Gaston 444

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rob_Mob said:
I'm sorry -- I don't understand --- you claim to be interested in a knife that has capability of maintaining a 12 degree edge angle or 24 degrees inclusive --- then you mention you want an edge bevel thickness of .02 ---- then you mention you want it to be a chopper for prolonged use. With such specific specifications -- why wouldn't you just reprofile the best steel you can find to those specifications??
Click to expand...

You and Cobalt make the same point, of which I have no comprehension at all: When you want to improve an edge, you can reduce the bevel angle to make it sharper, but in no way does this make the edge thinner... All you are doing is raising the bevel's base and making the bevel sides broader, and making the bevel base higher and usually thicker, with a sharper edge below it, but that is not a thinner edge bevel...

This is like putting a band-aid on a knife that is essentially garbage at its core... Yes it will improve performance, but in no way would I call this a true re-profile... When you have tall edge bevels, you insure the knife will be very hard to re-sharpen, in the field by hand, to a precise standard, and usually with ugly uneven "facets" all over...: It's in the nature of tall bevels of being short-term boosts to an inadequate basic geometry...

A real re-profile is what I often ask of my own professional sharpener, and it basically involves asking the poor guy to make a whole new knife out of the old one, by thinning the actual edge from the secondary grind down, not the primary, and re-finishing the whole thing from stem to stern: This is basically knife-making, and as a customer I can tell you I don't enjoy being in the by-proxy knife-making business... In fact I pay actual knife makers to do their damn job, but I have to admit they don't come through very often edge thickness wise (which in my experience should never, ever be over 0.040"), hence my wariness in spending on their wares...


Rob_Mob said:
If you've done proper research --- you'd know that there's very few companies that can produce that reliably. That's the key word --- "Reliably". This is where you'd have to find a company with the best heat treatment. This is where you'd have to find a company that is willing to very quickly and easily offer you a replacement should your blade fail.
Click to expand...

It is very commendable that they do so, but I would probably just look elsewhere if I wasn't happy once... Since my dreadful experience with the Neeley SA9, I have to admit I will take edge-testing more seriously from now on, since the heat treat here was obviously a failure...

Rob_Mob said:
Irregardless --- Busse Knives easily fit your criteria.
Click to expand...

Until I know the edge bevel thickness at its base, I have not a clue if they do... The fact that this information is not widely disseminated, given how much talk there is about Busse, is not encouraging I have to say... I'll say it again: I can close a bevel angle, but I am not in the damned knife-making business..

Rob_Mob said:
Furthermore -- you never addressed the legitimate points that have been already raised about your supposed objective knife comparisons --- take a Busse chopper of a certain size and compare other blades the same size.
Click to expand...

Let me put it this way: I know from Youtube videos that the BK-9 generally outchops the Trailmaster by around 10-15%. I don't like the BK-9 because I think a blade that is allowed to leave out of the shop with a lateral cooling curve shows poor quality control way beyond what I can take...: Maybe mine was one out of a hundred, I don't care, with knives I don't give second chances, ever, for any reason...

Furthermore, the BK-9's handle was, bare-handed, a vibration nightmare, and horrifically unconfortabe for that reason compared to a Chris Reeves Jereboam MK II that is 3/4" shorter in the blade, and chops on par...: The CR's knurled round handle was the best I have ever tried so far... The Chris Reeves I haven't yet compared to my current benchmark the Randall Model 12 (The CR being out for a partial re-profile), but if it is better than that, it would definitely be the ultimate chopper I own... If only its A-2 was not so crappily soft (from what I heard)...

I don't think much of the San Mai III Trailmaster's poor performing, and fairly thick, convex edge, but I realize that's the fashion of the times these days... It performs OK otherwise when you put a V-edge on it...: I just bought one as a benchmark to see how things stack up... The handle is too narrow and transfers energy to the wood very poorly because of that...

Any knife that cannot out-chop the Trailmaster is in deep, deep trouble in my opinion... That's how this knife is my benchmark... And that includes OOB Battle Mistresses... So yes, it is a benchmark of sorts...


Rob_Mob said:
Make sure the edge bevel thickness is the same. Make sure the edge angle is the same.
Click to expand...

As I said, these two things are vastly different things, and I am not in the knife-making business... All I can observe seeing is Busse OOB performance being below a Trailmaster, with 10 ounces of extra weight... I don't know at all if that's bevel angle or bevel thickness that is at cause, but that is seriously pathetic... Right down to another test where the guy pronounces them "equal", when it is so clear the Trailmaster did the cleaner and deeper cut...

I did see an interesting design in the Blackheart Juggernaut...

I know there are out there several sharpening professional who will put any edge thickness you want on an $800 Battle Mistress, but I am simply not interested in doing that... Furthermore, you go on about how that should be done, but even if the re-profiler is serious and uses watercooled belts, you still run the risk of ruining your all-important heat-treatment that is supposedly the whole point of these things...

If heat-treatment is that important, why aren't the knives done in such a way you will have no temptation to ruin the temper on a belt grinder?

Gaston
 
Gaston, you are presuming that the BM has more metal behind the edge. The BM actually has a thinner profile to the edge than a TM. The blade is nearly 1/2 inch wider and the starting thickness is the same. A flat ground 0.3 inch blade that is 2 inches wide is going to have a better profile than a 1.5 inch wide, 0.3 inch blade that is convex ground to the edge. So thinning the edge is all this is needed if that is a problem. A BM with zero edge needs no help at all. So not sure where you come up with your premise about the BM when you don't even own one and never have. There are a few reviews of the BM by owners of both and in those reviews, the BM wins easily. Here is one

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php/664408-Trailmaster-SK-5-VS-Battle-Mistress


Many years earlier is another:

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php/83140-Trailmaster-vs-Battle-Mistress-cont

And of course the comparison of Turbers test of a B9 vs the TM.


Funny thing is you don't own a BM and yet you think you know all about it.

The fact that you think that the edge is what makes a knife garbage and nothing else matters is why you still have what you do. Enjoy.

and one parting thought, you may have to worry about the following with all your knives, I certainly don't with mine

[video=youtube;KmO0XSWhV04]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmO0XSWhV04[/video]
 
Gaston444 said:
You and Cobalt make the same point, of which I have no comprehension at all: When you want to improve an edge, you can reduce the bevel angle to make it sharper, but in no way does this make the edge thinner... All you are doing is raising the bevel's base and making the bevel sides broader, and making the bevel base higher and usually thicker, with a sharper edge below it, but that is not a thinner edge bevel...

This is like putting a band-aid on a knife that is essentially garbage at its core... Yes it will improve performance, but in no way would I call this a true re-profile... When you have tall edge bevels, you insure the knife will be very hard to re-sharpen, in the field by hand, to a precise standard, and usually with ugly uneven "facets" all over...: It's in the nature of tall bevels of being short-term boosts to an inadequate basic geometry...

A real re-profile is what I often ask of my own professional sharpener, and it basically involves asking the poor guy to make a whole new knife out of the old one, by thinning the actual edge from the secondary grind down, not the primary, and re-finishing the whole thing from stem to stern: This is basically knife-making, and as a customer I can tell you I don't enjoy being in the by-proxy knife-making business... In fact I pay actual knife makers to do their damn job, but I have to admit they don't come through very often edge thickness wise (which in my experience should never, ever be over 0.040"), hence my wariness in spending on their wares...




It is very commendable that they do so, but I would probably just look elsewhere if I wasn't happy once... Since my dreadful experience with the Neeley SA9, I have to admit I will take edge-testing more seriously from now on, since the heat treat here was obviously a failure...



Until I know the edge bevel thickness at its base, I have not a clue if they do... The fact that this information is not widely disseminated, given how much talk there is about Busse, is not encouraging I have to say... I'll say it again: I can close a bevel angle, but I am not in the damned knife-making business..



Let me put it this way: I know from Youtube videos that the BK-9 generally outchops the Trailmaster by around 10-15%. I don't like the BK-9 because I think a blade that is allowed to leave out of the shop with a lateral cooling curve shows poor quality control way beyond what I can take...: Maybe mine was one out of a hundred, I don't care, with knives I don't give second chances, ever, for any reason...

Furthermore, the BK-9's handle was, bare-handed, a vibration nightmare, and horrifically unconfortabe for that reason compared to a Chris Reeves Jereboam MK II that is 3/4" shorter in the blade, and chops on par...: The CR's knurled round handle was the best I have ever tried so far... The Chris Reeves I haven't yet compared to my current benchmark the Randall Model 12 (The CR being out for a partial re-profile), but if it is better than that, it would definitely be the ultimate chopper I own... If only its A-2 was not so crappily soft (from what I heard)...

