I was shocked when I googled....

david tn

david tn

Joined
Apr 10, 2012
Messages
317
For processing wood do you think it would be better to have longer (NMFBM) or thicker (FFBM)? I was kind of thinking thicker myself. It seems like a thick convex would be the next best thing to a hatchet/ axe. But then again we are only talking about .007. Am I over thinking this?.......What say you?.....I know what she said. Thanks guys
 
Longer = better reach and more momentum in a chop-swing = better chopper. Thinner will also give better penetration on a chop. At that thickness, neither knife will split that well and the added thickness isn't an advantage - both will bind on a deep cut along the grain, might as well bind deeper in the round and force it through with a cudgel, and there again the longer blade gives more spine for the cudgel to strike.

Longer > thicker
 
chiral.grolim said:
Longer = better reach and more momentum in a chop-swing = better chopper. Thinner will also give better penetration on a chop. At that thickness, neither knife will split that well and the added thickness isn't an advantage - both will bind on a deep cut along the grain, might as well bind deeper in the round and force it through with a cudgel, and there again the longer blade gives more spine for the cudgel to strike.

Longer > thicker
Click to expand...
Thank you for your answer. By that rational, will the new 1311 be one of the best? 3/16" thick and 13 1/2 blade.
 
Geometry cuts. I stole that from Cliff Stamp. IMHO the best thing you can do to improve cutting/chopping performance is to improve the edge geometry. My NMFBM is the best chopper of all my Bussekin, with the TTKZ right up there, but neither has the factory edge profile.
 
MOAB

MOABBatonning02.jpg


MOABBatonning05.jpg


palms03.jpg


MOABChopping001.jpg
 
Rob, You might have ended the discussion. That blade always makes me smile when I see it. Dang, that is a beast. it is so good to see it being used. Thanks, David
 
David, I think with 1311 you might be set. More to baton on, and I'm sure Dan, having tested the design for what...4-5 weeks, would not let it lack in performance compared to Mistresses...
And that res-C handle is a big bonus for processing wood! Done 711 & TGLB comparison some time ago, while TG cuts a lot better, when you chop or baton there is a lot of shock passed on to your hand, 711 is not as aggressive in cutting, but you can chop and baton with it for a really long time and be comfortable.
 
david tn said:
Rob, You might have ended the discussion. That blade always makes me smile when I see it. Dang, that is a beast. it is so good to see it being used. Thanks, David
Click to expand...

David as you said i think Rob just ended the discussion with the MOAB beast , game set and match !!.
 
resinguy said:
Geometry cuts. I stole that from Cliff Stamp. IMHO the best thing you can do to improve cutting/chopping performance is to improve the edge geometry. My NMFBM is the best chopper of all my Bussekin, with the TTKZ right up there, but neither has the factory edge profile.
Click to expand...

Could you elaborate a bit? What kind of edge does your NMFBM have?

To me, there are lots of factors to consider to chop effectively. Edge geometry is pretty straightforward: as Garth told me, sharper for clearing brush and free-standing stuff, more obtuse for stationary wood, while the different grinds in my experience are more for edge durability than chopping effectiveness (in general). That said, you also have to consider the material you're cutting into as well as how far you expect the blade to go in, because once the material goes behind the edge, you have to worry about the material's rigidity and the blade thickness. Then again, that can be avoided altogether by chopping technique, i.e., taking lots of small, tangential bites out of the wood instead of trying to cleave right through it perpendicularly in one stroke. Which even further depends on how thick the wood is.

I imagine it goes on for a bit more :confused: however, longer never hurts for more momentum.
 
What does "processing wood" mean to you? If it means cutting down a 24" tree and bucking it into 16" pieces, you may want to look at something that runs on gasoline. If it means splitting a 24" round into pieces you may want to look at an 8# steel wedge with a long handle. But if it means splitting up one of those smaller pieces into kindling, I'd say fatter is better.

I keep my FFBM right next to my wood stove for splitting kindling. Since I'm usually using smaller pieces of wood with straight grain, it pops apart pretty easily and most of the time I just use my fist as the baton. The way I see it, a thick blade forces that dried wood apart much more effectively that a skinny blade would.
 
