Hollow grinds: Why are they so hated???

In a lot of cuts I just prefer the feel of a flat ground blade. Whittling wood, peeling veggies, cuting cardboard etc. Easier to control for me. The thing I do like about hollow grinds though is it's easy to reprofile the knife because you can just take it flat to the stone. Done it to many hollow ground blades, like my Buck 110, 112, Hartsook Neck Knife, Cara Cara, Native, Leek etc.
 
Cutting thick cardboard with a hollow grind sucks. The only reason I don't like hollow grinds is because they bind very easily compared to flat or convex ground blades.
 
I don't know if this has been covered but there may be some confusion on grinds. There is the hollow saber, full hollow, flat saber, and full flat.

From Yablanowitz from the Spyderco forums:

attachment.php

Top to bottom: Full hollow, hollow saber (Rookie), flat saber (Delica) and full flat (UKPK)
 
I like to hate on saber-hollowgrinds from time to time due to their crappy performance whilst cutting cardboard. That is the only reason I have to complain about them, I find them perfectly acceptable for every other use I encounter on a routine basis.

That, and the only folding knives available with H1 are hollowground so I guess I'm stuck loving it.
 
The full hollow is not really that rare, you see it all the time on slipjoints. Every Case knife that I have is fully hollow ground, and they aren't even old ones.
 
I have no problem with hollow grinds as long as the knife isn't used for chopping. I do have a problem with edges being too thick, regardless of primary grind, which seems to be very common with production knives. I presume this practice is done to make the edge more durable, at the expense of cutting efficiency.
 
4W4K3 said:
From wikipedia - "It produces a very sharp edge but being so thin the edge is more prone to rolling or damage than other grinds. It is unsuited to heavy chopping or cutting hard materials."
Click to expand...

I don't agree. It's a matter of thickness. A Gransfors Bruks hatchet is a hollow grind chopper. Somes complain about the "wedge effect", it's still a matter of cross section, there is not such an issue with the thin spine of a Douk-Douk.
I don't like much hollow grind but more i think about, less i understand why.

dantzk.
 
4W4K3 said:
From wikipedia - "It produces a very sharp edge but being so thin the edge is more prone to rolling or damage than other grinds. It is unsuited to heavy chopping or cutting hard materials."
Click to expand...

Well if someone simmply takes a look at a Kershaw Whirlwind, he will doubt that information for the blade is hollow ground but thicker at the edge as some Benchmade Griptillian or other blades.

For me it is a sign of cheap produktion.
 
Blop said:
Well if someone simmply takes a look at a Kershaw Whirlwind, he will doubt that information for the blade is hollow ground but thicker at the edge as some Benchmade Griptillian or other blades.

For me it is a sign of cheap produktion.
Click to expand...

Sorry if i misunderstand your post. Are you saying hollow grind is a "sign of cheap production"?

dantzk.
 
hollow grinds are purportedly cheaper to make

for the same thickness stock and edge bevel, flat leaves more metal immediately behind the edge than hollow does, that's kinda the point of choosing one or the other.
 
I prefer hollow grinds on my folders, or full flat grinds. this whole obsession with super-tough, mega tough flat grinds can sometimes go too far...how many of us push the limits of the blade. I don't use my blades as prybars....I do agree that flat grinds are stronger but they get a lot thicker at the edge as you sharpen them.
 
Very interesting replies so far :cool: Like I said before I tend to like both grinds. They both have their intended purposes. They both have their positive and negative attributes. Now on Hawkbill blades I do think that hollow grinds are advantageous. But Hawkbills do have completely different capabilities and are designed for different chores all together.

My Spyderco Dodo for instance has a hollow grind but when you consider it's totally unorthadox design you can easily see why.

It is interesting to note however that the vast majority of kitchen knives are flat grinds. Also most of the knives used in meat packing houses are also flat grinds. It is also interesting to note that the biggest percentage of old school folders i.e. Camillus, Buck, Case, Ka-bar ect, ect,. are all flat grind blades for the most part.

So there is obviously functional advantages in certain applications. It is interesting to also note that most skinning knives I've ever had were all hollow grinds.
 
dantzk8 said:
Sorry if i misunderstand your post. Are you saying hollow grind is a "sign of cheap production"?

dantzk.
Click to expand...


I hope i don´t misunderstand you too. :) Yes, i think it is cheaper to guide the raw blade between the two wheels than to aply a flat grind on them.

So many cheap knives feature hollow grinfds, that i wouldn´t expect, the maker want4ed to increase value.

It is more difficult and takes more knowledge to keep the bevel (primary grind)flat.

That is, what i think.
 
Primary grind.

With convex grinds it is likely the opposite to hollow grinds.:)
 
Blop said:
it is cheaper to guide the raw blade between the two wheels than to aply a flat grind on them.

So many cheap knives feature hollow grinfds, that i wouldn´t expect, the maker want4ed to increase value.
Click to expand...

Which doesn't mean all the hollow grind knives are cheap and bad quality knives. As said JD Spydo in a previous post, those knives may have intended purposes and the example of the skinner is a good one. I don't think C. Reeve tries to cheat about the cost of his high quality and expensive hollow grind Sebenza; he probably has chosen this grind for its slicing ability. An other example of "cheap" grind is the scandi one you find on cheap Mora knives. Many users, i'm one of them, would say they are high quality knives.

dantzk.
 
Blop said:
I hope i don´t misunderstand you too. :) Yes, i think it is cheaper to guide the raw blade between the two wheels than to aply a flat grind on them.

So many cheap knives feature hollow grinfds, that i wouldn´t expect, the maker want4ed to increase value.

It is more difficult and takes more knowledge to keep the bevel (primary grind)flat.

That is, what i think.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think you've got it reversed...
It's easier and cheaper to make flat-ground blades.
Just look at all of the cheap flat-grind kitchen knives, and box-cutters, and utility blades out there.
It's just rolled flat steel with an adequate edge put on it.
 
As long as we talk about spines less than 1.5mm thick, cheap knives are straight down but not flat ground.

Box cutters just get an edge ground. Same for cheap kitchen knives, if you want to call that an edge.

Blades of more than 2.5mm + spine thicknesses often have a hollow grind. Look at Herbertz, Magnum and so on.

It is totally different for real razor blades!

But look at the example i gave. There is no need for the Whirlwind to have a hollow grind. The blade is close to an Griptilian but much ticker at the edge even with a hollow grind, why don´t they put a flat grind on it, if it is not because of know how and money?

I think, it is much easier and can be done by many ppl. to push and pull a blade back and forth between two grinding wheels (i have seen this done with just one hand), than to keep the blade at an angle to make the grind flat.
 
I read the grinds are done by machines with big abrasive wheel discs, so probably much cheaper to have that sort of equipment as opposed to automated belt abrasives. I'd guess the wheel types are mechanically simpler, easier to operate, and cheaper to maintain.

Not to say all hollow grinds are cheap, but just probably cheaper on mass scale production.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top