Joe Musso Bowie

K

Ken H>

Joined
Dec 31, 2011
Messages
4,564
Hello all - I have question. below is a couple of drawing of the Musso Bowie and there seems to be a conflict with the blade dimensions. Note the top set of dimensions show 5-3/16" for the clip, and 7-1/4" for the main blade back to guard. BUT - there is a dimension on bottom (side elevation) for the same distance showing 13-3/4". Am I missing something? OR - is that just an uh-oh in the drawing? I'd sure appreciate any input to actual dimensions of the Musso Bowie.
Musso-Bowie-Orig-Dwg.jpg


Here's where somebody copied the above dwg and made a nice clean copy with color:
Musso-Bowie-7945-Scale.jpg


Any comments and sharing knowledge of the Musso Bowie (or any other) would be welcome.

Ken H>
 
Last edited:
Stacy E. Apelt - Bladesmith said:
I believe the brass strip is 7.25 the clip is 5.2, and the uncovered spine is a bit more than an inch. That should make the 13.75
Click to expand...

I think you're right. If you look closely at the hand drawn detail drawing, you can almost make out another dimension arrow just above the left side of the brass strip that's not present in the rendered drawing.

That would resolve the seemingly missing 1 5/16", which I would say is approximately the distance between the right side of the clip, and the left side of the brass strip.
 
See, that's why I like this group so much. Andrew - you've seen what I've missed with looking so many times. The original drawing does show the 7-1/4" ending at end of brass strip, with the space between brass and clip as not dimensioned.

Thanks to all for info.

Ken H>
 
The arrow for the 7&1/4" dimension ends right at the peak of the swedge indicating that dimension goes from the guard face to the peak of the swedge. The 5&3/16" dimension is indicated from the tip to the peak of the swedge. The lost 1&1/16" may be in the length of the ricasso. The ricasso is a similar length to the portion of the spine behind the peak and in front of the brass strip which Stacy has estimated to be 1&1/16". Many people and many knife laws measure a blade length from the tip to the guard. In any case, if I were building the knife I'd sure make the tang wider.
 
Marc: Look close at the top dimension line on the original drawing - you can clearly see the dimension line extends from the tip of the swedge to the end of the brass at the guard. Note also the leather spacer between ricasso and guard. The dimension line has a tiny arrow right at the end of brass at the swedge end, then another arrow at the tip of swedge. I'm like Stacy and Andrew, I think the person who drew the original drawing forgot to put the "end" line at the end of brass to show the 7-1/4" length ends at the brass, then forgot to add the dimension from tip of brass to swedge tip. I've not found a thickness for the brass guard - I think that dimension was missed. They show a nice plan view of guard, but no dimension for thickness of guard.

Then, the person who made the color drawing missed the tiny arrow at end of brass, and shows the dimension from end of ricasso to swedge tip as one dimension of 7-1/4" and didn't catch that is 13-3/4" overall blade dimension didn't add up to his top dimensions. That is one BIG knife! Over 19-1/2" long, depending on thickness of brass guard. I'm guess 1/4" to 5/16"? I'm not a forger (bad shoulders), but had to forge bevels in to make my 2" wide bar wide enough for the 2-1/4" blade width.

Well, the tang is about 3/8" (or maybe a bit more) at the ricasso tapering down to 1/4" for the threads, as best I can measure from a print. Since the blade is 1/4" thick (from reading history of knife, that dimension is also left off dwg), I'm "assuming" the threads are 1/4" - which is most common in 1830 - 20 or 28 TPI?

Another problem with the color drawing, they show a big curve from tang to ricasso while the original dwg shows more of a 90º corner to make guard fit better. While I'd like a tiny radius to kill a "sharp" corner, that big curve is a bit much (I think). I'd think at least 1/2" tang at ricasso tapering to 1/4" for threads would be better, but I am trying to make a copy of original.

Ken H>
 
Last edited:
There were no real standards for threads in that time. I imagine many were still being hand filed.
 
