THE Hollow Handle Knife Thread

Ausseknifeknut · May 13, 2015

Yeah , for a knife that's already been abused , and will never be used again .

Gaston444 · May 13, 2015

If I had the money I would gladly pay $90 000 for it... There probably would come a point where, even with limitless personal funds, the amount you would say you paid to your friends would become too embarrassing, even if you were a multi-millionaire speaking to your multi-millionaire friends... I guess at 200 000 it would become something I'd keep quiet about...

Gaston

Ausseknifeknut · May 14, 2015

If I won millions on lotto I'd tell nobody.

druid189 · May 14, 2015

Ausseknifeknut said:
If I won millions on lotto I'd tell nobody.

+1.........

A.L. · May 15, 2015

Ausseknifeknut said:
If I won millions on lotto I'd tell nobody.

But they would start wondering how you fund all your nice knives!

druid189 · May 15, 2015

A.L. said:
But they would start wondering how you fund all your nice knives!

That presumes we'd have time to show them off LOL.

Gaston444 · May 15, 2015

Here's a peculiar one: 0074 and "Skorpion"... Anyone knows where this comes from? I smell something Eastern block or other...:

I also have a great personal account of a Buckmaster owner coming up: I really like the story of how he "pimped" it into a better shape after years of neglect...

Gaston

Bill Siegle · May 16, 2015

That looks like it is made from one of the surplus Swedish bayonets that flooded the market years ago.

Gaston444 · May 17, 2015

Here is the promised Buckmaster ownership account. The owner runs an online survival store: www.m4040.com/Survival/Store/Storefront.htm

He has quite a few interesting views on "Bushcraft" blades and what actually works in the field... Not what you often hear currently, and it is no surprise he is a hollow handle owner! A few choice quotes:

" I know the term "bush knife" has come to signify a blade about 4-6" in length and about an inch to 2" wide. Many have stag or hardwood handles, and some even sport really beautiful craftsmanship. I'm not sure just how and why these came into fashion or how folks came to think that these had any place in an outdoors environment. The design falls FAR short of what an outdoors blade should be. I've seen pocket knives that sport bigger and more functional blades."

"These are skinners maybe, but definitely not choppers (the primary task of an outdoors blade). Oddly enough, there's very little whittling to be done in most wilderness survival situations."

Survival shows abound these days, and they have a definite "green" trend going. The hosts carry these small "bush" knives and "tracker" blades because the shows are trying to be politically correct, not because these are the ideal tools.

"You can learn a lot from history. Look at almost any point in history since the advent of steel, and examine what was carried by those who lived close to nature. The closer they were to the environment, the bigger the blades they carried."

FIELD BLADE REVIEWS

M40's "WORKING" Buck 184

The Buck model 184, or Buckmaster, was one of the first "survival" knives to hit the market back in the 1980's. It's become a bit of a collector's item lately, and will usually fetch anywhere from a couple hundred dollars to about $500 on Ebay depending on the condition. This blade was pitched to the military as an issued blade, and after some modifications, Buck won the contract. The modifications included a solid handle (no hollow storage area), and a guard and hilt that allowed it to be used as a bayonet on the standard M16 mounts. The 184 was thus the predecessor to the M9 bayonet, the current issue blade for our armed forces. Eventually, other manufacturers took over the contract including our nation's premier military blade maker, Ontario. Buck made the Buckmaster for several years, but eventually dropped the project.
Although many of you may consider this to be a form of blaspheme, my Buck 184 is actually a working blade, and has seen almost a quarter century of use and abuse. Yes, I regularly beat the crap out of a "collector's item". It has accompanied me over hundreds of miles of trail and many a day in camp (chopping wood, clearing trail, whittling, etc). Finally, it went with me through the United States Air Force Survival School in Washington state, and then on to multiple tours in the Middle East

