If you have a good machete, what's the point of having a large knife?

I used a 21“ belt sander, at $40 I think. I would not want to use a file, i have quite a few and it is very difficult to get it to repeatedly bite on every stroke. There is quite a bit of metal on the golok blade.

The first i did got quite small, and lost some width. The second one is easier to work and has much straighter forging and grind marks. So i attest to what was said ealier, the new ones are good to go in my experience.

I posted a thread about my first one snapping, a promt replacement was given to me. I ordered a second one to see the full tang model and it was heads and tails abobe the first two. Condor gets a thumbs up from me.
 
There is no point in adding the Dogfather or Battle Mistress to the battery that you already have at your disposal. If I head out into the bush, I don't bring my Basic 9 and my machete. I would bring one or the other. I want the reach of a machete...my hands are more protected when I use a longer blade. The speed generated by the 18 inch variety is mind blowing. Of course, you can't pry open a door of a tank with a Tramontina or shoot it with a 7mm mag.

The machete is nothing short of an amazingly easy to maintain cutting tool that can perform numerous tasks in the field. It really is, for many of us, the greatest single survival tool. Of course, they are not nearly as sexy as bowie knives or INFI cutlery. The machete is delightfully cheap!

Humans tend to never be totally satisfied. The search for the elusive 'can do everything' knife is akin to chasing windmills, but the 18 inch machete with a proper edge configuration and a skilled operator is truly a stunning thing to behold. Again, we just migrate back to the thick prybars because we think they offer more, in reality, they just facilitate our addiction and add another farthing to Jerry's lockbox.
 
The Golok is already a full flat grind--it's just a shallow one.
 
Don't forget that you can modify your Golok how you need to. Plenty of 12" Ontario machetes end up with a convex edge for 1/2 the length with a scandi near the handle. This allows for chopping and up close, feathersticks, type work.
You don't have to modify the entire length of the blade, is all I'm saying. Plus, with a small fixed blade you can do lots of other small chores.

I have modified both my 12" and 18" Ontario machetes, with files and sandpaper. I wanted the 18" to still be a robust edge, so I didn't have to do too much to it. It took lots more time to thin down the 12" by hand. Still, it's nowhere near as thin as Bark River's modified Ontario.
What I did was clamp down the blade, flat on a table, or patio. Use a longer file to knock off the shoulders, and start an edge. Then I shifted to 320 grit sandpaper, on a mousepad. That's how you can get that rounded convex shape towards the edge. I'm not trying to convex the height of the blade, just the shoulders of the original bevel.
Still, what I ended up with is a much sharper tool that bites much deeper than before. I don't own the Golok, but I usually just try to find the right tool, not drastically modify something, especially by hand. Convexing an edge and swapping out handle scales is my current limit towards modifications. Mostly due to lack of a shop and belt sanders, drill press, etc..
 
Stubai said:
Humans tend to never be totally satisfied. The search for the elusive 'can do everything' knife is akin to chasing windmills, but the 18 inch machete with a proper edge configuration and a skilled operator is truly a stunning thing to behold. Again, we just migrate back to the thick prybars because we think they offer more, in reality, they just facilitate our addiction and add another farthing to Jerry's lockbox.
Click to expand...


That's a great paragraph. Good points. :-)
 
foxx said:
Don't forget that you can modify your Golok how you need to. Plenty of 12" Ontario machetes end up with a convex edge for 1/2 the length with a scandi near the handle. This allows for chopping and up close, feathersticks, type work.
You don't have to modify the entire length of the blade, is all I'm saying. Plus, with a small fixed blade you can do lots of other small chores.

I have modified both my 12" and 18" Ontario machetes, with files and sandpaper. I wanted the 18" to still be a robust edge, so I didn't have to do too much to it. It took lots more time to thin down the 12" by hand. Still, it's nowhere near as thin as Bark River's modified Ontario.
What I did was clamp down the blade, flat on a table, or patio. Use a longer file to knock off the shoulders, and start an edge. Then I shifted to 320 grit sandpaper, on a mousepad. That's how you can get that rounded convex shape towards the edge. I'm not trying to convex the height of the blade, just the shoulders of the original bevel.
Still, what I ended up with is a much sharper tool that bites much deeper than before. I don't own the Golok, but I usually just try to find the right tool, not drastically modify something, especially by hand. Convexing an edge and swapping out handle scales is my current limit towards modifications. Mostly due to lack of a shop and belt sanders, drill press, etc..
Click to expand...

