Unusual question...Wich Busse is the widest?

T

TIERRAVENTURA

Joined
Oct 6, 2012
Messages
394
I apologize in advance if this turns out to be a dumb question for anybody, but wich one of the bigger blades is the widest?...(I dont mean thickest, I believe that is the MOAB), but wich one is the widest on its narrowest point?...

E.G: I noticed the HOGFSH is wider than the NMFSH. And apparently the CGFBM is wider than the NMFBM and the BWM according to this pic I found on google images:

CIMG6367-2.jpg


thanks for the feedback.

AS ALWAYS, PICTURES ARE WELCOMED.
 
CGFBM may be the widest, but can't say for certain. Also, I believe the heavy duty (?) is in the running for the thickest :) My memory is beyond bad
 
Uh, be careful when you look at pics like this. With the knives layed out you are going to get a camera distortion and make your analysis skewed. Are you talking as to the height of the blade i.e. Spine to edge?
 
Killazilla, MOAB, Chuckette', Behemoth are a few that come to mind.

Thickness wise I have a knife that is over .41"
 
resinguy said:
Forget about thickest. He is asking about widest.

Width info is hard to come by. IIRC, the FSH is a smidge wider than the NMSFNO, and may be the widest blade.
Click to expand...

I saw that but he also mentioned the MOAB being the thickest so I thought I'd add that input as well :D
 
My CGFBM is a smidge over 2" at the tallest (scalloped) point and my NMFBM is smudge under 2" at the tallest (uniform) point. Out of all of my Busse knives, the CGFBM is the tallest.

Note that the CGFBM is scalloped on the top, so the average height of the NMFBM would be taller.
 
I always find it weird that knife guys refer to dimensions as length, width, and thickness. In just about every other industry where measurements of three directions are important, they use length, width, and height. Its so common that a lot of the time we dont even clarify the L, W, H, by name. Just the numbers such as 48" x 24" x 36". The other person should already know where those measurements go. Seems it should be:
Length = tip to butt
Width = thickness of blade
Height = edge to spine
Why would someone call edge to spine the width?
 
al g blenny said:
I always find it weird that knife guys refer to dimensions as length, width, and thickness. In just about every other industry where measurements of three directions are important, they use length, width, and height. Its so common that a lot of the time we dont even clarify the L, W, H, by name. Just the numbers such as 48" x 24" x 36". The other person should already know where those measurements go. Seems it should be:
Length = tip to butt
Width = thickness of blade
Height = edge to spine
Why would someone call edge to spine the width?
Click to expand...

It may be because the flat stock that the knife is ground from is oriented and measured that way:


I assume it's also because, if you drop a knife down, it'll most likely land on a flat instead of balance on its edge or spine, i.e., in the same orientation as the original stock.
 
From the thread title, my first thought was Jerry...

Sorry boss, it was too easy. Like I have any room to talk....:eek:
 
uyotg said:
It may be because the flat stock that the knife is ground from is oriented and measured that way:


I assume it's also because, if you drop a knife down, it'll most likely land on a flat instead of balance on its edge or spine, i.e., in the same orientation as the original stock.
Click to expand...

LOL...yes, what he said.
 
Can I go thinking the widest according to UYOTG´s dimension´s nomenclature is the CGFBM?...even wider than the FBM or FFBM?

oh wait...I just remembered: (this is a busse right?)

5160935730_23439be3b9.jpg


But I meant Knife...not cleaver...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top