- Joined
- Dec 3, 2005
- Messages
- 1,991
redhawk...I have always thought they were pretty much the same thing!!!
Good post's guys!
Good post's guys!
-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is available! Price is $250 ea (shipped within CONUS).
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/
Questions about Scandi Grind
- Thread starter bladeprince
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2004
- Messages
- 1,035
Thanks. I thought I was missing some subtle difference.
Sal Glesser
Moderator
- Joined
- Dec 27, 1998
- Messages
- 11,714
Hey Prince,
Open thy mind.
Usually when something has been around for a long time, there must be some reason for it. Especially in the very old world of "sharp pointy things". That reason may not work for you, but that doesn't invalidate the reason.
As I understand it, and there are those with greater undertanding, the primary "performance" advantage to a "scandi" grind is the ability to have and maintain a "zero" angle edge/bevel and not have the edge too thin. The main "performance" advantage of the zero grind is for "biting" into wood. Much like a wood plane or chisel, but with a double bevel.
The "Bushcrafters" use a knife a great deal when out in the bush and the primary "work" is done with wood. The scandi edge also performs well enough for food preparation, (another "work" of the knife in the bush) and can be maintained with a "rock" in the field, if necessary.
A "full flat" zero edge grind leaves the edge too thin, so beginning the grind mid blade of so gives that compromise.
Another way of solving the same problem is the zero grind "slack-belt" edge that the blade smiths use. I believe Mike Stewrt is doing this with some of his Bark River" knives. But it's harder to maintain and some of the bushcrafters say it isn't quite the same as working with a flat bevel of a scandi.
I don't think this is a "what's better?" question.
Would you rather go to the country or by bus?
sal
Open thy mind.
Usually when something has been around for a long time, there must be some reason for it. Especially in the very old world of "sharp pointy things". That reason may not work for you, but that doesn't invalidate the reason.
As I understand it, and there are those with greater undertanding, the primary "performance" advantage to a "scandi" grind is the ability to have and maintain a "zero" angle edge/bevel and not have the edge too thin. The main "performance" advantage of the zero grind is for "biting" into wood. Much like a wood plane or chisel, but with a double bevel.
The "Bushcrafters" use a knife a great deal when out in the bush and the primary "work" is done with wood. The scandi edge also performs well enough for food preparation, (another "work" of the knife in the bush) and can be maintained with a "rock" in the field, if necessary.
A "full flat" zero edge grind leaves the edge too thin, so beginning the grind mid blade of so gives that compromise.
Another way of solving the same problem is the zero grind "slack-belt" edge that the blade smiths use. I believe Mike Stewrt is doing this with some of his Bark River" knives. But it's harder to maintain and some of the bushcrafters say it isn't quite the same as working with a flat bevel of a scandi.
I don't think this is a "what's better?" question.
Would you rather go to the country or by bus?
sal
- Joined
- May 26, 1999
- Messages
- 1,964
How does the Scandi grind differ from Sabre grind?
There's no edge bevel on a Scandinavian grind. The two wide bevels of the primary grind go all the way down and meet to form the edge. (You could also say that there are edge bevels, but the angles are set at 0 degrees relative to the primary grind.) If you were to put normal sized edge bevels on the blade, it would no longer be a Scandi grind and would turn into a regular saber grind.
Ok one more time, our moderator is on the right track. The knife use tradition for a small scandi knife is somewhat as follows: it was/is an everyday tool used for dressing animals to eating to working wood. Almost everyone carried one. For cutting meat etc. the "classical" scandi grind works well (except moose and reindeer hair is surprisingly hard on the edge). For wood working most people I have known prefer the slightly convex edge, it gives one much more control over what one does. So one grinds the blade according to one's preferences and for the work at hand.
For outdoor and hunting an axe was carried so no whacking type of knives were in use except in Lappland where the big leuku was used for twiggs or bush.
For all I know that tradition has carried on for the last 1500 years, ever since iron making was learned locally. It is not the only way but it has worked here for some time, so why change?
TLM
For outdoor and hunting an axe was carried so no whacking type of knives were in use except in Lappland where the big leuku was used for twiggs or bush.