I don't think much of the San Mai III Trailmaster's poor performing, and fairly thick, convex edge, but I realize that's the fashion of the times these days... It performs OK otherwise when you put a V-edge on it...: I just bought one as a benchmark to see how things stack up... The handle is too narrow and transfers energy to the wood very poorly because of that...

Any knife that cannot out-chop the Trailmaster is in deep, deep trouble in my opinion... That's how this knife is my benchmark... And that includes OOB Battle Mistresses... So yes, it is a benchmark of sorts...




As I said, these two things are vastly different things, and I am not in the knife-making business... All I can observe seeing is Busse OOB performance being below a Trailmaster, with 10 ounces of extra weight... I don't know at all if that's bevel angle or bevel thickness that is at cause, but that is seriously pathetic... Right down to another test where the guy pronounces them "equal", when it is so clear the Trailmaster did the cleaner and deeper cut...

I did see an interesting design in the Blackheart Juggernaut...

I know there are out there several sharpening professional who will put any edge thickness you want on an $800 Battle Mistress, but I am simply not interested in doing that... Furthermore, you go on about how that should be done, but even if the re-profiler is serious and uses watercooled belts, you still run the risk of ruining your all-important heat-treatment that is supposedly the whole point of these things...

If heat-treatment is that important, why aren't the knives done in such a way you will have no temptation to ruin the temper on a belt grinder?

Gaston
Click to expand...


Ok -- lets see how I can go about showing you what I mean. Forgive my formatting -- I'm not particularly forum text formatting savvy. I'll just number them and we can further discuss individual numbered points.

1. I certainly agree that edge thinness and eagle angle are not the same --- but they're not mutually exclusive. As the edge bevel height increases, if that requires metal to be ground off then it does constitute a reprofile. Now if you continue to grind away metal from a more obtuse edge bevel -- it becomes thinner by nature of making something obtuse more acute. Now if I'm understanding you correctly, you have a desire to have an edge bevel thickness of .02. This preference along does not offer enough detail. Since you're so particular -- you have to specify what height you want the edge bevel to be .02. So if you were to measure from the apex of the edge to the spine -- you'd have to specify where along that span you require it to be .02. Also, depending on the height of the "edge bevel" you realize you're going to have a variation in bevel thickness when moving from the apex up towards the secondary bevel (I imagine you would agree this is obvious).

2. I'm sure you understand that edge bevel thickness is not a standard to measure all knives --- the reason being that a knife with better ergonomics more effectively utilizes it's geometry. So to say that you need an edge bevel thickness of .02 and anything thicker is no good or geometrically inefficient --- is to not understand the dynamic relationship between all aspects of knife design. It is this relationship between all aspects of a knife that render it efficient or not for its intended niche. Yes, it's true that in most cases reducing the edge bevel thickness allows for greater penetration into a medium, but it's not a standardized principle that a knife with an edge bevel thickness of .02 is better at achieving greater penetration than another knife that has a different design and has an edge bevel thickness of .035.

3. I do not agree that an edge bevel that is taller is necessarily harder to sharpen in the field --- I think that depends a lot on how you're sharpening and what you're sharpening with. There are many fantastic Japanese knives that have very tall edge bevel heights and they are certainly not masking any faulty blade geometry. It would again depend on the intended use and on personal preference when in use. The only thing I will concede here is that an edge bevel height that is taller requires more precise blending into the secondary grind so to avoid any drastic transition.

4. I see no reason for any production or semi production company to specify the geometric details of their blades from apex to spine. Very few people feel the need to know that information. If you do -- that's certainly fine, but I would recommend a custom knife maker instead who is willing to sit, listen, and deliver a blade profile that is EXACTLY to your specified requirements. Criticism of production companies who don't volunteer that information is, in my opinion, an unreasonable criticism. You're more than welcome to criticize how you life, but I think you'll find that people will have opinions, evaluations, and judgments of YOUR criticisms in the process. However, I don't want you to feel like it's unwelcome or not allowed.

4. You mention that you don't give knives a second chance -- this is certainly your prerogative -- but it makes me wonder how much you know about knife production. As I said earlier, if you pay for a custom knife than certainly I can understand the philosophy of not providing return business for a maker's failure to deliver what you wanted. However, a production company has obvious variance --- this exists with nearly all consumer goods. Even in chemical engineering, when formulating a product for use -- you get variance (the less variance the more reliable, but still you have variance).

5. You compare the BK9 to the Trail Master --- how can you in any way, shape, or form make the supposed objective and quantified claim that it's 10-15% more effective in chopping. There are so many variables in play that render that statement so unscientific. You're literally comparing apples to oranges. Their composition, ergonomics, design, production protocols, heat treatments, sharpness, etc. are so different that it's impossible to make that statement in any meaningful way. Sure you could say that one Trail Master out chopped one BK9 on one day and on one chopping medium -- but that's far from conclusive about its performance rating. If you're going to put on your Scientific and Objective hat and if you're going to make conclusive statements and if you're going to preach that you don't give knives a second chance -- be consistent.

6. If you look around the Busse forums -- you'll see that people have no hesitations at all about using a belt grinder -- because they don't feel that it threatens the heat treatment.

7. In conclusion -- if you do in fact want to compare apples to oranges -- eliminate as many variables that render the two test subjects different. That means you need to try to make the edge angle the same, the edge bevel thickness the same, ensure that what you're chopping is truly the same, and ensure that your energy output is the same in proportion to the weight of the knife. A 10 year old boy will swing a BK9 much more effectively than a Battle Mistress --- but no one would take that boy seriously if he said that the BK9 out chops the Battle Mistress.
 
Damage to the heat treat happens a around 900°F. Are you grinding til friction produces 900°, I think not.

I will say that you need a custom knife from someone who doesn't think you are a moron for all your stupid preferences....

Your statements are garbage, your trail master is garbage, Busse rules the world.

Order a knife off of the website then call with your order number and tell Lexi what you want angle wise, bevel wise, then if you don't like it, I'll buy it from you. Just please, for the LOVE OF GOD, shut up about what you read and what you heard. Your Youtube education means nothing to Real world people...

You have a guarantee from me that I'll buy it if you don't like it so please, stop this stupid arguement and call Busse. I'm hoping my money shuts your mouth....
 
Gaston444 said:
... When you want to improve an edge, you can reduce the bevel angle to make it sharper, but in no way does this make the edge thinner... All you are doing is raising the bevel's base and making the bevel sides broader, and making the bevel base higher and usually thicker, with a sharper edge below it, but that is not a thinner edge bevel...
... Gaston
Click to expand...

Exactly how are you measuring the edge thickness?

Measuring the edge thickness a fixed distance from the edge apex would give a thinner edge as the edge angle decreases, so I disagree with the part of your statement above that I highlighted in bold print.
 
gk4ever2 said:
Exactly how are you measuring the edge thickness?

Measuring the edge thickness a fixed distance from the edge apex would give a thinner edge as the edge angle decreases, so I disagree with the part of your statement above that I highlighted in bold print.
Click to expand...

Since I have expressed numerous times nothing but utter contempt for convex edges, I would think it is obvious that I only consider V-edges as serious edges (preferrably under a deep hollow grind)... And obviously edge thickness on a V-edge is measured at the primary bevel shoulder... Where else could an edge bevel be measured? 0.04" is the maximum that is useable at that level, with very tall bevels, and 0.02" or 0.03" is much preferrable, with probably 0.03" the best balance for abusive work combined with high sharpness.

And no, there are no comparable considerations if you want to know how a blade performs, except for the overall stock thickness itself, which works in conjunction with the edge bevel thickness: The thickest stock over the thinnest edge is the idea, while a deep hollow grind makes the blade width a secondary consideration...: A wider blade does help, but not as much as you would think: For carrying considerations, a narrower blade of thick stock with a deep hollow grind on a thin edge is superior: This is why the Jereboam Mk II easily matches a BK-9 despite having a much shorter and narrower blade:

DSC01414_zpsbf26d88c.jpg


Gaston
 
breavis5694 said:
Damage to the heat treat happens a around 900°F. Are you grinding til friction produces 900°, I think not.
Click to expand...

Do you know for a fact a 0.02" edge bevel doesn't lose temper? Why do professional sharpeners advertise they use water-cooled belt grinders then?

Besides, why should I have to do such crude heavy work on an $800 blade?

Gaston
 
Gaston444 said:
Do you know for a fact a 0.02" edge bevel doesn't lose temper? Why do professional sharpeners advertise they use water-cooled belt grinders then?

Besides, why should I have to do such crude heavy work on an $800 blade?

Gaston
Click to expand...

