THE Hollow Handle Knife Thread

TAH · Feb 23, 2015

Sam Wilson said:
That model there looks like the Blood Strike or First Strike or something like that...

You're close, Sam. It is called Fierce Blood. He also made a smaller gray version called the White Knight with a 8.25" blade. Both models were limited to 100 and originally priced at $475.

Obviously, Mr. Cox enjoyed making HH knives during his career. Here's a quick tribute...

JD Mandrell · Feb 23, 2015

Those are some fine blades!

radicalbearpaw · Feb 23, 2015

Guys this week I should have mutt jack crain replica of the life support 1 finished, I sent Dave a picture of it all roughed or so far, I haven't had much time being a contractor and all the snow we've been getting but hopefully by Friday it will be off to be bead blasted, then for sale. .. the wife is working on the sheath as I'm typing

cricketdave · Feb 24, 2015

I'll post this for Radicalbearpaw, roughed out knife.

radicalbearpaw · Feb 24, 2015

Hey thanks Dave, I finally have some real time now, los like no snow all week so I'm gonna keep sending you more pictures as it progresses, I'm shooting for Friday to drop off at my buddy's shop for bead blasting. .. the blade is 1/4 inch 1090 high carbon. This is a very very roughed out cut, nothing hs been shaped yet at all, but more pics will be coming! Thanks again buddy

Gaston444 · Feb 24, 2015

Sam Wilson said:
I disagree, although I can't speak for other makers. What do you think makes a blade lighter, thus moving the balance point farther back toward the guard? Removing more metal, and having a thinner grind. This also makes a better cutting knife, all things being equal.

Hence the unfashionable idea of a deep hollow grind on a sabre grind profile, with no distal taper...: This allows a thin slicing edge with a huge low-set mass of metal above it: The Chris Reeves Jereboam had a 1 mm thick edge bevel a mere 0.8 inch from a 6 mm thick secondary grind... But the edge could easily have been made half as thick with no issues, which is what Randall routinely does.

Yes deep hollow grinds do "bind" when cutting deep, but they don't get stuck, they just feel a bit clumsy generally, and clumsy on branches over 3" because the blade's grind rubs the wood's deep "V" cut sides: This may be why, on bigger branches, flat ground blades begin to edge ahead (after falling behind): For competition maybe the "deep" tasks are better accomplished by large flat ground blades, but competition is not normal use.

Another example why competition is not applicable to survival is the distal taper: The distal taper is more efficient for fast-paced repeat blows at maximum energy, because for speed, drawing back the knife is as important as swinging it down: This is not at all the kind of use you want to perform in actual survival use: You would want to get through with a minimal swing count with at low swing energy...

The 8.75" Jereboam matches the 9.5" BK-9 in raw chopping performance, and the BK-9 I observed will usually vastly win any chopping comparison vs a convex-ground Cold Steel Trailmaster (by about 1/4 to 1/3, counting the blows), the Trailmaster being a knife closer to flat-ground competition knives...

If you were to limit a flat-ground distal-taper bowie shape to an 8.75" blade that is just 1.3" wide, it would have absolutely no hope in a chopping competition against the Chris Reeves, particularly if the hits were counted: It would just be far, far too light...

My father carried in the Algerian War a 7 1/8" leather handle Sabatier Jeune Bowie, basically a flat-ground distal taper bowie that was a bit over 3/16" thick at the base (mass-produced as a Boy Scout knife!): I loved its flat-ground distal taper design that was so much sharper than most other "large" knives I have ever seen since (exceptions being 90s Blackjack's HALO, and Randall): I used to think distal taper flat ground was a great design, and the knife was quite strong enough. It was in no way a "bad" design, but it would never do any chopping tasks at all: The blade weighed nothing: It is not that chopping tasks are the be all end all, but "survival" means you don't know what you might need, sometimes instantly...

