I whipped up a quick comparison just for you Rob
I grabbed my buddy stjones, a good old faithful NMFBM, a nice mint 1/300 ASHBM, and a B11 just for the heck of it.
The combatants!
The weigh in!
1/300 ASHBM
NMFBM
B11
Thickness at the ricasso:
1/300 ASHBM: 0.311
NMFBM: 0.288
B11: 0.259
Thickness at the shoulder they measured:
1/300 ASHBM: 0.040
NMFBM: 0.069
B11: 0.055
The test medium was some 4"x4" kiln dried Douglas fir posts.
First up was 5 swings per knife by myself and stjones (I had the greyish block, he had the red one)
Then another 15, for a total of 20
Then 30 more, for a total of 50
Our conclusion was that they are all pretty even at the 50 swing mark. The thickness of the NMFBM starts to hamper it at that point IMO, but a zero edge would probably bring it clearly into the lead. But it is nearly a pound heavier than the B11, and almost a half pound more than the ASHBM (granted it might be a bit lighter than an LE or CG due to the swedge, but it's what I have). The NMFBM definitely hits harder, but I'd rather carry another knife along with my B11 or ASHBM for the same weight as the NMFBM.
Comfort while chopping I'd say went to the ASHBM. It seemed to lock into my grip better than the NMFBM. I'm a big fan of the Basic 11, and the ResC was as good as expected, but I did experience a small bit of slippage. With the NMFBM, I found I was readjusting my grip every couple swings, even with gloves on.
All in all, I'd rate the three overall as B11, ASHBM, NMFBM, simply because the B11 kept right up with the MUCH heavier competition, and who doesn't like Basics?
Straight up chopping beast rating, NMFBM (would be even BETTER with a zero edge), ASHBM, B11. Much like engines, there's no replacement for displacement.
But just because I ranked the ASHBM second, it definitely surprised me with how it did against the others, and it definitely displayed what it is capable of.
As usual, this is just my opinion, and YMMV.