<blockquote>
I DON'T want to get into a useless discussion of 'what is a REAL Bowie', but I would like to comment on the statement that a Bowie is not equal to a khuk in chopping power, by adding a suffix, to wit: It depends on which Bowie you're talking about.
</blockquote>
Oh I know better than to declare one bowie design to be superior to all others, and therefore it must be a 'real' bowie. I was just stating that I liked my Ontario Hell's Belle for what it was designed to do - namely, to be a fighter. Doubtlessly there were other bowies designed for other tasks - fighting/work, or purely for work.
<blockquote>
One of my prized possessions is a 1964-era Randall 'Raymond Thorpe' Bowie. At 13"X2-1/2"X1/4", (18" OAL) and just about a pound and a half, it is far superior to any other commercial 'bowie knife' ( perhaps a hundred or more examples) that I have handled in 40 years of being a fancier of big fighting knives. I did own one 'smith-made bowie for a while that was nearly as good, but it was a one-off, and not duplicable.
</blockquote>
I don't doubt your word that your bowie is of a far better quality than any other bowie you've handled. After all, you're the one who has handled all those knives. I, on the other hand, have had experience with only one bowie...my Hell's Belle.
<blockquote>
The Ontario is a flashy showpiece, uncomfortable to hold, and of inferior steel. A piece of pointed re-rod would make a more useful weapon, and nearly as good a chopper and slicer. As commercial bowies go, you can do much worse than the Cold Steel model, although the truck tire handle is an abomination.
</blockquote>
Here is where I disagree. My particular Hell's Belle, even though it is a factory second, feels good in either hand and is very light for its size. I believe it has a very clean, slim look...which appeals to me. I would have picked a walnut handle instead of laminated pakkawood, either works fine.
The blade is mirror polished, which I also like. I think it is 'flashy' in a good sense of the word and is different from a gaudy 'flashy', if you know what I mean. Besides, you could use the highly polished blade to reflect sunlight in the other guy's eyes. I really like the balance on my knife and the knife just feels 'there'. That is, it doesn't feel too blade heavy or too handle heavy.
I don't know anything about QS-13 but I do know that the hardness is around 52-53 RC and the reason for that is because the goal here is to have a tough blade that will resist chipping and snapping at the expense of edge retention. I fully agree with that design philosophy...all of my European swords are in the same RC range for the exact same reason. A Riding Sword that is 59 RC for its full length would have a tendency to snap during combat and leave the swordsman up a certain creek without a paddle.
As for the CS bowie, I agree that a Kraton handle is unacceptable. However the CS bowie was probably made for more general usage and not purely for fighting, as the Ontario Hell's Belle was. I think you can compare them as far as the type of knife category that they belong to, but comparing them application-wise would not be fair.
<blockquote>
Handle one of the superb Randall Thorpe models...perhaps with a stag or micarta handle, and you will never be satisfied with anything else. More recent models may not exhibit the superb steel temper and smithing that my old one does, I don't know.
</blockquote>
If I ever do get the chance to do so, I will surely have a lot more experience and information from which to make a more informed judgement on bowie knives.
Keep in mind, however, that I paid only $120 USD for this Ontario Hell's Belle, which retails at an astronomical $250+ brand new. I believe that I got my money's worth. Now, if I were to shell out more for a Randall Thorpe bowie, I would certainly expect to get a knife of much better quality than the Ontario Hell's Belle.
<blockquote>
When deployed as they are meant to be, the Bowie in a sabre grip and the khuk in a hammer grip, they are equally effective as weapons, with the Bowie being slightly superior in thrust and cut, and the khuk in chops. I know some would disagree, but I've never found the khuk to be that 'gainly' in reverse edge grips and strikes, while the Thorpe Bowie is equally capable in either grip.
</blockquote>
I would say that any good bowie, compared to any good khuk, is far superior in the thrust and perhaps slightly better in the slicing department. Likewise, I would also say that any good khuk, as long as it is in the same length range of the bowie it is being compared to, is superior in chopping strokes and perhaps slightly inferior when it comes to slices.
Anyhow, musings on battle-worthiness aside, I just don't see how a straight blade like the bowie can generate as much as or more chopping power than a khukuri with a similarly sized blade. It's just the way the blades were designed...trade off one feature for another. In the bowie's case, I think the aim was to make a knife that could do it all whereas in the khuk's case, the objective was to make a knife that has no peers in the chopping department at the expense of thrusting and backcutting ability.
Just my opinion...
,we need a dumbass smily too.