What do you think of the "Generic" bushcraft knife?

[pinnah]

This idea of a "traditional" scandi grind always makes me chuckle. I have a couple of Moras, a 106 and a Robust. Per Mora, the 106 is a carver. It has a zero edge. On the other hand the Robust is meant to do more than whittle on soft woods. It has a visible microbevel, put on at the factory for added robustness. It's evident that the scandi grind and the slavish devotion to its purity is a modern invention.

This is one of things that has come through to me in Thomas's posts too.

 

[RX-79G]

You should look more closely. You have to work very hard to find a spot east of the Mississippi that is more than 5 miles from a maintained road in US. Just to be clear, I was being tongue in cheek here. You compared what you saw in the Mid-Atlantic region to the forests of Canada. There's no comparison. US forests are, by comparison, suburbs.



No, he doesn't. If you were to read that thread more carefully, you would see that Thomas is quoting a bunch of folks from Scandinavian countries, noting their lack of agreement on what is or is not a traditional scandi grind. Again, my understanding is that zero-edge flat "scandi" grind like you see on the Mora a) have popularity in the English import market (aka Mears) and b) tend to end up getting convexed (including a convexed secondary bevel) when sharpened by hand in Scandanvian countries.



Again, you should read more slowly. I never wrote that. Perhaps you are thinking of somebody else. I said the traditional way to sharpen so-called scandi blades is on a stone, by hand in which case they evolve to a convexed grind to suit the user's taste. I never said never.

I think we are talking past each other:

The topic of "forests":
I say there are plenty of places in the US where someone can spend time in the woods where no one else is ever likely to go. I grew up in such a forest, and it was certainly always within 5 miles of a road or house. That didn't prevent it from being completely unused by nearly everyone. On the topic of spending some time in the woods whacking sticks and making shelters without bothering anyone, that doesn't need to happen only in Nebraska.


On the topic of "unfinished" Scandi grinds, what Thomas Linton posted is that the grind is used in what you call "unfinished" state for woodworking by some people in Scandinavia. I don't think anyone on this thread is a member of the Scandi-grind-purity club, and have no objection to doing whatever with the grind. The only objection I had is to the notion that no one in Scandinavia uses a Scandi grind as is. Linton's quotes suggest that the primary grind "unfinished" version is indeed preferred by some Scandinavians for some uses, like woodworking.

It sounds like other Scandinavians would view it the way you do, but certainly not all. That's why I don't understand your insistence that the knife is not considered fit for use as delivered.

I have, sharpen and use both types and don't see a major conflict or a huge difference in cutting. Each knife cuts slightly different because they are different angles, have secondary grinds, different stock thicknesses, etc. But all of them cut more like each other than they cut like a high FFG, for instance.

 

[VanDammet]

OP - you do bring up an interesting topic with this thread. It is striking, just how many of these "generic bushcraft knives" (GBK) are being produced. I do agree with some previous posters who said they tend to think these sort of knives can be overpriced. A 9" OAL knife with a simple steel, a nice leather sheath with the gratuitous rod holder, & a contoured handle in a middle of the road hardwood or micarta...the price tag for such a knife shouldn't begin with any other number than a one.

I actually enjoy this size & general shape of fixed blade very much, with a full tang, FFG or high-saber 3/32" to 1/8" stock, in a nice stainless or semi-stainless alloy; higher-end wood or micarta scales with more artistic pinouts; more refined fit & finish with no 90-degree spines to cut my fingers on, no jimping, & a nice leather sheath with an integral belt loop & no rod holder. So, while I certainly don't dig the generic bushcraft knife (GBK), I do dig & have many knives that are the same basic size & handle & blade shapes/outlines of these GBKs....because it's just a very useful general knife design. Again, an interesting topic, & it's fun to read the varying points of view of all the BF members here...

 

[pinnah]

I think we are talking past each other:

The topic of "forests":
I say there are plenty of places in the US where someone can spend time in the woods where no one else is ever likely to go. I grew up in such a forest, and it was certainly always within 5 miles of a road or house. That didn't prevent it from being completely unused by nearly everyone.

That's wonderful. Great memories, I'm sure.

Are you suggesting that this justifies people camping and harvesting wood and plants on private land without permission of the land owner or doing the same on public lands in violation of established rules and recommendations?

My cousins own a good sized tract of land in the middle of one of the larger "roadless" areas in Vermont. They pull wood out of it and run a sugarbush there. Also the location of the family hunting camp. Miles from the nearest maintained road. People go in there all the time, often without permission. They've found and ripped out several primitive campsites, all put up by people who were there without permission.

