Point versus edge on a fighting knife?

  • Thread starter Thread starter -
  • Start date Start date
One thing I haven't seen mentioned above, which is hugely in favor of the cutting attack:

It is better than the thrust at deflecting the enemy's movement and/or separating yourself from the enemy. It allows "disengagement" while the thrust only puts you more directly in contact with the enemy and keeps you in his line of fire, limiting your mobility. And it's out quicker, so you can use it again quicker.

They're both perfectly good attacks for their own uses, but the cut is better at allowing for defense.
 
Zog, I can't seem to make your URL for Black Cloud work.

------------------
Walk in the Light,
Hugh


 
Hugh,

Thanks for the heads-up. I fixed the URL on my last post. It's actually www.syspac.com/~bcloud/ for those curious. Charlie Porter's Friend is listed on that website as well.

Foxtail,

Good point (pun intended). Slash attacks allow one to keep distance or disengage while still inflicting damage on an opponent. Is there a knife you feel is a particularly effective knife for these purposes?

Zog




------------------
For reality as we have it is only one of many possible realities; it is not inevitable, not arbitrary, it bears within itself other possibilities.
-M. Bakhtin
 
Charlie Porter, that's the name I couldn't remember. The Friend is designed by Charlie Porter, made by Black Cloud Knives (Ernest Mayer), exclusively as far as I know.

Balance is of utmost importance in a fighter, but it has little to do with length. I have a Black Cloud Short Sword 1, with a 17" blade that is perfectly balanced and handles like a 6" blade. Ernie's bowies are also perfectly balanced, right at the guard, whatever the length. A 10" Mad Dog Panther feels lighter and faster than his 6" Wild Thing to me. One does not have to sacrifice balance for mass in a fighting knife. Those big fighting bowies are fast and powerful.

I don't know much about the history of the Sykes dagger, but generally, such narrow weapons were designed to slip in between the gaps in body armor. Good if you are facing a conquistador, but a little outdated. You could still do significant slashing damage with such a blade, but a slightly heavier blade with some belly would be better, and not really slower. I have a 6.5" Black Cloud Sharktooth double edged blade ground from 5/32" stock that is light as a feather, and at a little over 1.5" wide, it is stronger than a Sykes style dagger in the cutting plane.

From what I remember reading about he sand bar fight, Bowie just grabbed a big butcher knife on his way out the door, and it turned out to be pretty effective against the single-shot pistols and sword cane of his enemies. So much for R&D.
wink.gif


The bowie makes excellent sense though, quick enough to move and massive enough to be powerful.

Harv


 
You guys may be intrested to know that the butcher knife or whatever that big kitchen knife is called shares a common ancestor with the bowie, the sax.

When William Duke of Normandy invaded England and established Norman rule over the Saxon natives, the Saxons became servants. In addition to growing the food, they also cooked it.

That's why the names for food animals are Saxon, but the name for the food itself is Norman; take pig and pork for instance. the animals that the food is the same as the name, like chicken, is what the Saxons got to eat.

Anyway, a grave mis-statement has been made, big knives are faster than little knives. No, this isn't theory, it is supported by the full force of the laws of physics.

A knife is a third class lever, the end moves faster than the handle. The longer the handle, the faster the end. That's why, as James Keating puts it, it's easier to swat a fly with a flyswatter than your bare hand.

They're faster on the thrust as well, by virtue of being longer. They do not have to travel as great a distance to reach their target, shorter distance equals quicker arrival without having to increase speed.

I have no idea what you mean by thrusting bringing you into closer contact with your oponent. I can only assume that you mean one of two things;

A) that it penetrates your enemy to that's "more direct contact". Well, guess what, you have to touch a badguy with a knife to cut him too.

B) that you have to be "sqaured off" to thrust at an oponent, which is also false. In quartata attacks allow you to flank the enemy and at the same time stick him where it counts.

Also, the idea that the thrust is slower than the cut came up again, and was again I appeal to the laws of physics to disprove it.

A thrust has less distance to travel to it's target than does the cut. Consequently, with no more effort it will reach it's target more quickly than a cut. Only the snap cut has comparable speed to the thrust.

Now, if you aren't a good thruster, so your cut is faster, that's one thing. But your lack of training in one area is not evidence enough to support a statement that is in direct opposition of the laws of physics.

