- Joined
- Jan 26, 2002
- Messages
- 2,737
Snagged a 21" Chit by Amtrack with cracked saatisal handle.
1 1/2 inch crack at bolster. It was a very narrow surface crack that seemed to only go down 3/16 inch or so. Coarse-sanded the handle and fed it some orange oil being carful to not get any in the crack. Even though it came heavily waxed, the wood was pretty parched. Also filed down the edges of the buttcap and used a triangular file to file in a groove all the way around where the buttcap and wood meet. There was a small gap between wood and buttcap at the pointy parts top and bottom where the wood had shrunk back a bit.
I filled the crack with a mixture of 90 min epoxy and sawdust (couldn't readily find pecan shells, Sarge--next time I see some in the shell, I'll buy some) forced into the wood with my finger protected by wax paper. Then sanded it while the epoxy was still wet. Wasn't quite flush, so repeat. Now the crack looks like a slightly wider line of dark grain which should blend right in after the handle is oiled and polished. Didn't even consider putting hose clamps on it. Also filled the gaps at the buttcap and sealed all around the buttcap with the epoxy mixture.
So far the handle is very tight after a little chopping and slapping. Very nice looking piece of wood, it should Walosify quite well.
I'll compare it to a 18" Chit by Kesar, since that's the closest knife I've got.
Amtrack handle is straight with a bit more hookto the pommel at the bottom side of the butt. Kesar handle has a slight, but clearly visible graceful curve. Kesar made a much wider checkered band and also put lenghtwise notches in the narrow bands on each side. Amtrack ground away or missed quite a few grooves in the checkering that hade to be deepened or restored before sanding. Amtrack buttcap is smoother and shows hardly any evidence of hammer marks. Kesar checkered the bolster for its full circumference in a band next to the handle. Amtrack checkered the sides only, on the front portion up to the angled part and left a plain band next to the wood. Kesar's slightly curved handle locks into my hand a little more naturally, but it's also smaller with more carving.
Some blade differences may be due to the fact that the knives are of different size.
Kesar used two narrow fullers and ground a bevel that is about 1/2 the width of the blade. Amtrack made two quite wide fullers and the bevel is only about 1/5 the width of the blade. Amtracks bevel is just over 1/2 the width of the bevel on the smaller blade. Anmtrack's narrower bevel is much closer to convex--there are fewer, smaller hollow spots after using whetstones and sandpaper to try and establish a full convex edge. Amtrack's fullers have very straight edges and may be deeper, but I don't have a micrometer to see for sure. It is very obvious where the fullers start near the ricasso and "elbow" on Amtracks work, Kesar's sorta just blend in where they start and the edges are a bit wavy.
Kesar's blade is much more "wasp-waisted" in shape and the blade has more belly, especially towards the point. Kesar ground down the last bit of the edge near the cho so the profile was even with the ricasso behind the cho. Amtrack left the edge full width and sharp all the way to the cho so that there is a hook where the narrower ricasso starts. Amtrack's scrollwork is much tighter and smaller in the sword of Shiva, but less regular. Both ground a bit into the scrollwork on one side when finishing the fullers.
Amtrack's K&C have smaller blades than those that came with the 18" by Kesar, though Amtrack's handles are a little beefier with wide butts. Chakma by Kesar better decorated.
Kesar's Chitangi looks a little more graceful and styled like the old khuks.
I was a bit worried that the 30 oz knife by Amtrack would be a bit unwieldy, but the darn thing feels much livlier in hand than a 26 oz, 20" sirupati by Bura. Dunno how much is due to the fullers and how much is due to the longer handle with big pommel, but the Chit feels lighter.
All said, a great deal for a great knife, and it was interesting to do the comparison.
1 1/2 inch crack at bolster. It was a very narrow surface crack that seemed to only go down 3/16 inch or so. Coarse-sanded the handle and fed it some orange oil being carful to not get any in the crack. Even though it came heavily waxed, the wood was pretty parched. Also filed down the edges of the buttcap and used a triangular file to file in a groove all the way around where the buttcap and wood meet. There was a small gap between wood and buttcap at the pointy parts top and bottom where the wood had shrunk back a bit.
I filled the crack with a mixture of 90 min epoxy and sawdust (couldn't readily find pecan shells, Sarge--next time I see some in the shell, I'll buy some) forced into the wood with my finger protected by wax paper. Then sanded it while the epoxy was still wet. Wasn't quite flush, so repeat. Now the crack looks like a slightly wider line of dark grain which should blend right in after the handle is oiled and polished. Didn't even consider putting hose clamps on it. Also filled the gaps at the buttcap and sealed all around the buttcap with the epoxy mixture.
So far the handle is very tight after a little chopping and slapping. Very nice looking piece of wood, it should Walosify quite well.
I'll compare it to a 18" Chit by Kesar, since that's the closest knife I've got.
Amtrack handle is straight with a bit more hookto the pommel at the bottom side of the butt. Kesar handle has a slight, but clearly visible graceful curve. Kesar made a much wider checkered band and also put lenghtwise notches in the narrow bands on each side. Amtrack ground away or missed quite a few grooves in the checkering that hade to be deepened or restored before sanding. Amtrack buttcap is smoother and shows hardly any evidence of hammer marks. Kesar checkered the bolster for its full circumference in a band next to the handle. Amtrack checkered the sides only, on the front portion up to the angled part and left a plain band next to the wood. Kesar's slightly curved handle locks into my hand a little more naturally, but it's also smaller with more carving.
Some blade differences may be due to the fact that the knives are of different size.
Kesar used two narrow fullers and ground a bevel that is about 1/2 the width of the blade. Amtrack made two quite wide fullers and the bevel is only about 1/5 the width of the blade. Amtracks bevel is just over 1/2 the width of the bevel on the smaller blade. Anmtrack's narrower bevel is much closer to convex--there are fewer, smaller hollow spots after using whetstones and sandpaper to try and establish a full convex edge. Amtrack's fullers have very straight edges and may be deeper, but I don't have a micrometer to see for sure. It is very obvious where the fullers start near the ricasso and "elbow" on Amtracks work, Kesar's sorta just blend in where they start and the edges are a bit wavy.
Kesar's blade is much more "wasp-waisted" in shape and the blade has more belly, especially towards the point. Kesar ground down the last bit of the edge near the cho so the profile was even with the ricasso behind the cho. Amtrack left the edge full width and sharp all the way to the cho so that there is a hook where the narrower ricasso starts. Amtrack's scrollwork is much tighter and smaller in the sword of Shiva, but less regular. Both ground a bit into the scrollwork on one side when finishing the fullers.
Amtrack's K&C have smaller blades than those that came with the 18" by Kesar, though Amtrack's handles are a little beefier with wide butts. Chakma by Kesar better decorated.
Kesar's Chitangi looks a little more graceful and styled like the old khuks.
I was a bit worried that the 30 oz knife by Amtrack would be a bit unwieldy, but the darn thing feels much livlier in hand than a 26 oz, 20" sirupati by Bura. Dunno how much is due to the fullers and how much is due to the longer handle with big pommel, but the Chit feels lighter.
All said, a great deal for a great knife, and it was interesting to do the comparison.