I've always wondered about the Muso bowie and have two questions.
1. How is the brass strip fixed to the blade? Solder?
2. Why is the tang off-center in the handle? I assume there was a good reason...
 
Mark Basford said:
I've always wondered about the Muso bowie and have two questions.
1. How is the brass strip fixed to the blade? Solder?
2. Why is the tang off-center in the handle? I assume there was a good reason...
Click to expand...

If you look at the middle section of the two images you can read "Note: Brass strip is "sweated" on" just above the strip. I'm assuming that means soldered.
 
Yes, brass soldered on is my understanding also. Why is the tang off centered? Heck if I know - I'd expect just an uh-oh when building the knife. When drilling thru the wood it came out not centered? I did read somewhere in history there was a pommel/butt cap that has been lost - maybe broke off and just an easy repair done rather than making a new pommel?
 
I see what you're saying Ken. I was basing my remarks off the color drawing. I don't think the exact dimensions matter that much. All the descriptions of the knife are from second or third or fourth hand accounts, memories, impressions, etc. There are no original blueprints or surviving examples of the actual knife. So everything at this point is an "homage" to a nebulous Bowie legend.
 
So everything at this point is an "homage" to a nebulous Bowie legend
Click to expand...

That is so very true - the Musso Bowie (as well as others) do have a good bit of evidence Jim Bowie "could" have actually owned them at one time or other. I'm not looking to copy "the" Bowie knife, just the Musso Bowie itself. My understanding is the original drawing was made with the actual disassembled Bowie in hand. The color drawing was made from the original B&W drawing.

Here's a site with a nice collection of reproduction Bowies of most major versions of Bowie's many different knives. His brother Resin did most of the designing of knives, from what I've read anyway. https://relentlessknives.com/newsletter0411.html

Ken H>
 
Last edited:
Hey, I've got another question, in the original drawing right at the ricasso with an arrow pointing to the plunge line, it says:

"Note: Hollow Grind at this section only -- the rest of the blade has basically a cannel or rolled edge."

Just what does it mean by cannel or rolled edge? Does that mean the rear section forming the plunge line and short space in front is the only place you can see a grind line (and is hollow ground), while rest of blade is more or less contoured from spine down to edge with no obvious grind line?

From looking at photos of the Musso Bowie that is what it looks like -

Musso%20Bowie-good%20photo.jpg


Thanks to all for comments and guidance.

Ken H>
 
Last edited:
"Here's a site with a nice collection of reproduction Bowies of most major versions of Bowie's many different knives."

Um, did I miss the link?
 
Ken H> said:
Hey, I've got another question, in the original drawing right at the ricasso with an arrow pointing to the plunge line, it says:

"Note: Hollow Grind at this section only -- the rest of the blade has basically a cannel or rolled edge."

Just what does it mean by cannel or rolled edge? Does that mean the rear section forming the plunge line and short space in front is the only place you can see a grind line (and is hollow ground), while rest of blade is more or less contoured from spine down to edge with no obvious grind line?

From looking at photos of the Musso Bowie that is what it looks like -

Musso%20Bowie-good%20photo.jpg


Thanks to all for comments and guidance.

Ken H>
Click to expand...

Cannel is an old word not used any more. You will likely not even find it in the dictionary ( except in the form of cannel coal, which is a different thing). It is an Old English word for cinnamon. It refers to the rolled up shape of the bark pieces. In a knife or other shaped object it merely meant curved or rolled.

The way I read the statement is that a hollow plunge was ground and then faired into a convex blade - rolled/curved down to the edge.
 
i4Marc said:
"Here's a site with a nice collection of reproduction Bowies of most major versions of Bowie's many different knives."

Um, did I miss the link?
Click to expand...

Shucks Marc - "I" Missed the link! http://www.relentlessknives.com/newsletter0411.html

I even checked the link to make sure it was still good, got to reading on the page and looking at photos and darn - forgot to include the link!

Stacy - thanks for the info, that's why I couldn't find anything on "cannel" word. Your description of how it's done is pretty much what I had thought, but wished confirmation.

Ken H>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top