The Loveless Subhilt

[Kohai999]

From another excellent thread that I did not want to derail further:

The original SF makers - as talented and innovative as they were - did not collectively create some kind of Platonic form of the perfect knife handle. I can no more acept this than I can accept the assertion that ANY variation on Loveless subhilt makes the resulting knife less of a knife.

People have specific preferences born of experience with and passion for knives. But it does a disservice to the work of others, in my view to confuse those preferences with rules of general appliction and defiing signposts of superioroty of design...... But a variation on those originals does not by definition result in an inferior knife. It may be less appealing to you, but it is not necessarily less of a knife.

Roger

The subhilt did not exist in the form now known as the Loveless subhilt until Bob Loveless built it in the '50's. The variations by other makers don't necessarily make it less of a knife, Roger...but they make it less of a Loveless style knife....and imo, that is taking away from function, not adding to. They may look nicer or prettier.

A fellow Forumite, MVF, asked me at the Pasadena Knife Expo last weekend about my adamant preference for the designs of Loveless. This made me smile, as my good friend Louis Chow was in attendance, and we were able to survey almost 50 years of Loveless subhilt creation, as Louis has THE definitive evolutionary Big Bear display.

MVF was able to see first hand for the first time, and I was able to remember, the subtle factors that make a Loveless subhilt superior. The light weight for a longer blade, the ergonomics, the construction method, the shaping of blade and guard....these are all for me, and many others in the community who have had the opportunity to compare and contrast the work of Loveless-Merritt against other work, both by them and by other makers, what makes a Loveless subhilt superior to the work of all others.

The Loveless shop doesn't always knock it out of the park, but when it does happen(more often then not) it is THE best execution of that design. My third custom knife was a Loveless style big bear, and it wasn't even close. The closest maker that I have seen compared to Loveless, working without any interpretation, is a medium Bear from Mike Lovett.....very close...very nice knife.....not a Loveless, if I was blindfolded, would know the difference.

The subhilts I have from Burt Foster, Jot Khalsa and some others are all very nice knives, and I love them....but they are not done in the Loveless style, and that makes all the difference.

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson

 

[betzner]

This may seem strange, coming from me, but quite often I find that simplicity is best. Actually, when you get right down to it, simplicity probably is better, most of the time. Not just with knives, but with most everything.

Form/Function/Design - Simplicity is almost always best. My own personal belief is that the knife that measures up best to these three criteria is usually a Loveless, the Loveless subhilt being absolutely no exception.

Bob

 

[RogerP]

From another excellent thread that I did not want to derail further:

The subhilt did not exist in the form now known as the Loveless subhilt until Bob Loveless built it in the '50's. The variations by other makers don't necessarily make it less of a knife, Roger...but they make it less of a Loveless style knife....and imo, that is taking away from function, not adding to. They may look nicer or prettier.

Well, as you know STeven, I see it differently. Yes, changing a Loveless design even a little makes it less of a Loveless - that is a self-defining proposition.

But it does not necessarily mean that any change renders the knife less functional - and indeed - I would suggest that some changes may improve upon function. I have handled a good many non-Loveless subhilts which I felt afforded a more ergonomic grip - for me. I have never been one to have a great love for handles that are essentially rectangular in cross-section. No part of my hand or palm is rectangular - and thus I find that most contoured handles more oval in crosss-section fit my hand better.

For example - I much preferred the handle on Lin Rhea's subhilt that I handled (and should have bought) at Little Rock.

Yes - I appreciate that this is subjective - but if I am going to rely on a knife in the most dire of circumstances, the one that feels better in my hand exhibits improved, not diminished, function.

While no-one can or should take anything away from the innovation that Loveless brought to this (and other) knife designs, I simply cannot accept the notion that it was a design perfectly conceived and executed for all people in all circumstances.

The knife has been around for millenia before Loveless and will be around for millenia after. As much respect as I accord the man for his indisputable contributions to contemproary custom knife design, I feel it would be hubris to point to Loveless - or any other single maker - as reflecting the indisputable apogee of the craft.

Roger

 

[flatgrinder]

Just my 2 cents: a Loveless-style knife should not be rectangular in cross-section if done correctly .... it's more of an oval shape.

 

[bluejaunte]

Excellent thread, I've been waiting for this. :thumbup:

the subtle factors that make a Loveless subhilt superior. The light weight for a longer blade, the ergonomics, the construction method, the shaping of blade and guard....

I know we've talked about this a little in the past, but could you elaborate on these somewhat? I'm not looking for a "guide on how to duplicate the Big Bear" or a CAD 3-view with appropriate cross sections detailed (though I wouldn't complain about it if you provided one ). Just a little more on what to look for.

 

[RogerP]

Just my 2 cents: a Loveless-style knife should not be rectangular in cross-section if done correctly .... it's more of an oval shape.

I had said "essentially rectangular" - it's a descriptive term for the appearance and feel - I'm not literally suggesting that there are right angles and sharp edges. And it certainly strikes me in appearance and feel as more of a smoothed rectangle than an oval.


Roger

 

[Lorien]

this is probably a pretty newb type of question, but what purpose did Bob Loveless envision for the sub hilt design? Is it really as simple as grip? Or is there more to it than that?

 

[Kohai999]

I know we've talked about this a little in the past, but could you elaborate on these somewhat? I'm not looking for a "guide on how to duplicate the Big Bear" or a CAD 3-view with appropriate cross sections detailed (though I wouldn't complain about it if you provided one ). Just a little more on what to look for.

Blade-Bob experimented greatly and decided that stainless steel was a superior steel for the blades he wanted to make.....not sure what the first knives were made of other than when I interviewed him he had a preference for Studebaker springs(yes, this is a carbon steel, but this is also back in the late '50's, much before 440C was available). Once 440C was being used, he switched to that, but vastly preferred 154CM. When this was coming out of the smelter "dirty" due to not vacuum smelting, he helped the Japanese(Hitachi) refineATS-34. RWL 34 is a premium powder metallurgy cutlery steel manufactured by Damasteel AB...it is named after Bob Loveless, but am not sure what role he had in its' development. Heat treating of Loveless knives is done in-house. Bob shoots for the best combination of hardness and edge retention without brittleness, processes developed over long periods of time and experimentation.

The Loveless Big Bear, and most of his other "fighting" knives are hollow ground so deeply that Bob has been known to grind through the other side. The centerline forms a "ridge" that is both strong and functional. Bob studied medieval fighting knives, most of which were diamond shaped for a more damaging stab wound, one that is harder to close up. That is what the centerline of Bob's fighting knives is there for.....way down on the list of importance is it looking cool, and it is also a total bitch to grind.

Bob used to silver solder the joint between the guard and blade for an impervious seal, but now he precision fits that guard to tang, and uses sealant to keep out moisture.

The guards are as thin as possible for weight reduction, wide enough to offer full covering for the hands, and slightly curved and highly polished....originally made of brass or nickle silver, they are now all almost exclusively 416 stainless steel. The shape of the guard facilitated directing the blade to one side or the other, and the small lugs on the end of the guard(crucial!) were for trapping the blade, should the subhilt wielder so desire. The subhilt itself was designed to 1) assist in removal of the blade from your opponent, 2) further assist in keeping the handle from twisting in the hand.

The tang is tapered for weight reduction, and selectively drilled to increase adhesion between tang and scale material

The handle is not as Roger indicated, rectangular, but is instead ovoid and sculpted, there is a flare at the base to wrap your pinky finger around, and it is almost impossible to twist in the hand, just like a good sword shaped handle. The handle piece between the hilt and subhilt used to have a bolt in in, and was wider, but to get the hilt and subhilt closer to each other in a more "natural" arrangement, Bob has closed up that distance some, and dropped the attaching Loveless bolt.

Bob prefers Micarta, woods and stag for good retention and durability.

I'm sure that there is much more, but this is off the top of my head.

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson

 

[SharpByCoop]

Let me help the discussion

Roger's assessment is dead on. For him, maybe others. STeven's assessment is dead on. For him. Maybe others.

Just sayin....

Coop

 

[RogerP]

Roger's assessment is dead on. For him, maybe others. STeven's assessment is dead on. For him. Maybe others.

Just sayin....

Coop

No argument here.

Roger

 

[Mongo]

Thanks Coop for the awesome pics... it's exactly what this thread needed.

 

[peterinct]

Roger's assessment is dead on. For him, maybe others. STeven's assessment is dead on. For him. Maybe others.

Just sayin....

Coop

I'm agreein Coop

From what I read (forget where) the function of the "sub" hilt was to help extract the blade after stabbing!

