Having read considerable comment recently about HI's overly thick blades versus the more desirable thin blades on older Army khuks, I made a few comparative measurements with some interesting results.
The two khuks measured were one of Bura's 16.5" WWIIs and an Atlanta Cutlery khuk. The AC was their most inexpensive model with the riveted handle. It comes with photocopies of an arsenal diagram and other documents indicating that this type was at least prescribed at some point by somebody in the British Army. The documents are very detailed and the khuk fits these details exactly.
In length, they were both within 1 mm of 17". Apparently Bura stretched this one out just a bit over spec. In weight, they were also identical according to my postal scale. It is a typical postal scale, and the needle went to EXACTLY the same point for both khuks.
The blades are of different shapes, but are of equal width at their widest point. That is, the one will fit exactly into the other's silouette at the wide spot.
The AC is 1/32" short of being 1/4" thick, and is of uniform thickness throughout the entire blade except for the edge bevel. IMHO, this qualifies it as a "thin bladed" khuk, and if it was any thinner it would be nudging the khuk-shaped machete category.
Bura's khuk is 3/8" thick at the spine. When both khuks are side by side on a table, Bura's product looks considerably heavier but this is an illusion. The way he got the weight down was by tapering the spine - thick at the bolster, then thin, then thick again at the bend in the blade, then gradually thinning to the point. There are also significant fullers on both sides which are nearly the width of the blade.
Therefore, the recent "thick stock" v. "thin stock" discussion leaves me a little confused. If you take thick stock and pound out a khuk which weighs the same as a thin khuk, what is the thin blade's advantage? The fullered and shaped blade of thicker material has got to have more lateral strength, it seems to me.
The two khuks measured were one of Bura's 16.5" WWIIs and an Atlanta Cutlery khuk. The AC was their most inexpensive model with the riveted handle. It comes with photocopies of an arsenal diagram and other documents indicating that this type was at least prescribed at some point by somebody in the British Army. The documents are very detailed and the khuk fits these details exactly.
In length, they were both within 1 mm of 17". Apparently Bura stretched this one out just a bit over spec. In weight, they were also identical according to my postal scale. It is a typical postal scale, and the needle went to EXACTLY the same point for both khuks.
The blades are of different shapes, but are of equal width at their widest point. That is, the one will fit exactly into the other's silouette at the wide spot.
The AC is 1/32" short of being 1/4" thick, and is of uniform thickness throughout the entire blade except for the edge bevel. IMHO, this qualifies it as a "thin bladed" khuk, and if it was any thinner it would be nudging the khuk-shaped machete category.
Bura's khuk is 3/8" thick at the spine. When both khuks are side by side on a table, Bura's product looks considerably heavier but this is an illusion. The way he got the weight down was by tapering the spine - thick at the bolster, then thin, then thick again at the bend in the blade, then gradually thinning to the point. There are also significant fullers on both sides which are nearly the width of the blade.
Therefore, the recent "thick stock" v. "thin stock" discussion leaves me a little confused. If you take thick stock and pound out a khuk which weighs the same as a thin khuk, what is the thin blade's advantage? The fullered and shaped blade of thicker material has got to have more lateral strength, it seems to me.
