Musso Bowie

L

LRB

Joined
Feb 28, 2006
Messages
1,494
pennyknife341_640x480.jpg
Ready for heat treat. 13 3/4" x 2 5/16" x 7/32" blade of 01. This is made within a few thousandths of the original, in all aspects. Photo is not great, but thanks for looking
 
The grip will be as the original, thought to be maple, but stained jet black.
 
Very nice. Have you considered cheating a bit and using a heavier wood like African blackwood that would balance that big mother out a tiny bit more and wouldn't have to be stained?
 
I have some super ebony, but it is my intent to stick with the original materials, except that there was no 01 steel then. The original was tested to be shear steel, made from blister steel, but I ain't going that far.
 
Did you forge the blade or grind it and what size stock did you start out with?
 
It is ground from 7/32" 01. As the original, it is 7/32" near the guard, then tapers to 3/16" as it nears the false edge, then continues on out to near the point. If you noticed, it starts out hollow ground, then blends to convex. Very odd grind.
 
7/32? That's kinda thin for a knife that size:eek:
 
Jared Stenoien said:
You call .21875" too thin?? That's almost a quarter of an inch.
Click to expand...

yeah.....for a knife that size,i would start with 3/8 stock and end up around 5/16 at the ricasso with a full taper to the point.......hell, i do that with bowies smaller than this one:D
 
The specs I used came directly from the original. The main thing that baffles me, is why the hollow grind beginning at the ricasso, and continueing only a couple of inches?
 
LRB said:
If you noticed, it starts out hollow ground, then blends to convex. Very odd grind...
The main thing that baffles me, is why the hollow grind beginning at the ricasso, and continueing only a couple of inches?
Click to expand...

If you just want some speculation, ask in Bernard Levine's forum here. His speculation would probably be far more accurate than about anyone else on Bladeforums.

My own speculation on the topic is far simpler. The whole knife probably started out hollow ground, and then it was used and sharpened a lot, which would also explain that wickedly narrow tip. But I've never seen the original and don't know.

Shear steel was used into the early 1900's by some manufacturers; I have a big I. Wilson butcher knife made from it. If you ever do want to "go that far", it might be easier to collect up a bunch of old shear steel knives & just reforge them into one blade.

I disagree with the comments about using a heavier handle material to "balance" the blade, especially if I'm correct in my above assumption about all the steel sharpened off the tip.
 
The hollow is deeper than the steel in front of it, which becomes convex. The taper in this blade goes from 7/32" to 3/16" as it nears the clip, then is pretty much parallel until near the point. One thing to bear in mind, is that while the evidence of the age of this knife is relatively convinceing, there is no hard proof that it is from the 1830's. Joe Musso believes it is, and some others do, but there are many who believe it to be a very well done fake.
 
I don't know about the age, but that's going to be one bad mother when done. I bet the compound grind was fun!
 
LRB said:
The hollow is deeper than the steel in front of it, which becomes convex.
Click to expand...

Well, yeah, that's just what happens. Maybe it was made that way originally, but considering how many butcher knives, hunting knives, and pocket knives I've seen this exact same thing happen to (including several of my own that have gotten that way through extensive use), I don't consider my explanation too unlikely either.

By the time you sharpen some serious steel off the end of the blade, so it's lost like a half inch or more of width, you start getting up into the thicker steel. If you want to keep the edge thin enough to cut well, you have to start sharpening/regrinding the sides of the blade as well, thereby erasing the original hollow grind.

Now, before we go off on a tangent here, I've seen folks suggest that sometimes grinds like this were done intentionally so you could keep the tip thick for heavy chopping & piercing, while leaving the edge thinner near the handle for whittling & such. That sounds like a nice idea. In fact, I thought it was a darn good idea & made a great big bowie with such a grind. But then real world use showed me it wasn't a good idea at all. By design, the rear portion of the edge is too weak to withstand the heavy work. So the first time I struck a little too far back, or even chopped a big limb so that most of the edge is making contact, that thinner portion of the edge got some big ripples going well up into the main grind.
So I doubt this would be the goal with such a design, and if the rear hollow ground portion of the original was stout enough to withstand the heavy work, then there wouldn't really be a reason/need to make the tip area any thicker either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top