Peter

 

[Kevin Jones]

Here's Steven Rapp's rendition. Only seen the photo but knowing Steven's work I would bet it has exquisite fit/finish and feels remarkable in hand.

 

[RogerP]

Those shots of three (presumptively properly made) Loveless subhilts by Coop certainly demonstrate what I was talking about in terms of a handle cross-section that is essentially rectangular in shape. Look at all the handle inset shots showing the underside view - sure looks like a slightly rounded-off rectangle to me. I haven't seen many ovals with that many straight lines.

Now, I'm not saying such handle designs are necessarily bad - they do provide benefits in terms of indexing and resistance to twisting. But my preference leans toward a more oval or egg-shaped cross section on a knife that I will actually use - which in turn informs my general preference for hidden tang versus full tang or frame handles, as they allow for more contouring curves. An example of what I'm talking about when I make reference to an oval / egg shaped cross-section would be something like this Jason Knight:

Roger

 

[Kohai999]

Now, I'm not saying such handle designs are necessarily bad - they do provide benefits in terms of indexing and resistance to twisting. But my preference leans toward a more oval or egg-shaped cross section on a knife that I will actually use - which in turn informs my general preference for hidden tang versus full tang or frame handles, as they allow for more contouring curves.
Roger

I doubt that you would or have been in a knife fight or trained for knife fighting.

There was only one purpose to the Big Bear subhilt, utility was not a factor....it does however, make a dandy collectible.

Gotta look at the purpose of the knife when assessing the design.

Here's Steven Rapp's rendition. Only seen the photo but knowing Steven's work I would bet it has exquisite fit/finish and feels remarkable in hand.

I love Steven Rapp....he and his SO are friends of mine, and that blade looks super....BUT....there are sharp(ish) edges on the hilt and subhilt, and they are over stylized....great to look at, probably might work well enough....not an improvement on the original Loveless design, missing very important sculpting down by the butt, for instance. That said, sans engraving, I wish I owned it.

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson

 

[RogerP]

I doubt that you would or have been in a knife fight or trained for knife fighting.

There was only one purpose to the Big Bear subhilt, utility was not a factor....it does however, make a dandy collectible.

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson

Correct about the knife fighting. Thankfully, my involvement in knife fights to date has been purely forensic. But I have been involved in collecting and using custom knives long enough to comprehend the practical impact of design and construction choices. And there are a great many design decisions that impact the utility of a knife as a fighting tool. A Khukri shares almost no design commonalities with a Big Bear, but it is time tested and battle proven as a devastating fighting knife.

All of which is to say what I have maintained from the beginning - that the Loveless Big Bear is a terrific and (at least in the contemporary context) historic knife design. But it isn't the "perfect" fighting knife for all people. No knife is. If you accept that basic proposition then it must follow that variations on the Loveless design may result in a net functional improvement for some buyers - even among those precious few who use a figting knife for its intended purpose.

Roger

 

[Kevin Jones]

I love Steven Rapp....he and his SO are friends of mine, and that blade looks super....BUT....there are sharp(ish) edges on the hilt and subhilt, and they are over stylized....great to look at, probably might work well enough....not an improvement on the original Loveless design, missing very important sculpting down by the butt, for instance. That said, sans engraving, I wish I owned it.

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson

We differ, (imagine that ) as I prefer Steven's more radius hilt/sub-hilt over the Loveless more horseshoe shaped both aesthetically and feel it would offer more comfort. Different strokes.

 

[Lorien]

A Khukri shares almost no design commonalities with a Big Bear, but it is time tested and battle proven as a devastating fighting knife.

hmmm...subhilt khukuri, eh?...
Sorry- carry on. I was just thinking out loud

 

[bluejaunte]

Thanks for the pics Coop!

Without a doubt my favorite Big Bear that I've ever seen. As goofy as it sounds, the pinned nickel silver guards, the proportions, the age-worn scales, and the Loveless bolts really do it for me. Classic!

 

[Kohai999]

hmmm...subhilt khukuri, eh?...
Sorry- carry on. I was just thinking out loud

Been done, not badly either.

I don't know how much Roger and Kevin have handled Loveless subhilts, but if you guys want the opportunity to handle a few at Blade, let me know and we'll make it happen.

Might bring some revelations.

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson