THE Hollow Handle Knife Thread

[Gaston444]

Now that I think of it, there was another widely available "mid-range" Hollow Handle that was around 9" (8.4" plus the 0.6" handle "extension" you can see) and yet also way above teenage-market crap: I should have known, because that is the one I actually bought as a teenager in 1985!: The Aitor Jungle King I, early version, with a beautiful slim leather sheath, available for only one or two year from 1985 before being replaced by the clunky plastic sheath: I never had any interest in the box-like plastic sheath, as I already carried inside the waistband even back then...: Mine was like the one on the right:

With the oversized handle devoid of cord it actually felt a little like my current Colin Cox... Handle capacity was huuuge...

The downside was the very low flat-ground sabre grind: Sadly it was an extremely dull knife that was very difficult to sharpen owing the unfavourable low-sabre geometry with no hollow grinding: Had it been hollow ground it would have been much better... Today maybe REK could raise the bevel, or thin it out to an acceptable level...

The sawback and the sheath were the two best things about the whole knife: Even today I would rate the original triangular (push reversed) sawback as one of the best I have used, though it tended to "fill up" a little...

I wish I had known about the Parker K692 back then, as the dullness of the Aitor is still a searing memory today (I grew so frustrated I lost interest in large fixed blades for quite a while after that)...

Looking back at the Buck 184 collector's site, I realize that my "no name" version of the Parker Cutlery K692 is actually not really "no name", but simply a less openly marked "Oryx Raider II Survival Knife", which apparently was made from the 1980s into the 1990s.

http://survival-knife-184.com/copies/copies.html

Nothing in the sheath to prevent the knife from slipping out by over an inch, so I wasn't losing much by having no sheath with mine... The modified BMF sheath I now use for my "Raider II" happens to be also from the same 1980s period... You can just make out the transverse-mounted AAA Maglight at the top of the belt loop: A perfect fit!

I really think it is great that they did not simply scale up the Buckmaster to 9": It is surprising to me they went all the way to 9.8", which seems counter-intuitive...

I never understood why they chose 7.5" on the original Buckmaster: It must have been a limit set by the military... If they had offered it in two sizes, I would certainly have got the larger size back in the 1980s, even if it was just 9".

The BMF went from 8" to nearly 9", and I'm sure it gained a lot of sales over the Buckmaster because of this, as it was its main competitor... The BMF is still a nice knife, not too thick edged, but 9" is a bit too small for me nowadays.

So far the only other "Big" mid-ranger I can come up with is the old Aitor... There are probably other mid-range HHs of that time, but they are mostly of a stock thinner than 3/16".

Gaston

 

[TAH]

Thanks for the link, Gaston. I had no idea there were so many copies of the Buckmaster. Interestingly, the author makes a point to state that your "Raider II" is excellent quality.

As for the Buckmaster being 7.5", I always suspected that Buck somewhat copied the award winning Timberline SA blade, which was 7.5" with a primary full width wood saw and a rope saw on the clip.

 

[Gaston444]

Just got my Colin Cox in... Well packed and well made, no issues there...

Unfortunately, the knife itself can't compare to the first Cox I have... It is well made but 2-3 issues really hurt it, not present on my first one:

First issue, the worst, is that the edge geometry is 0.040" at the bevel shoulders (0.020" on my first one, just like a Randall!), and the hollow grind is rather shallow, which makes thinning the bevel worse.

I had bought this knife hoping the bevel was comparable...: No such luck, it is about like my Chris Reeve Jereboam One piece, which I got rid of...

The sheath looked thin but was actually very well made, and the strap is fully tight to the knife: A pleasant good surprise...

Second bad issue: The tube used for the handle is not thin walled like my first Cox, but rather unnecessarily thick, like well over 1 mm, or over 0.040", the result being that, despite being a 10 inch blade, the knife has terrible balance, the center of gravity being backward from the guard which is amazing for a 10" blade of 1/4" stock... The pommel is hugely heavy, and probably all steel, so that plays a big role as well...

To give an idea, the Lile Mission balances well over 1/2" into the blade. Just magnificent in comparison... My broader blade Cox balances about 1/4" or more as well.

The knock-on effect of this is that my new Cox knife feels very, very heavy, especially in view of how narrow the blade is: Even the Reeve balanced about in the guard, or a hair in front, and that just felt like an anvil, while the exact same weight Mission feels like a large feather...: This "anvil" feel is the same effect on my new Cox due to the narrow design of the blade: That poor rearward-heavy balance I suspected would be the case, but I hoped the handle walls would be thinner to help things out...

There's nothing else in that class to buy anyway, so maybe I'll sharpen it and use as a beater to save on my other knives... The compass was dry-type and works very well.

To give an idea, even the uranium-like Oryx Raider II balances maybe 1/8" into the blade, and feels fun to carry in comparison... I would say the new Cox is barely one or two ounces lighter than the 27-28 ounces Oryx, but, incredibly enough, it is heavier than my earlier Cox below, owing the thick tube handle walls: If you are heavier than this monster below with an empty handle, and with a shorter and much slimmer blade, that is not really promising...:

Gaston

P.S. After further consideration, I think the bevel re-done by REK to 15 per side, and the buttcap shaved down to have a flat "hammer" surface will make this a somewhat less butt-heavy keeper... The pommel will be re-Cerakoated to black of course, as the original black coating seems like quite good stuff...

 

[TAH]

Very nice knife, Gaston. I believe that model was called the Black Knight. Makes me wonder how much thought Jimmy Lile put into the buttcap material regarding balance. Did he choose aluminum to make the knife blade heavy or simply because aluminum would not interfere with the compass. In Lile's own words, chopping was never mentioned when designing the Rambo knives. He does mention that they were designed for combat in necessary - perhaps another good reason to keep the weight down. If Cox's buttcap is indeed steel, it must be 300 series stainless, which is non-magnetic.

My Running River has a heavy wall handle tube and nicely balances right behind the guard - one of the features I like about it. Then again, it was designed to be more of a general purpose knife for camping and butchering game than a dedicated chopper. Personally, I don't care for blade heavy knives, because I just don't chop with my knives.

PS - I really like Cox's fine handle knurling. Looks great! :thumbup:

 

[Gaston444]

Yes that knurling is perfect...

I will try to have that buttcap really shaved down, maybe 2-3 ounces... And that should be good enough...

How heavy is the Running River? I don't think a heavy hollow handle is inevitable...

Gaston

 

[TAH]

Unfortunately, I don't have a good scale to weigh it, but I love its weight. It's heavy, but it doesn't bother me because it is so nicely balanced.

Cox loved those pointy skull crushers.

 

[TAH]

...the buttcap shaved down to have a flat "hammer" surface...The pommel will be re-Cerakoated to black...The compass was dry-type and works very well.

Curious, how is the Cerakoat applied? Can it be applied to just the buttcap's new flat surface or does the entire buttcap refinished? I'm wondering about the compass and how it is protected during the process. BTW, that compass is very rare and valuable. It was made by Marbles throughout the 70s and early 80s. Marbles then switched to a white dial compass. In the last several years, I have only seen three white dial compasses and maybe one black dial (with meridian line) surface on eBay. They sell for around $100.

Here is my mini compass collection for comparison. The Waltham (#2) is the most rare and highest quality, as far as finish. The bottom edge of the brass case is nicely rounded.




1) Karl Mfg., .25" brass, dry, non-luminous, USA (1990s)
2) Waltham, .50" brass, dry, non-luminous, USA, used by Randall (early 60s - early 70s) and by Lile in the original 13 First Blood knives (early 80s)
3) Marbles, .50" brass, dry ,non-luminous, USA, used by Timberline (late 80s)
4) Pyser-SGI, .60" brass, dry, luminous, England (? - present)
5) Marbles, .75" brass, dry, luminous, USA, used by Timberline (early 90s)
6) Tokyo Compass, .55" plastic, liquid, luminous, Japan, used by Randall (late 90s - present)
7) Marbles, .50" brass, dry, non-luminous, USA, used by Randall and other custom knifemakers (mid 80s - late 90s)
8) Marbles, .50" brass, dry, luminous, USA, used by Randall, Lile, Timberline, and other custom knifemakers (70s - mid 80s)
9) Marbles, 1" brass, dry, luminous, USA (mid 90s)

 

[Gaston444]

Yes mine is like your #8, with identical lettering and center axis, except that yours appears to have some letters in a kind of "yellow" off-white. Mine is all-white.

Cox used to offers a pivoting ring that allowed removing the compass at will, but not on mine... It will be heated to 200 degrees prior to spraying (it will be masked off): To give you an idea how survivable this is for a mostly all-metal objet, I had the Lile "Mission" re-sprayed with the nylon handle rope masked off by simple tape, still on the handle at 200 degrees, and the nylon was unscathed... It should be all right...

The biggest problem with Cerakoating hollow handle knives is that the G-flex type resin, that is so essential to their construction, "sweats" oil through the guard, in reaction to the object's preparation heating: In the Lile's case, it "sweated" over the already drying paint, so there was no adverse effect of it getting underneath... It caused Josh and me some "sweating", but the trick was to be fast about spraying the paint before the resin's oil had time to "leak" through the guard...

The key to Cerakoating is that the steel is sandblasted prior to painting. I've never seen tougher paint, but something is tougher now, although not quite as water-isolating: Cerakoating still did the best against rust, as tougher finishes are not quite full "coats" but more like "surface treatments".

Gaston

 

[Jackal87]

Damn, what a wonderful collection of compasses!! Congrats!!

 

[TAH]

Yes mine is like your #8, with identical lettering and center axis, except that yours appears to have some letters in a kind of "yellow" off-white. Mine is all-white.

Cox used to offers a pivoting ring that allowed removing the compass at will, but not on mine... It will be heated to 200 degrees prior to spraying (it will be masked off): To give you an idea how survivable this is for a mostly all-metal objet, I had the Lile "Mission" re-sprayed with the nylon handle rope masked off by simple tape, still on the handle at 200 degrees, and the nylon was unscathed... It should be all right...

The biggest problem with Cerakoating hollow handle knives is that the G-flex type resin, that is so essential to their construction, "sweats" oil through the guard, in reaction to the object's preparation heating: In the Lile's case, it "sweated" over the already drying paint, so there was no adverse effect of it getting underneath... It caused Josh and me some "sweating", but the trick was to be fast about spraying the paint before the resin's oil had time to "leak" through the guard...

The key to Cerakoating is that the steel is sandblasted prior to painting. I've never seen tougher paint, but something is tougher now, although not quite as water-isolating: Cerakoating still did the best against rust, as tougher finishes are not quite full "coats" but more like "surface treatments".

Gaston

Interesting! Let's us know how it turns out.

Damn, what a wonderful collection of compasses!! Congrats!!

Thanks Jackal.

 

[TAH]

why NOT go with a full-tang knife and a sheath that has a waterproof compartment to store the survival kit?

Actually, I did this with my Randall a while back and finally took some photos last night. The idea was to turn the sheath's hone pocket into a small, but effective, survival kit. The pocket contains basic items for fire-starting, fishing, and navigation. Kit includes a firesteel, fatwood, arrowhead/striker, 7' of 100lb. micro cord, Royal Coachman fly, and compass. All items are waterproof.

 

[robgmn]

That is one handsome knife.

 

[Mark Knapp]

why NOT go with a full-tang knife and a sheath that has a waterproof compartment to store the survival kit?

I think, for several reasons.

1. Because you don't have too, there is virtually no sacrifice to have a hollow handle.
2. It's a waist of space that can be used.
3. It would be very difficult to have a waterproofed container in the sheath, unless you add a container. The easiest way to accomplish a waterproofed container is with a screw on lid, most HH knives already have that screw on lid. A round container with a screw on lid in a sheath seems awkward to me.

I think that most peoples objection to the HH knife stems from their' early exposure to them from the back of a comic book. It's hard to separate those impressions from the quality knives that are available today.

I prefer to have my knife full, my sheath full and my back pack full, then, hopefully, I am ready for whatever I need to do.

 

[Gaston444]

I was going with the engineering fact that a multi-piece design is inherently weaker than a single piece, even if multi-pieces are made that are amazingly strong.

Yes you can do both, but is the tradeoff one that makes sense?
If you actually needed the knife for your survival, is the risk of "because I CAN" worth the possible problems it could entail?
Personally, I would want a knife that was damn near indestructible, and have a pouch the size of a film container on my sheath rather than a knife that SHOULD be indestructible, but crap may happen.

Strictly theroetical/conversational here.
I have no plans to become John Rambo, and no plans to be a Gaston with a Lile blade in my bike shorts.

Well to address the single piece issue, I have owned and used an 8.75" blade Chris Reeve Jereboam Mk II for seven years (2009 to 2016), and used it fairly often during those seven years, enough to go through the original coating and two subsequent Cerakoatings, which are even tougher...: I have used this knife as much if not way more than most owners... It did not grow on me, unfortunately...

My conclusion is unequivocal: Despite engineering theory, a one piece hollow handle is inherently inferior to a separate tube handle: Furthermore, it could never be as good, no matter how hard you tried... And if you tried, then it would be weaker... Here is why:

A-By having two separate parts, you can make the tube thinner, and it can remain thinner all the way to the guard, because the strength of the handle is not carried on the tube itself, but on its attachment. This means the hollow tube, always the thinnest part on a hollow handle, is isolated from vibrations and stress fractures because it is already a separate part isolated from the blade's vibration and stresses... (On most such knives, it is mainly mounted on G-Flex epoxy, which is inherently an unbreakable and shock-absorbent material)...

B-The separate tube handle can be of thinner material because it is not part of the blade-hardening process, so you do not have to take into account the blade's brittleness, and overbuild the tube's walls because of this.

Sure, you could try differential hardening, but I am not convinced it would not make things worse across vastly different shapes...

If you tried to grind a one piece knife to the possible thinness of a separate tube handle, the knife would in my opinion be fragile: I would not trust this design....

This needed extra wall thickness has two obvious downsides:

1-The one piece knife is inherently heavier and less well balanced.
2-The handle capacity is much smaller in diameter, which is far, FAR more important than handle depth...: I have found the Chris Reeve handle to be already at near full diameter capacity with barely a dozen matches, plus its pulling-out tape tab... To take an extreme opposite example, my Colin Cox has too many items to list, of which 12 matches would be 1/4 of the volume, if that...

I have carried hollow handles for decades now, using them for hard chopping at least a fair amount, and the only downside I could ever find is that, on some of them, the buttcap is too large in diameter: Not the Lile Mission, but as an example the First Blood has an unnecessary large buttcap "overstep", which makes concealment harder... That is the only downside I ever found...: You close the jacket, the buttcap "pushes" a slight bulge: Jacket open, no issue, and no real issue closing the jacket on smaller diameter buttcaps in the "Mission" style, in part because the sheath is pointier and can ride lower...

My purpose is not solely concealment: I find the idea of exposing the knife to the elements, the cold and particularly the rain, to be simply impractical... In 30 years I have never used a belt loop...

One huge plus side of hollow handles (in my view) is that the cylindrical handle is inherently broader inside the thumb/forefinger web, looking down from above. This makes the knife less prone to "rear-up" while chopping, and allows harder "wrist rigid" chops that bring more of the whole weight of the arm into the chop: The usual "loose wrist" knife-spinning chop is comfortable but has far, far less raw performance...: I compared a finger-groove 18-style Randall Model 14 to an actual Randall Model 18: Same blades, one tube handle, one micarta handle: The tube handle had twice the chopping ability, but this was an exaggerated effect of the finger grooves of the Model 14, which fitted my hand perfectly, and because of this were absolute murder to chop with...

Gaston

 

[guns_and_labs]

My conclusion is unequivocal: Despite engineering theory,

I have trouble getting past this statement, without some knowledge of your qualifications to dismiss engineering theory. Further, since engineering theory is generally testable, have you conducted scientifically controlled studies to test YOUR theory?

Or does the unequivocal nature of your conclusion forbid any challenge or testing?

 

[Mark Knapp]

I was going with the engineering fact that a multi-piece design is inherently weaker than a single piece, even if multi-pieces are made that are amazingly strong.

Yes you can do both, but is the tradeoff one that makes sense?
If you actually needed the knife for your survival, is the risk of "because I CAN" worth the possible problems it could entail?
Personally, I would want a knife that was damn near indestructible, and have a pouch the size of a film container on my sheath rather than a knife that SHOULD be indestructible, but crap may happen.

Strictly theroetical/conversational here.
I have no plans to become John Rambo, and no plans to be a Gaston with a Lile blade in my bike shorts.

