Information from Instagram and Facebook!

chiral.grolim said:
Totally understandable :thumbsup: I look forward to putting one through its paces (which will likely include batoning dried oak, tin cans, and steel roofing...and throwing)
Click to expand...

I'd recommend skinning above all - that's probably its best use.

But, yes, have at it and let us know.
As long as you don't do anything "too crazy" it should all be covered under the warranty...
 
Last edited:
Oyster said:
I'm confused. What was it about the new spec 3.5 that needed "tweaking" (during development)?
Both the smaller 2.7 and larger new spec 4.1 are flat saber grinds. Why would the middle one require a different grind?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't believe it would require a different grind either but the comments from a Millit Knives poster states its a hollow grind applied.
 
scout1sg said:
With an explanation point, lol
Click to expand...
Ok, I'm not a knife maker so I had to look this up to understand what it means. The wheel Millit used is 14", which is relatively large. The result is a hollow grind that is almost flat - or so I understand it. Point being that this hollow saber grind may not be significantly different from the flat saber grind we've become accustomed to from S!K. Esp. in the 3V version and with a .140 blade stock on a 3.5" blade, there's probably nothing to worry about and our concerns may have been overblown...
 
Last edited:
Oyster said:
Ok, I'm not a knife maker so I had to look this up to understand what it means. The wheel Millit used is 14", which is relatively large. The result is a hollow grind that is almost flat - or so I understand it. Point being that this hollow saber grind may not be significantly different from the flat saber grind we've become accustomed to from S!K. Esp. in the 3V version and with a .140 blade stock on a 3.5" blade, there's probably nothing to worry about and our concerns may have been overblown...
Click to expand...

:D

I will comment that 14" isn't really all that large...
A lot of knifemakers use platens that mimic a 36" or even a 48" wheel - I own a couple of knives from Tim Johnson of Blackstone K&T that he ground on a 36" radius platen (wait.. would that be a 6-foot wheel?!! I'm not clear on how they name these things) so it has a VERY slight hollow-grind but the concave deflection is undetectable to my eye. *shrug*
 
I'm just catching up after a long week of over time, and took some other threads off topic when I should have waited to discuss the Instagram updates here.

I'm strongly in favor of keeping the FLAT saber grind. Millit should be able to produce a flat grind, right? Now I'm second guessing myself, but these are all flat, aren't they?

Screenshot_20170922-195838.jpg Screenshot_20170922-195622.jpg Screenshot_20170922-195544.jpg Screenshot_20170922-195727.jpg
 
Silver Needle said:
I'm just catching up after a long week of over time, and took some other threads off topic when I should have waited to discuss the Instagram updates here.

I'm strongly in favor of keeping the FLAT saber grind. Millit should be able to produce a flat grind, right? Now I'm second guessing myself, but these are all flat, aren't they?

View attachment 769490 View attachment 769491 View attachment 769492 View attachment 769493
Click to expand...

I don't know if it's possible to tell from the angle those pics were taken - or maybe I'm just not familiar enough with that grind. There's also a lot of variation in hollow grinds, depending on the size wheel or platen used. Those don't look all that different - to me anyway - than the picture of the new 3.5...
 
LOL ! If you cannot tell if it is flat vs hollow, if the amount of deflection is too subtle for your eye to detect, precisely how much difference in performance do you expect?

Often the human requires some 'hint' to present that a flat object (like everything you see on your computer screen) actually has 'depth', and that a grind has concavity vs convexity vs flat. For example, when looking at the images of the blades above, the eye is looking for grind-lines or machine-marks or a reflection that appears to curve rather than proceed straight.

Seriously, folks, the hollow vs flat thing is over-blown.
If you are worried about durability, what makes you think it will be noticeably less durable? I haven't managed to damage any of my S!Ks up into the primary grind yet, and you know that I'm not gentle. Do you think that will change here?
If you are worried about cutting cardboard, I can show you the performance of a number of my hollow-grind knives performing better than flat-ground in that department to (presumably due to less drag on the sides of the bevel). *shrug*
If you are simply worried about aesthetics... how bad can it be if it is that hard to tell the difference between hollow vs flat?

