Which do you like better?

Scott after our conversation today you know mine, Horace all the way.

However I do have two great Nessmuks.
 
Last edited:
I have a Koster Nessmuk and I think that knife could handle most of the woodsy tasks I ask of it with ease, but I still find myself taking knives similar to the a Kephart with me more often. Such as my WTK, RC 4, etc.

Oh and these will be joining me soon also:D
101_0572-1.jpg


I don't have them yet as Brian justed finished them today.
 
Last edited:
The top is a PSKK W/ 5" BLADE

The bottom is a spooky spear point w/ modified handle and 4" blade.

Aint they purty!
 
Jeff, I find the PSK and WTK to work perfect for my needs in a knife of that size.
If I had to pick based on the designs/look of the two and feedback I've recieved, I would go with the Kephart for woodcraft/bushcraft, camping and general field work. The Nessmuk for food prep and big game processing.
Scott
 
I don't own a Kephart.

On the nessmuk you'd really have to ask "which nessmuk?" there are so many takes on the knife and some that bear no resemblance to the pic in the book.

I will reiterate what Bruche said there about the curve to the blade. I really like the Nessmuks I have that have curve to the belly of the blade. Seems to give them more cutting power.

That is one of the reasons I really like the Skookum Bush Tool over some of the other Bushcraft models is it has a bit of belly to it.:thumbup:

I want to try a Kephart, and I really like the idea that it has a point on it where a lot of nessmuks don't really have a useable point. On the other hand the blade is fairly straight which puts it at a disadvantage (for me) over the curvey belly Nessmuk.

Once again however some Kepharts don't have a useable point either. The tip isn't really ground fine enough to penetrate anything. Or so it appears from the pics.

Another weakness of the Kephart is it isn't wide enough to eat off of like a nessmuk which makes a much better spoon.

This is totally based on looks since I don't own one, but for me almost anything that a Kephart would do better than a nessmuk, a nice scandi bushcraft knife would do better than a Kephhart.:rolleyes: More point. sharper edge, better ergonomics.

Still I do want to get one and try it out since so many people seem to speak highly of the design.:thumbup: Maybe there's something I'm missing?:D
 
Well, I like the Kephart design myself, having used a nessmuk (Not yours Scott) while away at a survival course. I really didnt care for it for general purposes. At some point, after I get my Kephart from ya, I will have ya make a Nessy for me, and let you know :)

But from the overall design, I would tend towards a Kephart as well.
 
Nessmuk for me :thumbup: I will soon have one of yours (Nessmuk)to try out but what I already have I like. I also have a kephart design while its a great knife I still like the Nessmuk.
 
The Nessmuk isn't the end all and be all and neither is the Kephart. They are great AMERICAN historical designs.

I think for Bushcraft the Kephart has the edge. While the raised fingers of the Nessmuk make it better for camp kitchen duty. The Kephart would be tough to use on a cutting board for sure. But the Nessmuk would be a PITA to drill with.
 
monarh99 said:
Nessmuk for me :thumbup: I will soon have one of yours (Nessmuk)to try out but what I already have I like. I also have a kephart design while its a great knife I still like the Nessmuk.
Click to expand...

:D Wait until you see it with that elk. Started the handles today. This one is going to look good.

HD, I can appreciate your feelings for the scandi knives but I just don't like them. I would much rather have a thin stock convex grind. :thumbup:
Scott
 
Gossman Knives said:
HD, I can appreciate your feelings for the scandi knives but I just don't like them. I would much rather have a thin stock convex grind. :thumbup:
Scott
Click to expand...

Well same principle don't you think? It's not so much any particular grind as the fact that the edge is thin enough for efficient cutting.

I have a Chudzinski nessmk in 3/32 with a convex, several scandis, and I have handled one of Dan Kosters full flat grinds and they all performed similar.

For slicing at least for me the thinness of the blade is the most important. A 1/8" convex or even flatground will slice better than a 1/8" scandi because more of the blade is ground thinner.

My main reason for liking the scandi type grinds has to do with it's a lot easier to get one with a finer edge than convex or any other grind because a lot of people end up making the edges too steep on the other grinds. Of course the steep edge is more durable, but I don't mind sharpening!
 
hollowdweller said:
Well same principle don't you think? It's not so much any particular grind as the fact that the edge is thin enough for efficient cutting.

I have a Chudzinski nessmk in 3/32 with a convex, several scandis, and I have handled one of Dan Kosters full flat grinds and they all performed similar.

For slicing at least for me the thinness of the blade is the most important.

My main reason for liking the scandi type grinds has to do with it's a lot easier to get one with a finer edge than convex or any other grind because a lot of people end up making the edges too steep on the other grinds. Of course the steep edge is more durable, but I don't mind sharpening!
Click to expand...

I see your point(no pun intended :D )
Scott
 
I have this Busse Game Warden. It's a really nice knife:thumbup:

I've convexed the heck out of the blade and I could shave with it sharp as hell.

Yet where the blade is fairly thick and it is convex I have a few scandi type blades and thinner convex blades that won't shave but will cut way deeper with less effort if you know what I mean just because of the angle and the blade being thinner.
 
Nessmuk good. Kephart give you hemorrhoids.
 
hollowdweller said:
...On the nessmuk you'd really have to ask "which nessmuk?" ..........Maybe there's something I'm missing?:D
Click to expand...


"Which one," indeed! There are a LOT of variations but I picked this little sub-six-inch cutie and, as you said, the belly gives it some serious cutting power. Look closely at the Kephart in this pic because it too has some "belly" and I love that about it.
hamiltonpair.jpg


Although I like the "Bushcraft" pattern as much as the "Kephart" (generalizations in both cases), I like a little belly in my Bushy as well - although this one is not "full-sized" (about a 3 1/2" blade here):
COMPACTBUSHY01.jpg


I don't think you're missing a thing, HD. I have begun to appreciate the belly more as I visit the forum and experience other knives that have it. I have found that I am using my "straight"-edged knives less and I intentionally designed the belly into the one above even though many Bushies don't have it.

I would not complain one bit if I had a 5" Kephart with a slight belly but I am not certain it would be a Kephart any more.

What do you say, Scott? Is a little belly in one of your 5" Kepharts practical? Your question has caused me to ask it of myself and to stop and think about what I like and use most. As much as I like the Kephart (don't think that will change either), I am becoming more fond of some belly (less than on many Nessmuks) and more than the "none" in most Kepharts.
 
Not sure how to answer that Jeff. All depends on what the knife will be used for. If you want to drill with the point then HD's scandis will work better then the Kephart unless the Kephart is made with a more narrow width blade. My standard kephart blade is 1 1/4" wide. 1" width would taper the spearpoint better just like the scandis which most are 1" wide. The spearpoint on my Kepharts have less belly then my Nessmuks. The Kephart is more versitale then the Nessmuk for general field/woods use.
Scott
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top