Now, that's just time to target, so the arguement could be made that the cut is faster for getting in a second attack, but in order to do so you must;

A) bring your arm back into the same starting position it was in previous to the first attack. It takes no more time to withdraw you arm im preparation to thrust than it does in preparation to cut.

B) follow up the first cut with a different cutting technique than you used the first time. There are more way to make point than just a thrust from the hip, by using a second method to stab after the first thrust, I can have my point in my adversary in no more time than in would take you to cut him again, additionaly this would be my second attack to a vital system.

As for the cut being better at defense than the thrust because you can cut the oppenent's weapon arm(I'm assuming that's what you're getting at), that the same thing as a stop-thrust, similar to a riposte.

Again, ignorance of technique or lack of training in it is no basis for an argument.

Finaly, there's the issue of balance. A forward balance makes for a more powerful cut and thrust, a rearward balance makes the point more agile, and a center balance is a combination of the two.

While I wouldn't say one is universaly better than the other, the rearward balance is really unnecesary in a knife, you're not talking about a weapon that's going to be heavy enough for it to offer any serious advantage. It best works with a weapon several feet long and weighing several pounds.

As to a center balance being faster than a forward balance, that statement is generaly untrue when talking about knives, again because they just aren't heavy enough. Even then, the speed advantage of the center balance is only in linear movements, circular movements favor neither, though a forward balance will tend to build up more inertia, like a weight on the end of a string.

Personaly, I prefer a center balance, and we can all think of an extreme case where a forward balance in a knife would have a measurable detrimental effect, but in most cases that effect will be immeasurable.

Especialy in a good generalist blade like a bowie of classic porportions, 9 iches long, inch and a quarter wide, and a three inch clip.
 
Snick,

The history of the fighting and butcher knife explained precisely and with brevity. Thank you.

Perhaps you could answer a question for me. I've read here, and in other places, that the long knife has a longer arc, and is hence somehow disadvantageous. I even remember one fellow giving an example of he and his wife experimenting with this idea. He had a soup spoon, she had a longer device of some sort (like an escrima stick). He would lunge forward and pop his wife on the head with a spoon while she tried to counter. He stated that her weapon was too slow due to its length to counter. (I just thought his wife was slow.)

Given that longer weapons are faster, but have a much greater potential arc, any conjecture about why some argue for a shorter blade? Anyone?

Zog


------------------
For reality as we have it is only one of many possible realities; it is not inevitable, not arbitrary, it bears within itself other possibilities.
-M. Bakhtin
 
In this culture we like to see small and light things as fast and agile, and big and heavy things as slow and powerful.

These days very few people have ever been in an encounter involving edged weapons, and even fewer have seen anything but their own martial art, which is almost always an Eastern style(but that's another story), or some SCARS-grade material made up by some tactical boy-wonder who likely has no relevant experience either, but who sees himself as a big badass or wants to make a buck or two.

So in short, very few people get a reality check.
 
Thanks Snick. As someone who is big, I can't tell you how many times I've confronted that assumption myself. Of course, heavier things are more difficult to get moving than light things (first law of thermodynamics I think). Hence, a long blade with reasonable balance and weight, coupled with a good edge and point would be ideal?

We've had a couple of knives that people prefer that they mentioned by name.

Hossom's Millenium Fighters: www.Hossom.com
Fifth Generation Bowies from Black Cloud Knives: www.syspac.com/~bcloud/
The Helle's Belle: www.knifecenter.com/knifecenter/ontario/bagwell1.html
The Applegate/Fairbairn: www.knifecenter.com/knifecenter/boker/apple.html

Any others?

Zog

------------------
For reality as we have it is only one of many possible realities; it is not inevitable, not arbitrary, it bears within itself other possibilities.
-M. Bakhtin
 
This is to counter some stuff said just a couple of posts up, which itself was a counter to some others' statements, includng mine.

First, there was the thing about knives as thrid-class levers and the laws of physics dictating that a larger knife is faster. Basically, this is like like pointing out that if you turn around once in two seconds with your arm out, your fingers move at a certain speed, but if you're holding something while turning once in the same time with your arm out, then the end of the stick or whatever is moving faster than your fingers, while the fingers move the same speed. It's because the end of the stick has to trace out a longer "line" (the wider circle) in the same time. BUT this assumes you turn at the same speed each time. An increase in weight of the blade in your hand can slow you down, especially with finger-controlled movements as opposed to arm-controlled onese. Also, the change in length, balance, and weight will tend to cause you to start using your bigger muscles (arm) more than the little ones (fingers), which in turn is slower, not to mention less precise, and the two will have similar effects in a fight. If bigger meant faster, then bigger would always be better in open combat, and historical battlefield weapons would include no short blades, but there were plenty. This is not theory, it's an observation, which means it is truly backed by the "full" force of the laws of physics that made the observation real, not just those laws which the author could think of all at once (which allows for errors of omission).

