Lets talk GEC!

I've just received my Angus Jack, and it looks great! Loving that 'well done' ebony and the bare head.
One thing is making me scratch my head though, and perhaps some of you (much) more experienced/knowledgable folks can explain:
The bladewell for the primary (large sheepsfoot) blade is empty (i.e. unused) in the closed position, with the cutting edge resting close to the edge of the handle, and not utilising the void underneath.
What, therefore, is the purpose of this bladewell, as the blade doesn't appear to occupy it? Would it not have been a better idea to have had the blade sitting lower in the bladewell (like with my similarly edged #93 Ram's Foot), which would have the additional advantage of a tidier carry and more comfortable grip when using the secondary? Or would the #86 frame not allow this, in which case why was this blade chosen?
At least there's zero possibility of blade rap...
 
dovidola said:
The bladewell for the primary (large sheepsfoot) blade is empty (i.e. unused) in the closed position, with the cutting edge resting close to the edge of the handle, and not utilising the void underneath.
Click to expand...
The blade edge has to clear the hump for the center pin.
If you look at all the knife patterns, all the tips are close to exposed for this reason.
Or I'm completely misunderstanding your question.
 
JohnDF said:
The blade edge has to clear the hump for the center pin.
If you look at all the knife patterns, all the tips are close to exposed for this reason.
Or I'm completely misunderstanding your question.
Click to expand...
I would add that GEC tends to maximize the size of the primary blade on all their models as much as possible, and sinking a sheepsfoot blade (or any blade, for that matter) further into the blade well would generally necessitate shortening or lessening the width of the blade.
 
dovidola said:
I've just received my Angus Jack, and it looks great! Loving that 'well done' ebony and the bare head.
One thing is making me scratch my head though, and perhaps some of you (much) more experienced/knowledgable folks can explain:
The bladewell for the primary (large sheepsfoot) blade is empty (i.e. unused) in the closed position, with the cutting edge resting close to the edge of the handle, and not utilising the void underneath.
What, therefore, is the purpose of this bladewell, as the blade doesn't appear to occupy it? Would it not have been a better idea to have had the blade sitting lower in the bladewell (like with my similarly edged #93 Ram's Foot), which would have the additional advantage of a tidier carry and more comfortable grip when using the secondary? Or would the #86 frame not allow this, in which case why was this blade chosen?
At least there's zero possibility of blade rap...
Click to expand...
I'm sure it has to do with the spring design.
 
The 68 is a fine size as a carry knife. A dressy mid-size workhorse. And I love that Bill put "Howard" on the pin. He sure deserves recognition for the fine work he has done over the decades. History will remember him well. Perhaps we should honor him at a Rendezvous before he retires. I think that would be very fitting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top