Small, light, stainless fixed blade around $100?

Cory Hess said:
I really should give one a try. You've made an interesting point in that it might just be and optical illusion that's keeping me away. After I made that post I grabbed up my LT Wright Camp MUK, which I love, and went out to chop down some saplings that have sprouted along the treeline of my yard. I realized that the handle on it is probably just as big around as the one on your Falcon. :o I put a caliper on my Camp MUK and the handle is 0.90" across. What would you say the Falcon's handle is? The thickness of my MUK is what makes it so comfortable to me. I don't know why I have this mental block when it comes to puukkos.
Click to expand...

I don't have a caliper, but if you'll settle for my inexpert eyeballin' with a tape measure and a bit of twine then I have three handle measurements that might help:
  • 7/8" thickness edge-on
  • 1 1/8" at the widest point from the side (looking at the flat of the blade)
  • 3 1/2" circumference at the widest point

When I was researching puukkos, that last figure piqued my interest. I saw a Scandinavian knife (I forget which, exactly) listed as having a 3 3/4" circumference, made a little mock-up paper ring with the same circumference, and was surprised that it didn't look or feel large.

The Falcon's handle geometry, with its wide middle and narrower ends, means that most of my hand is gripping the less-than-3 3/12" circumference portions.
 
Well, would you look at that. My Camp MUK handle has a circumference of 3 1/2". I think you might have convinced me that I need a puukko. :p
 
Cory Hess said:
Well, would you look at that. My Camp MUK handle has a circumference of 3 1/2". I think you might have convinced me that I need a puukko. :p
Click to expand...

Excellent! :)

This is like the life cycle of the recommendation thread coming full circle. I can almost hear David Attenborough's voice-over. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top