I've done a fair amount of bushwacking and off trail backcountry skiing on public lands in both Vermont and New Hampshire. It's trivial to find trashed up primitive campsites off trail. People tend to define a "good campsite" the same. Show me a map from up here, and I'll put my finger on spots where you'll almost certainly find hammered campsites, complete with full fire rings, de-limbed trees and toilet paper "roses" 10 yards in the woods.

IMO, if you find yourself in a remote place in the eastern US and think, "Nobody will come along after me and find this place", then you're kidding yourself.

On the topic of "unfinished" Scandi grinds, what Thomas Linton posted is that the grind is used in what you call "unfinished" state for woodworking by some people in Scandinavia. I don't think anyone on this thread is a member of the Scandi-grind-purity club, and have no objection to doing whatever with the grind. The only objection I had is to the notion that no one in Scandinavia uses a Scandi grind as is. Linton's quotes suggest that the primary grind "unfinished" version is indeed preferred by some Scandinavians for some uses, like woodworking.

It sounds like other Scandinavians would view it the way you do, but certainly not all. That's why I don't understand your insistence that the knife is not considered fit for use as delivered.

This conversation would go much better if you responded to what I actually write, and not to some bizarrely twisted mis-interpretation. Here is what I wrote:

As I understand it (happy to be corrected and maybe Thomas Linton can weigh in), the so-called Scandi grind is just an unfinished knife. The tradition is to convex and shape the grind on stones to match your preference. Some prefer high convex, some low convex. A pure Scandi is like a clean slate, with a lot of metal left on it, allowing the user to finish the grind to suit their preference.

Fully convexed blades (like my grandfather's old knife or that old Schrade or the convexed Mora below) are very easy to maintain in the field with simple stones. Generally speaking, a natural movement of the hand on the stone will impart the convexity near the edge.

I never said all. I never said the knife was unfit to use stock. Many people like it that way, particularly devotees of Ray Mears.

I've tried both and vastly prefer my Moras convexed.

Virtuovice's experience is similar to mine.
[video=youtube_share;sLlxWbce4iE]http://youtu.be/sLlxWbce4iE[/video]

 

[RX-79G]

As I understand it (happy to be corrected and maybe Thomas Linton can weigh in), the so-called Scandi grind is just an unfinished knife. The tradition is to convex and shape the grind on stones to match your preference. Some prefer high convex, some low convex. A pure Scandi is like a clean slate, with a lot of metal left on it, allowing the user to finish the grind to suit their preference.

I guess I don't understand what point you were making when you wrote this. You were either having an argument about what is "traditional" with no one on this thread, or you are saying that Scandi grinds without secondaries or convexing are not ready for use.

If you meant neither of those things, what was the point you were making?

 

[pinnah]

I guess I don't understand what point you were making when you wrote this. You were either having an argument about what is "traditional" with no one on this thread, or you are saying that Scandi grinds without secondaries or convexing are not ready for use.

If you meant neither of those things, what was the point you were making?

I quoted and was responding to KingMC, who observed that he found it hard to maintain pure Scandi grinds.

I agree with his observation and was trying to convey that just because Mora (and others) ship their knives ground in that manner, there is no need to be constrained to maintaining that grind as you own and use the knife. Thomas Linton has argued (convincingly to my reading) that:
a) his study of early American woodworking knives (owned and used by European immigrants) are predominantly convexed.
b) his study of early Puukos and other Scandinavian knives are similarly predominantly convexed
c) the use of a flat beveled so-called Scandi grind is both inexpensive to produce on modern equipment and makes the British import market happy

A parallel... I like vintage lightweight bikes. You'll hear some collectors wanting to find 100% original early Treks (US) or Mercians (UK). That's nuts. Both companies made frames and the expectation is that you would add what parts you wanted to suit your tastes. After a few years, Trek started to sell complete bikes, but it's not like they stayed up at night selecting the perfect components. The idea was only to give the rider/owner something to start with. The expectation was for the rider/owner to modify to suit. Only timid bike owners would like a bike like that stock and only timid knife owners would feel compelled to sharpen a so-called Scandi knife the way Mears teaches.

This tradition exists in traditional knives. Enzo's bread and butter for many years was in selling unfinished knife blades. There's something of an expectation that Mora and Opinel users will adjust the handles (and blade shape and grind) to suit their tastes.