Sam Wilson said:
The longer you make a blade, the more metal you have to grind to balance it, unless you want a very blade heavy design. It's that simple. A 10" blade with a scandi grind is going to be massively blade heavy, regardless of handle tube dimensions, within reason. A 10" blade with a full flat grind (Assuming 1/4" stock and distal taper, which should be there for performance) is going very quickly to start balancing near the guard. MOST people do not want a very blade heavy design

I know they don't. But most people are often wrong. If the knife is under 10" X 1/4", and pointy enough to be a weapon, then as a survival blade it simply will never be blade-heavy enough... This is why forgetting about the "combat point" does make sense, as in the (dull-edged) TOPS "Hellion", or, even more extreme, the Extrema Ratio T3000... They don't have widespread appeal, but they were still correctly designed by ergonomic experts to minimize effort...

Sam Wilson said:
A full flat grind is typically going to increase, not decrease cutting and chopping potential. Look at competition cutting knives, where the sole function is to cut. You're going to see it dominated by full height grinds. They bite deeper and are typically balanced better. When you talk about it not mattering where the balance point is as far as relation to slicing ability, you have to understand that you can't just slide a weight and decide where the knife is going to balance. The factors I mentioned above are all going to have to be juggled to balance it properly, and there's a reason that most of the knives you're talking about keep winding up with a balance point right around the guard. I do it on purpose, I imagine some of these makers do as well.
Sam

See my replies above...

If that was true, then the 5/16" thick at the base Cold Steel Trailmaster would decisively beat the 3/16" thick BK-9 of similar weight and length, and yet it probably can't, even if counting speed and not hits... Cold Steel proudly points out how far ahead of the guard the balance point of the Trailmaster is, and they are quite right to do so: 3/4" is very impressive, but this is off-set by the distal taper which kills off too much weight, and doing so more and more towards the tip, where it matters most: The sabre ground BK-9 still balances further out at about 0.935", and apparently will out-do the Trailmaster by some margin. The BK-9's full tang is also hollowed-out, which demonstrates that Becker wanted as much weight % into the blade as possible, as it should be.

Again, the deeper the material, and the more furiously the action is repeated, the more the distal taper flat ground is favoured on large tasks... I also note that a convex edge knife like an NS-1 "Thor" "cheats" by adding considerable mass to a flat-ground blade (that is why my father's Sabatier weighed nothing: It was truly flat ground)... But my re-profiled Hellion balances 2.1" in front of a full rear grip, and it will probably get smaller tasks done faster with lazy strokes: The idea being that lazy strokes are inherently safer than hard ones. I can't emphasize enough the most likely source of deep unsurvivable injury is hanging from your belt (and from my personal experience, the point is more dangerous than the edge)...

For a long time I have read about people balancing a knife on the guard and pronouncing it "well balanced": I have never had the foggiest notion of what this gave them.

Gaston

P.S. Another rarely mentionned disadvantage of full flat grinds is that it is harder to design a sheath that will not cause scratches all over the blade, as painfully evident in the beige-sheath Fallkniven "Northernlights" series: Sabre-grinds provide shoulders to "stabilize" the blade, as they mould "rails" into the leather, and they at least confine the scratches to a much smaller flat area, where they will look straighter to boot... My father's Sabatier had fairly well-made but only two-piece leather sheath that was so soft inside that the blade had what looked like a worn "stonewash" finish to it. New knives these days do not often have such flimsy "soft-inside" sheaths, and both of my brand-new Randalls were scratched pretty heavily on the flats after just a few tries...

G.

Sam Wilson · Feb 24, 2015

OK, you win.

JD Mandrell · Feb 24, 2015

Wow, nice timing, one of my favorite reviewers posts a video of the knife I just bought.

I originally found Bush Camping Tools, because he's one of only a few English speaking reviews on Kizlyar knives. He really gives knives a workout.

