OK, so school me up on this Bowie/fighter thing

[mohd]

My initial understanding on what is called as a Bowie Knife ended up with me buying this beautiful knife made by Craig Camerer ..

Picture from RCK

mohd

 

[stephanfowler]

Here's a quote I copied from an old book where an early frontiersman (can't remember who) gave his definition of what a bowie knife should be:
"a Bowie has to be sharp enough to use as a razor, heavy enough to use as a hatchet, long enough to use as a sword and broad enough to use as a paddle".
I think his point was that a Bowie had to serve many purposes and serve them well. A fighter is a bowie designed for a more specialized purpose.

I think many of us know a fighter when we see one, however in my opinion its as much or more a feel than a look. Sleek, nimble and sharp are terms that immediately come to mind. Comfortable in hand, quick and feel as an extension of the arm.

I seem to remember a very good BF customs forum thread that addressed the differences between a bowie and a fighter from a few years ago. I believe it came about as a result of the first Annual Blade Forums Best Bowie contest and discussion as to whether fighters were eligible. Don't think we accomplished anything but I remember it being interesting.

Am I dreaming or does anyone else remember that thread?

That quote comes from Dr James Batson, at least I've heard him say it many times. may not be original to him

 

[Gary Mulkey]

It's interesting to see what everyone's idea is as to what makes a knife a Bowie. I've always maintained that there are as many styles of Bowie's as there are knife makers. When something has become a generic term this way the historical accuracy doesn't seem to apply.

I have read all kinds of descriptions over the years as to what is a Bowie. Some may have been based on fact and others were obviously conjecture.

I think that I would agree that if the maker calls it a Bowie (or a fighter), then it is.

Gary

 

[RogerP]

Generally speaking, I don't see bowies as sleek or as light as fighters. Bowies being a little more suited for utilitarian tasks (leverage) rather than speed.

Well if it's a question of degree I would agree that as a group, fighters will be sleeker and lighter on average than bowies. However, your original post suggested that "Sleek, nimble and sharp.... Comfortable in hand, quick and feel as an extension of the arm" were characteristics of a fighter which distinguished it from a bowie. My point is that bowies can and do possess those same characteristics.

I find Harvey probably has more distinction from his bowies to fighters than most makers. His fighters (particularly the El Diablo) are much lighter, sleeker and nimble than his bowies which have a very good feel/balance but usually a beefier look.

Yes, I am well familiar with the El Diablo - Harvey showed me the first one at Spirit of Steel many years ago. I have also owned two or three Dean bowies. I certainly found his bowies to fast handling blades.

I think most of us got that our frontiersman was trying to be a little humorous. The point is, early americans/frontiersman used their bowie knives for many tasks. It was more a tool than a weapon.

Humorous? Perhaps. Useful in defining a bowie or illuminating that which distinguishes a bowie from a fighter? Perhaps not. What spawned the bowie phenomenon was not the tool-like properties of the knife.

For me it is a size thing a knife that is below 7 inche I have a hard time calling a Bowie

I am with you there. It's no coincidence that I have chosen that (albeit arbitrarily) as the minimum blade size for the annual Best Bowie thread.

Trails just get no respect! Historians don't care about trails unless people were made to suffer upon them.

I hear you brother! But a blood-soaked sandbar was a lot more "Hollywood" even before there was a Hollywood.

Roger

 

[RogerP]

ddd - a knife like that superb Fuegen piece fills my bowie fantasies as well. You are fortunate indeed to have it as part of your reality.

mohd - you'll get no argument from me - that's a bowie!

Roger

 

[Grapevine]

Can't remember where I read it, but someone once mentioned that one of the distinguishing differences between a bowie used in fighting as opposed to a subhilt or dagger (both fighting knives), is the change in grip that you can do with a bowie, and that change makes it deadly in battle. Bowies are often flipped upside down when in a fighting grip, so that the edge faces up. You obviously can't flip a subhilt upside down and still be able to hold it. And with a dagger flipping it upside doesn't change anything.

One of the interesting things about the Randall #1 model fighting knife is that when it's flipped upside down so it's edge up, the little indent on the spine above the choil and in front of the double guard is now a nice little finger notch. Grabbing it upside down and using that indent as a finger notch turns it into a bowie fighting grip with the retention of a subhilt.

I don't know much about bowies nor fighters, but those little tidbits stuck in my head after reading them.

 

[Starkman1]

It seems that most large all purpose knives were/are called Bowie knives, and fighter and perhaps hunter are more contemporary terms. Having read, and looked at many earlier knives of the 1800's, larger knives were rarely called fighters. However, by today's standard they may be classified as fighters.

Interestingly, many (but not all) of the earlier knives (1800's) were fairly small in comparison to our modern version of Bowie knives. Large blades were usually 7-9." Of course there were much larger knives but these seem o be the exception rather than the norm.

 

[RogerP]

Good observations Bob.

Roger

 

[bbarnettAUS]

I was under the impression a fighter's tip would/should always be below the centre line and a bowies at the centre line or above.

Cheers Bruce

 

[Mark Knapp]

I vaguely remember something from long ago about the location of the point that Bruce B. and Steve Nuckles mentioned. I was hoping to get STeven's input on this, he is strangely silent, You out there STeven? There seems to be no clear definition at all. I am working on a few right now that all lean toward the Bowie side of things, I will let you all be the judge when they are done. Thanks to everyone for contributing.

 

[crossada]

I think any bowie is a fighter in some regards but some bowies are in another league when it comes to "fighting".

To me a fighter is smaller and has a neutral balance where the proper fighting bowie seems to balance at the choil area.

I know Jerry Busse calls the fusion battle mistress a bowie but i don't feel it has any of the characteristics that meets my definition of a bowie:foot: I guess it is like said before, if the maker calls it that then it is.

 

[jdm61]

It's interesting to see what everyone's idea is as to what makes a knife a Bowie. I've always maintained that there are as many styles of Bowie's as there are knife makers. When something has become a generic term this way the historical accuracy doesn't seem to apply.

I have read all kinds of descriptions over the years as to what is a Bowie. Some may have been based on fact and others were obviously conjecture.

I think that I would agree that if the maker calls it a Bowie (or a fighter), then it is.

Gary

Gary, I don't think that there were a consensus on what a "bowie" was even in the 1840's. Those boys over in Sheffield complicated the situation greatly when they started downsizing the things.

 

[stabber]

Here's a Jim Siska Bowie with Jerry Rados 7 bar turkish twist

 

[Big Rick]

This is my take on it from and a few that I have in my collection. Probably got it wrong but here goes: By the way I love the Nick Wheeler knife, Awesome work.

These ones are Bowie's First one by Bob Ham:

This one Ray Laconico:

This one I R Bailey:

Fighters both by Mike Quesenberry:

And finally Bowie/Fighter By Toby:

 

[RogerP]

Nice knives Rick. :thumbup:

I wouldn't quarrely with your bowie / fighter divisions there. On the first one, some will insist that a bowie must have a double guard. I am not one of them. It certainly has a distinctive bowie blade shape.

stabber - that Siska fairly screams "bowie" to me.

Roger

 

[Lorien]

from all accounts I've read, Bowie's bowie didn't have a guard...

 

[Big Rick]

Nice knives Rick. :thumbup:

I wouldn't quarrely with your bowie / fighter divisions there. On the first one, some will insist that a bowie must have a double guard. I am not one of them. It certainly has a distinctive bowie blade shape.

stabber - that Siska fairly screams "bowie" to me.

Roger

Roger,
I tell you what, that Bob Ham Bowie chops 5" branches no trouble at all!!

 

[RogerP]

from all accounts I've read, Bowie's bowie didn't have a guard...

Not the knife used in the famous sandbar fight that was given to him by his brother Rezin. But the subsequent James Black knife is supposed to have had a double guard.

Roger

 

[bladeymae]

In the photo below does anyone differentiate any of the knives as Bowie or fighting knives ? For reference the largest blade is 13 1/2" long not including the handle and 2 1/2" wide.

The knife in the following photograph belongs to me and i can most definitely tell you it is a fighting knife. It is light and extremely well balanced and will make any type of slashing cut , forward or backward or up and down. The blade is long enough to reach vital organs through clothing and the tip is shaped to penetrate well. To me the difference between a 19th century Bowie knife and a modern Bowie style fighting knife would be weight and balance. If i bought a bowie knife i would expect to be able to chop down a small tree as quickly as i could with a hatchet. A fighting knifes tree cutting ability wouldn't be a concern to me. For fighting i would use the analogy of a wooden bat and and an aluminum bat. You can knock it out of the park with either one but one is quicker and more effective.

Johnny

 

[RogerP]

If i bought a bowie knife i would expect to be able to chop down a small tree as quickly as i could with a hatchet. A fighting knifes tree cutting ability wouldn't be a concern to me.

That's what camp knives are for. And while a bowie might be expected to perform better than a fighter in this respect (given that, on average, it is likely to be a larger knife), I definitely don't see tree-chopping ability in any way as a defining element of a bowie knife.

Again, Jim Bowie didn't make his namesake knife world famous (a far tougher accomplishment then versus now) by clearing trails with it. He made it famous by clearing away his enemies with it. Even that first knife given to him by his brother - largely accepted to have been nothing more glamorous than a large straight-bladed butcher knife, was given to him for the stated purpose of defensive protection. And famously used to that precise effect.

I think the modern concept of a "fighter" - at least in the western context - has led to this notion that somehow a bowie is less of a fighting knife and more of an all-rounder. And while it is no doubt true that a very great many of the "bowie" knives were used for mundane tasks other than fighting, that doesn't take away from the fact that in terms of its original definition (such as it was) it was nothing but a fighting knife.

I seem to recall reading a book by Bill Bagwell wherein he argues quite forcefully that not only is the bowie a fighting knife, it is the ultimate fighting knife.

Roger