For all I know that tradition has carried on for the last 1500 years, ever since iron making was learned locally. It is not the only way but it has worked here for some time, so why change?
TLM
Cliff Stamp
BANNED
- Joined
- Oct 5, 1998
- Messages
- 17,562
The bevel on such knives is typically 9-11 degrees, in comparison the primary bevel on a 10" bowie is typically 3.5 degrees. I am well aware of the angles, I have been quantifing the geometry of knives for quite some time now.
I do a fair amount of chopping but that was not the only context in which I made the above comment. They are inefficient in any way you would evaluate a knife outside of the cheapness they can be made. Of course there are as well scandinavian blades designed for chopping and the grind is inefficent there as well for the same reasons. What is ironic is that I am arguing the cross section should be reduced and your contention is that I am using the knives too hard. You are the one advocating a thicker grind so your criticism should be directed inward.
The height of the edge bevel will be dependent on the blade thickness.
Tradition doesn't indicate performance. Spyderco has been responsible for a number of evolutions to knife design which never would have taken place from the perspective which supported a stagant viewpoint. The fact that you constantly upgrade designs reflects this intrinsically. You look at what is done and then how it can be improved.
Since the typical scandinavian grind has only one bevel the degrees of freedom are less and by defination it has to be less optimal. As an example, lets assume that the very edge of the knife requires a 12 degree bevel to be stable for a cutting task. The question is then does this bevel need to be maintained to keep the blade stable as you move back from the edge. The answer to this is no and this is why primary grinds are used on all but the cheapest knives.
Note even chisels, which are so ground are rarely optimal, they are just made that way because it is cheaper. A wood chisel may need for example a 34 degree bevel to cut a certain type of wood so that bevel is applied. However if you move back from the edge does it still need to be 34 degrees. No. What happens if you reduce it to 30 degrees. The chisel cuts better initially and for longer and it is easier to sharpen. Why don't they make them this way - because it costs more and it is tradition.
However if you don't believe me, just take a chisel and regrind it significantly more acute while leaving the last little bit of edge at the same angle and use it. This of course is no different than was was done by Joe Talmadge in his two benchmark reviews of the SRK and Axis when he showed how you could massively increase the initial cutting ability, the cutting lifetime and ease of sharpening by regrinding those profiles and yes those profiles had been used by those companies for quite some time.
The only knives used for food which have such grinds are the extremely cheap ones which cost $2 and are made in taiwan. Primary grinds are used on the all better knives for the same reason they are used on all high quality cutlery. You can also sharpen any knife on a rock in the field regardless of the grind. You can make jigs in the field to simulate a sharpmaker if edge control is an issue.
Adjust the edge thickness to suit the task, no task needs the edge thickness of the scandinavian grinds because it is full stock. For the type of wood working they are used for, even in the extreme, at most you need is about 0.030" thickness with a decent steel. This assumes you want the knife to take very heavy batoning (use a large framing hammer to pound it right through knots), if you are just cutting (no impacts splitting/chopping) then you can be easily half of that or less depending on the skill of the user.
Excellent viewpoint, we should accept the fact that knives never need to change and that any advancement is of no value, both in materials, geometry of heat treatment. After all if the current designs have worked for so long then there is obviously no need to improve them.
-Cliff
Your "typical" "scandi" angle is way off the reality here, a bevel angle of 3.5 deg would mean something like 6 mm thickness in 50 mm wide blade, hmmm. thats a whacker, not a small knife. Comparing apples to melons again.
Not really, when I need to whack something I take an axe and where in the purple canadian heaven did you find that I "advocate" thicker grinds? I haven't said anything like that.
Often not, why should it? If one wants a fixed angle yes but otherwise why?
Evolution does not imply improvement neither does change. The bottom line and marketing hype are nowadays much stronger drivers that improvement.
How about learning to read, ah the explanation given does not fit his pet (halibut) theory. I suppose you have statistics of typical scandinavian grinds to be able to state that. FYI we are not part of scandinavia.
So you finally see the light! Yes, we found the universal knife truth long ago and we are not going to change it, ever. These bog-ore knives are absolutely tops. It's a pity so many people had to emigrate to spread this message, from this I gather some have finally reached Canada!
TLM
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2004
- Messages
- 1,670
You do make a spirited argument, Cliff .... that "duality of heavy contention" I've seen you mention. Having read your reviews of the Mora 2000 and one of the Frosts woodcarving knives I realize you're not totally panning these knives, just pointing out their particular limitations and drawbacks. And every tool has limitations and drawbacks.
I agree generally with your comments about grind and price. I wouldn't for example buy a $40 knife with a saber or Scandi grind when I can buy a full flat grind of similar quality for the same price (why I bemoan the passing of the Caly Jr. and don't consider a Delica a suitable replacement.) Still for a lot of the work people do with an EDC, saber/Scandi grinds are adequate. Not optimal for all work, but adequate for much.
With woodworking and carving I actually don't think it's that big a problem if you consider how woodcarvers and similar use their tools, which is usually removing only small amounts with very controlled cuts. The reason here seems plain enough, if you've gone to a lot of effort or cost to obtain that nice piece of wood you want for whatever you're making, you don't want to risk splitting it. Similar with chisels BTW .... there are high end chisels which have hollows ground into the bevels to speed sharpening. Ease of cutting isn't a factor, since skilled woodworkers usually only remove small amounts at a time, the thin shaving curling out of the way and binding not being an issue.
Bushcraft .... well all I can say is I don't understand the love affair many of them have with Scandi grinds given what all they want out of a knife. Can't defend that one, Cliff, IMO these guys should be listening to you.
The ease of sharpening argument made for Scandi grinds also IMO is mostly specious. In the field using only the simplest sharpening tool(s) there's no reason to maintain the bevel angle, in fact I personally wouldn't bother. If you managed to damage the edge significantly with whatever you were doing, why would you want to restore it to the same angle only to have it happen again?
Still like others I find Scandi grind knives pretty useful. When I can buy a modern Mora for $12 and it has better edge stability and retention at acute angles than many knives costing 10x as much or more can't handle, I can live with the thicker cross section and reduced efficiency of the grind.
I agree generally with your comments about grind and price. I wouldn't for example buy a $40 knife with a saber or Scandi grind when I can buy a full flat grind of similar quality for the same price (why I bemoan the passing of the Caly Jr. and don't consider a Delica a suitable replacement.) Still for a lot of the work people do with an EDC, saber/Scandi grinds are adequate. Not optimal for all work, but adequate for much.
With woodworking and carving I actually don't think it's that big a problem if you consider how woodcarvers and similar use their tools, which is usually removing only small amounts with very controlled cuts. The reason here seems plain enough, if you've gone to a lot of effort or cost to obtain that nice piece of wood you want for whatever you're making, you don't want to risk splitting it. Similar with chisels BTW .... there are high end chisels which have hollows ground into the bevels to speed sharpening. Ease of cutting isn't a factor, since skilled woodworkers usually only remove small amounts at a time, the thin shaving curling out of the way and binding not being an issue.
Bushcraft .... well all I can say is I don't understand the love affair many of them have with Scandi grinds given what all they want out of a knife. Can't defend that one, Cliff, IMO these guys should be listening to you.
The ease of sharpening argument made for Scandi grinds also IMO is mostly specious. In the field using only the simplest sharpening tool(s) there's no reason to maintain the bevel angle, in fact I personally wouldn't bother. If you managed to damage the edge significantly with whatever you were doing, why would you want to restore it to the same angle only to have it happen again?
Still like others I find Scandi grind knives pretty useful. When I can buy a modern Mora for $12 and it has better edge stability and retention at acute angles than many knives costing 10x as much or more can't handle, I can live with the thicker cross section and reduced efficiency of the grind.
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2004
- Messages
- 1,011
Post expired.
Last edited:
Cliff Stamp
BANNED
- Joined
- Oct 5, 1998
- Messages
- 17,562
What is the typical bevel angle then if it isn't 9-11 degrees. There is no way it is more acute because that would force a full height grind and if they are more obtuse then that makes my point even more obvious.
That shows a complete lack of understanding of primary grind angles, that is a very common flat ground angle. It is the angle of the Spyderco Temperance for example. It is also more acute than the typical scandinavian grinds so again it is less of a "whacker" not more.
Your whole arguement is based on it. What I have noted is that the scandinavian blades would benefit from a primary grind which is more acute than the existing edge bevel. I am saying the profile could be reduced, you are the one contending the thicker profile is necessary. You are the wacker in this conversation. You are the one demanding more steel and a heavier blade.
It does by defination. Of course enviroment conditions can change and evolved designs can find themselves inferior. Evolution of course continues to respond to enviroment pressures and the process continues.
The grind is only one aspect of performance, they have the worst grind possible but that isn't the totality of knife performance. You can easily have a knife with a horrible attribute but still chose it over others if it is really cheap or the performance in others areas is high.
That would be the point.
Consider the obvious question of what is all that flat stock steel for? Why not grind it off. by using a primary grind on suitable stock you can produce a knife which is stronger through the body while having less weight and is still thinner at the edge. Now it is lighter and stronger, cuts better and is easier to sharpen. This is of course why knives use primary grinds, fullers and tapers are a continuation of the same principles.
The entire arguement for them makes no sense. Take any knife, remove the primary grind, it is now a single bevel grind, did you make it better? Would anyone argue it - of course not. It is absurd to even suggest it an everyone without exception would know that to be true.
Yup, I recommend them on a constant basis. As I have noted that grind is absurd on higher priced knives, it makes perfect sense on $5 knives until of course people start making knives in a similar steel with similar consistency with full flat/convex/hollow grinds.
-Cliff
On most of my knives it seems to be around 6 deg, only one has 10.
Easily, we just don't use sharpened pry bars here. What you say is geometrical BS.
Apples to tomatoes again, YOU were comparing a small scandi to a 10" bowie. I understand very well that you don't comprehend much.
What argument? I was not arguing anything, not to say anything of the like of your claim.
As you are all the time making strawman arguments, misquoting and putting nonexisten arguments and claims into other's writings, I am stopping this right here. Go on with yourself as you are tending to do. Come back when you learn to discuss.
Not that it was any kind of surprise.
TLM
My 9 yo daughter has a brussellto troll knife, about 1 1/2" blade and 2" handle. The scandi grind on this is perfect for her first fixed blade. Razor sharp, easy to maintain, she learns about rolling the edge on ceramic plates 
micro bevels and cost $8 with sheath. She cuts wood, paper, string, green beans, cardboard, fabric and skin. So, sure scandi may not be perfect, but at the price per performance ratio for a small utility knife, it's close.
micro bevels and cost $8 with sheath. She cuts wood, paper, string, green beans, cardboard, fabric and skin. So, sure scandi may not be perfect, but at the price per performance ratio for a small utility knife, it's close.This is something that I and others have tried to explain. The "why it is as it is" of a "scandi" knife, it is intended for limited use in comparison to bigger and much heavier bowies etc., "everyday Small utility knife" is what most them are trying to be. That is propably what DL's roomfull would finally agree on.
Kliff Stump's geometries err because he is assuming a somewhat fixed thickness, I have blades from 1.5 mm to 3.5 mm thickness, taking into account the local use tradition I don't need any thicker. It is certainly not the allround optimum (what ever that is), it is not intended to be. Having read quite a few of his "tests" I can easily understand why he does not like them, most scandis are just not intended for his kind of use. There are some models that are close to what the british call "bushcraft knife", full tang slab handle versions. I have been around puukkos as long as I can remember (too long nowadays) and seen various models come and go, some modifications stay longer and some become permanent but the few things that seem to stay are small size and thin blades.
Maybe mr. Stump should be kept away from small scandi knives (by force if necessary) and just let him destroy bigger and heavier stuff he seems to like so much.
TLM
The bigger and heavier stuff have their place, too.
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2004
- Messages
- 1,011
Post expired.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2000
- Messages
- 3,002
haven't read alot of the numbers posted by Cliff yet. Maybe I'll try again if I have a hard time getting to sleep tonight.
I've been a huge fan of Scandinavian edges for a few years now. One of my buddies recently cleaned two moose with a Helle he'd gotten from me without ever sharpening it. And game processing isn't even what I'd consider a strong suit for Scandinavian style grinds. They're plenty durable (especially with a slight micro bevel) simple to maintain, and they do a great job at most general camp chores. a convex edge is better on a designated hunting knife, but for everything else outdoors, I've always had the best luck with a decent Scandinavian type grind.
I've also gotten by with one at work lately for everything from cutting fire blanket and wood to shaving my face. how dull and bad is it if I can shave my face with it?
Even better- for $10 or so you can just buy a Mora and find out for yourself, and ignore all of us forum hotheads and blowhards.
http://www.ragweedforge.com/SwedishKnifeCatalog.html
I've been a huge fan of Scandinavian edges for a few years now. One of my buddies recently cleaned two moose with a Helle he'd gotten from me without ever sharpening it. And game processing isn't even what I'd consider a strong suit for Scandinavian style grinds. They're plenty durable (especially with a slight micro bevel) simple to maintain, and they do a great job at most general camp chores. a convex edge is better on a designated hunting knife, but for everything else outdoors, I've always had the best luck with a decent Scandinavian type grind.
I've also gotten by with one at work lately for everything from cutting fire blanket and wood to shaving my face. how dull and bad is it if I can shave my face with it?
Even better- for $10 or so you can just buy a Mora and find out for yourself, and ignore all of us forum hotheads and blowhards.
http://www.ragweedforge.com/SwedishKnifeCatalog.html
Cliff Stamp
BANNED
- Joined
- Oct 5, 1998
- Messages
- 17,562
In this case what you would do is use a built in jig like Boye does on his knives where the guard will naturally rest on the stone so the blade is at the correct edge angle. If you didn't want a guard then what you would do is use a hollow relief to the grind to just break the surface so you were not having to plane down a huge flat when sharpening. This is done on japanese chisels for example and it makes a massive increase in sharpening efficiency. This is how my light utility knives are ground. They are sharpened flat to the stone however the only parts which touch the stone are the spine and the edge because of the primary hollow grind.
Yeah and I noted that the bowie had a thinner edge, the primary grind is even half the angle of the most acute scandinavian knives you own, which you completely missed and went on a rant implying my argument was based on a lack of durability in scandinavian knives when I was pointing out that even my chopping knives, the heaviest ones I use, the ones for the really rough woodwork are still about 1/4 of the edge thickness of the typical Mora's.
Again, in the above I am not advocating they are not thick enough, I have stated clearly they would benefit from a primary grind which would reduce their cross section. The knives that I actually use for simple cutting are not even close in thickness to a typical Mora or even the higher end ones I have handled. Mine are much thinner because they have full primary grinds, so much so that several of them could be made out of the steel in a typical Mora.
I would be interested in some production scandinavian blades which have angles of six degrees and are actually sharpened and used at that angle. On a small cutting knife that is still twice as obtuse as necessary for a primary grind (again try to follow this, your knives are more obtuse than mine, you are the one who is advocating a thicker grind) but it is getting at least sensible.
The numbers are not really the issue, it is as simple as this - would you really argue that taking the primary flat grind off any knife (or hollow or convex) and just leaving it as straight bar stock with an edge bevel would make a more efficient knife? Of course you would not. But that is exactly the argument made by a promotion of the scandinavian grind.
-Cliff
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2004
- Messages
- 1,011
Post expired.
Last edited:
Cliff Stamp
BANNED
- Joined
- Oct 5, 1998
- Messages
- 17,562
Yeah, for that purpose you just want to break the surface and you want to apply the hollow so that it is symmetric with the face of the grind. What you don't want to do is end up with a a deep "T" shape as that will give exactly that type of binding. It is more of a fuller vs the common hollow grind. You can do it yourself with an angle grinder and some sandpaper.
-Cliff