[youtube]WMJq2FlP6SE#t=11[/youtube]

cricketdave · Feb 25, 2015

Radicalbearpaw sent me a few more pics of his knife in progress and I thought I'd post them for him. Looking pretty cool.

radicalbearpaw · Feb 25, 2015

Thanks Dave, I only had a couple hours today to work on it but a lot more time tomarrow, thank you again

guns_and_labs · Feb 25, 2015

Gaston444 said:
The 8.75" Jereboam matches the 9.5" BK-9 in raw chopping performance, and the BK-9 I observed will usually vastly win any chopping comparison vs a convex-ground Cold Steel Trailmaster (by about 1/4 to 1/3, counting the blows), the Trailmaster being a knife closer to flat-ground competition knives...

I know they don't. But most people are often wrong. If the knife is under 10" X 1/4", and pointy enough to be a weapon, then as a survival blade it simply will never be blade-heavy enough... This is why forgetting about the "combat point" does make sense, as in the (dull-edged) TOPS "Hellion", or, even more extreme, the Extrema Ratio T3000... They don't have widespread appeal, but they were still correctly designed by ergonomic experts to minimize effort...

OK, I'll admit that I didn't understand most of your post, but a couple of things jumped out:

1. I have both a Jeroboam and a BK-9, and I've chopped with both. The BK-9 chops better. The Jereboam does not match it, though it is a better fighter, more for sticking than slashing. And for actual field use, the Jereboam is nowhere near as useful as the smaller Shadows and Mountaineers. A neutral balance works better at the things one actually does, like cleaning game, carving tent pegs, building shelters.

And does anyone but Lynn Thompson compete with a Cold Steel Trailmaster? I sure haven't seen any at the few competitions I've been to.

2. The Hellion was designed by a decent soldier, I'm told, and a pretty good entertainer, but I really don't think anyone would call Mykel Hawkes "an ergonomics expert"... and he dumped the Hellion pretty quickly. As for the T3000, I really think the only decent knife Extrema Ratio makes is their Ka-Bar clone. Have you ever tried to actually use that two part handle? Ick. I came across their knives at a show, and really couldn't find any evidence of ergonomics. Style, yeah, maybe.

Again, I'm not quite sure the point you were making, but as someone who actually has had to go through a survival situation in the Land of Bad Things, I can tell you that the LAST thing I was going to do was chop something. Something we teach in SERE is that "survival" is the easy part... it's the evade and escape that matter. And you can't really evade and escape if you are sending out rhythmic chopping sounds to the bad guys.

So I don't want a blade heavy chopper. I want one that is well balanced, that provides me the best versatility. For me, that's balanced somewhere near the guard, if there is a guard. But then, that's just me. And as you pointed out, "But most people are often wrong." I probably am, too.

A.L. · Feb 25, 2015

Sorry that I have nothing to contribute for this thread, but just wanted to say that I am really loving the pictures and text in this thread.

:thumbup:

Gaston444 · Feb 25, 2015

guns_and_labs said:
OK, I'll admit that I didn't understand most of your post, but a couple of things jumped out:

1. I have both a Jeroboam and a BK-9, and I've chopped with both. The BK-9 chops better. The Jereboam does not match it, though it is a better fighter, more for sticking than slashing. And for actual field use, the Jereboam is nowhere near as useful as the smaller Shadows and Mountaineers. A neutral balance works better at the things one actually does, like cleaning game, carving tent pegs, building shelters.

And no mention of the horrible vibration bite of the BK-9? Does the Jereboam have as bad vibrations in your opinion?

Here's how far apart mine were:

So what's your impression of the Jereboam's vibrations?

guns_and_labs said:
2. The Hellion was designed by a decent soldier, I'm told, and a pretty good entertainer, but I really don't think anyone would call Mykel Hawkes "an ergonomics expert"... and he dumped the Hellion pretty quickly. As for the T3000, I really think the only decent knife Extrema Ratio makes is their Ka-Bar clone. Have you ever tried to actually use that two part handle? Ick. I came across their knives at a show, and really couldn't find any evidence of ergonomics. Style, yeah, maybe.

You think the Extrema Ratio handle design is bad, but have you used it? I haven't, but I tend to reserve judgement until use... The BK-9's handle is probably one of the worst chopping handles I've ever experienced... Have you handled a Hellion? Much better handle than the BK-9, but when you swing the Hellion, the design of the Extrema Ratio handle at least does begins to make sense: Hawkes may not be an ergonomic expert, but these people are:

http://hardcorecampingtools.blogspot...-ratio-hi.html

Quote: "How about the comfort? Not too many manufacturers are willing to enter into this discussion. Not so with EXTREMA RATIO.

What did I find? Unbelievable comfort and ergonomics! Seriously! This comes as no surprise, but I needed to experience it first hand. EXTREMA RATIO entered into a collaboration with the Motor Sciences department at the University of Perugia for the design of the handles.

Ok you ask what is Motor Science? It's kinesiology! This is the research of the mechanics of motion with respect to human anatomy. "

Mind you, I could still hate the handle...

guns_and_labs said:
Again, I'm not quite sure the point you were making, but as someone who actually has had to go through a survival situation in the Land of Bad Things, I can tell you that the LAST thing I was going to do was chop something. Something we teach in SERE is that "survival" is the easy part... it's the evade and escape that matter. And you can't really evade and escape if you are sending out rhythmic chopping sounds to the bad guys.

So I don't want a blade heavy chopper. I want one that is well balanced, that provides me the best versatility. For me, that's balanced somewhere near the guard, if there is a guard. But then, that's just me. And as you pointed out, "But most people are often wrong." I probably am, too.

Well of course, if you throw in marauding enemy soldiers... The thing is, you may need the knife to cut, or hammer, or break, with the blade's back, decisively just once... And for that, blade mass is helpful to avoid repeating the blows...

By stating that you prefer balancing at the guard, it is a preference, but it has no arguments to justify it...

What you are saying is that if I filled your handle with an identical performance but lighter weight material, so light that your guard balance would shift one inch in front of the guard, you would still prefer the MUCH heavier knife? Unless hammering with the pommel is a big deal to you (which can be a factor), this makes absolutely no sense. Handle weight on a knife is dead weight. Not on a sword of course, and here handle weight, or, more correctly, pommel weight, can be a big help, but I'm sure you don't confuse notions important to a sword with those important to a knife...

Name me one advantage a guard balance point provides over an imaginary identical blade-heavy knife (which is by definition lighter in the handle): That advantage must be quite something to carry around all that dead weight...

If you look at a lot of old-timer knives, one thing immediately jumps out at you: They didn't care for heavy steel pommels, and often used more dent-prone aluminium, which aluminium over time usually looks pock-marked from age and use... I guess today steel pommels would be judged superior... Oh, and did you notice how few old-time outdoors knives ever sport a full tang? You don't think this could be because they disliked butt-heavy knives?

I tell you, whenever I see a slim dagger with lots of heavy metal in the handle, or a full tang, I just cringe... Talk about missing the whole point of the design...

Gaston

RX-79G · Feb 25, 2015

Gaston444 said:
And no mention of the horrible vibration bite of the BK-9? Does the Jereboam have as bad vibrations in your opinion?

Here's how far apart mine were:

So what's your impression of the Jereboam's vibrations?

You think the Extrema Ratio handle design is bad, but have you used it? I haven't, but I tend to reserve judgement until use... The BK-9's handle is probably one of the worst chopping handles I've ever experienced... Have you handled a Hellion? Much better handle than the BK-9, but when you swing the Hellion, the design of the Extrema Ratio handle at least does begins to make sense: Hawkes may not be an ergonomic expert, but these people are:

http://hardcorecampingtools.blogspot...-ratio-hi.html

Quote: "How about the comfort? Not too many manufacturers are willing to enter into this discussion. Not so with EXTREMA RATIO.

What did I find? Unbelievable comfort and ergonomics! Seriously! This comes as no surprise, but I needed to experience it first hand. EXTREMA RATIO entered into a collaboration with the Motor Sciences department at the University of Perugia for the design of the handles.

Ok you ask what is Motor Science? It's kinesiology! This is the research of the mechanics of motion with respect to human anatomy. "

Mind you, I could still hate the handle...

Well of course, if you throw in marauding enemy soldiers... The thing is, you may need the knife to cut, or hammer, or break, with the blade's back, decisively just once... And for that, blade mass is helpful to avoid repeating the blows...

By stating that you prefer balancing at the guard, it is a preference, but it has no arguments to justify it...

What you are saying is that if I filled your handle with an identical performance but lighter weight material, so light that your guard balance would shift one inch in front of the guard, you would still prefer the MUCH heavier knife? Unless hammering with the pommel is a big deal to you (which can be a factor), this makes absolutely no sense. Handle weight on a knife is dead weight. Not on a sword of course, and here handle weight, or, more correctly, pommel weight, can be a big help, but I'm sure you don't confuse notions important to a sword with those important to a knife...

Name me one advantage a guard balance point provides over an imaginary identical blade-heavy knife (which is by definition lighter in the handle): That advantage must be quite something to carry around all that dead weight...

If you look at a lot of old-timer knives, one thing immediately jumps out at you: They didn't care for heavy steel pommels, and often used more dent-prone aluminium, which aluminium over time usually looks pock-marked from age and use... I guess today steel pommels would be judged superior... Oh, and did you notice how few old-time outdoors knives ever sport a full tang? You don't think this could be because they disliked butt-heavy knives?

I tell you, whenever I see a slim dagger with lots of heavy metal in the handle, or a full tang, I just cringe... Talk about missing the whole point of the design...

Gaston

I disagree with your analysis. The chopping ability of a knife doesn't come from balance - it comes from mass. The way you're presenting this, it sounds like if you took two identical knives and put weights in the handle of one, it wouldn't chop as well as the lighter one. That just doesn't make a lot of sense. I would rather chop with a knife with more blade mass, regardless of balance point.

Sam Wilson · Feb 25, 2015

I dont know why I wont just leave this alone, but here goes

Gaston,

I dont come to the internets to argue, so my objective is not to just argue with you or prove you wrong. I appreciate the enthusiasm you bring with you, and I really like the fact that you actually use your knives, even expensive customs or production knives.

But you may want to step away from the keyboard for a bit and think about what your point really is here. Youre presently telling other experienced users and makers of knives that they dont know what theyre talking about, and that there is no reason for a neutral balance on a knife. Let me make this very simple for you: There is very good reason for neutral balance on a knife. The MAJORITY of people do not want blade heavy knives.

If you do, great. Go buy or have all the blade heavy knives you want made custom for you. If were talking intentionally blade heavy knives here, dedicated choppers and the sort, that suddenly becomes a specialized knife, read: excels at one purpose. That is the very antipode of what a survival knife is supposed to do, to be a jack-of-all trades. The neutral balance really shines here, because it allows a blade large enough to handle serious tasks such as large cuts, chopping, and light prying if need be, to feel good in the hand and be reasonably capable of fine work.

One of the most important things neutral balance does is allow the knife to be used for finer tasks. It allows the use of a large blade, but neutral balance keeps the blade mass from feeling too heavy, thus accelerating hand fatigue during extended use. A large weight-forward blade almost immediately places strain on the wrist when being used for fine tasks. This is exacerbated if you are already fatigued or injured.

IF the knife has to be used defensively, a blade heavy knife is a disaster in the hand, and is very difficult to use in that role. Neutral balance shines here, as well, allowing the point or edge to be placed wherever you want much more instinctively and with less fatigue.

It also showcases the maker or designers skill, as nearly anyone can make a big blade that is blade heavy. It requires much more work and thought to get a large blade to balance near the guard, or wherever you want, and is a sign of quality.