Yes... lots and lots of people sharpen their "Scandi" ground knives just like Ray Mears suggests. But this doesn't mean that it's the only way, nor even the traditional way. As Linton notes, traditionally such knives end up getting convexed over time and beyond that, there's no agreement even on what "Scandi grind" means among Scandinavian knife enthusiasts.

 

[RX-79G]

I quoted and was responding to KingMC, who observed that he found it hard to maintain pure Scandi grinds.

Okay, that makes sense. I didn't see that you were addressing that part of his post.

 

[KingMC]

I quoted and was responding to KingMC, who observed that he found it hard to maintain pure Scandi grinds.

I agree with his observation and was trying to convey that just because Mora (and others) ship their knives ground in that manner, there is no need to be constrained to maintaining that grind as you own and use the knife. Thomas Linton has argued (convincingly to my reading) that:
a) his study of early American woodworking knives (owned and used by European immigrants) are predominantly convexed.
b) his study of early Puukos and other Scandinavian knives are similarly predominantly convexed
c) the use of a flat beveled so-called Scandi grind is both inexpensive to produce on modern equipment and makes the British import market happy

A parallel... I like vintage lightweight bikes. You'll hear some collectors wanting to find 100% original early Treks (US) or Mercians (UK). That's nuts. Both companies made frames and the expectation is that you would add what parts you wanted to suit your tastes. After a few years, Trek started to sell complete bikes, but it's not like they stayed up at night selecting the perfect components. The idea was only to give the rider/owner something to start with. The expectation was for the rider/owner to modify to suit. Only timid bike owners would like a bike like that stock and only timid knife owners would feel compelled to sharpen a so-called Scandi knife the way Mears teaches.

This tradition exists in traditional knives. Enzo's bread and butter for many years was in selling unfinished knife blades. There's something of an expectation that Mora and Opinel users will adjust the handles (and blade shape and grind) to suit their tastes.

Yes... lots and lots of people sharpen their "Scandi" ground knives just like Ray Mears suggests. But this doesn't mean that it's the only way, nor even the traditional way. As Linton notes, traditionally such knives end up getting convexed over time and beyond that, there's no agreement even on what "Scandi grind" means among Scandinavian knife enthusiasts.

The thing about these 'bushcraft' knives is that they are sold to people who don't really know what bushcraft is and assume there's one knife that can do it all. These people are often not the sort to change a grind on a knife, nor understand the limits or benefits of a given grind.

Bikes have always been modular, knives are sold as a finished product intended to be used out of the box, changing a grind is something usually reserved for the realm of people who don't get caught up in the gimmick that is the prototypical 'bushcraft' knife.

 

[RX-79G]

The thing about these 'bushcraft' knives is that they are sold to people who don't really know what bushcraft is and assume there's one knife that can do it all. These people are often not the sort to change a grind on a knife, nor understand the limits or benefits of a given grind.

Bikes have always been modular, knives are sold as a finished product intended to be used out of the box, changing a grind is something usually reserved for the realm of people who don't get caught up in the gimmick that is the prototypical 'bushcraft' knife.

This all gets confused because you can touch up a blade in the field by putting a "microbevel" on it without this being a "modification". You quickly knock the dull part off at an angle just less than the primary grind, and when you are home you can restore the original angle. It really isn't significantly different than using a strop or a steel in the kitchen.

 

[KingMC]

This all gets confused because you can touch up a blade in the field by putting a "microbevel" on it without this being a "modification". You quickly knock the dull part off at an angle just less than the primary grind, and when you are home you can restore the original angle. It really isn't significantly different than using a strop or a steel in the kitchen.

Sure, but a knife with a normal double-bevel like the FFG knives I normally have in the woods, I can keep the original angle when I'm field sharpening.

My post, though, was in response to the comparisons between bikes and knives, I'm not sure it's the same idea as knives are sold finished and to assume anything else is assumption nothing more.

 

[RX-79G]

Sure, but a knife with a normal double-bevel like the FFG knives I normally have in the woods, I can keep the original angle when I'm field sharpening.

My post, though, was in response to the comparisons between bikes and knives, I'm not sure it's the same idea as knives are sold finished and to assume anything else is assumption nothing more.

That is, if you believe that you are exactly maintaining a secondary bevel that is only 1-2mm wide when sharpening by hand. In contrast, if your Scandi is 12° per side, it isn't hard to put a 13-14° microbevel because you can see how the stone is lifted off the primary bevel. In either case, I don't think the edge is all that precise an angle, but as long they form an edge within a few degrees variation across the blade, you won't notice. It is an acceptable tolerance.


As far as bikes go, I know some of the first people who worked at Trek, and the early bikes were sold as frames. A little later, they sold both frames and complete bikes. I don't understand saying that those complete bikes are pointless to seek out as complete, because they did sell reasonably carefully selected complete bikes and complete build packages.


The parallel to knives are that it used to be understood that the blade was the important part, and even if your sheath or handle dried out and split, you would simply replace those parts and keep using your knife. Such a knife is no longer in collectible condition, but it wasn't strange for people to repair their knives over time. Nowadays there is an certain expectation that a "knife" is a complete product from one maker - blade, handle and sheath.

 

[VanDammet]

Sure, but a knife with a normal double-bevel like the FFG knives I normally have in the woods, I can keep the original angle when I'm field sharpening.

My post, though, was in response to the comparisons between bikes and knives, I'm not sure it's the same idea as knives are sold finished and to assume anything else is assumption nothing more.

I'm not sure I get the comparison either...one cannot ride a knife or cut with a bike.

I love the points you make in this thread about cost of some of these generic crafters of shrubbery, and your stance on FFG. I think those scandi-ish grinds are just hideous, while the full flat, or even a well done high saber, is far more elegant & beautiful to my eyes.

I'm cool with the marketing machines cranking out knives that you & I wouldn't buy in one sense though; it grabs folk's attention & get's them to spend $100+ on a knife. Some % of them will stay & evolve within the knife & outdoors worlds, & then we've got more people to talk about knives with here on Bladeforums! My lovely Wife would rather watch Real Housewives of New York than listen to me go on about how crazy sharp 52100 seems to get vs. some other steels, or the virtues of burlap vs. linen or canvas micarta, or if asymmetrical pinouts are cool or just pretentious....I'm struggling to get one of our 5 kids into knives, though I think I'm close with our 15yo boy, & our 2yo girl is showing real promise...always wanting to hold Dadddy's knives....wait, what are we talking about??

 

[pinnah]

My post, though, was in response to the comparisons between bikes and knives, I'm not sure it's the same idea as knives are sold finished and to assume anything else is assumption nothing more.

Some (or most) knives are sold finished, with no expectation of user modification; but not all.
The same is true for cars (hot rods) and bikes. Rehandling and regrinds are common topics here. Yes... we're talking about higher end users, just as we expect people who modify their cars or bikes to be higher end users.

The scandi grind is sort of like a 70s vintage muscle car or like a Harley. Sure.. you can run it stock if you want. But it's generally understood that plenty of folks are going to modify it (intentionally or not in the case of the Scandi). Linton's point is that intentional modification has been traditional in Scandinavian countries.

<drift to help clarify the analogy>

As far as bikes go, I know some of the first people who worked at Trek, and the early bikes were sold as frames. A little later, they sold both frames and complete bikes. I don't understand saying that those complete bikes are pointless to seek out as complete, because they did sell reasonably carefully selected complete bikes and complete build packages.

Those early complete Treks were not using carefully selected components. Heck... they underscored that component specifications were subject to change because they often did change due to availability. More profoundly (and speaking as somebody who was selling and fixing bikes in that era and who still rides a '79 510), the cycling culture of the day was a lot like the hot rod culture. Swapping out parts and reconfiguring the bike before it left the store was the norm on those bikes. The bike culture today is much different. You buy a top end Trek (or whatever) and people tend to ride it stock, at least more so than it used to be.

And it's here that we circle back to KingMC's assertion about knives. I think a lot of present day US consumers view all things - cars, knives, bikes - as sealed systems not to be touched or modified. Replaceable, not repairable.

Pirsig touched on this, comparing himself as a dirtbag Honda rider who repaired his one bike with his friend who rode a BMW and refused to "touch that stuff".
<drift>

BTW, my sense is that most people who self-identify as "bushcrafters" know more about knives and grinds than a lot of other knife sub-genre enthusiasts. Kochanski (who wrote the book and coined the term) defined the qualities of a knife suitable for bushcraft (as he defined it) and Mears (one of students) designed a knife in line with his teachers specifications. Most students of bushcraft have read this material (or material derived from it) and bought into that vision. One might disagree with some of it (I certainly do) but I wouldn't write them off as uninformed.

 

[RX-79G]

I think that folks also have the assumption that a $10 or $100 knife is a good a candidate for modification (grind, scales, sheath, hardware, clip, finish), but that a $200 knife ought to be preserved, respected, used with the intentions of the maker in mind. Those are arbitrary numbers, but you get my point that a less expensive anything is more rife for change.


On bikes, people are constantly changing seats, posts, bars, stem and especially wheels on their $3000+ bikes, so I don't think it is as rigid as you think. Probably the main thing was what Shimano did to sell the "group" concept in the '80s, along with some unfair trade practices. That made people hesitant to swap a derailleur or whatever, but that was also aesthetic, because colored parts became normal. Still, people buy Zero Gravity brakes for the Campy bikes. Just like knives, it has to do with perceptions of value, the intention of the designers, aesthetics and level of expertise to understand why a change would work.

 

[KingMC]

Some (or most) knives are sold finished, with no expectation of user modification; but not all.
The same is true for cars (hot rods) and bikes. Rehandling and regrinds are common topics here. Yes... we're talking about higher end users, just as we expect people who modify their cars or bikes to be higher end users.

The scandi grind is sort of like a 70s vintage muscle car or like a Harley. Sure.. you can run it stock if you want. But it's generally understood that plenty of folks are going to modify it (intentionally or not in the case of the Scandi). Linton's point is that intentional modification has been traditional in Scandinavian countries.

BTW, my sense is that most people who self-identify as "bushcrafters" know more about knives and grinds than a lot of other knife sub-genre enthusiasts. Kochanski (who wrote the book and coined the term) defined the qualities of a knife suitable for bushcraft (as he defined it) and Mears (one of students) designed a knife in line with his teachers specifications. Most students of bushcraft have read this material (or material derived from it) and bought into that vision. One might disagree with some of it (I certainly do) but I wouldn't write them off as uninformed.

You used the term 'generally understood', and I think this is where we differ in opinion.

You seem to imply that a majority of those who purchase bushcraft knives are assumed to be well-versed in bushcraft and the neighboring crafts as to understand that the knives designed and marketed as the 'do-everything bushcraft knife' are not complete as sold but meant to be modified upon purchase.

As someone who purchased a Mora 5.8in Allround as my first dedicated outdoorsy knife, I can say I assumed it was meant to be used as sold. Most of the threads where Moras are recommended as beginner bushcraft knives say nothing about the grind besides it's usual selling points: easy to maintain in the field, cuts through wood like crazy, downside of not slicing very well.

I think the majority of people who purchase bushcraft knives have an assumption that the maker who is selling it has intended it to function out of the box with no need for modification, as most knife companies do, and thus buy knives based on stock qualities like the original grind, sheath, scales, and steel. Those who are well-versed in the crafting of bushes are usually the ones who frequent forums like this one and write books on the subject, and generally skew the views of the general population made by those who also hang out on forums like this.

I'm not incline to believe that the majority of those who purchase knives marketed as 'bushcraft' knives assume they are anything but a finished product intended to be used as crafted.

 

[mec003]

This thread made me go check my most used moras. It seems I either never really noticed or never cared to notice that I have indeed put a slight convex on them unintentionally. I would still call it a scandi grind, but the difference between a newer mora is noticable. It doesn't really matter to me, as I can get a sharp working edge and I enjoy using the blades regardless. If I paid more attention when sharpening (I'll admit I'm no expert) I probably could have kept the zero grind, but again, it works just fine for me.

 

[RX-79G]

This thread made me go check my most used moras. It seems I either never really noticed or never cared to notice that I have indeed put a slight convex on them unintentionally. I would still call it a scandi grind, but the difference between a newer mora is noticable. It doesn't really matter to me, as I can get a sharp working edge and I enjoy using the blades regardless. If I paid more attention when sharpening (I'll admit I'm no expert) I probably could have kept the zero grind, but again, it works just fine for me.

I believe you have just noted the reality - the difference between a perfect zero edge and a very slight microbevel is next to nothing. You don't need to closely plan one or the other, and switching back to forth takes little effort because of the small amount of steel involved.

 

[pinnah]

You used the term 'generally understood', and I think this is where we differ in opinion.

You seem to imply that a majority of those who purchase bushcraft knives are assumed to be well-versed in bushcraft and the neighboring crafts as to understand that the knives designed and marketed as the 'do-everything bushcraft knife' are not complete as sold but meant to be modified upon purchase.

Fair point Matthew. My point was overstated.

As someone who purchased a Mora 5.8in Allround as my first dedicated outdoorsy knife, I can say I assumed it was meant to be used as sold. Most of the threads where Moras are recommended as beginner bushcraft knives say nothing about the grind besides it's usual selling points: easy to maintain in the field, cuts through wood like crazy, downside of not slicing very well.

I can understand your frustration. I think a couple of things are going on here. First, I think (thanks to forums like this), America is still getting to know about more about common European knives like the Mora or Opinel or several others.

Second, I think there is honest disagreement about what constitutes "easy to sharpen". Mears and fans of the pure Scandi grind claim it's easy to sharpen by keeping the entire (big) bevel on the stone. I find this very hard to do in the field with a pocket stone. The only way I could do it was to hold the knife still and to scrub the blade back and forth lengthwise with the stone. I never took a shining to this and found it really awkward. I find it sort of possible to maintain a Scandi grind the suggested way on full sized stones at home, but I'm not doing that in the field. I find it much easier to maintain a convexed blade in the field (touching up a micro bevel - good enough for me) and to thin out the blade at home when needed.

I think the majority of people who purchase bushcraft knives have an assumption that the maker who is selling it has intended it to function out of the box with no need for modification, as most knife companies do, and thus buy knives based on stock qualities like the original grind, sheath, scales, and steel.

I think you are right about most buyers but you are much less cynical than I am with respect to manufacturers. After years of working in outdoors retail and after working in product management in another field, my belief is that most products are designed to satisfy the customer's perception of need, not to satisfy the actual need. That is, pure Scandi ground Moras and bushcraft knives that use a similar "pure Scandi" are selling well because Mears and people like him popularized them.

An example of this from the bike world are K-mart/Target quality mountain bikes, which are sold with knobbie tires despite the fact that they'll only be ridden on pavement or dirt roads where "slick" tires offer better traction. But under-educated parents think knobbies are safer so, out of fear, they prefer to buy bikes with them and manufacturers comply. Never educated a customer.

This happens all the time in the knife business. Do you really think that Ethan Becker thinks that a 1/4 blade is the ideal all around camp and hunting knife, as he specified on the BK2? The only reason that he did that is because he's smart enough to know that sharpened pry bars are popular and would sell like hot cakes.

Ray Mears and his acolytes have created a good story around the so-called Scandi grind. You're right that people just starting out are entirely justified in believing the hype. Very few manufacturers will buck that sort of head wind to teach users that they could, if they so choose, change the grind on the Mora blade easily. Bark River is one of the few manufacturers I'm aware of what bucks that trend by offering convexed "bushcrafters" knives.

 

[Subwoofer_CPF]

Great thread (apart from the major digression).

Personally I find the popularisation of woodsman/survival skills as 'bushcraft' a fad, but actually one which has had a very positive effect on people's acceptance of 'knife-craft'.

The bushcraft knife, just like every other knife design, has strengths and weaknesses. To me it is a woodworker's knife; not a carpenter, but a person processing wood for a camp. I did not use the word 'woodsman' as my opinion is that a woodsman wants a knife which is also better suited to game processing.

The scandi grind does work very well for shaping wood for utensils, traps and shelters, so definitely has an important place in the knife world, but it is not the be-all-and-end-all of knives.

I find that often the blade height is too much for a scandi-grind in many bushcraft knives limiting its manoeuvrability when carving. Take the Morakniv 120 wood carver and you find a short length and short height blade which is very nimble.

A zero-grind, is a zero grind and is not unfinished (as has been suggested), but what you tend to notice in production knives is that a micro (or not so micro) bevel has been added to a scandi grind. The main reason for this is the blade finish. If you are producing a polished blade on your product, how do you achieve that fine finish on the primary bevel as well and maintain the edge? Not easy. Far easier to polish the nearly sharp blade and then pop a micro-bevel on it so it is sharp when you sell it. The user can then scratch up the primary grind when they sharpen it.
The Zero-grind scandi is also meant to be one of the easiest blades to maintain with a flat stone as that primary bevel is wide enough to act as a guide for the user to maintain the edge. It is designed not to have a micro bevel. If you can't get rid of that wire edge with stropping then a micro bevel will be the easiest way to get the final proper cutting edge.
Personally I find the bite of the true zero-grind (flat or convex) better than the micro-bevel.

Really what I'm getting at with all of this is that it is a good tool for certain tasks, but it is not that much better than other options.

 

[acphillips3]

Just answering the title question, I think the generic "bushcraft"knife is boring, and shows no creativity of the maker. with the exception of scale material and sheath material they almost all look the same. The Bushcraft knife trend seems to me a lot like the zombie trend... Ridiculous. I'm not saying that the knives are terribly made or that survival skills aren't important. But there is no one perfect knife for it. There's just marketing skills that pushed the bushcraft knife trend.