Philosophy of expensive large thick chopper?

stabman,

Ya, the Trailmaster is one of the few I was aware of. Kinda surprised it took this long to be brought up in this thread as that knife has been reproduced many times over in past years.
Not "obsessing over blade thickness" here, just really attempting to learn something here.
The lesson I seem to learn over and over is, usually when people make statements related to measurements, they really don't mean what they say. Especially true in discussions about sharpening, thickness behind the edge, primary/secondary bevels etc, etc. So many times discussion including thickness behind the edge end in "well I was estimating" ... or they look at you weird when you ask if they accounted for the primary bevel angle when they were measuring the secondary (with opposite primary resting flat ...).

Thanks for taking the time to reply ;-)
 
stabman,

Ya, the Trailmaster is one of the few I was aware of. Kinda surprised it took this long to be brought up in this thread as that knife has been reproduced many times over in past years.
Not "obsessing over blade thickness" here, just really attempting to learn something here.
The lesson I seem to learn over and over is, usually when people make statements related to measurements, they really don't mean what they say. Especially true in discussions about sharpening, thickness behind the edge, primary/secondary bevels etc, etc. So many times discussion including thickness behind the edge end in "well I was estimating" ... or they look at you weird when you ask if they accounted for the primary bevel angle when they were measuring the secondary (with opposite primary resting flat ...).

Thanks for taking the time to reply ;-)

No worries. :)

We're all learning our whole lives.
A lot of thin stock knives have been used to good effect through the ages also.

I'm glad to live now when there's so much choice of size and style from around the world, and so many excellent materials to choose from as well.:thumbup:

(That sword sure counts as an expensive chopper...the carbon fiber alone was $100 US! :eek: )
 
1/4" or 5/16", the difference is 1/16": Pretty meaningless...
Gaston

When it comes to handling and first-hand-use of a large knife, I wholeheartedly disagree that a 25% increase in spine thickness is "pretty meaningless"
AND with more use I have found the significance becomes even greater.
 
Well, if one were to look at knives made in Nepal, you could likely find some that fit that criteria.
They made their kukris thick very often...probably made other thick knives too.
They certainly do these days (look at HI offerings other than kukri style).

Seen enough forged Bowies these days that fit those criteria, and given the VAST variety of knives that have been labelled as Bowies, there should be historical versions in that length and thickness range.

Does this mean that the primary point of knives of this size is as weapons? I'm not being cheeky - someone else pointed out that is why the kukri is often so heavy, and Jim Bowie was definitely building a weapon.



For a full flat grind, 5/16 vs 1/4" might not be a big deal. A saber grind is going to make a much bigger difference.
 
Pair of Bolo-Chete that I was able to handle back to back at around 0:40 into this video, because they were VERY nice and I thought I'd share some love here. Even with the apparent similarities, it was amazing how different they were once in hand. Each pretty much identical shapes, each significantly differing design applications. The thinner one was perfection in my mind (already spoken for), the thicker was too thick (for me at least) and it was in that 5/16" thickness (just a little too thick).

Maker Kiku Matsuda:

[video=youtube;KZ2xDGYXG4I]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZ2xDGYXG4I[/video]
 
Last edited:
Pinnah, I know this is one of your issues. But sometimes you go a bit far. I would be willing to bet if there was available wood across the Antarctica, they would make fires.

Let's see. A forest is composed of trees made of wood. Trees grow which is why they call it a renewable resource. Fire is a natural occurrence and used by state and federal people on public land. This leaves ashes, partially burnt logs/wood. It all degrades over time and I would bet good for the soil. Personally, I have no problem at all with fire rings if done well to control the fire from potentially spreading into the woods. What I have a problem with is garbage left by hikers and campers.

Fires make camping more fun. I absolutely can't see myself roasting a wienie over a twig stove.

22RF,

I don't think I've overstated anything. I've said two things that might be controversial.

First, fires are always optional. Always. My point in raising the example of the Antarctic crossings and the climbing of high peaks is that it is routine for people to travel in the most brutal of backcountry conditions without needing to make fire. Survival clothing, survival stoves, survival shelters and survival sleep systems are more important than survival knives.

Second, the feasibility of sustainable use of fires is a highly localized issue. Yes, there are places where people can make fires in a manner that won't damage the land. But rates of visitor frequency can and does quickly over run the land's ability to sustain the harvest and impact. What you can get away with in an underused Tennessee state park may be one thing. What you can do in SMNP is another. I can hike in along pretty much any trail head in New Hampshire's White Mountain region and follow just about any brook upstream that cross any maintained trail and I'll be pretty much guaranteed to find a fire ring.

It's an issue for me because I'm old enough to have seen campsites shut down and others relocated due to ongoing harvesting of firewood and the associated impacts. I've seen areas hammered and it makes me sad. If you come to our USFS lands (they're yours too) with your kids or grand kids, you shouldn't need to expect to see scarred and run out land deep in the woods. People who wreck the land are, in a sense, taking something from you and your kids.
 
I just bought a heavy Seigle chopper - http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php/1370422-JA-Baker-and-Bill-Siegle-too-PHOTOS-Yes-Sir!

This is definitely not a hiking tool but for my backyard and trail work it is ideal. I could see having it in a campsite too - if it was a drive in :rolleyes:.

Will out chop an axe not in regards to felling trees but for small trees and branches it will chop easily and with a greater degree of versatility and control. A good heavy and sharp chopper is a most excellent tool. I bought the Seigle to replace a machete that I had been using for the past 15 years or so. All my little stuff is cleared out so a more rugged blade seemed appropriate. I'm loving using the Seigle.

And there you have my - "Philosophy of expensive large thick chopper"

This ^^^

I prefer a chopper over an axe for most of what I need to cut: Cocorite palms, Mango, Purple Heart, etc. I don't chop up any firewood at all any more but I grew up with a Radio Flyer and a chainsaw.

I like my choppers long and about 3/16". I carry a Scrapyard 1311 like other guys carry an EDC.
 
Does this mean that the primary point of knives of this size is as weapons? I'm not being cheeky - someone else pointed out that is why the kukri is often so heavy, and Jim Bowie was definitely building a weapon.



Your kidding right? Are you clairvoyant, a physic medium perhaps. If not how do you know to the point where you can say someone who died in 1836, was definitely building a weapon. I would be willing to be he used that knife a whole lot more for skinning game, food prep and just daily
chores in relation to the time period in which he lived, than he used the knife to stab people.

Jesus H, man get a hold of yourself and stop being cheeky.
 
What folks like pinnah view as "destroying the heritage of others", I view entirely differently.

You see, I've established a secluded campsite advertised to no one, and used it for 5 and a half years now.
It gets used occasionally by other people who stumble across it, and the well-established fire pit keeps them from causing inadvertent damage.
I can tell they occasionally come by because, unlike me, some of them don't take their garbage away with them.
So I take it away when I come along; I bring garbage bags to pack out all trash, mine, and anyone else's who may have been along in-between.

It has been a spot of connecting with friends and family in a beautiful, peaceful setting.
If anyone who doesn't like it comes along, they can simply keep on walking...the rest of the forest is just fine.

Stabman, I do hope, honestly, that you get to play in woods that can sustain your style.

But let me just reflect back to you what I understand you are saying...

You enjoy camping around a campfire with your friends. But instead of localizing your impact by doing that in an established campsite with maintained fire pits, you went out into the woods on land that is not yours and established your campsite. And once there, you harvested enough wood to build a quasi permenant shelter and you established a fire ring. Now, other hikers have discovered the site and use it, adding their impact to yours and on top of that, leave behind trash. And other than your occasional hauling out of trash, your site is otherwise outside of any on-going maintenance plan so in 5 or 10 years, when you tire of hauling out other people's trash, your legacy in that place will be that you've created an unauthorized and now hammered camp site.

This is OK how?
 
Does this mean that the primary point of knives of this size is as weapons? I'm not being cheeky - someone else pointed out that is why the kukri is often so heavy, and Jim Bowie was definitely building a weapon.



Your kidding right? Are you clairvoyant, a physic medium perhaps. If not how do you know to the point where you can say someone who died in 1836, was definitely building a weapon. I would be willing to be he used that knife a whole lot more for skinning game, food prep and just daily
chores in relation to the time period in which he lived, than he used the knife to stab people.

Jesus H, man get a hold of yourself and stop being cheeky.

The literature I have read about the 1827 fight indicate pretty conclusively that Jim Bowie had one primary purpose for that knife, and it was to stab & cut. Yes, I am sure that he used it daily for all sorts of tasks (as a weapon that is an extension of your body is most natural to use when SHTF). Don't let anybody kid you, that particular knife was purpose carried for the next opportunity which occurred quite historically. It's my understanding that his brother gave him that knife specifically as a weapon (even though the design was of a hunting knife). When 12 civilian men come to battle/brawl, knowingly bringing surgeons with them, and Jim chose a knife over a gun it is clear that knife was primarily a weapon, and I am sure he practiced with it in preparation for something he knew in advance would happen. He had previously been shot by at least one these guys in the past, and sustained multiple shots and stabs the day of this epic brawl. The facts of the day will never "be known" as this began as a simple unsettled dual between two men. After it escalated into an all out brawl (guns, knives, sword-canes, etc.) After the event many of the participants lied to protect themselves from prosecution.

This does not mean the primary point of knives are weapons, but I think it's pretty well understood Jim's motives for carrying that knife on that day.
 
Last edited:
Does this mean that the primary point of knives of this size is as weapons? I'm not being cheeky - someone else pointed out that is why the kukri is often so heavy, and Jim Bowie was definitely building a weapon.



Your kidding right? Are you clairvoyant, a physic medium perhaps. If not how do you know to the point where you can say someone who died in 1836, was definitely building a weapon. I would be willing to be he used that knife a whole lot more for skinning game, food prep and just daily
chores in relation to the time period in which he lived, than he used the knife to stab people.

Jesus H, man get a hold of yourself and stop being cheeky.

You meant "psychic", right?

Like Spey, I've read the history of the Bowie knife, and the intention that it work like a short cutlass. There isn't much reason to have a cross guard on a field tool, and most field knives didn't even have finger guards, but a guard on the top is really only useful for defense against other weapons.
 
Stabman, I do hope, honestly, that you get to play in woods that can sustain your style.

But let me just reflect back to you what I understand you are saying...

You enjoy camping around a campfire with your friends. But instead of localizing your impact by doing that in an established campsite with maintained fire pits, you went out into the woods on land that is not yours and established your campsite. And once there, you harvested enough wood to build a quasi permenant shelter and you established a fire ring. Now, other hikers have discovered the site and use it, adding their impact to yours and on top of that, leave behind trash. And other than your occasional hauling out of trash, your site is otherwise outside of any on-going maintenance plan so in 5 or 10 years, when you tire of hauling out other people's trash, your legacy in that place will be that you've created an unauthorized and now hammered camp site.

This is OK how?

Of course it's on land I don't own; I live in a one bedroom apartment...my "land" is a concrete balcony.

The trash other people have put there consists of the occasional alcohol container...except for whatever doofus left a large tarp that had to be cut up and packed out; that was a chore, but I did it because I consider it my site.

As for 5-10 years, well, I've already kept going there for over 5 years; unless I move somewhere else, it's going to continue being the spot I go to.

As far as I see it, for authorization, I authorized it, and that is really the only authorization I tend to consider valid anyway. ;)

As for legacy going far into the future, we'll all be dead (unless my immortality plans pan out better than previous people's have), and then it will be reclaimed by nature in a very short time.
I have seen old industrial sites that consisted of buildings, roads and other infrastructure in the process of nature taking it back; it goes a lot quicker than most people think.

For some reason, people look to the past and see the pioneers of this land as mighty people--heroes almost--and marvel at the enormous, centuries old trees they tore down.
Some of those same people would consider me an environmental criminal for establishing a camp site, one that I have continued to use and maintain for years. Seems to be a disconnect.

You see, I'm not out there destroying heritage trees; all the biggest trees that have toppled out there fell due to storms and old age, including the one that fell right where my original shelter was. That was a damn big tree.

As I see it, anyone who lives in more than a one bedroom apartment and owns a car has zero moral right to judge my impact on the world. Despite my overall minimal impact being due to lack of cash more than any high-minded choice, I am still impacting the planet far less than the vast majority of North Americans.

And if it will make all the people happier, then if I move far away, I will haul out all the cinderblocks and bricks from the site...we had to carry them in there for the fire-pit in the first place, due to the extraordinary lack of rocks out there. I will even dig up the charred soil, and pack it out too (we always carry plenty of stuff normally, so it wouldn't be that bad if we left the gear due to doing a site restoration).
Hell, I'll even bring in some top-quality top-soil and plant a damn tree where the fire-pit used to be!

But that won't be happening any year soon, unless I suddenly win a huge lottery and move away. For the foreseeable future, it will remain my spot. :thumbup:
 
Five pages and over 90 posts ...
Have I missed ANY that directly relate to to the OP (5/16" thick with 8-12 inches blade length)?

I understand there are have been a number of nice knives mentioned already in the .25" & less range, but where's the support of the "very thick like 5/16 inches thick" (that's 25% thicker than 1/4")?
I have followed this thread looking to see the .3125" thick & greater stuff that is in question here (not including ones that use bedliner type coatings) as I am interested in understanding the useful purpose.

Maybe even some knives from BladeSports International Competition, as there is no thickness specification limits in the rules:
#1 Maximum knife size specifications:
Blade Length – 10" (measured from the front of the handle to the blade tip)
Overall Length – 15" (measured from the back of the handle to the blade tip)
Blade Width – 2" (measured at the widest part of the blade)
Blade and Handle Thickness – No restrictions

Yup.

The FBMLE I posted in one of my photos was .31, if I remember.

My sanmai trail master that the Bussey FBMLE replaced was 5/16 thick.

No picture, but my forged khukri is thicker than 5/16.

The green Busse khukri I posted is not as thick. Only .276? If I remember correctly. But it has a 12 inch blade.
 
Last edited:
I think it all depends on where you're at.
There's a provincial park near here, with established trails, and they even put woodchips down to help keep from sinking into the mud when wet.
I don't carry a huge knife there, and there are both no fires allowed, nor any need for one. No camping allowed either.

Another place I know of has less established trails, so I bring a medium sized knife which occasionally gets used. No camping allowed, and if I have a fire, it's gonna be a twig stove at most...most times no fire.
 
Last edited:
Pair of Bolo-Chete that I was able to handle back to back at around 0:40 into this video, because they were VERY nice and I thought I'd share some love here. Even with the apparent similarities, it was amazing how different they were once in hand. Each pretty much identical shapes, each significantly differing design applications. The thinner one was perfection in my mind (already spoken for), the thicker was too thick (for me at least) and it was in that 5/16" thickness (just a little too thick).

Maker Kiku Matsuda:

[video=youtube;KZ2xDGYXG4I]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZ2xDGYXG4I[/video]

Thanks for the video I've admired Kiku Matsuda blades for some time now and they are quite beautiful. Did you purchase one?
 
22RF,

I don't think I've overstated anything. I've said two things that might be controversial.

First, fires are always optional. Always. My point in raising the example of the Antarctic crossings and the climbing of high peaks is that it is routine for people to travel in the most brutal of backcountry conditions without needing to make fire. Survival clothing, survival stoves, survival shelters and survival sleep systems are more important than survival knives.

Second, the feasibility of sustainable use of fires is a highly localized issue. Yes, there are places where people can make fires in a manner that won't damage the land. But rates of visitor frequency can and does quickly over run the land's ability to sustain the harvest and impact. What you can get away with in an underused Tennessee state park may be one thing. What you can do in SMNP is another. I can hike in along pretty much any trail head in New Hampshire's White Mountain region and follow just about any brook upstream that cross any maintained trail and I'll be pretty much guaranteed to find a fire ring.

It's an issue for me because I'm old enough to have seen campsites shut down and others relocated due to ongoing harvesting of firewood and the associated impacts. I've seen areas hammered and it makes me sad. If you come to our USFS lands (they're yours too) with your kids or grand kids, you shouldn't need to expect to see scarred and run out land deep in the woods. People who wreck the land are, in a sense, taking something from you and your kids.

Well said from your point of view. Your response takes a more middle road perspective which is mine for the most part. I realize that fires are usually optional. I will add that I feel hikers should adhere to the rules or not hike on those trails or into those areas. I do like to build a fire camping as it makes the experience more fun. I want a safe fire. What do you do with those long hours after dark... read your Kindle? I have observed the preferred camping spots along trails that have been completely denuded of any dead wood, ditches dug around tent spots, and so forth, and folks begin to cut the live trees down. There should be signs in these places telling people the rules. I don't believe in shelter building for fun unless you have permission from the landowner or own the property yourself from an environmental point of view. I am a bit of a tree hugger, but not excessive. I totally enjoy getting out and stretching my legs along a trail versus some city type walking for exercise activity. I respect your opinion.

You'd be surprised how well used TN state parks are. But for the most part, SP's are day use land and few camp along a trail. They confine most camping to organized camp grounds for the reasons you state from an environmental impact perspective.

Smoky Mountain NP is really a special place and heavily used. It lends itself to over night hiking and camping at primitive camp sites. They don't want you camping just anywhere and I believe they enforce that as best they can. The reasons are pretty much as you stated (over use). I got yelled at years ago by a ranger for pulling off the road in a grassy area to take some pictures of some wild flower I saw. As you can see, that experience left a mark in my memory that has never dulled with time and I have not done it once since then because I understand why they have that rule.

I understand why there are use rules on public lands. They change with time. I was hiking a trail over the weekend and wanted to explore a little below me near the stream. It is a very pretty area, but rugged. I was thinking "pictures". The park had blocked with sticks the heavily used "trail" off the main trail and had signs up saying it was a restoration area (very eroded). I wandered on past this obvious access point to another that showed no signs of use and I headed down to the stream area. It was very rocky, VERY, and you could very easily slip or fall hurting yourself. As I climbed back out of that area to the main trail I noticed I was only about 50-75 yds from the blocked area and realized that other people wandered down there for much the same reason as me. My take was they were trying to minimize the erosion caused by the frequent use at that one spot and not necessarily to keep people from wandering down to the stream. But if a thousand or ten thousand people did what I did, I suspect there would be some signs of use. So, I felt a little bad about the whole affair since I was with a kid and I was essentially setting an example that it was okay for me perhaps, but not for others.....
 
Last edited:
Front & center, all dressed in horse-mat handle scales (aka stallmat). Blade thickness and mfr please?
I'm a thinking Waterstone Blades ... and just under 1/4" ?

Man, you're good. Spot on for all details; I can get exact measurements for ya later tonight. :thumbup::cool:

I love that knife as it works very well for kitchen duties also but is not super thick so it doesn't meet the "thick chopper" philosophy... ;)
 
I don't have any pics of this knife in the woods but it's handled any task I've thrown at it with ease LOL.

The .500 thou thick X 14" blade hits like a mack truck. ;):thumbup: As it should :D:rolleyes::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

I would think it's overkill for most folks and many would not like the heft of this blade FWIW.

22205797404_9e1358847d_h.jpg


The back blade in this pic:
21599959740_e235d68a60_o.jpg




Another that's quite stout at .290 thick; Busse NMFBM:

19922083156_66b3aef3ba_h.jpg
 
Back
Top