Nessmuks

tonym

tonym

Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
9,491
Does anyone use this design often, if so what tasks does it out perform other styles of wilderness blades? Judging by the shape I would think it would make a good chopper, but then again I am far from an expert.
I am getting my first one from Dan Koster (I loved the look of it) and would greatly appreciate any advise you guys can give me?:o
 
It makes a great skinning blade and food processing blade. It does chop well but not large firewood tasks. Feather sticks are a peice of cake. Very good EDC design in the woods. My Fiddleback blade has seen a lot of use cutting and trimming BBQ for the grill!!
 
A nessmuk is NOT supposed to be a chopper. Its supposed to be a thin bladed slicer.

Some of the modern interpretations, like Dan Koster's will certainly chop. (I love my Koster Nessmuk, so I'm not downing his design here.) But its not the intended purpose.

Its basically supposed to be a light bushcraft/camp kitchen knife.
 
In my mind, Nessmuk is a profile of blade, not a design of knife. Here's what I mean. If you look around you will find dozens of "nessmuks" that don't really share a lot in common with each other. Put a Fiddleback nessmuk next to a Koster nessmuk and you won't see a lot of similarity short of the hump on the spine.

So... you need to choose a nessmuk that suits your purpose. I wanted a nessmuk that could be a real do-it-all type, including chopping. I went with a 1/4" 3V Koster Nessmuk. If I wanted a traditionalist, thin super slicer, then the choice for me would be a Fiddleback. The original Nessmuk was a thin super slicer intended for skinning. That's what the hump's for. You can slide the hump along stuff and it won't snag or cut.

I can say this though, if you want a thin super slicer, you have a lot more options than if you want a thick chopper. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Koster might be the only maker who regularly does 1/4" Nessmuks. If he's not the only one, he's one of the few.
 
I have a few.


osage1.jpg

nessmuks1.jpg


IMO nessmuk is sort of like a Bowie now. There are a million types of knives called a "bowie"

Unlike the bowie though there is actually a picture that gives you some sort of an idea what the original really looked like, and also what Nessmuk himself seemed to describe as the attributes of his knife:

A word as to knife, or knives. These are of prime necessity, and should be of the best, both as to shape and temper. The "bowies" and "hunting knives" usually kept on sale, are thick, clumsy affairs, with a sort of ridge along the middle of the blade, murderouslooking,but oflittle use; rather fitted to adorn a dime novel or the belt of "Billy the Kid," than the outfit ofthe hunter. The one shown in the cut is thin in the blade, and handy for skinning, cutting meat, or eating with
Click to expand...

Notice that he mentions the blade being thin and the uses being for eating, cutting meat and skinning.

I've handled two of Dans nessmuks. Both were really well done knives. My only complaint is they were thick in the blade, thin in the handle and the design puts the edge too far away from the handle. Also very large. Felt clumsy to me compared to my other Nessmuks for doing the stuff I like to do with them. Beautiful knife though. I think he's making some now in 3/32" if I was going to get one I'd go for that thickness.

ness3-1.jpg

ness1-1.jpg

ness2-1.jpg

This is more my preferred style
hollowdweller_outd.jpg



I think Fiddleback is one of the ones producing ones that are closer to the original intent. My Fiddleback is a nice one and has a very nice convex edge. Also Fiddleback makes the handle wide and rounded enough that it is comfy on extended cutting. Also his are thin in the blade like they are supposed to be. The only thing I would change about mine is that I would give the blade more curve. It has more of a Teardrop shape than the curve. But I've seen some of his others that curve more.

Probably my favorites are my Chudzinski and the 2 made by my local smith. The ones in the pic with the 2 tone walnut handle, the osage handle, and the chudzinski with the striped maple. They have the curve to the spine and edge, are thin, and have the big handle.


Nessmuks like FB said are not choppers. Nessmuk carried his hatchet for that. I have used my nessmuks for eating like a spoon and they work great, the ones with the fatter blades. Notice the FB one has a very spoon shape.It's the one above with the walnut handle.
ness2.jpg

I've used a nessmuk a lot for backpacking and I've never found it wanting and also since most of what I use a knife for is food prep or slicing stuff it works great.
cranberry5.jpg

cranberry15.jpg
 
The Bark River Lil Nessie is nice but I'd like the blade to be a bit thinner and wider spine to edge(not that good for eating off of) and I'd like a wider handle
stripeythisone.jpg

Although could be wider I actually think I liked the original Prototype for the Nessie Bark river made, shown here with the mini canadian
nuzzmicro.jpg


This cable damascus one Ariel made me probably has my favorite shape. But the blade and edge are really too thick and the cable damascus seems to not hold an edge really well. May be the grind.
hollowdweller_ness3.jpg


This carbon steel one Ariel made me is nice, and with a thinner blade but the handle is a bit short and the blade is not quite as pleasing as far as shape as the other he made me, but it's more usable
crbstnsm2.jpg


If I had to pick one it would be the Chudzinski but he's out of the business.
 
wow, those are some great looking blades Hollowdweller! and thanks for the geat detailed advise!:thumbup:
 
Fiddleback said:
A nessmuk is NOT supposed to be a chopper. Its supposed to be a thin bladed slicer.

Some of the modern interpretations, like Dan Koster's will certainly chop. (I love my Koster Nessmuk, so I'm not downing his design here.) But its not the intended purpose.

Its basically supposed to be a light bushcraft/camp kitchen knife.
Click to expand...

Hey fiddleback, I wasn't familiar with the nessmuck and thank you for listing its true intention. I see the difference between yours and Dan's Nessmuck, they are both great looking knives.
Do you have any available?
 
I got a couple. And about three blades that I still need to make handles for.

Top to bottom. Seved Hjelm, Scott Gossman, Fiddleback, Ariel Salaverria.
IMG_4057.jpg


IMG_4060.jpg


Ariels has just about the best ergonomics ever, like Hollowdweller noted.

IMG_4050.jpg


IMG_4043.jpg


The Gossman has a great handle also just an RCH less comfy than the stag,

b8408650.jpg


b36d6aca.jpg


Seveds blade is fairly thick IMHO. Just a tad over 1/8". The handle is a bit funky, but it's a stout knife.

80e09516.jpg


The Fiddleback has a great handle also.

IMG_4834.jpg


IMG_4835.jpg
 
Bruche,

I really like the handle on the one Scott made:thumbup:

The one Nessmuk of his I've tried had a handle that was real wide top to bottom, narrow side to side and had flat slabs. I like yours way better.
 
Then I still have to make these three blades. Top is a blade I made out of 1095, then a David Farmer and a Three Finger blade.

IMG_4833.jpg


And I've made a bunch out of J Russell blades. The J Russell buffalo skinner makes a perfect nessmuk IMHO nice and thin carbon steel.

IMG_4639.jpg


IMG_4097.jpg


IMG_3980.jpg


And this one using a Three Finger blade.

IMG_4203.jpg


I had a Koster but I sold it. The thickness and scandi grind didn't work for me. Besides the blade shape it didn't fit any of the criteria I'd use a nessie for.

40a70f5f.jpg


6ad67a57.jpg
 
I've made a couple nessies thus far, maybe half a dozen or so.

this one was the first large one I did, good chopper and about 3/16. Also a full convex grind, so it slices fairly well for the size.

first-nessmuk.jpg


This was the "prototype" of the pocket nessies I've been doing. I'm contemplating going ahead and selling this one though there are a few scale pits. The handle is very comfortable and usable for a three finger handle. OAL is 5 5/8 inches, blade is 3. Blade thickness is just over 1/16, which is where I think most of the smaller nessmuks should be.

pcktness1.jpg

pcktness2.jpg


And here's the general pattern for the pocket nessies, though some variations always happen. this one is Mike's- again just over 1/16" with a OAL of 6 1/8 and a blade of 3 inches. It's a bit flatter on the edge than some, but it's a bit more functional as a bird and trout knife than the really deep bellies.

I'm lucky that these designs get to go to a local shop and be used for fish and chicken butcher work, so I get good feedback.

mountainmanknife-4.jpg

mountainmanknife-3.jpg



All the thinner nessmuks I'm doing are UHB-15 or 15N20 steel, nice, tough, and a bit more corrosion resistant than when I did o1 steels. The larger one is 1084.

The heavier blade is fine for chopping and heavier work, but I personally agree with the hawk or hatchet idea for heavier work. the thinner blades work REALLY well for everything a small W&S knife is suited to.

Right now i'm finishing up another pocket nessie and working on a few larger 3/32 15N20 blades but don't have good photos of them yet.

It's a fantastic geometry or blade design idea, and there's a lot that can be done with it. A chopper nessmuk IS a different beast than a slicer, but I've found that they are still a really good design for a larger, heavier knife.
 
great pics guys....:eek: christoph i'm really looking forward to getting that little guy...:D

i think that the nessmuk design really excels in the kitchen... it is an excellent skinner/slicer and a great all around knife to have around camp... i have a few as well, but my favorite by far is my fiddleback... this bad bay has seen a lot of hard use... it's definatyely one of my favorite knives...:thumbup:

it's the top one in the pic... the other 2 were made by matt of ML knives..
IMG_1100.jpg
 
tonym said:
Hey fiddleback, I wasn't familiar with the nessmuck and thank you for listing its true intention. I see the difference between yours and Dan's Nessmuck, they are both great looking knives.
Do you have any available?
Click to expand...


Not right now, and unfortunately right now I'm not taking any new orders. When the orders are finished, I'm going to do them in runs. There'll be more available then.


Noshtero said:
In my mind, Nessmuk is a profile of blade, not a design of knife. Here's what I mean. If you look around you will find dozens of "nessmuks" that don't really share a lot in common with each other. Put a Fiddleback nessmuk next to a Koster nessmuk and you won't see a lot of similarity short of the hump on the spine.

So... you need to choose a nessmuk that suits your purpose. I wanted a nessmuk that could be a real do-it-all type, including chopping. I went with a 1/4" 3V Koster Nessmuk. If I wanted a traditionalist, thin super slicer, then the choice for me would be a Fiddleback. The original Nessmuk was a thin super slicer intended for skinning. That's what the hump's for. You can slide the hump along stuff and it won't snag or cut.

I can say this though, if you want a thin super slicer, you have a lot more options than if you want a thick chopper. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Koster might be the only maker who regularly does 1/4" Nessmuks. If he's not the only one, he's one of the few.
Click to expand...

I think its fine to do an interpretation of a knife, like Dans, and come up with something GREAT!! But I have a problem with then attributing new characteristics to the knife type because of that knife. You cannot go around saying that Nessmuks make good choppers. They don't, and they were never intended to do that. Dan's Nessie makes a good chopper. Thats different IMO. It doesn't make Nessmuks choppers.

Check out what Mike Stewart (BRKT) has to say about it here:

http://www.jerzeedevil.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32348
 
That's a funny thread.

I kind of agree with his general point though.:thumbup:

I think everybody gets hung up on these words "tactical" "survival" "bushcraft"

I kind of disagree that the nessmuk isn't a useful knife which was expressed in the thread because when it comes right down to it a thin blade is really handy for me and I've used my Chudzinski a LOT and I used the osage one to skin and butcher my deer this year and I really liked it.

But I'd go Mike one better and say now "Bushcraft" is more the buzzword and everybody is slapping that name on every knife a lot too.;):thumbup:

.
 
Fiddleback said:
I think its fine to do an interpretation of a knife, like Dans, and come up with something GREAT!! But I have a problem with then attributing new characteristics to the knife type because of that knife. You cannot go around saying that Nessmuks make good choppers. They don't, and they were never intended to do that. Dan's Nessie makes a good chopper. Thats different IMO. It doesn't make Nessmuks choppers.
Click to expand...

Oh agreed. You can't put a hump on the back of a machete, call it a Nessmuk Machete, and say Nessmuks were designed for brush clearing.

What I can say is that Nessmuks are a cool knife design, and I think it's neat that makers are expanding on the idea. Most people call Koster's a "Modern Nessmuk" versus a "Traditional Nessmuk", like what you make. I think a modern nessmuk can do whatever you intend for it to do. A traditional nessmuk, and the knife that Nessmuk carried, was never meant for chopping.

The only answer is to get one of each right? :thumbup: (I know... I've yet to pick up one of your's Fid, but I swear it's on my list).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top