Nice pics and field trial, Rotte! Good thread. :thumbup:
For those who are familiar with the Fallkniven A1 and GB, how different are the bladeshapes of these 2 knives?
The knives are very different in many ways, such as:
- GB has a bothersome double guard that limits grip options, the A1 doesn't
- GB has a bare metal tang with handle scales that aren't flush with it, the A1 doesn't
- GB has a sabre hollow grind, the A1 has a sabre convex grind
- GB has serrations, the A1 doesn't
The rough shape of the blades isn't so different, but then, there's much more to a knife than that.
But to get to the trials themselves... I'm sure we all understand that any knife (including a sharpened piece of stone) can do a lot of tasks in the field. There are many cheap (less than $ 50) knives that can do everything you've so far done in these field trials, and more. It isn't at all impressive that a 300 $ GB can do that stuff, too. If it couldn't do this stuff, the knife would be a complete disaster!
The real question is, how
well can a knife do these things, and more, compared to other knives?
Comparison is the key, and that is what we knife nuts should be trying to do. I can chop through a log with a stone axe. But a Fiskars will do it faster. I can skin a cute little bunny with a sharp piece of glass, but a cheap Mora will feel a lot better in hand.
So, the GB can slice a sandwich and chop through a log and it can make a fuzzstick while holding a decent edge. Now, how comfortable was this compared to other knives? How easy? How much fatigue was there? How well did it hold an edge compared to other knives? How well did it chop? How expensive is it?
The problem with the GB isn't that it can't do basic knife tasks. It can. Any knife can. The problem is that it can't do them much better than many knives that are far cheaper. In fact, it can't even do them as well as some of these cheaper knives. That is a problem. To some folks at least. Like myself.
Edge holding, for example - in my use, the A1 seems to hold a better edge than the GB. Now of course, the GB has serrations, and those stay sharp long - until they hit something hard, which is when they break and cannot easily be restored, and even when they're not broken, they interfere with precise work. The A1 also sharpens up easier. When it comes to handle ergonomics, the A1 is far more comfortable and versatile than the GB, especially in prolonged use. And the A1 is cheaper. A lot cheaper...
I realize the GB is supposed to be a soldier's knife, or in particular, the Green Berets' knife. I'm no Green Beret. But I do wonder what qualities the GB has that make it a markedly better knife for a soldier than, say, the A1. I can't think of any. The double guard and the handle design - well, the GB makes a pretty decent stabber and offers some finger protection at the cost of comfort in more typical knife use, but how much knife fighting do soldiers do on average? Not much.
Overall, the GB leaves me disappointed. It looks good if you like the tactical style of knife, and the fit and finish is superior, but in actual use, it performs worse than many cheaper knives. Hard to recommend a knife like that to a friend... But then, tastes and priorities differ - if you like it, use it. That's how it works. :thumbup: