1 Thompson submachine guns. So, even though Auto Ordnance did eventually get into the production of their Tommy Guns, it was a couple decades after they had started by having others make them for them. The Browning company does this with their guns too, they contracting others to make their products. Another example was the Peerless Handcuff company, their famous and innovative cuffs (at the time) were made by others for them (namely Smith and Wesson). Eventually Peerless set up their own production of their cuffs, but they started with others making them. I think one can go back in time and find many examples where companies have designed a product, and then had those products made by someone else for them. Some of those companies never made the products themselves, where as some eventually did go to their own in house production, but the practice is by far anything new. Also, Cold Steel does actually design the products they want made for them, where some companies simply shop the world market to find merchandise that they like, and simply have those products stamped with their names to be sold as their products. This sort of thing is quite different, since the product is not designed by them, and can often be found identically offered by other companies, just bearing a different name brand. The Cold Steel products are obviously designed by Cold Steel, and the same product will not be made for another. The 1917 Frontier Bowie may be manufactured by Windlass Steelcrafts, but the design is all Cold Steel and their people/designers behind it. Just my 2 cents on the matter ☺
 
Last edited:
Cold Steel products are obviously designed by Cold Steel, and the same product will not be made for another.
Click to expand...
Not entirely so, as I outlined in a previous post to this thread. Windlass sells from not just one shop and one will find the sources of some of the swords as the same sources in India and China. The "1917" cutlass a prime example and sold by both Universal Sword and Weapon Edge. There are other "historical" sword types manufactured by more than one source.
 
Other companies may do their own reproductions, or models that are based on historical pieces... But, even though they may be very similar to Cold Steel's offerings, they may not be using the same specs that Cold Steel is having used for their products to be made. That, of course, may be something that Cold Steel may, or may not disclose... But the verdict is still out on that. I don't know of any "indentical' products sold out there to Cold Steel's... And only they can answer that definitively. Just by going on similar appearance, may not mean that the product is totally indentical in nature. As for the 1917 Frontier Bowie, it has no matching counterpart out on the market, and tt's obviously a Cold Steel exclusive. Even if a repro of it comes onto the market, I would imagine that it will not be from the indentical maker or made using the exact same specs that Cold Steel is using. Maybe the Cold Steel Representative will chime in on this subject, but until then, my guess is that Cold Steel products are exclusive to them, even if other makers may be putting out similar appearing products ☺
 
Last edited:
Again, sometimes the exterior similarities of products offered by different firms, may make it seem like the products are one and the same. But that, of course, is not always the case (although sometimes it is). As an example of how similar products can seem to be the same, but are not... Weapon Edge and Universal both offer what seems to be the same model Naval Cutlass as Cold Steel's 1917 Cutlass (all of which are based on the Dutch Klewang). But, even Weapon Edge has clarified that they may look similar, but that the Weapon Edge and Universal swords are not one and the same... They simply "appear" similar, but are not from the same source. Here is Weapon Edge' explaination of exactly what I'm trying to convey here (the fact that similar appearances of products do not guarantee the same origin)...

Dear Sirs,

Once again I want to clarify the situation with universal swords that , WEI is not connected with universal swords . before Universal swords were used to sell there indian style swords in local indian markets now they have got our blue prints and mould from some ways and they are trying to compete us... just for 3-4 months now they had seen there capability and started manufacturing cheap quality viking and Roman swords which don't have perfect measurements from any manner... but We make custom swords for Military officers and we had received appreciation certificates from military for best quality swords.

So now please dont compare Weapon Edge India with Universals..

Best Regards,
Nitesh Chouhan
C.E.O. WEAPONEDGEINDIA

So, as one can see, Weapon Edge has flatly stated that Universal Swords is simply not the same product as their own. That said, many may have believed they were the same, simply based on them visually appearing like they are.
 
Last edited:
The two companies are family that split, of course one will deny the other. My point continues to be that Windlass is not just one shop, not just one factory, not just one source.
 
For anyone that may be interested in the Cold Steel 1917 Frontier Bowie, the following video link will show Lynn Thompson talking about some features of this knife while being interviewed during the 2014 Blade show. I had seen this before, and had forgotten him mentioning Dave Baker when he talks about this knife. I don't know if Dave Baker completely designed this knife for Cold Steel, or if some input for it was given by Mr. Thompson and/or other Cold Steel personnel. He begins discussing this knife at about the 2:30 minute mark...

https://youtu.be/mAjVeanpgbI
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top