I'm new here...why does every fixed blade knife have to be a star at batoning?

chevyrulez1 said:
I didn't attempt to give reasons why someone wouldn't baton, that was not my intent. In fact, in my post I said "I understand the concept and see its usefulness in many situations"
Let me rephrase my earlier post, I dislike "torture testing" knives. A perfect example is the "tip test"
How many times have you watched a video and seen people stab a knife into a hardwood log, bend the knife sideways, and then when the tip breaks off they say "total fail!"
The way I see it, the knife didn't fail, they abused it and broke it.
When people are constantly testing knives in these extreme ways, the standard is being set by the YouTubers that the consumers "expect" the knives to survive extreme abuse, or else it "fails" and is not recommended
You said "its not like you cant still get plenty of other thinner more nimble knives", but that is my point, they are becoming harder and harder to find, and I think it is because consumer demand is pushing for knives that will pass the torture tests. You may like carrying a beast of a knife capable of withstanding massive amounts of abuse, (and there is nothing wrong with that) but others may not want that, but it seems the entire industry being forced in that direction.
A perfect example is the new Case modern folders, blade thickness is .149" thick! :oops: The full size Benchmade Griptilian is .115 thick, and it was considered a heavy duty hard use knife.
Click to expand...
It is just "in fashion," I suppose, to make thick knives. I can completely see thick, larger fixed blades but a folder should be only moderately thick, IMO. The market will tell.
 
Dr Rez said:
Ok...? So because you have not done it, it can't be a valid tool for others?

You realize people do things differently right? Indians cook chicken different than the Chinese. Americans make cars differently than Europeans.



Not sure what the point of what you are saying is. If it's simply you don't see a need for it then sure I agree, you don't lol That's fine.
Click to expand...
This is so true! Watching an Alaskan Native Elder woman fillet salmon with an ulu is humbling. Totally different design of blade than what I use and they do it faster.
We like knives….we may not like the same styles or use them the same, but it does not make one point of view wrong.
 
Stephen W Huyssoon said:
It is just "in fashion," I suppose, to make thick knives. I can completely see thick, larger fixed blades but a folder should be only moderately thick, IMO. The market will tell.
Click to expand...
Except its not. Thick knives have been used consistently throughout history for a multitude of outdoor activities.
 
Dr Rez said:
Except its not. Thick knives have been used consistently throughout history for a multitude of outdoor activities.
Click to expand...
Whose history? History as we know it does extend well before the 1970s...... The vast majority of knives carried west during the 19th century were butcher style knives, many made at the Green River Works. These were and still are fairly thin ( .10 - .15") rolled steel blades. Mora style knives have been an outdoor staple for 1000 years....thick blades? Not hardly..... .07" - .12" for the most part. Marbles blades have been associated with the outdoors since the end of the 19th century. The ubiquitous Woodcraft......~.16" thick. The Ideal, .14" give or take. The Randall Model 1 is by comparison rather stout at .22".
Thick blades are by definition heavy. They won't cut or slice as well as a thin blade, making game processing and most other things more difficult. Thick blades as we know them are mostly a modern contrivance driven by the need to hammer them through stuff instead of using them to cut stuff.
 
Last edited:
Arathol said:
Whose history? History as we know it does extend well before the 1970s...... The vast majority of knives carried west during the 19th century were butcher style knives, many made at the Green River Works. These were and still are fairly thin ( .10 - .15") rolled steel blades. Mora style knives have been an outdoor staple for 1000 years....thick blades? Not hardly..... .07" - .12" for the most part. Marbles blades have been associated with the outdoors since the end of the 19th century. The ubiquitous Woodcraft......~.16" thick. The Ideal, .14" give or take. The Randall Model 1 is by comparison rather stout at .22".
Thick blades are by definition heavy. They won't cut or slice as well as a thin blade, making game processing and most other things more difficult. Thick blades as we know them are mostly a modern contrivance driven by the need to hammer them through stuff instead of using them to cut stuff.
Click to expand...

Is this a serious post? Cant tell if you are trolling. Your argument is "here are some not so thick knives" and "trust me bro they didnt", while also being rude saying "hIsToRy GoEs BaCk fArtHeR ThAn 1970." Additionally the majority of your post is one big strawman argument.

With like 2 minutes of research you can find countless example of thick knives used throughout history. For example the Roman Pugio Dagger/Knife so many of the infantry soldiers carried. It was called an auxiliary blade because they used it for so many things. They were thick as hell. French trade knives were often pretty thick (3-4mm), riflemans knives, bowie knives....its an endless list.

I dont even know why I am typing this, it is laughable to think thick knives were not used all throughout history.
 
Last edited:
Big thick choppers, preferably with a saw back designed to cut through an aluminum fuselage, are essential for those of us who are frequently forced down in dense jungle, Canadian muskeg or similar hostile environments, such as downtown Ottawa.
 
Hey guys, these posts have been very entertaining. I, myself, like thick blades and I like thin blades. I also think that using a thicker knife takes some skill and practice. At least for me they do. It's all part of having fun with knives. I also think a lot of history is going to just be unknown.

But you know, it's not all about what you need, which I keep hearing. It's also just about what your choices are.
 
