My knife experiment- super edges!

[Crayola]

We;;, thanks to Jimbo I had to pull out my Mora knife and play. For those who don't know of Jimbo, go to www.oldjimbo.com and spend a couple of hours reading the articles and enjoying the pics. SOme of the articles are by V-Shrake, and they are great to read too. But last night I was reading Jimbo's articles on Mora knives and how he would sharpen his moras to get into the good steel.

A few months ago I bought a Mora (KJ Erikson, sorry for the spelling). It has a red handle, single guard, and a 3.something inch carbon steel blade. It cut VERY well as is, and even more so when I stropped the edge. That was on light cutting. I decided to cut a square hole through a piece of basswood I've been doing varios things with while watching t.v. While whittling that hole, I was reminded of Jimbo's articles and I looked more critically at that Mora. Many Moras come very polished, but you can see distinct grinding marks. It looks like grinding wheel marks in the steel, that rrun on the edge bevels. Now, Scandinavian blades have a primary bevel that is also the edge (the so called zero-edge bevel, or scandinavian grind, or puuko grind). My Mora had damned near that, but with a tiny secondary bevel. I decided that I would take my mora to my waterstones and scrub away until I had a true zero grind. THis would also remove any grinding marks, which is a good thing. Wood cutting tools perform better when the cutting surfaces are flat and polished, so i figured I could take care of the grinding marks and get my first true zero edge grind all in one sitting! And if I ruined my Mora, well, I was out $11. Worth while for my experiment!

A great benefit of having the primary grind as the edge is the ease of sharpening. No jogs are needed to get the perfect bevel! In fact, I think it is on Jimbo's site or Kellam Knives' site that they say the Scandinavian style blades have a built in angle jig! All you do is lay the blade on your stone on the flat (unground) part of the knife, then tilt the knife until the primary grind is flat on the knife. In other words, these knives are saber-flat ground, so you lay the flat upper portion of the knife on the stone, and then tilt it until the ground part is flat on the stone.

I think it took me 10 minutes to raise a burr! Keeping things flat was tricky for me on the curved part of the blade near the tip, but practice will make perfect. Eventually I got a nice even burr from both sides of the knife. Then I switched to my 4000 grit hone and polished away. After that, an nice stropping session in front of my t.v. had the edge screaming sharp! THis is the sharpest knife I have ever handled- seriously!

This knife now cuts like a demon, thanks to the relatively thin steel and zero edge grind. Resharpening will always be easy, I don't have to fiddle with finding the edge bevel, and I can keep this knife this sharp until I sharpen away the whole knife. Typically, when we use knives that have secondary edge bevels, eventually the primary grind has to be reground as the steel has become too thick. With sharpening scandinavian-style blades, this isn't a problem as you take care of it as you sharpen.

There is a downside to my experiment- aesthetics! The primary bevels aren't nice and pretty anymore. I believe that as I practice more with this blade, I'll be able to remedy that. Ideally, I should have spend a little more time on my 800 grit stone using lighter pressure to help remove the deep 800 grit scratches. And, I would love a 1200 grit stone to use between the 800 and 4000 grit stone. In short, I think you could easily preserve the good looks of the bevel. Of course, that first tree limb you cut through using a baton (read Jimbo's site for the technique, as well as reading Mors Kochanski's Northern Bushcraft. ) will scratch the knife anyways.

The edge isn't as tough as the edge on my AFCK anymore, but it sure cuts better! For a knife that will cut meat/softer woods/vegitation/rope/etc, I think a zero edge grind is awesome! Where a secondary bevel would be good is where toughness of the edge becomes imcreasingly important- working around bone, hard woods, for "fighters", and chopping tools.

If you haven't tried a true zero edge bevel knife, I suggest gettin gan inexpensive Mora or a Schrade Old Timer if you want a folder and doing what I did. This makes for an inexpensive experiment and I bet you'll like the results. And I take no responsibility if after doing this experiment you look a little less fondly at all of the thickly ground utility knives out there! Blame the Scandinavians! Actually, dont! They have sharp Viking swords to poke you with if you make 'em mad!

 

[Cliff Stamp]

Crayola :

When I was first introduced to such knives a few years ago, I was very impressed with the high cutting performance. Yes if you compare them to the modern tacticals they fare well, however if you compare them to modern utility knives made to cut well, the Puukko blades fare very poorly indeed.

I think it took me 10 minutes to raise a burr!

