- Joined
- Apr 13, 2004
- Messages
- 17,084
HUCK arrived just a bit ago! 
Glamour shot:
My HUCK is 0.233" thick, and weighs 32.27oz (915.2g)
VS.
C/S TTKZ at 0.262" thick, and 32.37oz (917.8g)
Honestly not sure how I feel about the HUCK just yet. My initial reaction when I first grabbed her was that the handle feels too thin for my XX large hands. It's quite generous lengthwise, but if I had my way, I would MUCH prefer magnum scales here. Another 1/8" or so thickness would make a huge difference to ME! Might be just about perfect for many folks, however.
Here is the trio with the front end of their respective handles approximately lined up:
And with the handle swells lined up, more or less (ironically, this puts their respective tips pretty darn near the same place too...):
Here are some spine shots. Wasn't easy to get all three of these to balance like this, lol:
Handles lined up by their palm swells:
Close-up to show the thickness (BB13 looks thinner because it's further away from the camera):
Blades:
Close-up near the tips. Shows the thickness well, and the drastic difference in the tip thickness. The TTKZ easily has the thinnest, and the BB13 is easily the thickest. The HUCK leans more toward the TTKZ, but is about 30% thicker:
Next are several direct comparison shots between the HUCK and TTKZ. These blades are actually more similar than I was expecting. I'm sure a lot of folks will be glad to hear that. Weighing nearly the same, the HUCK makes up some weight over my TTKZ with the coating and heavier G10. The HUCK handle is about 0.9" thick, and slightly thicker near the front rivet at about 0.93". However, the TTKZ is ever so slightly thicker than 1" at all three swells. The waists between the swells measure 0.64" on the HUCK, but 0.66" at the rear waist and 0.75" at the front waist on the TTKZ. Both handles could use some thickening in my opinion to fit my hands better.
Love that ^^^ pic!!!
Next, I lined up the two blades at the center handle rivet. The first shot in both sets is with the two blades parallel (a chunk of wood between them to support the upper blade), and the second shot in the sets has a twig through the center rivet, but the top blade is laying down on the lower blade. The difference should be readily apparent if you look at the shadow.
Hope that helps some HOGs out! :thumbup: The two blades are pretty similar, really. If I had to guess, I'd say the HUCK is just a tad wider in the blade, but it's really hard to tell. I need to trace them on a sheet of paper to really show the outlines and how they compare, but I don't have time right now, so I'll try to do that this evening sometime.
ig: :emot-yarr:
ETA - One last shot...
Edited to add from below:
Glamour shot:
My HUCK is 0.233" thick, and weighs 32.27oz (915.2g)
VS.
C/S TTKZ at 0.262" thick, and 32.37oz (917.8g)
Honestly not sure how I feel about the HUCK just yet. My initial reaction when I first grabbed her was that the handle feels too thin for my XX large hands. It's quite generous lengthwise, but if I had my way, I would MUCH prefer magnum scales here. Another 1/8" or so thickness would make a huge difference to ME! Might be just about perfect for many folks, however.
Here is the trio with the front end of their respective handles approximately lined up:
And with the handle swells lined up, more or less (ironically, this puts their respective tips pretty darn near the same place too...):
Here are some spine shots. Wasn't easy to get all three of these to balance like this, lol:
Handles lined up by their palm swells:
Close-up to show the thickness (BB13 looks thinner because it's further away from the camera):
Blades:
Close-up near the tips. Shows the thickness well, and the drastic difference in the tip thickness. The TTKZ easily has the thinnest, and the BB13 is easily the thickest. The HUCK leans more toward the TTKZ, but is about 30% thicker:
Next are several direct comparison shots between the HUCK and TTKZ. These blades are actually more similar than I was expecting. I'm sure a lot of folks will be glad to hear that. Weighing nearly the same, the HUCK makes up some weight over my TTKZ with the coating and heavier G10. The HUCK handle is about 0.9" thick, and slightly thicker near the front rivet at about 0.93". However, the TTKZ is ever so slightly thicker than 1" at all three swells. The waists between the swells measure 0.64" on the HUCK, but 0.66" at the rear waist and 0.75" at the front waist on the TTKZ. Both handles could use some thickening in my opinion to fit my hands better.
Love that ^^^ pic!!!
Next, I lined up the two blades at the center handle rivet. The first shot in both sets is with the two blades parallel (a chunk of wood between them to support the upper blade), and the second shot in the sets has a twig through the center rivet, but the top blade is laying down on the lower blade. The difference should be readily apparent if you look at the shadow.
Hope that helps some HOGs out! :thumbup: The two blades are pretty similar, really. If I had to guess, I'd say the HUCK is just a tad wider in the blade, but it's really hard to tell. I need to trace them on a sheet of paper to really show the outlines and how they compare, but I don't have time right now, so I'll try to do that this evening sometime.
ig: :emot-yarr:ETA - One last shot...
Edited to add from below:
So, some nuances I've noticed over the past couple days; First, the HUCK has nary a straight line in the blade profile, where there's about 3-4" of straight spine just forward of the handle on the TTKZ.
Second, the narrowest portion of the blade is at the most aft section of sharpened edge on the HUCK, but it's about 2" forward of where the sharpened edge starts on the TTKZ (see dotted lines in top tracing). This means that the TTKZ starts out slightly wider, then narrows a bit before expanding again into the belly (a recurve). Conversely, the HUCK constantly widens out until you get past the belly and start narrowing again towards the tip (no recurve section...).
Next, while the blades are essentially identical in length at 12" from handle to tip, the HUCK is just about 1/2" longer in OAL, at 19", due to the way the top rear of the handle kicks out and up, instead of down and in like the fusion-ish handle of the TTKZ (at 18.5" OAL).
Finally, the HUCK is a bit wider, overall, in the blade. Along with that, the HUCK carries it's weight lower down with a deeper belly than the TTKZ (the second tracing shows this well).
These are the best tracings I could muster. Sorry, an arteeeest I am not.The blade profiles are pretty much dead nuts, but the handles may be off a little bit here and there since the outside edges are further up off the paper. Color coded them to make things a bit easier. I wanted to use red and black for better contrast, but couldn't find the red Sharpie and only the blue turned up.
With the tips lined up, along with the rear end of the cutting edges lined up as well (bottom tracing), the blade of the HUCK sits about 1/2" (on the top edge) to 3/4" (on the bottom edge) lower than the TTKZ. Very different profile when you look at them this way, and it shows how the HUCK is slightly wider across the whole length of the blade up to about 1/4" wider at the maximum point of different width.
However, when you line them up with the heel of the blades somewhat "level" (top tracing), the point of the HUCK is about 3/4" higher than the point of the TTKZ. The point of the HUCK also points more forward, where the point of the TTKZ points more downward. The tip angle of the HUCK is approximately 5 degrees more acute than the TTKZ too. HUCK is slightly more "stabby"!
Now VERY curious to see how Mr. FIN compares to these two!!!
Hope that helps guys!!!
Last edited:
