NMFBM or Anniversary SHBM? Discuss.

Will York said:
I think this could be very illuminating.

For example, the convex-ground skinny ASH1 (nominally .1875” thick) weighs within a half ounce of the full-flat-ground ASH1 LE (nominally .22” thick). If you use that differential, the weight for a full-flat-ground 5/16” NMFBM (which never existed) would be about the same as a convex-ground NMFBM at .2678” thick—in other words, somewhere between the original NMFBM and the NMFBM LE. This on a knife that has the same nominal blade size as the ASHBM.

If you then replace the fusion handle with the shorter SHBM handle and go a step further by skeletonizing the tang (per Jerry’s description), you would end up with a 5/16” thick, 11-plus-inch-blade knife that could weigh about the same as a standard 1/4” thick NMFBM.

I’m not saying this comparison will be spot-on accurate, but it certainly begins to illuminate the handling potential Jerry mentioned.

Also, as many others have said, I like the chopping comfort of the fusion handles compared with the old straights, but I'm interested to see what the new ASHBM handle feels like with the thicker, more contoured slabs. The extra slab thickness near the rear talon, combined with the wider 5/16" tang thickness, will be interesting to try, and depending on how the new contours affect grip, I'm reserving judgement until I have the ASHBM in hand. Of course, I'm sure my optimism is fueled by a desire to let myself fully fall in love with such a sexy new mistress. :D :thumbup:
Click to expand...


I could be just a hair off, but I had a NMFBM that was either 5/16 or very, very close. Yes I did not measure it but I know it was alot thicker than 1/4. It was a beast and very heavy, so I am sticking with the original that is about .23 or .24 less than 1/4. I had two at one point and traded the heavy one back to the original owner, great guy by the way! I will keep the .23 or .24 inch one, till hell freezes over, because it works and is not to heavy. I do need to measure it but I don't have one of them cool tools to do it LOL!. Sorry I jacked this response up but the wife was rushing me out the door for a county fair.
 
Last edited:
The NMFBM LE is one of my grails (that and a TTKZ) but am joyous to see a Mistress in general release and plotting my fun budget for the next couple months to try and swing one. My only real disappointment is probably not being able to swing the LE (and that there's no tigerhide micarta for the LE- or even sand micarta or brown/black and/or coyote G10 for either LE or regular). I'm sure it's probably doable from the custom shop, though.
 
RickJ said:
I could be just a hair of but I had a NMFBM that was either 5/16 or very, very close. Yes I did not measure it but I know it was alot thicker than 1/4. It was a beast and very heavy, so I am sticking with the original that is about .23 or less than 1/4. I had two at one point and traded the heavy one back to original owner, great guy by the way! I will keep the .23 or .24 inch one, I need to measure it, till Hell freezes over.
Click to expand...

Your not off the mark, I had an NMFBM I bought from Knife Hunter in 2009 that was mik'd at .290+ with a full flat grind. Even found the old sales thread with his description and photo. He said at the time it was the thickest one he had ever seen.
 
I don't know for a fact that there has NEVER been a 5/16" NMFBM (.3125"), but I've owned 20 of that model including special show editions and three LE's. The thickest I've ever seen mic'd just under .29", and the thickest I've ever heard of (Trevor) was .30".

But whether or not there ever WAS a 5/16" NMFBM has nothing to do with the projections in my earlier post. I assume you guys realize that.

BTW, as for mic'd thicknesses for the 14 "originals" (CG's) I've owned, they varied from .247" to .253".

RussMo said:
Will,

You're just an old softy Bro and a bleeding romantic!!! "Of course, I'm sure my optimism is fueled by a desire to let myself fully fall in love with such a sexy new mistress.":D HA-HA....
Click to expand...

You got me there--guilty as charged, pard. :D
 
Last edited:
Will,

I should have said around 5/16, it really looked and felt like it was 5/16 but as I stated never put a caliper to it. One thing that I noticed was the weight difference from that extra 1/16 of an inch (estimate) I am one of those close enough types, My NMFBM which is around .23 to .24 is far more usable and worker friendly than the 30 plus ounce ones to me. If the new SHBM comes in around 27 ounces then I may spring for one and to be honest, I was hoping it would be around .22 in thickness but that is not going to happen for me.
 
Rick, I hear you. Time will tell--you can only hope for the best and then deal with the rest. :thumbup:
 
Thanks folks! I really like the fusion handle on the NMFSH :cool:, and I do worry about the end of the handle on the SHBM. However, factory pricing on the Anniversary SHBM can't be ignored.

I like Rob's advice (and fully expected that response ;)), but can't swing both at the moment. Good points made by everyone, I appreciate it! :thumbup:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top