Those who want a blade heavy knife, outside of specialized use (I cant believe you want to argue with the point about full height grinds being used in cutting competitions, and not being effective. Google cutting competition knives, they are almost all full height grinds. They chop really well, or they wouldnt keep using them. Who in their right mind is going to not use a full flat grind because theyre worried the sheath might scratch the blade???!!??) are decidedly in the MINORITY here. You will find that most people prefer a more balanced knife for GENERAL USE, which is almost the definition of a SURVIVAL knife.

Go to the cutting competition forums and you will find plenty of people of the same mind as you, who want dedicated choppers, which is what you seem to want. And that is FINE. But please stop telling people who know better that we dont. Just out of curiosity, how many knives have you designed or made? What has given you the inside track on all this balance knowledge that the rest of the knife world has been doing wrong for so long?

You asked for ONE advantage a knife balanced near the guard has, I gave SEVERAL. Other than chopping, give me all the advantages you can think of, outside of personal preference, that a blade heavy knife has, please.

Again, I dont like to argue on the internet, and none of this is personal, but youre starting to betray your lack of knowledge and experience on this subject. Or the rest of the knife world got it wrong, and you just stumbled onto a great discovery here.

Respectfully,

Sam Wilson :thumbup:

Sam Wilson · Feb 25, 2015

A.L. said:
Sorry that I have nothing to contribute for this thread, but just wanted to say that I am really loving the pictures and text in this thread. :thumbup:

And we're certainly glad to have you along, too! :thumbup::thumbup:

JD Mandrell · Feb 25, 2015

Sam Wilson said:
a survival knife is supposed to do, to be a jack-of-all trades.

There is it! :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

TAH · Feb 25, 2015

Sam Wilson said:
I dont know why I wont just leave this alone, but here goes

Gaston,

I dont come to the internets to argue, so my objective is not to just argue with you or prove you wrong. I appreciate the enthusiasm you bring with you, and I really like the fact that you actually use your knives, even expensive customs or production knives.

But you may want to step away from the keyboard for a bit and think about what your point really is here. Youre presently telling other experienced users and makers of knives that they dont know what theyre talking about, and that there is no reason for a neutral balance on a knife. Let me make this very simple for you: There is very good reason for neutral balance on a knife. The MAJORITY of people do not want blade heavy knives.

If you do, great. Go buy or have all the blade heavy knives you want made custom for you. If were talking intentionally blade heavy knives here, dedicated choppers and the sort, that suddenly becomes a specialized knife, read: excels at one purpose. That is the very antipode of what a survival knife is supposed to do, to be a jack-of-all trades. The neutral balance really shines here, because it allows a blade large enough to handle serious tasks such as large cuts, chopping, and light prying if need be, to feel good in the hand and be reasonably capable of fine work.

One of the most important things neutral balance does is allow the knife to be used for finer tasks. It allows the use of a large blade, but neutral balance keeps the blade mass from feeling too heavy, thus accelerating hand fatigue during extended use. A large weight-forward blade almost immediately places strain on the wrist when being used for fine tasks. This is exacerbated if you are already fatigued or injured.

IF the knife has to be used defensively, a blade heavy knife is a disaster in the hand, and is very difficult to use in that role. Neutral balance shines here, as well, allowing the point or edge to be placed wherever you want much more instinctively and with less fatigue.

It also showcases the maker or designers skill, as nearly anyone can make a big blade that is blade heavy. It requires much more work and thought to get a large blade to balance near the guard, or wherever you want, and is a sign of quality.

Those who want a blade heavy knife, outside of specialized use (I cant believe you want to argue with the point about full height grinds being used in cutting competitions, and not being effective. Google cutting competition knives, they are almost all full height grinds. They chop really well, or they wouldnt keep using them. Who in their right mind is going to not use a full flat grind because theyre worried the sheath might scratch the blade???!!??) are decidedly in the MINORITY here. You will find that most people prefer a more balanced knife for GENERAL USE, which is almost the definition of a SURVIVAL knife.