You are the one who's so worried about temper. I do not know for a fact but you haven't provided one fact that holds water, one fact from personal experience. Since you love hearsay, I'll say this, you are ridiculous. I can put a video on YouTube to make it fact if you like....

I would guess that the professional sharpener saw you coming with your ass on your shoulders that thought he would blow smoke into the vast cavity that should house your brain....

Apparently you are the only one who is qualified to grind your super complicated v grind, hollow ground, with a partridge in a pear tree, cut to whatever degree you wish....

The $800 blade you speak of has 1000s of hours of Jerry's contemplation and forethought, unlike your garbled mash of "I wants" that you have spewed since your arrival in this thread and forum. People like you should play blindfolded in traffic, although the dumb ones never die.
 
Gaston444 said:
Budget unlimited?

This is what I just posted on the "taking just one thing" thread:

DSC01741_zpsd1ee0f7f.jpg


With the proper bevel worked into it (the thing comes horribly dull and open-edged, its one and only flaw) this significantly out-chops a San Mai III Trailmaster (or anything else the same size for that matter)...

Unlike what is usually said about hollow handle capacity, the handle capacity here is just huge, with over 4" of interior length, compared to 2.5-2.75" typically...

And it's also indestructible to an extent that would put many Busse to shame, particularly the point, sheath and handle (the machined tube handle is filetted and directly screwed on a threaded solid brass cylinder fitted around the annealed tang, with all tang corners radiused, to prevent any cracking from shock)... The small diameter cord wrap is almost smooth to the touch, and this makes the handle the best to chop with of about eight knives I compared it to, including the Trailmaster, BK-9, Randall Model 12, and a few others, in addition to the fact that it actually chops better than all of these to begin with... The San Mai III Trailmaster is usually seen out-chopping Busse Battle Mistresses at less than 2/3rds their weight...

The saw actually works very well with little effort, as long as the diameter/thickness stays under 2", beyond which it doesn't work at all... The blade probably can't be broken while batoning because the saw absorbs the baton impact, without damage to the teeths... 440C steel was demonstrated to be by far the best available knife steel in edge-holding in a 1998 Blade Magazine steel test, with purpose-made precision mule blades made for the test, against CPM 3V, INFI, 154CM, D2(!), ATS34 and a slew of others... Not bad, even if it has been superceeded since...

Anyway that's what I would choose. It looks like a First Blood, but it really is in another league completely...

Another contender is the RJ Martin Blackbird, but that is 30 ounces vs 20 here... There are not that many hollow handles that are first rate choppers, and the cord wrap usually makes the mistake of being too aggressive: It feels better, but is a disaster for a chopper: On that issue the Neeley SA9 here is the only choice...

Gaston
Click to expand...

RED: Gaston, now you are just telling lies, lol. Makes it hard to believe anything else you say. Put up or shut up. Send your knife to the guy i nmy link above and let the BS stop there.

Blue:: Gaston please provide the article where 440C beats all the steels you mention. I would love to read it. If you cannot, then the part in RED above applies to you once again.
 
This Gaston dude is a clown and troll. Go be angry and contemplate your own opinions you base as fact somewhere else. Clearly, you have a very poor eye for identifying quality... Oh thats right, you havent actually owned a Busse. Go buy some more CS or better yet some of the new Chinese Schrades. I saw a video on youtube that said they had an edge bevel of .02 ;) right up your alley bro!
 
Cobalt said:
RED: Gaston, now you are just telling lies, lol. Makes it hard to believe anything else you say. Put up or shut up. Send your knife to the guy i nmy link above and let the BS stop there.

Blue:: Gaston please provide the article where 440C beats all the steels you mention. I would love to read it. If you cannot, then the part in RED above applies to you once again.
Click to expand...

Haahahahahahahaha..... Whata CLOWN! Hollow handle? Ahhhhhh. Dumb

You made my night with his cobalt. Thanks
 
tinfoil hat timmy said:
Haahahahahahahaha..... Whata CLOWN! Hollow handle? Ahhhhhh. Dumb

You made my night with his cobalt. Thanks
Click to expand...

He had the nerve to write that in another thread and I did not want to pollute that thread with this, but I am using his post to make a point to him that it sure looks like he is full of it and it makes it hard to believe anything he says when he claims a non one piece hollow handled knife made of 440C to be tougher than INFI, 3V and everything else that ever roamed the earth. Next he will claim that the 440C he used has pieces of meteorite in it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top