Scandi grinds on nessmuk?

H

Hesparus

Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
1,442
Hi Everyone,

I've been really interested in the nessmuk style blade lately (I'm a knifemaker, FWI, so I've been reading everything I can find on them and looking at as many examples as I can find. I've seen a number of nessmuks with scandi grinds and I'm a little confused about it. To my understanding, Nessmuk used his folder and hatchet for processing wood, and his knife for processing game, whereas a scandi grind is optimized for processing wood. So it seems to be a bit of an odd juxtaposition to put a grind that's most useful for wood on a blade profile that was never intended for wood. What do you gain from having a scandi grind on a nessmuk profile? I'd really appreciate some insight on this.
Thanks,
Chris
 
Hesparus said:
Hi Everyone,I've been really interested in the nessmuk style blade lately (I'm a knifemaker, FWI, so I've been reading everything I can find on them and looking at as many examples as I can find. I've seen a number of nessmuks with scandi grinds and I'm a little confused about it. To my understanding, Nessmuk used his folder and hatchet for processing wood, and his knife for processing game, whereas a scandi grind is optimized for processing wood. So it seems to be a bit of an odd juxtaposition to put a grind that's most useful for wood on a blade profile that was never intended for wood. What do you gain from having a scandi grind on a nessmuk profile? I'd really appreciate some insight on this.Thanks,Chris
Click to expand...
One thing: It makes for a new chiseller's device to part a fool from their money. Other than that you've just killed a slicer.
 
That was kind of my thought as well — scandi grinds are popular these days, and nessmuks are always popular, so together they must be irresistible. But I'm not a bushcrafter (although I'm thinking about it), so what do I know?
Anybody have a counter-point?

- Chris
 
I totally agree with your conclusions. From reading his and some of Kephart's book I get the inkling that the hunting knife was for game and food only. However, if you look at the etching it does look like a scandi or scandivex grind. And if you take into account the fact that he also says to have a knife as thin as you can get, a scandivex grind makes perfect sense. On modern repro's of the nessmuk, almost every single one is WAY too thick. My guess is he was using a 1/16" thick knife and a grind like a scandivex works fantastically. In fact a full convex would probably make the knife too delicate. If you listen to Koyote talk he repeatedly says how well 3/32" thick knives with a scandivex grind does when butchering game and I think Nessmuk probably fealt the same.
 
Only contribution I can make here is that my Scandi Koster Nessmuk appears to work great on all mediums !
 
You make some good points. When you have a blade that is only 1/6" thick, though, I think the differences between flat grind and scandi grind start to disappear. I think that with 1/8" stock, a full flat grind would be a sufficiently faithful reproduction of Nessmuk's knife, even if his was probably thinner at the spine (agree/disagree?). From a maker's perspective, anything thinner than 3/32" is such a pain that it's usually not worth it.
At any rate, my original question was really about 1/8" stock with a scandi grind than about scandi grinds in general (I should have clarified).

- Chris
 
@ Pitdog: Koster's nessmuks were one of the main reason I asked this question. He's a guy who I trust to know what he's doing, but it still seemed odd to me.

- Chris
 
Hesparus said:
You make some good points. When you have a blade that is only 1/6" thick, though, I think the differences between flat grind and scandi grind start to disappear. I think that with 1/8" stock, a full flat grind would be a sufficiently faithful reproduction of Nessmuk's knife, even if his was probably thinner at the spine (agree/disagree?). From a maker's perspective, anything thinner than 3/32" is such a pain that it's usually not worth it.
At any rate, my original question was really about 1/8" stock with a scandi grind than about scandi grinds in general (I should have clarified).

- Chris
Click to expand...

I agree that on thicker knives it makes no sense whatsoever. I just about threw my 1/8" Koster Bushcraft across the room out of frustration while trying to cut an onion. I was trying to illustrate that most people don't understand that back then the hunting knife wasn't carried for woodwork. At least that's how I understand it by what I've read.

And I disagree about thin knives. I have no idea how hard it is to make them but I have found a noticeable difference in sub 3/32" blades compared to thicker ones. I have a SAK that has a pretty significant distal taper and the tip of the knife is probably the most aggressive cutter I have. I've split kindling by pressing the tip of the blade straight through the wood. Soft wood of course but still.
 
Hesparus said:
@ Pitdog: Koster's nessmuks were one of the main reason I asked this question. He's a guy who I trust to know what he's doing, but it still seemed odd to me.

- Chris
Click to expand...

I think in all honesty that Dan Koster just went ahead and made what people were asking for. He also makes Nessmuks with a full flat grind. I've had so called full flat grinds that still sucked at cutting food stuff due them having an abrupt secondary bevel, I've also had convexed blades that sucked for that purpose also. Any grind on a 1/8" stock knife from a good maker should cut well. I'd say the Scandi would work best on wood ( soft woods anyway ) but should still be perfectly fine on food prep. The Convexed is probably going to be the toughest edge and would work reasonably well on both wood and food. A good full flat or hollow grind should be the best at food stuff and should still be fine for wood. JMO !!!
 
Without getting too far off topic, you both raise issues of geometry that don't necessarily have anything to do with spine thickness. A full flat grind can slice very poorly or very well depending on (1) the steepness of the secondary bevel, and (2) the thickness of the primary bevel at the start of the secondary bevel. A knife made from 3/32" stock can slice more poorly than a knife made from 1/4" stock if the secondary bevel angle is 90º and the edge is 2/32" thick before the secondary bevel. The knife made from 3/32" stock has a greater potential for being a good slicer, though. Another issue is bevel width, which pertains to how 'wedge-like' the knife is, or the angle of the primary bevel. A shallower angle in the primary bevel will slice more effortlessly than a steep angle. Again, this can override stock thickness. Imagine two knives: one is 1/8" thick and 2" wide, and the other is 1/16" thick and 1" wide. Both have a full flat grind and no secondary bevel. These knives will slice with identical results because 1" into the blade of the 2" wide knife, the blade is only 1/16" thick.
When I said that a scandi grind on a 1/16" thick blade is similar to a FFG on a 1/8" blade, I meant it with the caveat that the edge on the 1/8" knife isn't ground too thick. A scandi grind on a 1/8" knife will be terrible for cutting an onion, but I've got a 1/8" thick chef's knife that works beautifully on onions because the angle of the secondary bevel is very shallow (whereas the angle on the scandi grind is very steep). A scandi grind on a 1/16" knife will cut an onion pretty well because, even though the bevel has a relatively steep angle, the material is not being wedged apart very much on account of the extremely thin blade. Narrow hollow grinds (sometimes even wide hollow grinds) on thicker material can have the same types of problems that scandi grinds have, if you are cutting thick, firm materials with them.
So that's what I meant when I favorably compared a scandi grind on a 1/16" knife to a FFG on a 1/8" knife. The type of grind and the stock thickness are two important factors for slicing ability, but there are more to consider. I hope this made sense.

- Chris
 
Hesparus said:
Without getting too far off topic, you both raise issues of geometry that don't necessarily have anything to do with spine thickness. A full flat grind can slice very poorly or very well depending on (1) the steepness of the secondary bevel, and (2) the thickness of the primary bevel at the start of the secondary bevel. A knife made from 3/32" stock can slice more poorly than a knife made from 1/4" stock if the secondary bevel angle is 90º and the edge is 2/32" thick before the secondary bevel. The knife made from 3/32" stock has a greater potential for being a good slicer, though. Another issue is bevel width, which pertains to how 'wedge-like' the knife is, or the angle of the primary bevel. A shallower angle in the primary bevel will slice more effortlessly than a steep angle. Again, this can override stock thickness. Imagine two knives: one is 1/8" thick and 2" wide, and the other is 1/16" thick and 1" wide. Both have a full flat grind and no secondary bevel. These knives will slice with identical results because 1" into the blade of the 2" wide knife, the blade is only 1/16" thick.
When I said that a scandi grind on a 1/16" thick blade is similar to a FFG on a 1/8" blade, I meant it with the caveat that the edge on the 1/8" knife isn't ground too thick. A scandi grind on a 1/8" knife will be terrible for cutting an onion, but I've got a 1/8" thick chef's knife that works beautifully on onions because the angle of the secondary bevel is very shallow (whereas the angle on the scandi grind is very steep). A scandi grind on a 1/16" knife will cut an onion pretty well because, even though the bevel has a relatively steep angle, the material is not being wedged apart very much on account of the extremely thin blade. Narrow hollow grinds (sometimes even wide hollow grinds) on thicker material can have the same types of problems that scandi grinds have, if you are cutting thick, firm materials with them.
So that's what I meant when I favorably compared a scandi grind on a 1/16" knife to a FFG on a 1/8" knife. The type of grind and the stock thickness are two important factors for slicing ability, but there are more to consider. I hope this made sense.

- Chris
Click to expand...

I agree with the above 100% :cool::thumbup:

I'll also raise the point that the transition between the primary and secondary bevels can also play a role, as I find that a blended or convexed transition between the bevels can make for a smoother slice because of the gradual shift rather than a harsh one. This results in better control of the cut, resulting in better performance on the part of the individual.
 
I agree with much already posted above!
I am moving away from scandi grinds lately. I like full flat and my own edge on the knife..if its a 3/16" or thinner full flat, I can make the edge to my liking and cut just about anything.
I can't see cutting to many onions in the wild though...meat though, thats another thing. I can cut meat just fine with a sharp scandi, and have.
I can't cut vegi's with them very well, except the thinner ones, like Mora 510's and such.
I also like a nice almost flat convex grind to.
 
Yeah scandis work fine for wood or soft targets that can freely deform (funny given how those two target classes are total opposites!) but it's the whole semi-resistant range in between that they do very poorly on, typically speaking.
 
So if we're in agreement about the types of materials that scandi grinds cut well, is there any benefit to having a scandi grind with a nessmuk profile (1/8" stock)?