Here is a knife that is DEFINITELY hollow-ground, but in this photo it is a bit hard to tell:

527.jpg
 
Last edited:
Taken from one of many posts to be found on the subject in the forum:

"It's worth noting that full-height hollow grinds exist, but aren't commonly seen because (unlike hollow saber grinds) they are very difficult to do right. The M.C. Cognet "Le Thiers" line is full-height hollow ground and cuts you just to look at 'em. The advantage afforded by the thick spine for rigidity must be balanced against the taper of the hollowing so you don't create a bad binding spot in the cut; as such it is best for hollow grinds to be subtle ones done using very large wheels (or ground against platens that mimic them.)"

The theme that keeps popping up is the concern about binding when cutting anything taller/thicker than the blade/apex itself (and/or not soft, like meat, which naturally parts when cut) which is why hollow grinds are typically seen on hunting knives and not, say, wood (hard material) cutting blades. Another common example that keeps popping up in these discussions is cutting an apple (or vegetables etc) where the HG has a tendency to split the fruit rather than make a clean cut. The saber grind itself probably isn't the best slicer but it IS strong and that second characteristic is what - I think - most people are looking for in an S!K. Not being a hunter (although I am beginning to become more and more interested in trying it out), my first choice for a slicer would be a thin FFG.
Another theme that is often mentioned is that the edge of an HG tends to be weaker than that of other grinds.
It just isn't clear to me why one would add the potential for the knife to "bind" in certain applications, or for the edge to fail, if a totally workable (albeit itself imperfect) solution for the "intended purpose" of the knife already existed.
But, I'm just throwing this out there because I feel it IS worthy of discussion AND I am happy to learn :)

ETA: Admittedly, my primary interest in S!K is to have a very strong, "hard use" knife that still cuts reasonably well. I have plenty of folders that excel at slicing. I'm not looking to replace them with a fixed blade from S!K.

Like+ QuoteReply
 
Last edited:
My understanding is that hollow grinding is a relatively inexpensive way to improve the cutting ability of a knife.
As the story goes when CATRA testing was applied to Buck's knives they found that the abrasive material wear resistance was significantly improved with a hollow grind, all other factors held constant.
They and many other manufacturers have implemented the hollow grind across a wide variety of knives.
I think that some of the resistance to hollow ground knives comes from the high esteem that many folks have for the convex grind, which is the exact opposite of a hollow grind.
As a result the convex grind (which as far as I know has to be done by hand) has been seen as a sign of a "custom" knife, and the saber hollow grind (which can be done fairly easily by specialized machines) has become a sign of a mass produced knife. Additionally, you can always thin a flat ground knife but you can't replace the steel removed by hollow grinding.
As Oyster mentioned the discussion about hollow grinds is pretty active but I think a lot of it comes down to personal preference.
 
Some of it definitely comes down to personal preference. And personal preference comes down to the criteria that are important to you, e.g. looks/craftsmanship or intended use. I think, for example, that a well-executed hollow grind is beautiful to behold. Much more so than, say, a FFG, which one could argue is the most "boring" grind from a purely aesthetic position. Chiral is probably absolutely right when he argues that differences in performance might be minimal. But that doesn't mean that there aren't objectively quantifiable advantages to each grind depending on intended use and that, given the choice, it would be wrong to opt for the "best" alternative.
Leaving aside axes or hatchets because they are, IMO, a very different animal due to their size, weight, thickness etc etc my thoughts (which are actually not "my own" or very original) on the various grinds:

Hollow: more specialized; generally the "weakest" of the grinds (doesn't mean they can't be built thick and strong to compensate); best for hunting knives (cutting thin and/or soft material that naturally parts when cut); not ideal for vegetables, wood (sure, it can do it, but I doubt it would be anyone's first choice due to strength and/or "binding" issues).

FF: very good all-round; good slicer for deeper cuts; can "drag" in certain materials and depending on how steep the grind is; almost all kitchen knives used for cutting vegetables, fine for wood, general utility etc

Convex: generally also good all-round depending on thickness; great for harder tasks, wood; strong; can be more challenging for some to maintain a proper edge

Flat saber: more all-round, though not the "best" slicer; very strong; good for hard-use; not the first choice for kitchen use (whether meat or vegetables where HG and FF are typically better)

Hollow saber: I'm stumped. This is a combination that I admit I don't really understand. But happy to learn.

Scandi: more specialized; wood-working

They all "work", they can all be very pleasing to the eye. I suppose - as stated before - that I was drawn to S!K because of the size/shape of the blades - very strong without being ridiculously "over-built" (relatively "nimble"); very well thought-out. And part of that was the conviction that the flat saber grind was "the best" choice for this type of (strong, stout) knife in all of the size variations.

I'm sure the hollow grind "works" but I do have to question whether the decision was driven more by cost or labor related considerations than performance/function. Are we seeing a departure from Guy's famous "no compromise", "spare no effort" in delivering the absolute best version of this particular type of knife (as opposed to merely delivering "a knife")?
This last point is the one I'm really focused on.

ETA: To chiral.grolim chiral.grolim 's comment above I should add that I took one look at the pic of the new 3.5 and recognized the HG.
 
Last edited:
I agree with Chiral. I do not think that 90% of users would ever be able to discern any difference in durability or cut ability in a shallow hollow grind versus Saber.

But, if they used a shallow hollow grind for several years, and then had someone replace that blade with a flat Saber, I think most people would very quickly note a negative difference in cutting performance on most materials, except wood. I would actually be happy from a cutting perspective , if a shallow hollow is available. For meat, game, cardboard, and food prep usage.
 
I appreciate all the insight and pros and cons. Now, is all the discussion so far based solely on the 3.5? I'm looking ahead at the entire SK line. Unless the hollow grind is very, very shallow does anyone know of a reputable, massive chopper that successfully uses a hollow grind? How will a hollow grind perform on the SK 12?

I don't have an SK 3.5 or 12 on order, but I'm planning a lot of rigorous wood working for my SK 6. How will a hollow grind perform with light and medium chopping? Batoning? I need a camp/survival knife to stand up to anything I throw at it.
 
Honestly, I'd love to try out another hollow grind in a taller blade height! The one on the Insingo is done very well as you can see in the last pic. It's gradually tapers up to the saber grind. The good thing about hollow grinds is, when you got to resharpen, the edge never gets thicker, even after repeated sharpenings. The edge still stays thin. The edge is where all the cutting starts!

S66Cyjo.jpg

86qFFKY.jpg

J6rYxhy.jpg
 
Random thoughts on a slow Sunday morning...

Not sure about comparing a folder with a full tang (non-skeletonized) fixed blade in terms of build/weight/intended use/expectations.
The Professional Soldier (skeletonized tang) or larger Green Beret (at 5.5" closer to the GSO 6 that Silver was wondering about) might be better if we're only comparing with CRK?

CRK uses tougher S35VN - a non-issue for those that ordered D3V but possibly one for those of us that selected 20CV?

CRK uses a shallow high hollow grind (settling in between hollow and full flat); still struggling to understand the merits of a hollow saber which the new 3.5 seems to be (a stronger tip comes to mind; it's the simultaneously adding/subtracting strength/slicing ability on different parts of the blade that I don't get - but perhaps I just don't understand enough about the subject)

Again, I'm sure it's a very fine knife. I'm just not sure how it fits into the S!K history/philosophy (my understanding of it anyway). Maybe a 2nd line called H!K (hunting) to complement the S!K (all-round outdoor/survival) line?

Again, just rambling and maybe I have it all wrong. Feel free to ignore and have a great day... :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top