This is the biggest problem. If the blade had a secondary edge bevel you would have achieved a burr and finished the sharpening in under a minute. Just yesterday I sharpened 6 kitchen knives for a friend. They were all very blunt, < 1% of optimal sharpness. The first thing I did was cut all the edge bevels down to 8-10 degrees per side with a file. This took about 15 minutes total. I could have used a belt sander, but I was curious as to how hard it would be to file them. In any case, once the edge was formed all of them were sharpened with 20 passes per side on a DMT rod which applied a 22 degree secondary edge bevel. Some of them (paring and chef's blade) were then polished using a ceramic rod at the same setting (10 passes per side), while the others were left at the DMT finish as they are mainly slicing blades.

The point is that simply the secondary bevel greatly increased sharpening time. From now on, if these blades need to be sharpened it will take a few seconds on each blade to reform the actual edge at 22 degrees. Yes they will need on occasion to have the primary edge profile redone. However with a Puukko style blade you are doing this constantly and thus have much more work to do. If you are looking for very high end production cutting ability get an Olfa knife. It will outcut a Puukko style blade and sharpen much faster. There are also lots of custom makers who grind very high performance cutting knives. You are looking for a high full grind on thin stock with an edge bevel of < 0.010" thick and ground at < 15 degrees per side. These blades will make a Puukko look like a heavy tactical.

Puukko style edges are also very fragile, much more so than blades with primary grinds. This is because all the cutting power of a Puukko must come from the angle of the edge because the edge is *so* thick (full stock thickness). This means that the edge angle must be very acute and thus very fragile. Compare this to a blade with a primary grind which can achieve the same level of cutting ability however with a much more robust edge profile because the angle can be much more obtuse as the edge is thinner. For example the MEUK I had modifed by Ed Caffrey. The edge angle is ~20 degrees per side, but it will outcut any Puukko as the edge is < 0.005" thick, and it has a full convex primary grind.

You can see just how much of a difference can be achieved if you take your puukko and apply a full flat primary grind leaving the edge at ~0.01" thick and raising the edge angle a few degrees. Now compare the cutting ability, edge durability, and the sharpening time. You can get increased performance in all three areas.

[I sharpened the kitchen knives at 22 degrees simply because that was the angle of the rod set I was using, 15 degrees would have been better]

-Cliff

 

[Crayola]

You have given me a lot to pnder about Cliff, thanks.

One quick question about the stuff near the end. Are saying that if I had an identical mora with a full flat grind right to the edge, and then put an edge on it on the 15 degree setting on a sharpmaker, that would outcut, be more durable, and shapen faster than the Mora I modified?

 

[swede79]

Many thanks to both of you for some very interesting discussion! By the way, where can you pick up a good 4000 grit waterstone?

 

[Eric_Draven]

Originally posted by Cliff Stamp

. . .if you compare them to modern utility knives made to cut well, the Puukko blades fare very poorly indeed.

I absolutely diasgree. A standard $8 mora will slice as well as any knife I have seen at any price. The only knife that compares is the Opinel folders. The single edge bevel offers advatanges in woodwork which is its primary design becase it allow you to make nice clean passes along the wood with out a secondary bevel to wedge up the material you are removing. You can make very delicate cuts in wood this way, which you would not be able to with a secondary edge bevel. The same princliple applies to chisels.




If the blade had a secondary edge bevel you would have achieved a burr and finished the sharpening in under a minutees.

You can reprofile an edge by hand in under a minute? For most of us it takes much longer.

The Mora is much harder than the soft stainless kitchen knives, and you were using a far more aggressive device (file v. stone)

Once the edge bevel is set on the Mora it is trivial to sharpen, just a few strokes opn a charged strop will keep it sharp for a long time, when it comes time to remove a little metal, it is only a few moments.

You are looking for a high full grind on thin stock with an edge bevel of < 0.010" thick and ground at < 15 degrees per side. These blades will make a Puukko look like a heavy tactical.

You can thin out a Mora to these same specs. There is no reason for the full flat grind because the stock is so thin (1/16").




Puukko style edges are also very fragile, much more so than blades with primary grinds. This is because all the cutting power of a Puukko must come from the angle of the edge because the edge is *so* thick (full stock thickness). This means that the edge angle must be very acute and thus very fragile.

Hmmm, Jimbo and mnay others have used theirs for heavy baton work with no problems. Curdog issues them to his survival class, and they are used by Ray Mears and Mars Kochanski fot the same purpose. In past posts you have commented on the high stress level of baton work, surely you will agree that any knife that can handle this type of work is suitable for any reasonable knife use. Sure you can't choip concrete blocks with one and expect it to be damage free, but that is not a sane use of a knife.

A valid point you did not raise about damage on a mora, is that like an axe, once the blade chips out you have to remove a significant amount of metal to grind out the damage.



The edge angle is ~20 degrees per side, but it will outcut any Puukko as the edge is < 0.005" thick, and it has a full convex primary grind.

That is a thin grind indeed, and I am sure that it performs well. A mora edge can be thinned out to this same level, and will perform just as well. Again, it does not need the full flat or convexx grind because it is only half as thick as your MEUK.



You can see just how much of a difference can be achieved if you take your puukko and apply a full flat primary grind leaving the edge at ~0.01" thick and raising the edge angle a few degrees. Now compare the cutting ability, edge durability, and the sharpening time. You can get increased performance in all three areas.


Like life, knife design is a matter of compromise. If you thin out the knife for extreme performance, you will lose durability as a result of the decreased cross section.

I have to ask how much experience you have using scandaniavian knives? Are your comments based on theory here or actual use? Matthew Rappaport used to have a great Sig line: The difference between theory and reality is that in theory there is no difference and in reality there is.

Many outdoorsman whose opinions I highly regard, and who have an excellent working knowledge of knives highly prize their scandanavian knives, are you suggesting they are wrong?

Do you own a mora? If not, they are only a few dollars and eadily available. Use one for a while, then make your judgement.

 

[pahl]

Very interesting, thanks!

I find that I am as interested in sharpening and learning about what happens with the edge of a knife as I am about knives themselfs.

 

[Crayola]

Swede:

I got my stones from www.leevalley.com They have a large range of stones in the King brand. I am very happy with the results so far. I'd liek to get a 1200 grit and a 200 grit stone to round off my set, and then an 8000 just cause!

Eric, thanks for your post. You certainly raised a lot of questions I had lingering. In wonder if Cliff is saying that compared to other knives, the Mora isn't ideal, but for real life chores, it still performs very well. I am not sure if this is what Cliff has in mind, but I wonder...

Pahl: That is one of the main reasons I like knives! There is so much to learn and experiment with, and it is nice when the experiment costs $8!

Having sone a bit of simple woodwork with my modified Mora, I definitely notice an improvement in cutting ability. The point work espeically is improved, no doubt thanks to the removal of the grinding ridges. We'll see how durable the edge is as I play with it more. One thing is for sure, sharpening it will be a breeze when it needs it. THe built in angle jig really kicks butt!

 

[Eric_Draven]

Although the Mora knife is excellent all around design, it is a tool that is optimized for wood work, and functions well at meat cutting and other non-binding cutting tasks.

The design of Nordic knives is a result of THOUSANDS of years of design evolution and refinement. It is guardless so that the full edge is available for fine wood work, and is best suited for push cuts and pull slicing.

The fully enclosed stick tang is plenty strong for any normal use and keeps the metal tang insulated from the hand, essential for cold weather use.

To say these knives perform poorly relative to modern western designs is inaccurate. They suit their intended purpose perfectly. The design is an enduring part of a culture with a rich history of knife use. These knives are used daily, and have been for centuries. IF they did not work perfectly for their intended designm the design wouild have evolved.

The Mora is far lighter than the MEUK that Cliff compares it to, and is a completely different design. The design goal is different.

Ragnar at www.ragweedforge.com sells these knives very cheap and his service is great. I would highly recommend that anyone with an interest buy one and use it for themselves rather than rely on the opinions of anyone else.

 

[pahl]

Originally posted by Crayola


Pahl: That is one of the main reasons I like knives! There is so much to learn and experiment with, and it is nice when the experiment costs $8!

I found BF well searching the net for info on sharpening.
Then after finding BF I found the
Razor Edge from then on I have had less money in my pocket and less body hair.

It's all worth it though when I use my knife at work around customers and you hear them say things like.

"Damn that must be sharp"

I just smile and think to myself "yes it is "

It's funny how many people, including my boss and others I work with will say something about my knife being so sharp.

What other kind of knife is there?

 

[John Andrews]

While we are on sharpening, I use one of those Edge Pros sharpeners to put a quick edge on. It workes really great for those #^**%#* soft kitchen knives, too.The sharpeners have an orange handle and are only 6 or 7 $.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

Crayola :

Are saying that if I had an identical mora with a full flat grind right to the edge, and then put an edge on it on the 15 degree setting on a sharpmaker, that would outcut, be more durable, and shapen faster than the Mora I modified?

Yes, exactly. To be really clear the exact angle you can grind to and achive those results will depend on the NIB angle of the unmodified puukko and how thin you grind the new primary bevel. The more of a primary bevel you apply, the more you can increase the angle of the edge without giving up cutting ability.

I was pretty heavy on puukko styled blades for awhile mainly thanks to Ed Schott. I even modified a number of knives by removing the secondary edge bevels, they now had full edge to spine grinds, you could call them "extreme puukkos". However after testing small secondary edge bevels I moved on past the puukko geometry. The difference in cutting ability of full grinds and secondary edge bevels isn't that great, it is significant but not a "wow" factor. However the difference in edge durability and most importantly ease of sharpening is very large.

Take a puukko and put a 0.5 mm nick in the edge. Repair that edge by sharpening the full puukko bevel and note the time it takes. Just think about the amount of metal you have removed. Do the same with a knife that has an edge bevel that is 0.005 - 0.010" thick. Now again think about the metal you have removed. This isn't a small difference. It is like walking to your car compared to running a marathon. The time ratio is approx. proportional to the square of the edge width ratio.

I now no longer run long flat bevels on my knives but double bevel all of them mainly for ease of sharpening (reduction in time). This isn't a new idea, Lee talks about it in his book on sharpening. I do however run long convex bevels (basically puukko style just convex rather than flat). I don't do this for performance reasons though. Performance wise a secondary bevel makes more sense here as well, but on those tools (axes and such) sharpening time isn't important as it is so infrequent, so the decrease in sharpening time doesn't really have much attraction. The extra durability though can be worthwhile depending on the consistency of the wood and the user skill.

This isn't the most extreme cutting profile either (full flat grind on a thin edge). You can actually go one step above and completely hollow grind the primary profile and sharpen with spine flat to the stone and thus you now have the same in built in angle jig. The edge bevel is now < 0.01" thick, and can remain that way for more than 1/4" back from the edge. This blade isn't a heavy wood working knife any more, but should allow any other utility cutting just fine. I have some knives coming with this profile and I am interested to see where the functional durability limit lies. Mike Swaim has commented on the performance of such a blade on rec.knives, they were made by Alvin Johnson .

wonder if Cliff is saying that compared to other knives, the Mora isn't ideal, but for real life chores, it still performs very well.

Saying it can be improved doesn't mean it sucks or is a poor tool, the reference needs to be defined. Take an patch of ground, break the sod and loosen the soil with your hands. Now do the same using a store bought square topped shovel. You will look at that shovel as a gift from god and acclaim its inventor from mountain tops. However it is the worst kind of shovel you could have chosen.

Repeat the work with a round top (pointed) shovel which has been sharpened. Now what is your persepctive on the square topped shovel? A puukko is like a square topped shovel which has been sharpened. Yes it will work better than a really blunt pointed shovel, but does that mean that you would argue for square topped shovels for digging. No, you would argue that you should sharpen the pointed shovel.

swede, as Crayola noted Lee Valley sells a lot of waterstones. The fine ones are kind of expensive though. I would suggest trying one of the small ones they sell 1" wide 4000 grit waterstones that are useful for a wide variety of sharpening. I would not mind having the larger ones though. However you can also get really fine sandpaper that is much cheaper. Though in the long run you might be better off with a hone depending on how much you sharpen.

Eric :

You can make very delicate cuts in wood this way, which you would not be able to with a secondary edge bevel. The same princliple applies to chisels.

Chisels have secondary edge bevels (on the underside) to increase the control for precision cuts. They also have secondary edge bevels on the main face for ease of sharpening. Lee discussed both of these issues in his sharpening book. I started applying secondary edge bevels on chisels sometime last year (I sharpen for various family members), it has made sharpening *much* quicker, the edges get damaged less as the bevels are slightly more obtuse, and there have been no complaints about loss of cutting ability (which I verified personally anyway).

You can reprofile an edge by hand in under a minute?

Depending on the nature of the edge. If the edge was 0.005" thick I could change the angle significantly in under a minute and as well remove major damage (visible nicks), done both many times. However the quote you used specifially refered to sharpening a secondary edge bevel not reprofiling the primary edge. Specifically with regards to sharpening, going from < 10% of optimal sharpness to full sharpness on a secondary edge bevel is ~5 passes per side on a DMT rod. This is about 10 seconds. Same for a fine ceramic if that was the finish initially used.

The Mora is much harder than the soft stainless kitchen knives, and you were using a far more aggressive device (file v. stone)

Of course you use the most aggressive abrasive for reprofiling. If I was doing that on a harder knife I would simple use a "file" made from a coarse piece of sandpaper.

You can thin out a Mora to these same specs.

Yes, of course. Now it isn't a puukko any more it is the western grind I was referring to. Japanese edges tools are also very high performance because of the extensive reliefs, they usually use hollow grinds though. This gives even a greater aid to sharpening as noted in the above, and can be taken to more extreme limits.

There is no reason for the full flat grind because the stock is so thin (1/16").

This is actually another drawback. This grind forces the use of very thin stock. A flat ground primary profile would allow thicker stock and thus greater main body strength (or just stiffness) with no loss of cutting ability. And as noted in the above the main reason isn't cutting ability, it is the host of secondary benefits.

A valid point you did not raise about damage on a mora, is that like an axe, once the blade chips out you have to remove a significant amount of metal to grind out the damage.

That was exactly the point, metal removeal is *much* slower on a Mora because of the wider edge bvel. This problem is precisely due to the fact that there isn't a secondary edge bevel. It is compounded by the fact that the edge is inherently weaker because the angle must be more acute.

Many outdoorsman whose opinions I highly regard, and who have an excellent working knowledge of knives highly prize their scandanavian knives, are you suggesting they are wrong?

It would depend on what they are saying about them. If it is that they have the optimal grind then yes I would disagree.

Do you own a mora?

Have owned several puukkos, and lots of full grind knives (no secondary edge bevel) and modifed many other knives in similar and even more extreme ways.

The design is an enduring part of a culture with a rich history of knife use. These knives are used daily, and have been for centuries. IF they did not work perfectly for their intended designm the design wouild have evolved.

Khukuris are commonly used in Nepal and many other places. The handle materials have not adapted to current materials. They are inferior to synthetics for many reasons, they crack, they shrink, they rot etc., yet synthetics are likely to never be used in the traditional blades because those materials are not familiar to the makers, they don't have the means to work them, and they are costly - and quite frankly they are not traditional which can be enough of a reason in and of itself.

As well if traditional higher grade steel stock and modern heat treating ovens were brought into play the designs would also be open for major improvement. As Bill is found on quoting the kamis, the main reason they are so overbuilt is to prevent gross damage. A modern materials upgrade could drastically effect the cross sectional needs.

Lots of traditions get that way for reasons that have nothing to do with performance. As an even worse example, one generation ago here (and as long as far back as settlers can go), people would use one axe for all wood work. The same axe would be used on soft clear pine as on hard knotty wood. The same axe would be used for felling, limbing, cutting the exposed roots if necessary and even splitting (and could also get hauled into duty for heavy butchering, though saws were more common on bones).

These men were very experienced, the work was very necessary as you would die in the winter if you had no heat, so there was a strong incentive to be productive, so by the above "traditional" logic we should all do the same as surely these people would have found a better way right? No. The reason they didn't use 4-5 axes was because they could not afford to. And quite frankly if you went back and gave them the axes they would have promptly sold them and spent the money on other more crucial supplies and made do with the one axe.

The Mora is far lighter than the MEUK that Cliff compares it to, and is a completely different design.

Yes, a much more optimal one. However if the spine thickness throws you off, I have lots of knives with similar grinds as well that are much thinner that could be used instead in the same argument. The MEUK is a very interesting one though in fact because of the greater spine thickness and yet the lack of a drop in cutting ability.

-Cliff

 

[Eric_Draven]

Cliff:

In regards to edge durability in scandi grinds, it is trivial to add a slight micro bevel. I frequently do so, adding a 15 degree bevel on top of the primary grind will allow me to do heavy wood work like baton work, as well as withstand minor impacts off bone and plates.

Although I have a MEUK, it has a thicker grind than yours, it is a very nie outdoors knife. The slightly thicker geometery makes for a more coherent design, as it can withstand significantly heavier work (knots and such) yet still is suitable for fine tasks.

As much as I like the MEUK, the various Mora knives cut at a far higher level, particularly for wood work.

The reason is obvious: the much thinner stock. You don't have to push an 1/8" thick spine through the material.

The nordic knife makers are not comparable to the Kamis of Nepal. The Nordic makers have access to a wide range of steels and heat treat, just witness Rosselli's Ultra High Carbon and wootz steels at 65RC. They work in modern shops and forges, not with tea kettles in bare feet.

Most of these knives use a simple carbon steel because it works well for the intended application. It takes a very high polished edge, optimal for pushcutting (i.e. wood work).

As for chisels, I have used many, and know many wood workers. I have never seen a secondary edge used for fine work.

As for you shovel story, it is a nice stroy, but does not compare. A mora cuts better than virtually any knife made, regardless of price or design. Is is somewhat specialized, that I conceed. But for its intended role it is great.

Again, for those reading this thread, use one and decide for yourself.

 

[ichor]

Originally posted by Eric_Draven
. A mora cuts better than virtually any knife made, regardless of price or design. Is is somewhat specialized, that I conceed. But for its intended role it is great.

Again, for those reading this thread, use one and decide for yourself. [/B]

I'm in total agreement with Eric. I've almost decided to stop reading these long, drawn out posts regarding sharpening a very simple knife. I became interested in Scandinavian knives a couple of months ago. Since then, I have obtained a KJ Ericsson, classic filet (fishing knife)knife, the one we've all seen for years. A Frost Swedish "army" knife, which looks just like the one with the blue handle in Eric's posted image. Except it's kinda light OD green with that funny looking plastic sheath (this was courtesy of Melancholy Mutt, thanks). And most recently another KJ Ericsson called the MORA 2000, which is about the same size, but has a soft rubber like handle (which I love) and a rather different blade shape and dramatic grind.

*All* of these knives were *very* sharp when I got them. A few swipes on the ancient Sharpmaker and you can shave with any of the three. They are surprisingly well constructed for the price. They are currently all doing kitchen duty.

I used the MORA 2000 on a ripe tomato today,for the first time, as the filet knife usually gets the job. The weight of the knife, which is miniscule, was almost enough to cut paper thin slices.

Since I will be using the knifes as they were intended (they will never be bashed with a baton or cut kindling. Nor will any of my knives, for that matter. I have a couple of really good hatchets), I expect that when they need a little touch up, 10 swipes on the Sharpmaker will bring them back to snuff, of that I'm certain. I keep my Sharpmaker all set up on the kitchen counter next to my knife blocks. If, *someday* the edges have to be reprofiled, so be it. I will have gotten so much excellent service out of them by that time, I can buy three more (these can all be obtained for less than $10 each) and use these for garden tools.

My point? No offense intended to the writers, nor those who enjoy them, but for these simple, basic, knives, developed to *work* for hundreds of years (by people who depended on knives as a matter of life and death), I find a long-winded treatise, on sharpening them, not only unnecessary, but astonishingly too complicated to bother with. But, that's just me. (and this was much more long winded than I intended ;-)

 

[Eric_Draven]

John,
The blue knife is the Army Mora with a blue handle. I like it becasue it does not freak people out and looks utilitarian. As well, it is easy to see on the ground.

Cliff's statements about the performance of scandanavin knives is of base (imho) and this is easily shown as soon as some one uses one.

 

[Buzzbait]

Wow. I thought I'd never finish reading this thread. It's a long one. For the sake of brevity, I'll keep my words to an absolute minimum.

1. Moras rock when it comes to outdoor work. You won’t find much better. The cutting efficiency, coupled with the very light weight, make the mora almost impossible to beat for outdoor work. They are amazing for wood working in particular.

2. But... Nature is much easier on a knife than the works of man. I wouldn’t want to use a standard mora for urban carry. I don’t think the edge would hold up. Urban carry almost requires a secondary edge bevel for the sake of durability.

3. If you don’t want the finish of the blade to get all scraped up, try using wet/dry paper instead of a stone. Start with something like 600 or 800 grit, and work your way up to 1500 or 2000 grit. The wet/dry seems to scar a blade much less noticeably than a stone, and I personally think that it also works much faster. Hand American wet/dry paper is VERY durable in comparison to the crummy stuff at the hardware store.

4. If you want a nice happy medium for outdoor and urban carry, try to slightly convex the edge of your mora. The convex edge is still very good for woodworking and most other outdoor cutting activities, but possesses a much more durable edge. You’ll gain loads of durability, and sacrifice only a small amount of cutting efficiency and control.

Take it or leave it, but that’s my 2 cents.

 

[db]

I do love my Mora knives but I will admit they can be a bear to sharpen. I do find this interesting written by Cliff. Almost sounds like a Dozier grind.
quote...
This isn't the most extreme cutting profile either (full flat grind on a thin edge). You can actually go one step above and completely hollow grind the
primary profile and sharpen with spine flat to the stone and thus you now have the same in built in angle jig. The edge bevel is now < 0.01" thick, and
can remain that way for more than 1/4" back from the edge. This blade isn't a heavy wood working knife any more, but should allow any other utility cutting