The additional thickness of the Golok makes it a little harder to mod without power tools than the Ontario machetes. For thinner, more "typical" machetes a good fresh file tends to be all you need, though! :p
 
With these thinner, longer type of machetes that many of you guys feel is the "ideal" machete, what is the minimum blade thickness that's needed to be strong enough for wood chopping and batoning?

I just came in the house from an extended session of chopping and batoning with my new Condor (using a stack of precut Douglas Fir pieces in my back yard, most were in the 5" diameter range). The Condor works reasonably well at splitting, and it's a GREAT chopper. But it 'sticks' a lot during splitting, maybe because it's a quarter-inch thick. Wondering if I might do better with a machete profile that would be thinner and longer. By comparison, my Junglas does not have the same problem with sticking, and it is definitely thinner (at about 0.187" thick).
 
I's say that minimum will vary depending on the width of the machete. Any thickness machetes are found in is suitable for chopping providing the blade has the right amount of width to it. For splitting or batoning the width is important not from a mass standpoint but for resistance to bending or binding. If the blade is overly flexible it will deform too much as it passes through the wood and will grab at the wood fibers as it passes instead of pushing the fibers away to the sides. If batoning the blade can end up buckling under the strikes of the baton. For batoning kindling from saplings very thin stock is still suitable. If you start trying to take on a piece more than 2.5" across then the rigidity and thickness become more key. I've had good luck with as low as 3/32" stock though--maybe even a little thinner. They key is to read the wood and exploit the grain, as well as realizing that you're not using an axe so performance has to be rated differently. That being said, I've used an 1/8" CS barong machete to baton through a 9" thick, 7ft. long tree trunk just to see if I could. :):thumbup:
 
just because :)

remember we are in a knife forum, thats like asking those honda forum guys why they just spend 15 grand on there car that has a 7000 msrp back in 92' ha.



i prefer a larger knife over a machete. my 6 dollar harbor freight machete will not replace a 11 inch knife with 3/16" stock
 
jwblack911 said:
just because :)

remember we are in a knife forum, thats like asking those honda forum guys why they just spend 15 grand on there car that has a 7000 msrp back in 92' ha.



i prefer a larger knife over a machete. my 6 dollar harbor freight machete will not replace a 11 inch knife with 3/16" stock
Click to expand...


No offense, but the Harbor Freight machetes are a very poor model for comparison. Don't use cheap machetes--use inexpensive ones. I suggest a Tramontina. :)
 
FortyTwoBlades said:
I's say that minimum will vary depending on the width of the machete. Any thickness machetes are found in is suitable for chopping providing the blade has the right amount of width to it. For splitting or batoning the width is important not from a mass standpoint but for resistance to bending or binding. If the blade is overly flexible it will deform too much as it passes through the wood and will grab at the wood fibers as it passes instead of pushing the fibers away to the sides. If batoning the blade can end up buckling under the strikes of the baton. For batoning kindling from saplings very thin stock is still suitable. If you start trying to take on a piece more than 2.5" across then the rigidity and thickness become more key. I've had good luck with as low as 3/32" stock though--maybe even a little thinner. They key is to read the wood and exploit the grain, as well as realizing that you're not using an axe so performance has to be rated differently. That being said, I've used an 1/8" CS barong machete to baton through a 9" thick, 7ft. long tree trunk just to see if I could. :):thumbup:
Click to expand...

Good points 42. I followed the link to your website, and watched the video on the following page showing how the super-think Mora machete was used to baton through what looks like a 3" to 4" piece of wood. Looks like it handled it just fine!

http://www.baryonyxknife.com/mo3maul.html
 
http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/s...hort-machetes?highlight=payetterucker+machete

here ya go, this is the thread I was talking about. Some good info in here... my suggestion at this point would be to try both. As suggested, both good but different. I think I have more large blades than any other size/range, 10+ inches-that's because when most of your energy is spent processing large amounts of large woods, it pays to have a varying range-especially when they typically run so cheap. Technique is as important as a good impact resistant high carbon steel. Make sure the edge is in line with your swing, or you'll damage your blade for naught. Also make a point of finding the sweet spot and placing your blows there. Alot of complaints about broken big blades are due to poor technique.
 
PayetteRucker said:
Technique is as important as a good impact resistant high carbon steel. Make sure the edge is in line with your swing, or you'll damage your blade for naught. Also make a point of finding the sweet spot and placing your blows there. Alot of complaints about broken big blades are due to poor technique.
Click to expand...

Quoted for truth! I'm always surprised to hear when folks ding or roll their edges during normal chopping, and my suspicion is that they aren't keeping their blows aligned or on the sweet spot.
 