Dr Rez said:
Is this a serious post? Cant tell if you are trolling. Your argument is "here are some not so thick knives" and "trust me bro they didnt", while also being rude saying "hIsToRy GoEs BaCk fArtHeR ThAn 1970." Additionally the majority of your post is one big strawman argument.

With like 2 minutes of research you can find countless example of thick knives used throughout history. For example the Roman Pugio Dagger/Knife so many of the infantry soldiers carried. It was called an auxiliary blade because they used it for so many things. They were thick as hell. French trade knives were often pretty thick (3-4mm), riflemans knives, bowie knives....its an endless list.

I dont even know why I am typing this, it is laughable to think thick knives were not used all throughout history.
Click to expand...
You have no idea what you are going on about ....Do you even own a real knife?
The Pugio was a side arm carried by Roman soldiers. Ever actually seen one? Real ones (not the replicas from Atlanta Cutlery) were generally only ~3mm (.11") or so thick, with a strengthening rib running along the mid-line of the blade....so yeah, thick as hell...... 😂
About those "real thick" trade knives.... 3-4mm (for those who don't fully understand metric conversion) is only .11 to .16", about same as the original "not so thick" Marbles Woodcraft and Ideal mentioned above ......
iwlZZ85.gif

As for Bowie knives.......stop watching Hollywood movies......
The thread is about knives used for bushcraft and out door activities, but now you are talking about weapons.......Last I looked there was a big difference between those two.
The knives mentioned above were industry standards for 100 years or more, and the designs are still copied by many makers. They are not just a couple random thin bladed knives. Those designs are what the majority of outdoors people for many many years used without issue until Ray Mears came along with his 1/4" thick so-called Scandi grind blades....
 
Arathol said:
You have no idea what you are going on about ....Do you even own a real knife?
The Pugio was a side arm carried by Roman soldiers. Ever actually seen one? Real ones (not the replicas from Atlanta Cutlery) were generally only ~3mm (.11") or so thick, with a strengthening rib running along the mid-line of the blade....so yeah, thick as hell...... 😂
About those "real thick" trade knives.... 3-4mm (for those who don't fully understand metric conversion) is only .11 to .16", about same as the original "not so thick" Marbles Woodcraft and Ideal mentioned above ......
iwlZZ85.gif

As for Bowie knives.......stop watching Hollywood movies......
The thread is about knives used for bushcraft and out door activities, but now you are talking about weapons.......Last I looked there was a big difference between those two.
The knives mentioned above were industry standards for 100 years or more, and the designs are still copied by many makers. They are not just a couple random thin bladed knives. Those designs are what the majority of outdoors people for many many years used without issue until Ray Mears came along with his 1/4" thick so-called Scandi grind blades....
Click to expand...
Just lol. This can't be a real response and certainly not worth the time to debate as you clearly put 0 time into crafting it.

You would think someone who spends so much time posting on forums would understand what a strawman argument is.
 
Arathol said:
Why, because it contradicts you? Get over it........😭
wrFN7fg.jpg
Click to expand...
How will I ever get over this. It's funny , in all your strawmanning you never even clarified what I considered a thick knife. So you are arguing a point you don't even understand lol
 
Personally, I feel like splitting with with an axe or hatchet is more dangerous than batoning with a knife... I have much more control with a knife, but you certainly don't need some huge piece of heavy steel to do the job.

One of the knives I use the most is a simple 5.75 inch lauri bladed stick tang leuku with 1/8 stock and natural wood handles, which leaves the balance point perfectly at the bolster. Super nimble in hand.

A whopping 6.2 ounces :cool:

3bforum.jpg
 
SwissHeritageCo said:
Personally, I feel like splitting with with an axe or hatchet is more dangerous than batoning with a knife... I have much more control with a knife, but you certainly don't need some huge piece of heavy steel to do the job.

One of the knives I use the most is a simple 5.75 inch lauri bladed stick tang leuku with 1/8 stock and natural wood handles, which leaves the balance point perfectly at the bolster. Super nimble in hand.

A whopping 6.2 ounces :cool:

3bforum.jpg
Click to expand...
I don’t typically baton with a knife, but have & agree, the knife goes through the wood. My hawk can blow wood every which way on occasion.
 
dogstar said:
Wait, are we making wood shakes or fire wood?
Click to expand...
Firewood. The hawk goes from fairly thin blade to handle thickness pretty fast. Depends on the wood, but it can fly on a split.
I just can’t warm up to hitting a knife. I‘ve figured out it’s because younger, I always had hunting knives. There weren’t baton worthy knives like today. Or..I didn’t know about them. We used hatchets.
 
GmpaJim said:
Firewood. The hawk goes from fairly thin blade to handle thickness pretty fast. Depends on the wood, but it can fly on a split.
I just can’t warm up to hitting a knife. I‘ve figured out it’s because younger, I always had hunting knives. There weren’t baton worthy knives like today. Or..I didn’t know about them. We used hatchets.
Click to expand...
Well, for firewood, I've never felt the need to be precise.
I mostly use a hatchet/hawk as well.
I have no problem with batoning, either with a knife, axe, or anything else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top