I think that there are too many examples of HH knives that ARE as indestructible as any full tang knife can be, multi-piece or integral. The week spot is going to be the actual blade steel where it meets the guard (in both full tang knives and quality HH knives), not the attachment.

Incidentally, no need to become John Rambo to need (or want) a knife for survival, there are lots of us engaged in self induced survival for the fun of it, the self satisfaction and "just because we can". No tellin' what might turn a guys crank.

 

[Mark Knapp]

Well to address the single piece issue, I have owned and used an 8.75" blade Chris Reeve Jereboam Mk II for seven years (2009 to 2016), and used it fairly often during those seven years, enough to go through the original coating and two subsequent Cerakoatings, which are even tougher...: I have used this knife as much if not way more than most owners... It did not grow on me, unfortunately...

My conclusion is unequivocal: Despite engineering theory, a one piece hollow handle is inherently inferior to a separate tube handle: Furthermore, it could never be as good, no matter how hard you tried... And if you tried, then it would be weaker... Here is why:

A-By having two separate parts, you can make the tube thinner, and it can remain thinner all the way to the guard, because the strength of the handle is not carried on the tube itself, but on its attachment. This means the hollow tube, always the thinnest part on a hollow handle, is isolated from vibrations and stress fractures because it is already a separate part isolated from the blade's vibration and stresses... (On most such knives, it is mainly mounted on G-Flex epoxy, which is inherently an unbreakable and shock-absorbent material)...

B-The separate tube handle can be of thinner material because it is not part of the blade-hardening process, so you do not have to take into account the blade's brittleness, and overbuild the tube's walls because of this.

Sure, you could try differential hardening, but I am not convinced it would not make things worse across vastly different shapes...

If you tried to grind a one piece knife to the possible thinness of a separate tube handle, the knife would in my opinion be fragile: I would not trust this design....

This needed extra wall thickness has two obvious downsides:

1-The one piece knife is inherently heavier and less well balanced.
2-The handle capacity is much smaller in diameter, which is far, FAR more important than handle depth...: I have found the Chris Reeve handle to be already at near full diameter capacity with barely a dozen matches, plus its pulling-out tape tab... To take an extreme opposite example, my Colin Cox has too many items to list, of which 12 matches would be 1/4 of the volume, if that...

I have carried hollow handles for decades now, using them for hard chopping at least a fair amount, and the only downside I could ever find is that, on some of them, the buttcap is too large in diameter: Not the Lile Mission, but as an example the First Blood has an unnecessary large buttcap "overstep", which makes concealment harder... That is the only downside I ever found...: You close the jacket, the buttcap "pushes" a slight bulge: Jacket open, no issue, and no real issue closing the jacket on smaller diameter buttcaps in the "Mission" style, in part because the sheath is pointier and can ride lower...

My purpose is not solely concealment: I find the idea of exposing the knife to the elements, the cold and particularly the rain, to be simply impractical... In 30 years I have never used a belt loop...

One huge plus side of hollow handles (in my view) is that the cylindrical handle is inherently broader inside the thumb/forefinger web, looking down from above. This makes the knife less prone to "rear-up" while chopping, and allows harder "wrist rigid" chops that bring more of the whole weight of the arm into the chop: The usual "loose wrist" knife-spinning chop is comfortable but has far, far less raw performance...: I compared a finger-groove 18-style Randall Model 14 to an actual Randall Model 18: Same blades, one tube handle, one micarta handle: The tube handle had twice the chopping ability, but this was an exaggerated effect of the finger grooves of the Model 14, which fitted my hand perfectly, and because of this were absolute murder to chop with...

Gaston

Not so sure I agree with you. I have been a tool and die maker a long time. I haven't done it but I'm sure I could make an integral HH knife with all the dimensions of your favorite multi-piece, make it stronger and do all the necessary testing to show it. But, here are a couple of questions to ponder. When is strong enough, strong enough? If you had to drive over it with a Bobcat as it sticks out of a log to break it like I did with the HH knife I make, isn't that strong enough? Would such a knife be cost effective to build? After a point, aren't we just beating our heads against the wall just to make a point and not really making something that someone will really need.

No doubt you've used these knives a lot, and thought about it a lot. Was it just the Chris Reeves integral you tried or, were there other single piece designs that you've tried?

If it was me, I would heat treat just the edge of the knife, up to about 1/2 or 3/4 of an inch, leave the rest soft. I think that would solve any problems one might have.

Just another perspective.

 

[Gaston444]

I have trouble getting past this statement, without some knowledge of your qualifications to dismiss engineering theory. Further, since engineering theory is generally testable, have you conducted scientifically controlled studies to test YOUR theory?

Or does the unequivocal nature of your conclusion forbid any challenge or testing?

You didn't follow with my argument which explains exactly why: One piece knives have to have thick tube walls, because the blade is hardened and thus so are the walls, and no matter how you transition from thick to thin, eventually the whole tube will have to be thin and weak if there is to be a comparably efficient balance point: 0.040" walls (1 mm) and over, in my opinion, ruin a knife's balance, while thinner 0.020" walls likely require the "buffering" of a separately attached piece.

This notion is just my opinion, but you can consider the fact Chris Reeve did not feel safe going under a thick 1 mm plus wall, and he certainly tried to go as thin as possible...

When the balance point moves into the guard, the pommel-down impact on chopping is much greater, for obvious reasons: A 1 mm + tube wall has also the same effect when it is a separate tube, like my latest Cox, so I am not being dogmatic about this...

This whole issue is exactly why the Lile Mission is so beautifully blade heavy, and yet very light overall (in addition to the aluminium buttcap)...

The CR one-piece knives would have to get into 10-10.5" territory to really feel blade-heavy: None of the one piece Chris Reeves are that long, but probably a longer blade would have solved some of their problems: I am not being adamant that they could not work, although they would likely still have no guards and would need a wider blade to not roll horribly as what they now do, given their excessive blade narrowness, which creates a low-sabre geometry that bounces viciously on the sides of a V cut...

I feel both a wide 1.75" blade or more, and large guards are needed to prevent rolling and protect the hand, as I have bent and straightened two guards already...: A one piece 10-10.5" knife would be very heavy with all these features added on: It could be done, but even a single lower guard quillion as a one-piece item would add a huge cost to the thing...: Otherwise the risk of rapping knuckles is quite real....

Gaston

 

[Gaston444]

Not so sure I agree with you. I have been a tool and die maker a long time. I haven't done it but I'm sure I could make an integral HH knife with all the dimensions of your favorite multi-piece, make it stronger and do all the necessary testing to show it. But, here are a couple of questions to ponder. When is strong enough, strong enough? If you had to drive over it with a Bobcat as it sticks out of a log to break it like I did with the HH knife I make, isn't that strong enough? Would such a knife be cost effective to build? After a point, aren't we just beating our heads against the wall just to make a point and not really making something that someone will really need.

No doubt you've used these knives a lot, and thought about it a lot. Was it just the Chris Reeves integral you tried or, were there other single piece designs that you've tried?

If it was me, I would heat treat just the edge of the knife, up to about 1/2 or 3/4 of an inch, leave the rest soft. I think that would solve any problems one might have.

Just another perspective.

If that can be done reliably, then it certainly would allow a thinner handle wall...

There are however other issues that I briefly address in the above post: The huge extra cost of including at least a lower guard, and the juncture would still be all metal, and to reduce this juncture weight it would have to be tapered and "pinched", as on the Reeve models: I prefer a fully broad full width handle section near the guard, to tighten my thumb forefinger web while chopping, but we are getting into real personal preferences here...

If the guard could be included with a thin wall handle, then that would certainly prove my point wrong...

Gaston

 

[Gaston444]

I think that there are too many examples of HH knives that ARE as indestructible as any full tang knife can be, multi-piece or integral. The week spot is going to be the actual blade steel where it meets the guard (in both full tang knives and quality HH knives), not the attachment.

Incidentally, no need to become John Rambo to need (or want) a knife for survival, there are lots of us engaged in self induced survival for the fun of it, the self satisfaction and "just because we can". No tellin' what might turn a guys crank.

I agree wholeheartedly... Incidently, your "1911" hollow handle knife is next on my "bucket" list, as I am a big fan of it...

I don't really see it as a "pure" Survival Knife however: I think it is a pure fighting knife with a versatile "survival" option...: The 3/16" stock certainly points that way...

I love the way the long clip drops the point in a pure fighting style... I think everything about it is just the way I would have done it for a soldier's knife...

Gaston