Go to the cutting competition forums and you will find plenty of people of the same mind as you, who want dedicated choppers, which is what you seem to want. And that is FINE. But please stop telling people who know better that we dont. Just out of curiosity, how many knives have you designed or made? What has given you the inside track on all this balance knowledge that the rest of the knife world has been doing wrong for so long?

You asked for ONE advantage a knife balanced near the guard has, I gave SEVERAL. Other than chopping, give me all the advantages you can think of, outside of personal preference, that a blade heavy knife has, please.

Again, I dont like to argue on the internet, and none of this is personal, but youre starting to betray your lack of knowledge and experience on this subject. Or the rest of the knife world got it wrong, and you just stumbled onto a great discovery here.

Respectfully,

Sam Wilson :thumbup:

Vocabulary - A+
Grammar - A+
Spelling - A+
Punctuation - A+
Sentence structure - A+
Content - A+
Clarity - A+
Knowledge - A+

guns_and_labs · Feb 25, 2015

Gaston444 said:
And no mention of the horrible vibration bite of the BK-9? Does the Jereboam have as bad vibrations in your opinion?
So what's your impression of the Jereboam's vibrations?

They're both bad. That's why God created axes, I guess.

Gaston444 said:
You think the Extrema Ratio handle design is bad, but have you used it? I haven't, but I tend to reserve judgement until use...

Yes. At a show, and not for much, but yes.

Gaston444 said:
the design of the Extrema Ratio handle at least does begins to make sense: Hawkes may not be an ergonomic expert, but these people are:

with the Motor Sciences department at the University of Perugia for the design of the handles.

Ok you ask what is Motor Science? It's kinesiology! This is the research of the mechanics of motion with respect to human anatomy.

I guess I'll wait for a peer-reviewed article showing the ergonomics of that two step handle for all day use. The ones I have seen, as from Cornell University, Milan Polytechnic, and University of Texas, seem to imply a different design for chopping.

Gaston444 said:
By stating that you prefer balancing at the guard, it is a preference, but it has no arguments to justify it...

My argument is that it works better in the field for survival/woodcraft, and it works better in a combat situation, both empirically derived arguments.

Gaston444 said:
If you look at a lot of old-timer knives, one thing immediately jumps out at you: They didn't care for heavy steel pommels, and often used more dent-prone aluminium, which aluminium over time usually looks pock-marked from age and use... I guess today steel pommels would be judged superior... Oh, and did you notice how few old-time outdoors knives ever sport a full tang? You don't think this could be because they disliked butt-heavy knives?

As I a guy that grew up using puukkos, and with family that have been making "old-timer knives" for many generations, I agree that butt-heavy knives are anathema. The "old-timer" knives that I have are neutrally balanced knives, except for those dedicated chopping tools -- which were never the "one knife". Furthermore, if you go back far enough, the knives had stick tangs because metal was precious... and then they added decorative touches at the pommel that moved the balance to a neutral position.

Gaston444 · Feb 25, 2015

RX-79G said:
I disagree with your analysis. The chopping ability of a knife doesn't come from balance - it comes from mass. The way you're presenting this, it sounds like if you took two identical knives and put weights in the handle of one, it wouldn't chop as well as the lighter one. That just doesn't make a lot of sense. I would rather chop with a knife with more blade mass, regardless of balance point.

Re-read what I wrote: I never said that. I said the extra weight in the handle is dead weight. And you just have to look at how most old knives are designed, and for the overwhelming majority, including very large stout knives, they avoid full tangs and steel pommels like the plague.

The justification I read for full tangs is that they hold up better under batoning: If that is so, it does explain why, prior to the widespread notion of batoning, so many old knives avoided this undesirable and useless feature. I think a stick tang should hold up to batoning, but I did see a Cold Steel Recon Scout fail at the front of the tang in very cold weather, so I would say if you often baton in cold temperature, then a full tang might make sense. (If you don't think the cold has a huge effect on strenght and shock resistance, you are gravely mistaken)

Gaston