It was not easy for a 15 year old to come up with the $150 or so dollars that this thing cost in the 1980's. My after school job paid about $4 an hour (before taxes), and I only managed about 15-20 hours a week. Even so, within a week of buying it, I decided that the balance was HORRIBLE. This blade was handle-heavy to the extreme. I chucked the end cap into a lathe and turned more than a quarter pound of un-necessary metal off of it, both from the backside and from the diameter. The balance is now right behind the guard on your leading finger (where it should be), and the diameter of the cap is the same as the rest of the handle.
The blade, sheath, pouches and straps have all seen better days, but are all holding up quite well. As for those silly "grappling" spikes that it came with, they have never seen even a single use, nor (I predict) will they ever.
The handle, which is renowned for tearing up hands during chopping and other tasks, has seen a large variety of grip tapes, foam covers and cord-wraps. All of these were attempts to tame it, but I finally settled on the rubberizing tool dip as shown above. The tool dip has also been applied to the retaining strap, which keeps it from fraying due to rubbing the handle. Notice that there is also a Velcro retaining strap added to the topside of the sheath. This keeps it from flopping around when worn. This was a major problem with the design, especially before I tamed the heavy end cap. There is also a good bit of cord wrapped here and there on the sheath for emergency use in the field.
My evaluation of this blade is that it has been a really decent tool (once properly modified). The steel is good, but on the hard side (I've never been a fan of stainless). This helps when edge holding is a must, but I suspect that it's a bit on the brittle side as well. As such I've never done any kind of hard prying with it.
Alas, the sentimental value of this blade usually has me leaving it home as of late. These days, I've been beating up younger, tougher blades instead. Some of the really good ones include Becker Brutes,Kershaw Outcasts, and most recently, a Cold Steel San Mai Trailmaster. I recommend these highly.
I've also seen fit to beat up a lot of aftermarket khukri's. Most are great values, but some are not worth the asking price.
FIND OUT WHICH KHUKRI'S ARE WORTH THE ASKING PRICE, AND WHICH ONES ARE JUNK!
Anyone else out there have an old 184? Send me some pics!
ADDENDUM
I recently decided to clean my old Buckmaster up a bit. It was looking quite abused as you can see in the pictures above.
First, I removed all the old cord and straps from the sheath. A 3M pad and some scrubbing in soapy water cleaned up the bulk of the dirt and grime.
I then went to work on the blade. At first I considered simply bead-blasting it (this hides scratches and hacks very well). Instead, I decided to see if I could make it look a bit nicer. I took the blade to a few successively finer belt grits to remove the scratches and hacks. Then I buffed it out with a little rouge. It was more work than sandblasting, but the end results were well worth it. A fresh tool dip and a mild wire wheel got the handle back to a comfortable, matte black rubber.
I gotta say... it did clean up nice, especially considering the condition it was in when I started!

After a little more work, it's really getting there. I sandblasted the guard, endcap and sheath to smooth out scratches, then did some more buffing on the blade.

kleonikos · May 18, 2015

I have the Aitor JK 1 and 2 and 3 as well

. I worked with the dealer here in Cyprus since i was 8 years old and could go fishing and camping with my dad, the two of them were friends. I was lusting for one ever since and I have seen first hand the changes you mentioned. The jungle king used to have triangular teeth though they changed this somewhere around the 90s. Along with that change they changed the skeleton knife they had, which was a harpoon kind of thing to a skeleton knife and the inner case from a tin contraption to the plastic drawer style used today. I was thinking of getting the desert king 1 but decided against it after talking to the dealer. In the desert you don't have trees to process wood (at least not so much), but things to kill, hence the high hollow grind, where in the jungle... well you do

. I am in the process of reviewing the original with a chinese copy in a back to back comparison. If anyone is interested to read that, please let me know, so i'll try and finish it earlier.
Let me know how is working out for you.

guns_and_labs · May 18, 2015

Gaston444 said:
"You can learn a lot from history. Look at almost any point in history since the advent of steel, and examine what was carried by those who lived close to nature. The closer they were to the environment, the bigger the blades they carried."

"Oddly enough, there's very little whittling to be done in most wilderness survival situations."

I can't say that I agree with his view of history... the Alaska natives have been "close to nature" for a lot of years, as have the Nordic peoples, and they don't carry big blades.

I also think he may be confusing the concepts of wilderness living, bushcraft and wilderness survival. In wilderness living and bushcraft, there is a lot of whittling, really... it's how you make stuff.

yasuru · May 18, 2015

Most recent acquisition. Found a great deal on this Black Starr First Blood tribute knife and thought I'd give it a shot. 9 inches of D2 steel and seems to be put together pretty well. Have whacked a few limbs off of some trees and some other various cutting tasks. Will have to give it a more thorough work out in the future. Stood it next to the Apparo for size reference.

Thanks for looking.

guns_and_labs · May 18, 2015

Gaston444 said:
" I know the term "bush knife" has come to signify a blade about 4-6" in length and about an inch to 2" wide. Many have stag or hardwood handles, and some even sport really beautiful craftsmanship. I'm not sure just how and why these came into fashion or how folks came to think that these had any place in an outdoors environment. The design falls FAR short of what an outdoors blade should be. I've seen pocket knives that sport bigger and more functional blades."

"These are skinners maybe, but definitely not choppers (the primary task of an outdoors blade). Oddly enough, there's very little whittling to be done in most wilderness survival situations."

Survival shows abound these days, and they have a definite "green" trend going. The hosts carry these small "bush" knives and "tracker" blades because the shows are trying to be politically correct, not because these are the ideal tools.

"You can learn a lot from history. Look at almost any point in history since the advent of steel, and examine what was carried by those who lived close to nature. The closer they were to the environment, the bigger the blades they carried."

I keep coming back to the above quote as being somewhat arrogant. So I dug out a quote from Horace Kephart, 1906, and definitely someone who lived close to nature,

The conventional hunting knife is, or was until quite recently, of the familiar dime-novel pattern invented by Colonel Bowie. Such a knife is too thick and clumsy to whittle with, much too thick for a good skinning knife, and too sharply pointed to cook and eat with. It is always tempered too hard. When put to the rough service for which it is supposed to be intended, as in cutting through the ossified false ribs of an old buck, it is an even bet that out will come a nick as big as a saw-toothand Sheridan forty miles from a grindstone! Such a knife is shaped expressly for stabbing, which is about the very last thing that a woodsman ever has occasion to do, our lamented grand- mothers to the contrary notwithstanding.

A camper has use for a common-sense sheath-knife, sometimes for dressing big game, but oftener for such homely work as cutting sticks, slicing bacon, and frying spuds. For such purposes a rather thin, broad pointed blade is required, and it need not be over four or five inches long. Nothing is gained by a longer blade, and it would be in ones way every time he sat down. Such a knife, bearing the marks of hard usage, lies before me. Its blade and handle are each 4 1/4 inches long, the blade being 1 inch wide, 1/8 inch thick on the back, broad pointed, and continued through the handle as a hasp and riveted to it. It is tempered hard enough to cut green hardwood sticks, but soft enough so that when it strikes a knot or bone it will, if anything, turn rather than nick; then a whetstone soon puts it in order. The Abyssinians have a saying, If a sword bends, we can straighten it; but if it breaks, who can mend it ?

Which is probably why, of all the hollow handled knives I have, I only really carry, use and rely on the Wilson SAFE. The others are just for fun (and a great lot of fun they are, don't get me wrong).

Gaston444 · May 18, 2015

yasuru said:
Most recent acquisition. Found a great deal on this Black Starr First Blood tribute knife and thought I'd give it a shot. 9 inches of D2 steel and seems to be put together pretty well. Have whacked a few limbs off of some trees and some other various cutting tasks. Will have to give it a more thorough work out in the future. Stood it next to the Apparo for size reference.
View attachment 545021 View attachment 545022 View attachment 545023

Thanks for looking.

These look decently made: Be advised one of the obvious Black Starr inaccuracies to the original Liles, on the Black Starr "Mission", is that the ricasso's plunge line is 90°, whereas it should lean forward a little: Your First Blood appears closer...

Can you measure how thick is the edge bevel at its base? If you can guess the edge angle that would be great.

Gaston

Gaston444 · May 18, 2015

guns_and_labs said:
I keep coming back to the above quote as being somewhat arrogant. So I dug out a quote from Horace Kephart, 1906, and definitely someone who lived close to nature,

Which is probably why, of all the hollow handled knives I have, I only really carry, use and rely on the Wilson SAFE. The others are just for fun (and a great lot of fun they are, don't get me wrong).

Well in my area, if you are out of hunting season, are you ever going to skin a large animal? This being Canada, I don't carry a gun either, so all the skinning aspects are of little use to me... It is a different perspective. I still think the primary task in the woods is shelter and fire, therefore mainly chopping wood ---without a horrible clumsy hatchet---... His advice berating the nutritive value of plants is also well considered I think... I just bring my own food for short forays, and maybe I'll fish, and that's it... Even the whittling done for making figure four traps makes me wonder: Just how much nutrients can there be in such a tiny ---crushed-- animal? It is one of my peeves that Les Stroud tries to eat any small thing...: If one of those causes a reaction or makes you vomit, you've just lost a lot more calories than these things were ever going to put in...

Also, if a fixed blade is going to be that short, why not just carry a folder? It is interesting that you did find a 1906 reference to something that does closely resemble a "bushcraft" knife. For decades too we kept hearing how a big blade was the obvious mark of a tenderfoot... The 1906 reference though is mainly for the use of it for skinning, an area of use where big blades were always known to be notoriously clumsy... On the other hand, the term "bushcraft knife" is something quite new, as when I left the knife-buying hobby around 1997, after a good 15 years of buying knives, I had never heard of this term once, even after reading voluminous amounts of knife publications... I did know big fixed blades were frowned upon by the "expert hunters" types, even back then, but I only heard the term "bushcraft" just last year, when I came back to buying knives... To me, if you are not hunting largeish game, I don't see the point of them...