About longer blades being faster to thrust than shorter ones because they start off closer: the argument assumed the same starting distance between HAND and enemy. BUT the participants in a blade fight distance themselves from each other according to the blade, not the hand that holds it. (Just imagine two guys with rapiers trying to fight from boxing distance. It doesn't work. They back off.)

The same assumption was made about thrusts in general as opposed to cuts: that the thrust starts off closer to the target. But that's ONLY the case if your only thrust-starting position is forward, and your only cut-starting position is back, neither of which is a very good idea to limit yourself to.

Note that when I said a cut is out quicker and thus available for use quicker, I was talking about the recovery. With a thrust, you move forward and you have to pull out before you can do anything. That's two movements, with a stop and full reversal between, followed by another stop and full reversal if you thrust again. A cut makes its contact and is gone in one motion. That's where the time is saved. Also note that, while going cut-to-cut doesn't always require a full reversal of motion, the best way ot eliminate this little battle with inertia is to mix cuts and thrusts.

Here's what I meant about closer direct engagement of the enemy during a thrust than with a cut:
1. To do the increased damage that a thrust can do, you have to sink the blade into the target, and this means your hand will almost touch it (at exactly the moment you have to stop and reverse directions to get out). Not necessarily the case with a cut.
2. The target you're going to hit with a thrust is somewhere in the torso, not the arms. I'll get back to this later.
3. A thrust going into a target needs to stay in line in order to penetrate; if it turns, it can stop short, and you can lose control or even your grip. Thus a thrust works best if the target is moving right at you or not at all.
Meanwhile, cutting effectively and safely at a target moving in any direction is simple because it needs not be so alligned, and the drawing of blade against target tends to keep the blade from wandering from side to side anyway.

Now, about target anatomy: Note that the stop-thrust/riposte is a defense against thrusts. A thrust is coming right at you, which means it occupies pretty much the same part of your field of vision from beginning to end, like a dot on a paper. It's easy to thrust at this, even if the enemy tries to shift the angle, becuase he's still thrusting forward, so the dot on the paper won't move far. But this defense doesn't work very well against a cut that moves laterally to you, like drawing a line on paper. Trying thrusting at that, especially when it shifts and the line on the paper ends up somewhere else, and all you have to hit it with is one dot you can make yourself. To defend against motion ACROSS your field of vision, you need to be able to draw your own line on the paper that crosses the attacker's. That's why the enemy's arms are easier to cut than to thrust against: they can move. His torso can't do that nearly so well, and that's also where his vital/mortal organs are, so that's where a thrust has its effectiveness. (Not theory, observation; I've seen good fighters and bad ones, and the good ones use sweeping horizontal/vertical blocks and deflections, not straight forward ones.) This gives cutting to defend the upper hand over thrusting to defend.

But that's not what I was talking about when I commented on cutting's superior allowance for defense. I was talking about the cut opening up greater opportunity for defense, rather than being used as a defense in itself. Note that a thrust has only one direction: toward the enemy. A cut can have any number of different directions, varied from both forward and backward themes. Also, due to the nature of how muscles work and are arranged on the body, a thrust loses most of its force and its alignment control when the movement is circumferential rather than radial (off-line and distant from your center rather than on-line with it and based from it). Since the cut isn't based much in penetrating power or precise alignment control anyway, either kind of movement, on-line or off-line, works fine. These factors combine to mean that thinking in terms of cuts tends to increase your mobility and options, while thinking in terms of thrusts decreases them.

Since I tend to get accused of overthinking just because of the detail with which I EXPLAIN/DESCRIBE OBSERVATIONS, here's a bit of how reality-based this is. I was recently not-quite-attacked by a boxer (the dog). With my pocketknife out I kept backing off, and I found that he'd close the gap between us somewhat at times but not actually charge. If he had, I would have moved toward him and to one side, slashing as we went by each other, to have something between his teeth and me, and possibly to make him rethink the attack. Now, if I'd tried that with a thrust and I didn't do it just perfectly, our momentum would have turned the thrust aside and resulted in only a shallow cut to him--the cut is so much better for this case that it happens by itself! And if I plan to cut from the start, I won't lose my weapon. Also, if I push inward while cutting, I can probably knock the dog to the other side, away from me and off of his line of balance, pretty easily because his momentum isn't against me in that direction.

Now here's a variation in which the thrust is used: I stand where I am when he charges and hold the knife in his way. He almost certainly won't attack again. If I'd tried cutting here, he'd still be going towad me with those teeth. The greater damage of the thrust causes much greater pain (disincentive to fight), might even make his continued attack physically impossible, and even renders the initial attack itself ineffective if I can keep my arm out to hold the dog back against his momentum. (But that "if" is an "if". This, by the way, is an excellent of example of being more closely engaged with the enemy while thrusting than while cutting; I have to use equal or greater force to stop his. Avoiding or redirecting the enemy's force is preferable to resisting it.)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not dissin' thrusts. They're great for what they do. They have their place in a fight. But that is not to be the meat of the fight, but rather the part that's held back while you use cutting movements to save your butt until you get a chance to set up for the right moment to unleash a thrust.
 
You must have some real heavy knives to have any felt effect of slwoing down. Also, what type of knife do you hold in your fingers while you fight? Wierd.

As to larger muscles being slower, it depends on how you train. See Bruce Lee's one-inch-punch. Note, isometrics are good for developing explosive strength.

The speed of the thrust is not based on being closer to the target as you're thinking, it's based on the weapon itself being longer and requiring less time for it's tip to reach it's target.

You are also breaking down the movements of the weapon during the cut or thrust in a very wierd and inconsitant way.

A knife that has cut something will have to be withdrawn from a cut, just like a thrust will. A thrust only requires two movements to strike again, pull it out, fire again. Same as a cut, you move it out of the first cut which brings it into position to make the second.

However, you don't even need to withdraw the knife after it penetrates when trusting. Insert and pump. The fight then promptly ends, assuming a chest cavity penetration, which is the most likely target anyway.

Unless you study a secret martial art that allows you to fight without the benefit of a heart and lungs...

"Stop-thrust" is a name. It means you're using a thrust to stop something. You can target and disable a wrist, forearm, or hand irregardless of what sort of attack is being made by your adversary, maybe you can't because you don't train that way, but there are those of us who do train that way and can.

Likewise, I can't even fathom how you could possibly cut someone by moving the knife away from them, as you pretty much have to get closer to something to touch it, and you have to touch something to cut it.

Anyway, you have a very limited understanding of the thrust. They aren't all straight forward jabs launched from the hip. They can come from above, below, or from the sides same as a cut.

Your rapiers at boxing distance does not apply here. Rapiers are swords with very long blade and no sevicable edge. They handle differently than do knives, as well as cause damage differently. Even then, boxing range is fine for rapiers, if you know how to handle the weapon. They are excelent stand-off weapons, but that's not all they can do. Now grappling range is another story...

Anyway, a large knife can be handled just as well close in, if you know your technique. you don't use long range sniping techniques close in, just like you don't use artilery when the badguy is two feet away.

If a thrust doesn't hit it's target squarely, it won't deliver maximum penetration. If a cut doesn't hit right, you'll just get some surface slices. Same thing.

If you want to hit what's deep, that means you have to hit hard and hit right, irregardless of cut or thrust.

Your observation about shoprt battlefield weapons not only fails to hold true, it's only backed by the full faith and credit of the casual observer.

You will note that the most commonly used main battlefield weapons(as opposed to back ups) are all big. In fact, the single most common throughout all cultures is a spear or polearm. Think halbard and naginata.

You will also note no army ever went to war armed primarily with pocket knives.

About the only thing you're saying that holds up to scrutiny is that it's a good idea to mix cuts and thrusts.

I use cuts, which are less-lethal anyway, to make opening for thrusts to stop the fight.

By the way, I've actualy done this against real people who were also armed with edged weapons, for what it's worth.

On top if that I run down and kill boar with a knife as my prefered method of hunting, this has been discussed most recently in the "skin a gator" thread on this forum, so I also have used a knife to kill.

As to what the criteria for the best fighting knife is, that depends. I like a blade between 7 and 9 inches, between an inch and a quarter and an two inches wide, a pommel, center balance, drop point with sharpened swedge, and trapping gaurd, oh yeah, and a curved handle.

The Keating designed Crossada comes close, but I don't like the way the gaurd is formed from the same thing stock as the blade.
 
Snick,

Please forgive my ignorance on this matter, but a curved handle? I don't see anything wrong with it, but I will admit in my rather prodigious collection not a single knife has a curved handle. It strikes me that it would allow for more natural body motion and hand positioning, especially for the thrust attacks. Is this true? Or is there something else I'm overlooking?

Zog

------------------
For reality as we have it is only one of many possible realities; it is not inevitable, not arbitrary, it bears within itself other possibilities.
-M. Bakhtin
 
A slightly curved handle not only helps bring the point on-line with your target, but also allows for a more powerful thrust by virtue of better ergonomics. It's not always the best choice, but it is a good one.

Not only that, but they work pretty good for cutting and slashing too, by presenting the edge at an angle, think of a kukri.

Knives cut best when moving at an angle to what is being cut, you can press even a sharp knive straight down on your palm fairly hard before it cuts, but if you only rest it on your palm and then draw the blade across, it will cut quickly.
 
I have to defend myself here...

Snickersnee, I'm going to leave alone the things on which you and I simply won't ever agree, which happen to be fairly few. But I have to clear up some of the misunderstanding that might make it seem otherise, and correct the simply incorrect. Also note that I throw no insults at you, and I do not use tales of my own greatness to claim that others are idiots with no training or experience. It would be good of you to do the same.

Thrusting speed of a longer knife is quicker ONLY if you START with the tip closer, which isn't how it works in a fight. Longer weapons lead to greater spacing between adversaries. That neutralizes and even negates the tip speed you point out as a result of the third-class lever status, because the weapon has to move farther at that greater speed.

Battlefield weapons were never small, that's true. But bigger wasn't always better. Those spears and halberds and such weren't all the same length, for example, and they weren't alone on the battlefield. Most swords, hammers, maces, and axes were shorter than they needed to be, even given the limit that sometimes they needed to be one-handers because of a shield in the other hand. Pikes make a good initial charge or stop one well, but once the battle as begun, the long, cumbersome weapons were often discarded in favor of something like a dirk or a leaf-blade.

I see now that the way I "broke up" the thrust and the cut, as opposed to the way you did, was throwing you off. It's weird, perhaps, but not inconsistent. Given that thrusts are better at penetrating and more damaging when they do, and that cuts are more apt to stay at the surface and will do more damage when they do, I worked with the most extreme dichotomy to simplify: shallow cuts and deep thrusts. Would "slash" have been a better word choice to express the kind of cut I was talking about? The advantages of speed and only making one move to get in and out arise largely from the shallow cut. The reason I spoke in terms of that is that this is the most common kind, partially because it's eaiest when the opponent is trying to stop you from getting him deep, and partially because if you have the time and the opening to go for depth, the thrust is better.

Of course, the lines can blur, and there will be exceptions based on specific body positions and such, which is why I spoke of only the extreme dichotomy to keep it simple.

You give an example of how a fight "promptly ends" with a thrust to the chest cavity, the most likely target anyway. This is fine given two conditions: You don't mind killing, and you had the opporunity to thrust there. Generally, this opportunity can be created, and shallow cuts are how. If killing isn't an option, then you have to have a way to win with quick, shallow stuff only, and there the cut is superior because its wounds are longer. You said "if you want to hit what's deep,.." but this is a circumstance I did not assume, and I am somewhat disturbed that you seem not to even consider any other possibility. You warn that if you don't execute a deep cut right, you get surface slices. Yep, that's the idea I was getting at. It's not as deadly, but sometimes that's good, and it gives you more opportunity to evade. The difference is that a shallow poke can go unnoticed, while a shallow cut several inches long can have quite an effect.

This shallow-cut idea, BTW, is where I got the idea of cutting without moving toward and into the enemy. You're moving along his surface at the moment of the strike, and this could be part of a larger general movement toward, away from, or beside him. Almost every cut I've ever executed (and I know this is my own personal thing here) was a surface slice to the arm, executed while sidestepping to go right by the enemy or backing off from him. I made no attempt to push into the target except against his arm bones to shift his hand's course. This one-minded defense worked pretty well against the one-minded attacks I faced. I was just doing the best thing available to get my enemy to bleed while I didn't, even if it was just little skin scratches. And I only recently realized since then that maintaining the option of doing it this way, which happens to be the best for defending onesself if not for harming the enemy, involved using cuts, not thrusts.
 