Good thread, PayetteRucker. Interesting, I was doing some side-by-side chopping and batoning tests yesterday with my Junglas and the new Golok. Both chop great, the Junglas did better, but a couple of things that would improve the Golok would be (a) It doesn't seem very sharp, it needs a better edge, and (b) my technique with it was a bit clumsy--I need to practice. I think with practice and an improved edge, it seems to me that the Golok could easily OUT-chop the Junglas. It's a good chopper. Spent some time on the golok last night with my DMT Diafold coarse blade, and it definitely is possible to improve that edge. But like somebody said earlier, doing it by hand is a pain: there's so much steel there, it takes forever to thin it by hand.

Another issue I noticed was that the Golok didn't do quite as well at batoning as my other knives. It did acceptably but not great: my little 5" el cheapo Gerber LMF 2--a knife I don't even like that much but keep as a beater--batons more effectively than the Golok. The Golok sticks a lot, and my theory is that the primary flat grind angle on the blade is so shallow that it doesn't create enough of a "wedge" effect when you drive it into the wood. That is, the primary grind doesn't taper enough as it narrows down toward the edge. So it sticks. I don't have this problem with my Junglas, for instance. The Junglas has what I'd call a "high flat grind," and it's a very pronounced and noticeable angle where the primary grind tapers down to the shoulder of the secondary grind. No sticking problems!

I wonder if it would pay to have the golok blade completely reprofiled to increase the angle of the primary grind?
 
The Golok is made as a decimating chopper and an on-the-go vegitation slicer/clearer. It's an ideal Jungle survival blade. All machete designs have their strengths and weaknesses, and the beauty to them is that they are cheap. If you're looking for a battoning beast, I suggest keeping your Golok for what it is. You know what it's good at and what it's not-get yourself another tool that's ideal for batoning. There's no shame in owning 5 machetes and selecting the right tool for the right conditions. Goes back to 'both good but different'-I don't believe any of my machetes produced by 10 different companies are any better than any others-they all perform differently and have their perks. The Golok's downside is batoning efficiency and no working point-it sacrifices performance in those things to gain it elsewhere. Does having a thicker spine make a machete better? Not necessarily, my paper-thin Tramontina is the best brush-slicer out there. I wouldn't chop down a hardwood tree with it, but at the same time I wouldn't take a forest axe into high grasslands or a jungle. At this point I have a whole rack of large blades, and with a quick check of trail conditions and some consideration for the environment of my pending backpacking trip, I grab the tool that would best suit my needs and stuff it in my pack. If you do your shopping, you can get some killer machetes for 5-10 dollars.
 
maximus83 said:
Both chop great, the Junglas did better,
Click to expand...

You are on the right track to getting your Golok up to snuff in my opinion. I will take the pictures of my two I am working on in much the same direction as the one you outlined. It did make massive performance improvements for me.
 
maximus83 said:
Good thread, PayetteRucker. Interesting, I was doing some side-by-side chopping and batoning tests yesterday with my Junglas and the new Golok. Both chop great, the Junglas did better, but a couple of things that would improve the Golok would be (a) It doesn't seem very sharp, it needs a better edge, and (b) my technique with it was a bit clumsy--I need to practice. I think with practice and an improved edge, it seems to me that the Golok could easily OUT-chop the Junglas. It's a good chopper. Spent some time on the golok last night with my DMT Diafold coarse blade, and it definitely is possible to improve that edge. But like somebody said earlier, doing it by hand is a pain: there's so much steel there, it takes forever to thin it by hand.

Another issue I noticed was that the Golok didn't do quite as well at batoning as my other knives. It did acceptably but not great: my little 5" el cheapo Gerber LMF 2--a knife I don't even like that much but keep as a beater--batons more effectively than the Golok. The Golok sticks a lot, and my theory is that the primary flat grind angle on the blade is so shallow that it doesn't create enough of a "wedge" effect when you drive it into the wood. That is, the primary grind doesn't taper enough as it narrows down toward the edge. So it sticks. I don't have this problem with my Junglas, for instance. The Junglas has what I'd call a "high flat grind," and it's a very pronounced and noticeable angle where the primary grind tapers down to the shoulder of the secondary grind. No sticking problems!

I wonder if it would pay to have the golok blade completely reprofiled to increase the angle of the primary grind?
Click to expand...

My guess is that the actual edge bevel is more obtuse than it should be, meaning that the blade is forced to displace the wood with a shorter wedge, and therefore more resistance. Knock down the shoulders of the blade and you ought to find performance drastically improved, even if you don't thin out the edge itself (though it'll do even better if you do!)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top