nimravus or camillus CQB?

[generallobster]

I don't get to handle knives much, so just going by the pictures and printed info these knives seem like they are matched close enough to go head to head. I understand the CQB is hollow ground and the nimravus is saber, but can someone comment on which knife they personally like more. I am already slightly on the side of the CQB for its sheath design, but other than that both seem like good slim knives that can be carried close to the body. What is the thickness of the CQB? And does one have a signifigant amount of forward thrusting grip security over the other?

 

[jayharley]

I own 2 Nimravus Cubs. They are good, very sharp knives. The sheath is a personal taste, but I like the Kydex Nimravus style. Both knives are identical and are the tool steel versions. The one thing I think could be improved on is that the black finish scratches easily (even when simply pulling the blade in and out of the sheath).

I also like the length of the Cub blade. I might also consider the Emerson Police fixed blade if you are in the market for the Nimravus Cub size.

 

[Owen]

I have a full size Nimravus, and like it very much. I was thinking of getting a Nimravus Cub. I like the looks of the CQB2, but have not had a chance to handle it.
I'm putting that decision on hold, though, as I just preordered a REKAT Pikuni (Rob Simonich design). Check out the REKAT forum for details-it's only $110 w/G-10.
If you do get a Nimravus or Cub, I highly recommend that you get one of Normark's sheaths for it. My sheaths came today for the Nimravus and a Busse #5. They are far superior to the factory sheaths. Perfectly fitted, and the quality was obvious from the second I opened the package. Great price, too, at $33.00 shipped. www.mnsi.net/~nbtnoel/

I think I've managed to mention them in about five threads already, today. I'm as excited as when I get a new knife.

[This message has been edited by Owen (edited 10-12-2000).]

 

[w]

I have them both. But we`re talking about 2 differently size knives. The QCB1 is a big knife while the Nimravus is a midium size knife. I love them both. If you get the nimravus with the original sheaths that had the steel clip on it, it makes an excellent inside the waist concealed carry knife. The newer sheath sucks in my opinon. On the QCB1 it also makes and excellent inside the waist carry sheath with the loop that comes with it. This, by the way is my favorite carry. The nimravus is easier to conceal of course. The QCB1 has a much bigger handle and with the rough canvas micarta handle, it`s easier to hold on to. I actually have 2 of each and they are my favorite fixed blade knives. I looked at the QCB2 but the handle was to small. At any rate you can`t go wrong with either. Great factory knives at good prices. Roger

 

[Professor]

I've got all of the aforementioned knives too; the Nimravus, the Cub, the CQB1 and 2. My preference is the Nimravus with old-style sheath over the CQB1 for overall utility, and the CQB2 over the Cub for overall concealability. I've got small hands, so the CQB2 really works well for me. If you've got medium to large hands, you probably won't care for it, and the Cub would probably be a better choice. Hope this helps some.

Professor.

 

[RMLamey]

CQB

------------------
" The true way of the sword is the craft of defeating the enemy in a fight, and nothing other than this" Ibid

www.lameyknives.com

 

[Mr Blonde]

I like this topic, good question. Does anyone care to post some info comparing the CQB's cutting and slicing ability vs. the Nimravi? And the differences in overall quality control and fit and finish?

 

[Professor]

The CQB1 and Nimravus are about equal in overall ergonomics and even edge geometry. The only noticeable difference in slicing I've noticed between the two is that the CQB2 slices a little better due to having a thinner tip than the Nimravus. The tip on the Nimravus widens near the point, like on the Stryker for instance. What it lacks in slicing ability it makes up for with strength; I guess it all depends on your applications. I also like the more aggressive serrations on my CQB2.

The Nimravus Cub is a little more ergonomic than the CQB2 in that it's got a full-sized handle that will accommodate most people. The CQB2's got a sheath that honestly puts the Nimravus/Cub's sheath to shame.

Fit and finish are about on the same level, though I can only rate this by comparing only the ones I own.

I'll share more as I spend more time with these blades. In the meantime, I give all knives an equal rating since one does this better than the other, yet the other's got a better sheath, etc...

Professor.

[This message has been edited by Professor (edited 10-13-2000).]

 

[Sergiusz Mitin]

My vote is on Nimravus or Nimravus Cub if you need smaller knife. CQB is nice knife but the spear point blade with pretty narrow bevels looks a bit too specialized for combat. Think about how frequently do you need to fight with your knife?

Nimravus certainly is far more versatile.

Roger, you can order the old style steel clip to use with new sheath if you need high belt carry or IWB carry. I did this with my Nimravus Cub's new type sheath and it works nicely for me.

[This message has been edited by Sergiusz Mitin (edited 10-13-2000).]

 

[Bladeandbarrel]

Sergiuz-
Armchair evaluations are not allowed!

Measure the edge bevels of both knives before you make such an assumption....

The Nimravus is flat ground thin stock.
The CQB-2 is hollow ground thin stock.

My bet is that the CQB-2 is thinner at the edge than the Nimravus.

Professor, please measure and get back to us.




------------------
"The most effective armor is to keep out of range"-Italian proverb

 

[muzzleup]

I love the Nimbravus Cub, it fits me like a glove and the M2 steel taks and keep a good sharp edge. THE STOCK SHEATH IS CRAP! The first thing I did with it is rip it appart and use the inner liner for an insert and built me a nice leather sheath around it. I will probably get a new sheath from NORMARK, Eric does the best job I have seen.

------------------
Ron,
Bremerton, Washington

 

[Sergiusz Mitin]

Anthony,
It would be just funny if I should explain you that the bevel width and edge thickness is not all what determines cutting ability and knife usefulness for certain cutting task

We could start endless debate for what tasks flat grind is better and for what - hollow one, where spear point blade outperforms drop point and where inversely. But I really do not think this is necessary. I'll use only two short arguments to prove that my evaluation is not armchair and Nimravus is better cutter than CQB and more useful for general cutting chores (although not as good as pure flat ground blades):
1. The name what Bob T. called his design with.
2. Let someone who have both knives try to slice the bread from large, thick loaf with each knife and when share his impression which knife works better.

In my honest opinion CQB is primarily designed for stabbing and is better than Nimravus in this role. The problem is that I do not remember when I should stab someone last time...
On the other hand I remember clearly when I should slice the bread last time, this occurred not more than 30 minutes ago

However this is just my modest opinion, I have nothing against if someone will use spear point blade with hollow grind, narrow bevels and pronounced false edge as his jungle survival knife. This would be his decision and I think not the knife decides would he survive or not. Skills are somewhat important also, right?


[This message has been edited by Sergiusz Mitin (edited 10-14-2000).]

 

[Bladeandbarrel]

Sergiusz-
I will take that bet.

Ok guys, which knife makes a better $150 dollar bread slicer...........?

I agree that edge bevel angle and thickness is not the last word in edge geometry.
It is merely a part of the big picture which includes, among other things:

1)Blade stock thickness and width.
2)Degree of surface lubricity on blade (polished vs. matte)
3)Degree of sharpness (Polished edge vs coarse)
4)And amount of friction imparted on item being cut (and how each grind impacts that friction varies greatly)

are all variables when it comes to cutting power.

But, my statement stands, that without testing both knives side by side, your hypothesis, while educated is still a hypothesis (guess).

Without measuring the degree of hollow grind on the CQB-2, you will never know from a picture whether it is deeply hollow ground, or not (which will make a performance difference)

Dont be too certain-pictures may be worth a thousand words, but the proof is in the pudding.

I will pass judgement until someone whoi has both reports back on a head-to-head comparison.

 

[Greg Covington]

My vote goes to the CQB......nice custom feel and looks and performance to boot! You won't regret!

 

[Sergiusz Mitin]

Anthony,
I will not take this challenge for some reasons.
First, it would be great off-topic because Generallobster asked which knife who likes more without specifying for what purposes this knife is intended. I like more Nimravus and this is my right with justification or without. Maybe if I would look for pure fighting knife CQB would be my choice over Nimravus but this moment I do not need pure fighting knife.
Second, you are using quite biased and unreliable arguments in this discussion:

Measure the edge bevels of both knives before you make such an assumption....
The Nimravus is flat ground thin stock.
The CQB-2 is hollow ground thin stock.

The Nimravus is made of 0.115" (2,92 mm) stock (manufacturer's specification), CQB blade thickness is 5/32" (3,97 mm) - this is also manufacturer's specification. Proposing me to measure bevel width you have missed such trifle like 25% difference in thickness, haven't you?
Third, I'm not a right person to discuss for what purposes Bob T. have designed his CQB. Maybe you should discuss this matter with Bob?
Last but most important, this allows me to doubt what you are going to prove: that CQB is better knife than Nimravus (for what purposes, again?) or that your evaluation is worth more than mine?

As to "better $150 bread slicer" - seems I'm lucky chap that I didn't mention apple peeling as example and didn't give you a reason to encourage guys to look for "better $150 apple peeler"

[This message has been edited by Sergiusz Mitin (edited 10-15-2000).]

 

[Bladeandbarrel]

Sergiusz-

I am neither trying to prove or disprove anything.

My statements were an effort to display that for you to make a recommendation on the Nimravus cub vs. The CQB-2, without ever handling the CQB-2 is faulty.

I have both knives. I know Allen Elishewitz very well and consider him a friend. I know the Camillus people very well. And consider them friends.
In my opinion:
The CQB-2 is a superior product in some ways, the Nimravus Cub is superior in others.

I can say that because I have them both.

Making comparitive and definitive statements on blade geometry/superiority of two different knives are baseless unless you actually have handled and have used the two knives.

Pictures rarely tell the whole story.

 

[mr44]

How about sharpenability? My freakin' Nimravus is a biatch to get any sort of decent edge on with a Spyderco sharpmaker. I've sat and ground on the damn thing for over an hour with the gray sticks to almost no effect. Some say that Benchmade makes their blades too hard. How are the CQB's in that respect?

PM

PS: Yeah, the Nimravus sheath kinda sucks, but you can modify it for inverted small of the back carry by repositioning the belt loop. Of course the stupid snap closure has to go too... Fun stuff.

 

[Sergiusz Mitin]

Anthony,

I know Allen Elishewitz very well and consider him a friend. I know the Camillus people very well. And consider them friends.

It's very powerful argument in discussion which knife is better, you are convinced me (almost)

The CQB-2 is a superior product in some ways, the Nimravus Cub is superior in others. I can say that because I have them both.

But of course! The double-barreled shotgun is better for bird hunting, the double rifle in decent caliber is winner for buffalo hunting. The boat is superior for floating and the airplane is hard to beat for flying. I did know it being 10 years old boy but it is true pleasure to get confirmation from well-known writer.

Making comparitive and definitive statements on blade geometry/superiority of two different knives are baseless unless you actually have handled and have used the two knives.

I'm swearing I will try to follow your advice

Thank you!

 

[Sergiusz Mitin]

Mr44,
I have Nimravus with ATS-34 blade and Nimravus Cub with M-2 blade and I'm sharpening them both with my Sharpmaker without any problems. However if you would like to have thinner edge - rebeveling with Sharpmaker can be pretty time and effort absorbing. This rebeveling can be useful or not depending on knife intended use, I have thinned the edge on my Nimravus Cub to get better cutting performance and left factory bevels on full sized Nimravus to get stronger edge.
To make rebeveling faster and less tiring I could advise you to use DMT x-coarse Diamond Whetstone for main part of job and when to finish it with Sharpmaker.

 

[Bladeandbarrel]

Sergiusz, writer maybe, well known, never!

I am curious to know the gun-knife laws in your country right now.

can you legally carry a knife concealed?
How difficcult is it to get gun licensed, etc.

Just curious.



------------------
"The most effective armor is to keep out of range"-Italian proverb