You're new here so you probably haven't heard this before; I am an abrasive a$$hole. I try not to be, but that's just the way I am. Naughty by natcha, not `cause I hateya
wink.gif
. I much rather stick to documented scientific fact and practical experiments with reproducable results than tales of daring do. I advocate seeing ANYONE who makes claims of experience as a potential liar or wannabe, including myself. I only said something in regard to that because you did. On top of that, I'm not saying you are unskilled or untrained, but I can tell you have little if any experience or training in the Western arts, which happen to be what I study. I'm not knocking you, I'm saying that it's apparent that there is technique that you are unfamiliar with, and training you do not have, and that you shouldn't make statements that are untrue just because you are unfamiliar with these techniques, not that you could know before hand. If it makes you feel any better, while I've done a lot of sparring against Asian stylists, I do not train in any Asian art.

A knife is a lethal weapon. If I draw a knife in self defense it's with intent to meet lethal force with lethal force. If it's a friendly brawl, I stick to fists. I would not feel guilting for seperating the body and soul of some guy who had intended to do the same to me. I have had to use a knife against people because I've lived most my life in real rough places, but I've never had to kill anyone. Play to win, but know when to let up.

Okay, you're not getting this thing about longer blades reaching a target faster than shorter ones, so I'll try to explain it in the most comprehensible way I can;

If you have a knife that is 1 foot, three inches long, and another that is three inches long, the point of the knife that is one foot three inches long will always be one foot closer to your adversary. The short knife doesn't get longer, the long knife doesn't get shorter.

This doesn't have anything to do with being a third class lever, this has to do with being an extension weapon.

Irregardless of how far away the target is from me, my knife with the longer blade will consistently have to travel one foot less than my knife with a three inch blade.

The only thing you could say is that when two guys are litteraly standing belly to belly there isn't much noticable distance in speed because neither knife has to travel any distance.

Length is not the only consideration in weapon design, I never claimed that. I am only saying that longer weapons do have an advantage in the speed area.

Going back to a halberd, they are of a length and weight that makes them slower than a smaller weapon, like a sword, on the cut, but they still maintain an advantage in the area of thrusting speed. However, they are of such great length that this advantage is only when at a distance so great that our sword armed adversary is incapable of striking our halberd armed opponent,(not universaly true, a lunge with a long sword will be able to reach a halberd armed opponent, but you get the idea).

The main problem with the whole "cut" thing is there's a lot of kinds of cuts; you've got slices, slashes, draw cuts, hacks, that sort of thing.

By any which way you cut it, that blade has to come in contact with the enemy to do damage, and to do that it must moves toward the enemy at some point. There's no way around it.

The best you can say is that if you continue the cut long enough, you'll eventualy run off the target, which is more or less what you've just said. But again, that's ignoring the fact that blade had to get close to it's target to cut.

Anyway, I don't harbor any ill-will towards you, as far as I'm concerned we're just two people having a conversation. Except, I'm the one who's right...
smile.gif
 
If memory serves Jim Bowie used a large kitchen knife at the Sandbar fight prior to having his big fighter made. Am I wrong? Marcus Gee I guess I should read *both* pages of a thread before I post something huh?
wink.gif
Oh well.

[This message has been edited by Marcus (edited 04 August 1999).]
 
My new web site will be something cool. I will have instructional video clips, knifemaking and metallurgical info(like photos of microstructures, etc.), and monthly columns like Art of Strategy, etc. I AM working on it now,
wink.gif
, so it will be fairly soon. Anyhow, right on, the balance of a bowie must be at or in back of the guard. How about about a LIGHT bowie? Try a FB4. Heavy Bowie not spoken here!!
 
Black Cloud,

Great! I can't wait to see your new site when it's up. I've heard that there's been evolution in your fighting bowies generation to generation. Would you still be willing to make bowies of older patterns, even though you've develped new ones as well?

Zog
 
He might, but how far back do you want to go?

I think he considers both the FB4 and FB5 to be current models. There is an FB5 pictured on his site. The FB4 is basicly the FB5 with approximately one inch long straight integral guards, and it is awesome, light years past the FB3 in terms of balance and design. You wouldn't want to go back to the FB3, the FB4 is just too much better. If you want something a little more utility oriented, he is making something he calls his Y2K Camp Knife, which is based on his FB4, with a little more belly and mass, but still plenty fast. I am waiting to see a scan of it soon.

Harv

[This message has been edited by Steve Harvey (edited 06 August 1999).]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top