- Joined
- May 18, 1999
- Messages
- 15,395
I received my Beavertail Dagger Blade yesterday and was not disappointed, however I was somewhat, well actually extremely shocked, at the thickness of the
2-11/16" wide X 8-7/8" long blade!!!!
It is only 3/16" of an inch thick!!!!
The website says it is, "An exact copy of a fine, early example of a beavertail blade made by John Sorby of Sheffield."
Does this mean it's a bad blade or a bad design? Not at all.
What this means is that I haven't been buying too many knives that are considered large by the general knife community.
Khukuris can shade a person's perspective to the point that, *If it ain't thick, it ain't worth having* and I have to admit that they have shaded my perspective, a helluva lot more than I had thought too.
The older knives were made thinner because they were designed to be used and treated as knives and not prybars or other tools of destruction. Also no more steel than needed was used because steel was scarce and expensive and was often forge welded to iron for tools to keep expense down.
They were designed to cut and cut well and that they did and almost always with a passion.
There's just something about a well sharpened thin blade and the way it slices anything you ask it to slice from bacon to paper thin tomatoes you can read newsprint through.
Will this knife slice well? I'm most certain that it will because the design is correct.
Many of the old mountain men as well as other frontiersmen carried double edged knives like these. One edge was sharpened for light chopping at a more obtuse angle and the other side at a more acute angle for fine work.
As you can see from the shape of the blade this knife has a full belly on both sides. It won't skin as well as a dedicated skinning knife but it *will* skin, and it *will* slice.
It will do all that it is designed for as long as it is realized that it is a knife and *not* a *Super Tool* although that isn't entirely true either.
A decent knife , any decent knife, is indeed a *Super Tool!!!!* :thumbup:
~
2-11/16" wide X 8-7/8" long blade!!!!
It is only 3/16" of an inch thick!!!!
The website says it is, "An exact copy of a fine, early example of a beavertail blade made by John Sorby of Sheffield."
Does this mean it's a bad blade or a bad design? Not at all.
What this means is that I haven't been buying too many knives that are considered large by the general knife community.
Khukuris can shade a person's perspective to the point that, *If it ain't thick, it ain't worth having* and I have to admit that they have shaded my perspective, a helluva lot more than I had thought too.The older knives were made thinner because they were designed to be used and treated as knives and not prybars or other tools of destruction. Also no more steel than needed was used because steel was scarce and expensive and was often forge welded to iron for tools to keep expense down.
They were designed to cut and cut well and that they did and almost always with a passion.
There's just something about a well sharpened thin blade and the way it slices anything you ask it to slice from bacon to paper thin tomatoes you can read newsprint through.
Will this knife slice well? I'm most certain that it will because the design is correct.
Many of the old mountain men as well as other frontiersmen carried double edged knives like these. One edge was sharpened for light chopping at a more obtuse angle and the other side at a more acute angle for fine work.
As you can see from the shape of the blade this knife has a full belly on both sides. It won't skin as well as a dedicated skinning knife but it *will* skin, and it *will* slice.
It will do all that it is designed for as long as it is realized that it is a knife and *not* a *Super Tool* although that isn't entirely true either.
A decent knife , any decent knife, is indeed a *Super Tool!!!!*
:thumbup: ~
