Lightweight Scale/Handle Material?

There is no such thing as "Phenolic G10". G10 is a code that is specifically a glass/epoxy material. There are glass/phenolic laminates, but they have other designations.

The reason FRN scales are light is that they are molded. The manufacturing process allows them to be made with thin shells and grids of reinforcing webs so they are stiff and light for their thickness. Otherwise it is just glass reinforced nylon, and 30% glass fill nylon 6.6 is about 0.75oz/cu in.

For comparison of tang style to weights, I am working on a 3.5" blade, 8" oal knife in 0.118" stock in two versions, full skeleton tang, and a hidden tang.
Parallel skeleton full tang, without handle, is 2.47oz,
Tapered skeleton to 0.04" is 2oz
Hidden 0.5ish wide tang, is 1.9oz.

The hidden tang might need more work to shape a handle than just knocking corners of thin scales, but one can cut more blades from the stock, they are easier to cut since there is no handle profile and only one or two holes to drill. There is also no handle/tang perimeter join to finish flush, and fewer/smaller pins or bolt heads to finish.

I plan to use Micarta and fully contour the handles, the end result will be much thicker than you are talking about so probably adding another 2oz of handle material. I want light-ish, but am not shooting for ultimate light weight. If I was, I would use thinner blade stock and look at walnut, curly birch or maybe birch bark with Micarta bolsters.

Best of luck with your back packing knives. Hope you post some pictures here when they are done :)

Chris
 
Last edited:
Tyson A Wright said:
Why not bamboo, then? You said nobody uses it, but I've seen bamboo-handled knives.
Click to expand...
Not sure, but the bamboo handles I have seen on western knives have used the resin impregnated bamboo material, similar to what is used for flooring, so much denser than the raw material. what I have seen of bamboo is that it is very splintery.
 
Here's another case study for people. I machined these blanks out of 0.118" AEB-L so they're all identical, ground the same, use the same 3/16" 304 stainless pins, and have the same handle thickness. The one with non-stabilized walnut scales has a fully skeletonized tang like the unfinished one at the bottom. The one with stabilized curly mango scales is also fully skeletonized. The one with non-stabilized oak scales is not skeletonized but has a full tang. The weights are below. Without changing the blade or scale materials, more weight could be shed by switching to less dense and/or smaller diameter pins or by tapering the tang. I'd like to experiment with how tapering the tang moves the balance point forward. The walnut one feels perfect in my hand, but I'd like to retain that balance while using a heavier scale material. I may also try titanium pins. Based on some back of hand math, that alone would save ~3.5 g in the handle.

Unstabilized walnut with skeletonized tang: 82.2 g (2.90 oz)
Stabilized curly mango with skeletonized tang: 96.0 g (3.39 oz)
Unstabilized oak with non-skeletonized tang: 111.1 g (3.92 oz)

 
Last edited:
C_Claycomb said:
There is no such thing as "Phenolic G10". G10 is a code that is specifically a glass/epoxy material. There are glass/phenolic laminates, but they have other designations.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the informative reply, Chris. Is it possible there are two different composite materials both named G-10?

Amazon.com: Phenolic G-10 Glass Grade Sheet, Tan, 0.031" Thick, 24" Width, 24" Length : Industrial & Scientific

Amazon.com: Phenolic G-10 Glass Grade Sheet, Tan, 0.031" Thick, 24" Width, 24" Length : Industrial & Scientific
www.amazon.com

Would like to see the lightweight knives you are working on...
 
Tyson A Wright said:
Why not bamboo, then? You said nobody uses it, but I've seen bamboo-handled knives.
Click to expand...

I should have clarified that none of the materials in the list are resin impregnated or stabilized. Those would likely be quite a bit heavier. As Clay says, I believe most bamboo scales are impregnated. I don't have weights for stabilized woods; if someone does, would you mind posting?
 
Bolstermanic said:
.... Chris. Is it possible there are two different composite materials both named G-10?