- Chris
 
I think that 1/8" stock is the maximum thickness where--with a THIN scandi or convex edge--you can still have decent slicing ability whilst being robust enough for general bushcraft tasks as well. While the original knife was intended for food/game prep ONLY, an 1/8" scandi or convex Nessmuk knife plays a balancing act between food prep and general utility. Anything thicker than 1/8" and that's a whole other kettle of fish. :p
 
Hesparus said:
Without getting too far off topic, you both raise issues of geometry that don't necessarily have anything to do with spine thickness. A full flat grind can slice very poorly or very well depending on (1) the steepness of the secondary bevel, and (2) the thickness of the primary bevel at the start of the secondary bevel. A knife made from 3/32" stock can slice more poorly than a knife made from 1/4" stock if the secondary bevel angle is 90º and the edge is 2/32" thick before the secondary bevel. The knife made from 3/32" stock has a greater potential for being a good slicer, though. Another issue is bevel width, which pertains to how 'wedge-like' the knife is, or the angle of the primary bevel. A shallower angle in the primary bevel will slice more effortlessly than a steep angle. Again, this can override stock thickness. Imagine two knives: one is 1/8" thick and 2" wide, and the other is 1/16" thick and 1" wide. Both have a full flat grind and no secondary bevel. These knives will slice with identical results because 1" into the blade of the 2" wide knife, the blade is only 1/16" thick.
When I said that a scandi grind on a 1/16" thick blade is similar to a FFG on a 1/8" blade, I meant it with the caveat that the edge on the 1/8" knife isn't ground too thick. A scandi grind on a 1/8" knife will be terrible for cutting an onion, but I've got a 1/8" thick chef's knife that works beautifully on onions because the angle of the secondary bevel is very shallow (whereas the angle on the scandi grind is very steep). A scandi grind on a 1/16" knife will cut an onion pretty well because, even though the bevel has a relatively steep angle, the material is not being wedged apart very much on account of the extremely thin blade. Narrow hollow grinds (sometimes even wide hollow grinds) on thicker material can have the same types of problems that scandi grinds have, if you are cutting thick, firm materials with them.
So that's what I meant when I favorably compared a scandi grind on a 1/16" knife to a FFG on a 1/8" knife. The type of grind and the stock thickness are two important factors for slicing ability, but there are more to consider. I hope this made sense.

- Chris
Click to expand...

I'm not saying you can't make a high performing knife out of thick stock I'm saying that through my experience I've noticed a difference and it's mainly when the whole knife has to pass through the medium being cut. Everything being equal the thinner knife will out perform a thicker one because eventually the overall thickness will come into play. A thicker knife has to deform the material more to pass through. I'm not saying it would outperform it by a wide margin but the performance difference is there IME.

Edit: I think we're talking about two different things. I think I switched up on ya. A FFG on a 1/8" thick knife can be made to cut better then a scandi on a 1/16" thick knife. I agree. However, if you have the same grind angles on both a 1/16" thick knife and a 1/8" thick knife, the 1/16" thick will out perform the 1/8". To my original point, the 1/16" knife doesn't need a FFG to perform like a FFG 1/8" knife which is why a scandi works on thin knives but IMO sucks on thick ones. Hopefully that's a little more clear. I think we're in agreement.
 
Last edited:
Shotgun said:
I'm not saying you can't make a high performing knife out of thick stock I'm saying that through my experience I've noticed a difference and it's mainly when the whole knife has to pass through the medium being cut. Everything being equal the thinner knife will out perform a thicker one because eventually the overall thickness will come into play. A thicker knife has to deform the material more to pass through. I'm not saying it would outperform it by a wide margin but the performance difference is there IME.

Edit: I think we're talking about two different things. I think I switched up on ya. A FFG on a 1/8" thick knife can be made to cut better then a scandi on a 1/16" thick knife. I agree. However, if you have the same grind angles on both a 1/16" thick knife and a 1/8" thick knife, the 1/16" thick will out perform the 1/8". To my original point, the 1/16" knife doesn't need a FFG to perform like a FFG 1/8" knife which is why a scandi works on thin knives but IMO sucks on thick ones. Hopefully that's a little more clear. I think we're in agreement.
Click to expand...

From my perspective it seems so! :thumbup:
 
Looks like we're all in agreement about geometry!
Let me clarify my last question: It seems to me that the purpose of having a broad blade (for a hunting type knife) is so that one can take advantage of a full flat grind (or a scandi-like grind on very thin stock), while maintaining the thickness of the spine for strength. If you have a scandi grind on 1/8" thick material, you don't need to make the blade very wide to maintain strength and spine thickness. So why have a blade as wide as a nessmuk if you're going to have a scandi grind? Is there some other purpose to it?

- Chris
 
A broad blade concentrates mass directly behind the cutting edge, rather than to the side. This increases the the cutting power of the knife without increasing the amount of material that must be displaced during the cut.
 
I'm not convinced that what you describe is true for this type of knife (or maybe I'm misunderstanding you). Without changing the geometry, I can only see cutting power increasing with added width under two conditions: (1) if you are chopping with the blade or (2) if the blade is bending when you are trying to apply force with the edge. The nessmuk wasn't designed for chopping, so I don't see the first being an issue. Nessmuks have a narrow 'neck,' so adding width toward the tip wouldn't increase strength, anyway, so the second condition doesn't seem likely, either.

- Chris
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top