- Joined
- Nov 25, 2006
- Messages
- 7,038
Hey guys. I just wanted to comment on the "thinner" #5.
I have handled old swords that were used in combat and had their normal dings were the blades were almost half the thickness of the magnum. Look at those old butcher knives, green river skinners, the original Nessmuk, all those blades were thinner than the magnum. More and more I prefer the thinner blade as simply put, thinner cuts better. It will not do what a thick axe replacement blade will do but it will hold up well.
Good using picture UPNORTH.
Thank you for the reply and insight sir. I always appreciate being educated by those with superior knowledge. One of my hobbies also includes metal detecting for fur trade relics. The finds in the pictures below were on the verge of being washed away by river erosion, to be lost forever. The F.B.'s and folders were from a small group of sites ranging from 1780-1810. I have preserved them with electrolysis, oven baking and conservators wax. Although they lost material from 200+ years of shallow field burial, It is still obvious to me that you are correct that the old fur trade knives etc. had thinner stock. Significantly thinner than modern stock to my eye. Thinner blade stock would also likely be a weight consideration also. Every ounce portaged dozens of times through a thousand miles of wilderness would add up. But I understand and agree with your major point, about thinner stock making a better slicer. My Mag Camp leaves my Brute for dead in slicing. The processed Buffalo bones that I find were either crushed or hacked by a belt axe.




Last edited: