Overboard with Blade Thickness: Your Mod's Ramblings

This is a good thread and I think you can sort of see the trend reversing on this forum because you got a lot of people actually using the blades:thumbup:

Even Busse is talking about making their Mini Muk 1/8":D

I think maybe the thick stuff really got started as part of the "tactical" thing and now we are seeing the market shift especially here as this forum seems to be having sort of an influence on the knife makers/market. At least on Blade forums.

I like 1/8". 3/32 is pretty good too. I can live with 4mm but to me it helps batoning but reduces slicing.

I notice with khukuris that while some people really prefer the big heavy ones, that really when I use those on a sustained basis my hand starts going numb and my shoulder starts hurting where when I use the lighter ones it might take me a bit longer to get thru something but I can use it on a sustained basis without damage.

I think the more people actually use something their tastes change to something that suits their purpose.
 
I'm going to throw a curve in this thread and talk about steel. I really get tired of the "this steel vs, that steel" threads. Every steel that is made for cutlery purposes are only as good as their heat treatment and temper. I add temper because heat treatment/temper is two part, the hardening/quenching process and the temper. There is way too much marketing for the "indestructable" knife. In order to be considered by some as indestructable, it's going to have to be thick and in some circumstances way too thick. High hardness and thin usually means it will break if used for something other then what the tool is for and that is to cut. Knives are for cutting. Every tool has a purpose. Smash concrete, get a maul, pry open a door, get a crow bar, etc. Right tool for the right job and your knives will survive.
Scott
 
Scott brings up an interesting point about steel. I've had the pleasure of spending many days in the woods with him testing his carbon blades in realistic conditions. He is truly a man of his word and doesn't get wrapped up in hype. His knives are proven performers and companions of mine on many occasions.

Scott's tagline "If you can't get the job done with these steels...then just give it up" is one to consider. Think about it, long before performance enhancers made macho celebrity knife-carrying action heros, humble (well, maybe not all humble) guys got by with inexpensive 1095 and other carbon steels for generations. I would love to pit some online survival gurus against historical figures the likes of Kephart, Boone, Sears a.k.a. Nessmuk(not bad for a drunk dead-beat dad) or Proeneke. I bet none of them carried "high speed" steel.

If these guys could get by with lesser-grade steel, so can we. If we can't "...just give it up."
 
Gossman Knives said:
I'm going to throw a curve in this thread and talk about steel. I really get tired of the "this steel vs, that steel" threads. Every steel that is made for cutlery purposes are only as good as their heat treatment and temper. I add temper because heat treatment/temper is two part, the hardening/quenching process and the temper. There is way too much marketing for the "indestructable" knife. In order to be considered by some as indestructable, it's going to have to be thick and in some circumstances way too thick. High hardness and thin usually means it will break if used for something other then what the tool is for and that is to cut. Knives are for cutting. Every tool has a purpose. Smash concrete, get a maul, pry open a door, get a crow bar, etc. Right tool for the right job and your knives will survive.
Scott
Click to expand...

There's three factors here- one *IS* the steel. There are different alloys for a reason. I'm not going to get into which ones are better for which purposes, because there a: really is no One True steel and b: within the bounds of common use, most knife steels will perform well enough that you'd have to really geek out to know the difference (of course, makers are by definition permanently geeked out)

Second- heat treat. Scott is dead on. No matter what steel, the heat treat is going to make or break (literally in some cases) it. Not to say that any steel can do anything any other steel can do, but with the right heat treat you can gain a lot of flexibility in your working range with a given steel.

Third- the maker. Custom or Production, their familiarity with the steel and the geometries they work with are really important.


I'm still on the thin blade side of the fence, not saying that thicker blades are useless and I've got a few that I use. And heck, I ain't making my throwers out of 1/8! But in general, the thinnest blade that will Do The Job is going to be best. (Now, if punching through car doors and cutting locks out of house doors is the job, 3/32 isn't your choice)
 
Of course, thin blades will be better at delicate articulate tasks... Mora type blades are excelent and can be used in a variety of tasks in the hands of an experienced user.

Thick blades offer added strength for prying and the more "bull in a china shop" uses that folks seem to be putting their knives through these days. Lets face it.... times have changed. Most people do not use their knives on a daily basis and most have multiple knives for different tasks. Kevin is right to a point, I believe. He uses his knife way more than the average joe... he knows techniques that can make a 4" mora do just about anything... In this day and age he is above average. Go back in time a little (or just check out cultures still immersed in daily survival skills) and you'll see that he is probably at par with the average user. (no offence, Kevin.... I'm speculating) They don't have the luxury of picking out the knife they're gonna use for today's hike. Usually you'd see a small thin knife and an axe or machete (depending on location) there is no in between.

Today we're not faced with having to carry our "one" knife everyday, 365.... We have more choices, better packs, better belts(lol)... etc... Lugging a Busse Fusion Battle Mistress for a weekend trip doesn't inflict as much damage as it would have for Nessmuk. (I bet there were times when Nessuk would have given his left chestnut for a FBM!)

Everything we do (especially North Americans) we seem to do "balls out" with as much force in as little time as possible. That's where the thick knives come into play. Are they necessary? No.... but they are the reality.

I can hack out a pretty good camp site in short time with a "thicky" that would take me all afternoon with a "thinny".... would it be of equal quality in craftsmanship?.... hell no! But it'd be done QUICK so I could get to scouting for wild edibles and animal tracks.

Rick

When I make a knife, I like starting with 1/4" stock. I hand forge and am big on distal tapers so it doesn't mean the spine will be 1/4" but it still has some heft to it most times.....

Gratuitous pic..... the "Bushpig".... approx 5/32 at thickest...
Bushpig4.jpg
 
I agree, of course, that there are many factors that go into the functionality of a blade. Steel, heat treat/temper, grind, geometry, etc. But thickness can easily become an overwhelming factor if the others are not very well taken care of.

One of my favorite blades, woods or otherwise, is a little plain-jane Old Hickory paring knife, it's got about a 3 1/4" blade, and is pretty darn thin. It also sharpens up like the devil and is awesome on food/game prep, carving, etc. and works great at sparking my firesteels (spine).

I've always had a theory that everything in society ends up working like a pendulum- it swings to one extreme, then back towards the other, then back again, but less far than the first time. Eventually it settles onto the rational middle ground. I think we're coming back towards that in the world of woods knives.
 
SpookyPistolero said:
I've always had a theory that everything in society ends up working like a pendulum- it swings to one extreme, then back towards the other, then back again, but less far than the first time. Eventually it settles onto the rational middle ground. I think we're coming back towards that in the world of woods knives.
Click to expand...

I totaly agree with that, brother!
 
Well if we want to go on steel I'd have to say that while my favorite knives are 01 and 5160, that I really can appreciate my knife from Dan Koster and Charlie May in 3V and D2.

When I am carrying 01 or any other easy rusting carbon blade I really have to be conscious of getting it clean after using it. Also if the edge gets a little rust on it it really cuts down on the sharpness even if I haven't cut anything tough with it.

This means I have to carry some sort of cloth to wipe it off, possibly some oil, and a sharpener really even for a weekend trip.

On the other hand with the Koster 3v or the May D2 I the steel resists dulling so for 3 days or so I don't really need a sharpener. It is fairly rust resistant so only a cursory wipe before I put it in the sheath and no problem.

When I get home on most of my carbon blades I have to wash them off in HOT water and dry quickly to prevent spots, then steel wool them, then re sharpen and oil them.

With the Koster or the May all I have to do is wash under the tap with some detergent put in the dish drainer and at most use a few passes on a diamond stone or strop to bring them back up.

Now I like the way 01 for instance cuts. To me it almost slides thru the wood. And I don't mind taking it and having to fool with it cause I like fooling with knives.

HOWEVER if you are talking durability and resistance to environmental extremes in my experience the 3v and D2 DO have an advantage and save you both time in maintainence and weight in having to carry no extra gear to make up for rust and quicker dulling.:D
 
Stone cutting tools with spine thicknesses in the 1/2" and better range (according to my college archaeology texts) worked for us for a loooooong time.

I'm just saying. :)
 
Just so happens last night I did a little test....

I put a drop of water on a 3v blade, a well-patinaed O1 blade, and a stripped blade of INFI (busse steel). Within an hour the O1 and Infi had rust forming, the 3V was sparkling clean. I like my O1, but I like my 3V better. To pretend there have been no advances in metallurgy since O1 and 1095 came on the scene and that they are not useful advances to the outdoorsman would be in error. Scott, didn't I read somewhere you were going to try out some 3V?

hollowdweller said:
Well if we want to go on steel I'd have to say that while my favorite knives are 01 and 5160, that I really can appreciate my knife from Dan Koster and Charlie May in 3V and D2.

When I am carrying 01 or any other easy rusting carbon blade I really have to be conscious of getting it clean after using it. Also if the edge gets a little rust on it it really cuts down on the sharpness even if I haven't cut anything tough with it.

This means I have to carry some sort of cloth to wipe it off, possibly some oil, and a sharpener really even for a weekend trip.

On the other hand with the Koster 3v or the May D2 I the steel resists dulling so for 3 days or so I don't really need a sharpener. It is fairly rust resistant so only a cursory wipe before I put it in the sheath and no problem.

When I get home on most of my carbon blades I have to wash them off in HOT water and dry quickly to prevent spots, then steel wool them, then re sharpen and oil them.

With the Koster or the May all I have to do is wash under the tap with some detergent put in the dish drainer and at most use a few passes on a diamond stone or strop to bring them back up.

Now I like the way 01 for instance cuts. To me it almost slides thru the wood. And I don't mind taking it and having to fool with it cause I like fooling with knives.

HOWEVER if you are talking durability and resistance to environmental extremes in my experience the 3v and D2 DO have an advantage and save you both time in maintainence and weight in having to carry no extra gear to make up for rust and quicker dulling.:D
Click to expand...
 
mapper66 said:
Just so happens last night I did a little test....

I put a drop of water on a 3v blade, a well-patinaed O1 blade, and a stripped blade of INFI (busse steel). Within an hour the O1 and Infi had rust forming,
Click to expand...

That's interesting because I figured the way it sharpened and performed the INFI was probably just 3v or something very similar.
 
hollowdweller said:
That's interesting because I figured the way it sharpened and performed the INFI was probably just 3v or something very similar.
Click to expand...

Well, here is something I have wondered, and maybe those that know more about steel can say, but the Infi blade was just polished up by my own poor attempts, and the O1 wasn't highly polished but it does have a good patina. The 3V had a satin finish.

Maybe I'll try again with some polished A2 and some rougher 3V. Don't have any high polish O1. Still, the results were pretty dramatic. Maybe I'll do some more testing and post in another thread.

OK, back to the topic of blade thickness :thumbup: Good stuff!
 
i think that maybe some manufacturers, in an effort to make knives cheaper, went to using cheaper steels, but found that the traditionally thin blades in cheap steel were not at all durable. so, to remedy that situation, they thickened up the blades and made a cheap, somewhat-durable ( still not very durable by most of our educated standards) knife, and marketed it as a woods knife. ( this is not based on any facts, just a thought of why the thik blade came to be)

I think the khukuri is thick because i think i have read that it was modeled after the greek kopis, which was designed for cutting people up, not doing delicate bushcraft work.

I personally rather a thin blade, if it is done properly and made of the right steel and has a quality heat treat, then it will operate well.

this is a thin blade ( about the thickness of one of my moras) doing work that is typically concidered the work of thick blades.
2628901916_9eb5fd2ec8.jpg
 
I am impressed with this thread and it is obvious to me that there are a lot of good minds floating around this forum.

Someone mentioned that "times have changed" with regards to the way we use cutlery. The evidence (at least in my neck of the woods) shows this to be true...generally speaking. Though, planet earth has not changed its materials and matter in which we cut, chop, and carve. The difference is; we have a tendency to put more emphasis (in this culture) on the entertainment value of our cutlery than we do on the efficiency of our cutlery. Others have made this point in this thread better than I. I am one who *needs* to use his knives daily on the cattle ranch. I am not entertained by the knives I use, I simply need them to work fast and efficiently. I love convex-ground knives very much, but they have no place in the butcher shop. I love the flat-ground knives in the butcher shop very much, but I find the convex and Scandinavian ground knives perform better on wood working. I choose the best grind and geometry (Scott makes some excellent points) for the task given. We don't chop with our knives in my world (God invented the axe, saw, and machete, too) so I have almost no reason to ever own or need a thick bladed knife.

Inexperienced outdoor knife users always seem to be overly concerned with the durability of their knives. As a mechanical engineer (retired), I have dealt with durability issues or concerns all my life. If someone understands little of mechanical science, they want to replace their lack of science with "big and thick"..."just in case." Well, in the real world, that just doesn't work. And, as a pilot, that just doesn't fly either (pun intended).

The knife pictured has a forged blade made from a pre-Civil War farm implement. The blade starts out at 1/8" thick in front of the handle and tapers down the length of the 8" spine. Needless to say, the blade is semi-flexible. This blade has been flexed dozens of times at almost 90-degrees and never failed to return to straight. I am confident that no normal human could break this thin, durable blade. Yet, the blade is plenty stiff for control, heavy and long enough for chopping (it will out-chop many heavier blades because of its machete like speed), and holds an edge that would please any outdoors person or butcher. This light weight knife represents good science and craftsmanship in my opinion. Nothing superfluous here.
scalper1bw7.jpg
 
Dannyboy Leather said:
Someone mentioned that "times have changed" with regards to the way we use cutlery. The evidence (at least in my neck of the woods) shows this to be true...generally speaking. Though, planet earth has not changed its materials and matter in which we cut, chop, and carve. The difference is; we have a tendency to put more emphasis (in this culture) on the entertainment value of our cutlery than we do on the efficiency of our cutlery. Others have made this point in this thread better than I. I am one who *needs* to use his knives daily on the cattle ranch. I am not entertained by the knives I use, I simply need them to work fast and efficiently. I love convex-ground knives very much, but they have no place in the butcher shop. I love the flat-ground knives in the butcher shop very much, but I find the convex and Scandinavian ground knives perform better on wood working. I choose the best grind and geometry (Scott makes some excellent points) for the task given. We don't chop with our knives in my world (God invented the axe, saw, and machete, too) so I have almost no reason to ever own or need a thick bladed knife.

Inexperienced outdoor knife users always seem to be overly concerned with the durability of their knives. As a mechanical engineer (retired), I have dealt with durability issues or concerns all my life. If someone understands little of mechanical science, they want to replace their lack of science with "big and thick"..."just in case." Well, in the real world, that just doesn't work. And, as a pilot, that just doesn't fly either (pun intended).

The knife pictured has a forged blade made from a pre-Civil War farm implement. The blade starts out at 1/8" thick in front of the handle and tapers down the length of the 8" spine. Needless to say, the blade is semi-flexible. This blade has been flexed dozens of times at almost 90-degrees and never failed to return to straight. I am confident that no normal human could break this thin, durable blade. Yet, the blade is plenty stiff for control, heavy and long enough for chopping (it will out-chop many heavier blades because of its machete like speed), and holds an edge that would please any outdoors person or butcher. This light weight knife represents good science and craftsmanship in my opinion. Nothing superfluous here.
scalper1bw7.jpg
Click to expand...

These are some really strong points. It has been said on these forums many times, people who rely on their knives, like people who live in rainforests and other indigenous peoples, use whatever they have and survive with it. Typically it is what we would generally consider poor cutlery.
 
mapper, yes I am still thinking about using 3V. These are the steels I have experience using, HTing and making knives from, A2, D2, O1, 5160, 8670M, S7, 1084 and 154CM. I like them all. I've used various other steels from other makers and manufactuers. I've never been disappointed with the performance of the steels, only the geometries of some of them. Any knife I use I reprofile the edge on my belt grinder, even hatchets and axes.
I really like carbon steels the best, but I have to admit the one stainless I have no problem or concerns about taking afield is 154CM. When done right, it's an awesome steel for those who want the extra measure of corrosion resistance. It's a stainless tool steel that is very tough. I tested the edge on one of my 154CM blades cutting roof shingles. Other then dulling, the edge came away in great shape.
Scott
 
BarberFobic1992 said:
i think that maybe some manufacturers, in an effort to make knives cheaper, went to using cheaper steels, but found that the traditionally thin blades in cheap steel were not at all durable. so, to remedy that situation, they thickened up the blades and made a cheap, somewhat-durable ( still not very durable by most of our educated standards) knife, and marketed it as a woods knife. ( this is not based on any facts, just a thought of why the thik blade came to be)

I think the khukuri is thick because i think i have read that it was modeled after the greek kopis, which was designed for cutting people up, not doing delicate bushcraft work.

I personally rather a thin blade, if it is done properly and made of the right steel and has a quality heat treat, then it will operate well.

this is a thin blade ( about the thickness of one of my moras) doing work that is typically concidered the work of thick blades.
2628901916_9eb5fd2ec8.jpg
Click to expand...


Can I use that photo?


Dannyboy- I love that slightly convex clip! I'd do a bit different on the handle if I warn't doing a period piece. Do you have more history on that style? I'm looking at my longknife design and trying to get some more historical oomph behind it. All I really know is it's a lightened long leuku that works.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top