Gaston

druid189 · May 19, 2015

I'd like to point out that Horace Kephart was primarily a camping fisherman, not a hunter [as a primary source of food]. It made more sense for H.K. to use a smaller knife because it served his purpose. And let's not forget he favored tomahawks and did use a dual bit hatchet that was a custom job by Colclesser Brothers, here in PA:

From the article: http://masterwoodsman.com/2014/horace-kephart-notes-hatchets-handles/

I remember reading somewhere he may have had a custom dual bit made by a surgical tool maker.....

EDIT: here it is: http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php/192223-Nessmuk-style-Double-bit-belt-axe-anyone

"George Sears, writing as "Nessmuk" in Forest and Stream at the turn of the 1900s or before, described his investment in a belt or "pocket" axe that had a "thick, stunt edge for knots, deers' bones, etc., and a fine keen edge for cutting clear timber."

He shows a drawing of it, and mentions he got it from a surgical instrument maker in Rochester, NY, by the name of Bushnell. The drawing, (if to scale) shows a Marbles-type bladed knife next to the axe...guessing it is 9 inches long...so the belt axe would be about 13-14 inches."

--------
So it appears the George Sears "Nessmuk" hatchet was a recreation of the HK designed axe? I guess? IDK......::shrugs::
--------

Still....larger knives do play a role in a person's choice of tool - it simply depends on what they are going to do with it, that determines its usefulness.

Ausseknifeknut · May 19, 2015

That scorpion doesn't look too bad , I wouldn't pay much for it though , looks pretty low quality. I want a boker apparo , but it's not in this months budget , and I can't find one to buy

guns_and_labs · May 19, 2015

Gaston444 said:
Well in my area, if you are out of hunting season, are you ever going to skin a large animal? This being Canada, I don't carry a gun either, so all the skinning aspects are of little use to me... It is a different perspective. I still think the primary task in the woods is shelter and fire, therefore mainly chopping wood ---without a horrible clumsy hatchet---... His advice berating the nutritive value of plants is also well considered I think... I just bring my own food for short forays, and maybe I'll fish, and that's it... Even the whittling done for making figure four traps makes me wonder: Just how much nutrients can there be in such a tiny ---crushed-- animal? It is one of my peeves that Les Stroud tries to eat any small thing...: If one of those causes a reaction or makes you vomit, you've just lost a lot more calories than these things were ever going to put in...

Also, if a fixed blade is going to be that short, why not just carry a folder? It is interesting that you did find a 1906 reference to something that does closely resemble a "bushcraft" knife. For decades too we kept hearing how a big blade was the obvious mark of a tenderfoot... The 1906 reference though is mainly for the use of it for skinning, an area of use where big blades were always known to be notoriously clumsy... On the other hand, the term "bushcraft knife" is something quite new, as when I left the knife-buying hobby around 1997, after a good 15 years of buying knives, I had never heard of this term once, even after reading voluminous amounts of knife publications... I did know big fixed blades were frowned upon by the "expert hunters" types, even back then, but I only heard the term "bushcraft" just last year, when I came back to buying knives... To me, if you are not hunting largeish game, I don't see the point of them...

Gaston

My point was not to criticize those who thoughtfully choose a larger blade, but rather to question someone who so obviously and inaccurately criticizes those who would choose a smaller knife.

Nor am I here to proclaim the virtues of "bushcraft", which I agree is a relatively new term. I merely point out that, historically, those who live close to nature, live in nature, survive quite well with smaller fixed blades. Whether referring to the early American writers like Kephart, my own Finnish and Lapp ancestors, or the native peoples of my current adopted home in the last frontier... the first and primary blade that never leaves one's person, is a smaller blade. The large blade or axe was also valued, of course, especially when butchering game or preparing a fire.

cricketdave · May 19, 2015

I always carry a folder, skinned a lot of squirrels and rabbits with it. I've used large blades to skin as well, pretty much any knife I can get the hide off whatever I'm gonna be eating. Its not all that complicated. Since its not an actual OMG I"m gonna die if I don't have a certain blade its mostly for fun now.

JD Mandrell · May 19, 2015

I've field dressed deer with knives ranging from an ESEE Izula to a TOPS Pathfinder School Knife.........The Izula was way easier.