Im not a huge fan of either one, for several reasons. The NMFBM had a ring to it when I used the one I had, when you tap it on a hard object it sounded like when you tap a plate of steel. The CABS has a similar effect. The fusion handle has two major flaws for me - the palm swell is too severe creating a 'tennis ball' like grip that bites into the inner metalcarpels. Part of why it's too severe is because the pinky position is pretty small, much smaller than the index finger position, making the bottom of the handle feel much looser than the top, like it constantly wants to slip forward so your pinky is resting on the pommel curve (amplifying the vibrations).

The FFBM had similar problems but in different ways. Having the fusion handles maintains all the problems above, but the thickness at the edge is really what does it in. I is way... WAY overbuilt:
IMG_0779.jpg


It is one of the only instances in all of the busse models I've owned and used where I could describe the tip grind as 'similar to a cold chisel. And not hyperbole 'omg busses are so thick it's rediculous' talk - They physical measurable geometry was similar to this:
stock-photo-series-object-on-white-tool-cold-chisel-3361019.jpg


Because of that the knife felt like it stopped dead at the surface of the wood. It felt like using a 3 pound hammer. With a thin knife that sinks in there's a period of time between when the edge hits the wood and when it stops that allows the inertia to be transferred gradually into the wood, creating a good feeling of penetration and limited vibration being sent back up the handle. With the factory edge on the FFBM it felt like most of the inertial force failed to go into the wood and goes right back into your hand. Spine thickness is meaningless if you have a an edge profile that prevents it's weight from transferring it's inertia effectively.


I am however a big proponent of the choiless B10LE and TTKZ, especially once it's been thinned down.
 
Idaho Jarhead said:
What does "processing wood" mean to you? If it means cutting down a 24" tree and bucking it into 16" pieces, you may want to look at something that runs on gasoline. If it means splitting a 24" round into pieces you may want to look at an 8# steel wedge with a long handle. But if it means splitting up one of those smaller pieces into kindling, I'd say fatter is better.

I keep my FFBM right next to my wood stove for splitting kindling. Since I'm usually using smaller pieces of wood with straight grain, it pops apart pretty easily and most of the time I just use my fist as the baton. The way I see it, a thick blade forces that dried wood apart much more effectively that a skinny blade would.
Click to expand...

I should have been more descriptive. Processing wood to me is just to build a camp fire. Maybe 6-8" diameter wood to be split. I own a tent but, to be able to make a shelter would be a consideration.
All this is just for me to have something to think about. We have 3 kids too young for me to be dragging about the Australian bush. I am in no hurry, I just like buying knives!
 
uyotg said:
Could you elaborate a bit? What kind of edge does your NMFBM have?

To me, there are lots of factors to consider to chop effectively. Edge geometry is pretty straightforward: as Garth told me, sharper for clearing brush and free-standing stuff, more obtuse for stationary wood, while the different grinds in my experience are more for edge durability than chopping effectiveness (in general). That said, you also have to consider the material you're cutting into as well as how far you expect the blade to go in, because once the material goes behind the edge, you have to worry about the material's rigidity and the blade thickness. Then again, that can be avoided altogether by chopping technique, i.e., taking lots of small, tangential bites out of the wood instead of trying to cleave right through it perpendicularly in one stroke. Which even further depends on how thick the wood is.

I imagine it goes on for a bit more :confused: however, longer never hurts for more momentum.
Click to expand...


IMHO most Busse knives are too thick at the edge. The edge angle is too obtuse, as high as 40* per side, and they are fat right behind the edge. After stripping my NMFBM, I reprofiled it on the HF 1x30 grinder, to a convex geometry. (zero edge, in Busse talk). The edge angle now is perhaps less than 20* per side.
 
resinguy said:
IMHO most Busse knives are too thick at the edge. The edge angle is too obtuse, as high as 40* per side, and they are fat right behind the edge. After stripping my NMFBM, I reprofiled it on the HF 1x30 grinder, to a convex geometry. (zero edge, in Busse talk). The edge angle now is perhaps less than 20* per side.
Click to expand...

After reading the post on the old Busse's with the asymmetrical edges it got me thinking about which I'd rather have.

A 20 perside/40 inclusive convex edge like you just described, or the chisel-like asymmetrical edge with a 30-40 degree inclusive edge?

Do you have both to compare?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top