Amazon.com: Phenolic G-10 Glass Grade Sheet, Tan, 0.031" Thick, 24" Width, 24" Length : Industrial & Scientific

Amazon.com: Phenolic G-10 Glass Grade Sheet, Tan, 0.031" Thick, 24" Width, 24" Length : Industrial & Scientific
www.amazon.com

...
Click to expand...
Alro is using the term "Phenolic" like it is a generic catch all for fabric/resin composites. That is marketing rather than material specification. Their own data sheets, with the word Phenolic at the top, show the materials they are listing do not contain phenolic resin. G-9 glass/melamine, G-10 glass/epoxy, G-11 Glass/Epoxy and G-7 glass/silicone. Alro is an industrial supply company, so laminate materials is a very small part of the diverse range of products they sell on. I

If you look up the Mil I-24768/2 GEE spec it relates to "Insulation, Plastic, Laminated, Thermosetting, Glass-Cloth, Epoxy-Resin (GEE)". The /2 is for glass/epoxy, but there are other materials within the spec.

If you were looking for real glass/phenolic, you would be looking for NEMA G-3 or laminate to MIL-I-24768/18.

Chris
 
CallumRD1 said:
Here's another case study for people. I machined these blanks out of 0.118" AEB-L so they're all identical, ground the same, use the same 3/16" 304 stainless pins, and have the same handle thickness. The one with non-stabilized walnut scales has a fully skeletonized tang like the unfinished one at the bottom. The one with stabilized curly mango scales is also fully skeletonized. The one with non-stabilized oak scales is not skeletonized but has a full tang. The weights are below. Without changing the blade or scale materials, more weight could be shed by switching to less dense and/or smaller diameter pins or by tapering the tang. I'd like to experiment with how tapering the tang moves the balance point forward. The walnut one feels perfect in my hand, but I'd like to retain that balance while using a heavier scale material. I may also try titanium pins. Based on some back of hand math, that alone would save ~3.5 g in the handle.

Unstabilized walnut with skeletonized tang: 82.2 g (2.90 oz)
Stabilized curly mango with skeletonized tang: 96.0 g (3.39 oz)
Unstabilized oak with non-skeletonized tang: 111.1 g (3.92 oz)
Click to expand...
C CallumRD1
Very nice. That is so similar to what I am toying with. You have taken more material out near the ricasso than I have in the skeleton version, and I don't have a mill for cutting steel, otherwise very similar aims.

Have you considered Micarta pins?

One advantage of a full tang over a hidden tang is that you can add material at the far end to adjust balance. My hidden tang designs balance nicely with Micarta, but I don't yet know if they will work so well with lighter wood.
 
C_Claycomb said:
Not sure, but the bamboo handles I have seen on western knives have used the resin impregnated bamboo material, similar to what is used for flooring, so much denser than the raw material. what I have seen of bamboo is that it is very splintery.
Click to expand...
Bamboo from food table ........................I like it .I can measure new table if that matter ?
Yes , it is splintery when cutting , but finished on knife look durable ..
Gqp7PS8.jpg
 
Bolstermanic If you look at the chart you posted of handle materials and go all the way from delrin to European walnut you're only talking a difference of 1/2 ounce per cubic inch. That translates to a 1.5 ounce difference for knife handles between both extremes. That's almost the same as the weight of my eyeglasses. I don't notice the weight of my eyeglasses. Some of those woods have to be stabilized to be useful outdoors, which makes them heavier. Does it really pay to be so obsessed with that small difference? I do a LOT of backpacking and hiking and that miniscule difference in the weight of my knife would make no difference to me at all. I place much more importance in durability of my handles than weight. And just to be clear I'm talking about small differences in weight, I'm not going to be travelling around with a three pound knife because the handles are bulletproof. I do place a lot more importance in the weight of my other heavier components (stoves, tents, pads, etc) because with those you could be talking differences of a half pound or more.

Eric
 
Last edited:
ea42 said:
Bolstermanic If you look at the chart you posted of handle materials and go all the way from delrin to European walnut you're only talking a difference of 1/2 ounce per cubic inch. That translates to a 1.5 ounce difference for knife handles between both extremes.
Click to expand...

I understand, Eric, and there are a lot of people who make your admittedly rational arguement. I'm an aspiring ultralight backpacker whose base weight is at 12 pounds and I'm trying to get it below 10 lbs *while* carrying a large-ish knife (3.5" blade, because I'm a knife guy and it's a luxury). Let's say I switch out from G10 to Poplar, that would save me 2.5 ounces. For the UL crowd, 2.5 ounces is a lot; if I took 2.5 oz of down out of my comforter I'd lose around 10-15 degrees of cold comfort. Or it could translate into nearly half a meal. You mention several "heavy components," my stove is 0.6 ounces. My pad is 12 oz. My "tent" is 7 oz. People who pursue UL are not just crazy about knife handle weight, EVERYthing gets submitted to the ounce-by-ounce weight consideration (including eyeglasses), because an extra ounce here and there quickly adds up to extra pounds, and that translates to fewer miles covered per day, less safety, more discomfort. Ultralight is its own "thing" and it's a little bit crazy; it's a little bit dangerous because you remove the safety margins, and it takes careful planning. At the same time, it's challenging and fun. Not trying to convert you...hike your own hike and all that. See you on the trails! If I break my handle I may need to borrow your knife...
 
Last edited:
Ok that makes total sense to me then. I'm totally uninitiated to the ultralight gang for sure. I definitely understand your pursuit of a lighter material with that in mind. Why not skip handles completely then? Round off the edges off you tang a bit for comfort and you're good to go. I've actually done that before and honestly it didn't bother me at all. Here's one I made with that very idea in mind. 2.5 Oz., 5 1/4" total length. More like the size of a large neck knife but it serves its purpose.


Oops, forgot the pic LOL!
Small clip.jpg


Eric
 
Last edited:
ea42 said:
Why not skip handles completely then? Round off the edges off you tang a bit for comfort and you're good to go.
Click to expand...
Sweet ^ looking blade, that! Looks both lightweight and sturdy. Yes, there's a good case to be made for going completely skeletonized, especially if you've something like a bandana or cordage you can double-duty for cushion. Currently this is my backpacking knife; it's down to 2.4 oz, naked. Heavily chamfered all over. UL backpacking is an expensive disease. I hope you don't catch it...whatever you do, don't visit backpackinglight.com

 
Last edited:
Sounds like a good reason to go with a wrapped 550 cord handle, you can use it as a "ridge line" on your tent, then wrap it back on the handle when you pack up camp...
 
Hubert S. said:
I don't think an ultralight backpacker would ever use 550 cord, it's just way too heavy compared to Spectra/Dyneema or Vectran.
Click to expand...
Regardless of what material is used the idea remains the same...
 
I have another material you might consider. PU600 High Density Polyurethane Model Board. Might also be called tool board, or machinable foam. I bought mine, PU600 (600kg/m3 = 35oz/in3) from a UK supplier called Easy Composites. There are US sources, but my Google keeps directing me to UK sources. I did manage to find this place which has a data sheet with similar sort of materials. https://www.generalplastics.com/wp-...tics-LAST-A-FOAM-Tooling-Molds-User-Guide.pdf
It is easy to cut and shape, can be marked with a fingernail, but is surprisingly hard, maybe compare compressive strength to some of the softer woods. Unlike wood it has no grain, doesn't tear or split when working it. I cut slabs on a bandsaw and flatten with a wood plane, really easy. Not sure about water absorption. It must be able to absorb some, but probably no worse than wood, and it shouldn't swell. I use it for prototype work, rather than final handles, but if one was not looking for forever durability it could work.

Chris
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top