Is a scandi grind or a saber grind stronger?

EChoil said:
Let me use the term 'pure' rather than 'true.'

I believe most would say a pure ("real"...whatever...) Scandi grind is saber flat zero ground...no secondary.

At one time they were likely sabre hollow ground as only big wheels were available to grind them. Modern day, however, the real Scandis are zero ground to the edge from the beginning of the upper grind.
As far as the subject here, the grind differences, maybe if I put it this way: A pure Scandi is always a sabre but a sabre isn't always a Scandi.​

A good point you make is that most people probably term it more by the look of the knife rather than such technicalities as we're getting into here. Your point is valid. I would call anything that looked sabre zero ground a "Scandi," even though it may have secondaries or micro bevels or hollows I can't see at the time without my loupe. :) We're already on ground that is way too technical and wouldn't even be noticed by most users of the knives. I'm speaking strictly about the definition of the grind itself--Scandi.

We need to hear from the knife makers...which I am NOT. I'd be glad to receive further education on the subject.

EDIT: I'll also say, in consideration of the history of the blade design way up there in the north....a zero grind makes for easier sharpening which I think would have been a consideration back then. Example would be the leukus with that grind, developed by the Samis.
Click to expand...

Looking at photos of antique stouraniiphi / leuku from a museum here in Stockholm, shows convex edges.
Looking at a1200 years old knife in another museum, has also showed convex scandi edge.
The flat or hollow zerogrind edge is used on today's industrially produced blades like a Mora.
Many custommakers here, use a hollow grind with a bevel, that sometimes is convexed.
The term Scandigrind is an American or English definition.

A flat zerogrind is used for detailed cuts, when woodcarving or light work when trimming off very small pieces.
Tougher work needs a bevel or a convexed edge.

Regards
Mikael
 
Last edited:
Yeah, the term "scandi" is a real misnomer. The edge style is neither unique to the Scandinavian peninsula, nor do all Nordic knives use such a grind. A more proper term would be a "Mora grind" since it's the knife most people consider as having a "'true' scandi grind". The irony being that people tend to define a "scandi grind" as a flat zero saber grind, while the majority of Moras actually have a very slightly hollow grind with a microbevel on it. Most folks also seem not to fully understand the definition of a microbevel either. They often think it means any secondary edge bevel when it really should be only visible to the naked eye under very close and deliberate scrutiny. Otherwise it's just a conventional secondary bevel, or "macro-bevel." :D
 
"I believe most would say a pure ("real"...whatever...) Scandi grind is saber flat zero ground...no secondary."

So the British say, and they, more than anyone else, created the label and champion it's supposed superiority for wood carving.

They define it as a saber grind with only one, flat bevel. AKA "Zero Bevel" or "Zero Grind" or "no secondary bevel"

Others use the label for many other grinds, so you need to be clear what you are actually getting.

If more of the blade is left full thickness (bevel starts lower), the blade should be stronger - for some values of "strong." For the complete story, you need to consider the issues Jhansenak raises.
 
Technically speaking, a flat zero saber grind is the very thickest configuration you can have when stock thickness and edge angle are held constant.
 
FortyTwoBlades said:
Technically speaking, a flat zero saber grind is the very thickest configuration you can have when stock thickness and edge angle are held constant.
Click to expand...

What are you basing that on?
I think the 'Scandi' grind has roots in wood carving. The thickness wedges out chips and is useful as a sharpening guide. Having the angles similar is practical.
 
Which one is stronger depends on geometry specifics and what kind of strength is needed. If blade thickness and width are held constant or if cross section is held constant makes a huge difference. A scandi blade is 1/8" thick with a 10 degree bevel on a 1" wide blade, the blade will be stronger in prying than a saber ground blade that has a 5 degree primary bevel on the same blade size. However, the edge of the saber ground blade can be stronger, as it can be sharpened at 20 degrees independent of the primary bevel angle. With the definition of the the scandi ground blade being the same angle all the way to the edge, the edge angle is fixed at 10 degrees.

Now, I don't subscribe to that particular definition, and its certainly possible to add a 20 degree bevel on the edge of a 10 degree scandi grind. However, take the stance that the cross section is held constant. For the same cross section, the spine of the saber ground blade could be thicker, therefore it could be both stronger prying, and stronger at the edge.

It all depends on the specific measurements used.
 
Jhansenak47 said:
What are you basing that on?
Click to expand...

As he says, he bases it on geometry. Not sure what you thought 42 posted. If a saber convex could be said to have an "angle," it might be "thickest," but that's a quibble. Can YOU describe a thicker configuration when the two have the same thickness ("when stock thickness [is] . .. constant")? :D
 
Thomas Linton said:
As he says, he bases it on geometry. Not sure what you thought 42 posted. If a saber convex could be said to have an "angle," it might be "thickest," but that's a quibble. Can YOU describe a thicker configuration when the two have the same thickness ("when stock thickness [is] . .. constant")? :D
Click to expand...

Geometry is a reasonable answer.
The angle of an edge varies so it is possible to have a 'fat' zero grind. I don't think they push the limits on how wide they can make a zero grind. The angle of all the zero grinds I have seen are typically such that a bevel can be added. I think that is the thickest practically, but not the thickest possible.
 
It is the thickest possible when edge angle and stock thickness are held constant, and the reason is because convexing would either increase the edge angle or reduce the thickness behind the edge. Hollowing would also obviously reduce the angle as well as thinning the geometry. Now you can have very thick angles and stock thickness to make one blade thicker than another, but that makes all comparison in the general sense pretty useless. BOTH the edge angle and stock thickness need to be held constant for the comparison to be made.
 
EChoil said:
We need to hear from the knife makers...which I am NOT. I'd be glad to receive further education on the subject.
Click to expand...

You could simply take a look at their knives. Here are a couple of Finnish puukkos, ordered direct from the makers. I did not specify grinds.

This one has a slight hollow with a microbevel.



This one has a zero edge.



Ultimately I think the choice of grind depends on the maker's preference.
 
FortyTwoBlades said:
It is the thickest possible when edge angle and stock thickness are held constant, and the reason is because convexing would either increase the edge angle or reduce the thickness behind the edge. Hollowing would also obviously reduce the angle as well as thinning the geometry. Now you can have very thick angles and stock thickness to make one blade thicker than another, but that makes all comparison in the general sense pretty useless. BOTH the edge angle and stock thickness need to be held constant for the comparison to be made.
Click to expand...

If I had a nickel for each time I tried to go down this road with some of the convex fans....they are not "buying" geometry. Doesn't "fit."

But you are 110% correct.
 
Jhansenak47 said:
Geometry is a reasonable answer.
The angle of an edge varies so it is possible to have a 'fat' zero grind. I don't think they push the limits on how wide they can make a zero grind. The angle of all the zero grinds I have seen are typically such that a bevel can be added. I think that is the thickest practically, but not the thickest possible.
Click to expand...

Just as it is possible to have a "fat" flat grind. A fatter grind is thicker, hence has more cross sectional area, and is stronger.

So all your argument says is that a fatter grind is stronger than a weaker one. It says nothing about grinds at all.

A hollow grind that is fatter then a certain convex grind will be stronger than the convex one. And a 85 degree inclusive flat edge grind will be stronger than a 10 inclusive one.

So what?

You are comparing two different things.

Which FortyTwoBlades is not.
 
grinds_zpsactzzxpo.png


And I'm out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top