- Joined
- Apr 26, 2011
- Messages
- 1,574
By that logic a BK9is not as good at battoning as a BK2 either.
And we both know that's not true.
If you measure the blade thickness of a BK -9 (3/16 vs the blade thickness of the new BK16 also 3/16" or very close) and THEN compare the grind height of the BK 9 (1 1/8" tall) vs the total blade height of the new BK 16 (looks to be 1/4") you will see the actual grind angle of the BK9 and the new Bk16 are about the SAME. So based on that, the BK-16 should be a heck of a wood splitter, no?
That explains why Ethan had no trouble at all going to a full height grind on a BK16. It's much ado about nothing.
Ok I re read what you wrote a few times and it finally clicked with what you were saying. The first couple of times I read it when you said the new bk16 I was still thinking the sabre grind version. Thus I didn't understand why a thinner grind would be desired. But with what you are saying is the FFG of the bk 16 is the same proportions as that of the 9. GOT IT NOW

However the only time I compared my 2 and my 9 head to head the 2 seemed to split the wood quicker due to the thickness. Granted the 2 was convexed and this was only ONE instance. I wonder what other people find to be the better splitter. From my limited experience the 2 worked better so that's what i was going from.
I know you posted almost the same thing before but I do appreciate the fact you wrote it again. I know plenty of the guys on here have WAY more experience than me with this stuff and I'm happy to soak up the knowledge and here all the opinions.