wood v.s. bone handle

OK. Thanks.

Now, I am actually wondering: Would the 16.5 inch or 18 inch WWII be closest to the size most commonly used by the Nepalese during the war?
 
Last edited:
MrMire said:
OK. Thanks.

Now, I am actually wondering: Would the 16.5 inch or 18 inch WWII be closest to the size most commonly used by the Nepalese during the war?
Click to expand...

16.5 inch will be closer in size to a wartime model. Bear in mind though that HI builds them to considerably better quality and finish. They also have larger handles to better fit larger peoples hands and are built heavier to withstand chopping, so they will weigh more than a disposable military contract model.
 
Thank you for your help.

I have actually been able to compare HI's BAS to KHHI's Service No. 1 with my own eyes (and hands) lately. And you are so right: HI's products are of considerably better quality (goes for both knife and scabbard), finish and even prettier blade shapes. I like blades with a considerable width and a markable angle on the curve, and HI are the ones that truly deliver – in every way.
 
Last edited:
Well thank you, MrMire!
Auntie Yangdu goes to great pains to produce the finest khukuri to be imported from Nepal with customer service to match.
 
Karda said:
16.5 inch will be closer in size to a wartime model. Bear in mind though that HI builds them to considerably better quality and finish. They also have larger handles to better fit larger peoples hands and are built heavier to withstand chopping, so they will weigh more than a disposable military contract model.
Click to expand...

If I remember Correctly, Uncle Bill said that the 18" WWII is closest to the WWII design. Also, the 16.5" came later do to demand for a lighter, more compact Khukri based off the same design. The old M43 that was used to create the wood model for the H.I. M43 was around 18" long [18.5 IIRC]. So it makes sense to me if the 18" WWII came first. But my memory could be off.

Having said that, I own both. A 10 year old 21oz 16.5" WWII and a 2 year old 18" 28oz WWII. The smaller 16.5" Still see's way more use. My 16.5" Has plenty of handle for the average western hand. The handle on my 18" is Long! I have medium width hands and for me, the handle is a 1.5 hand grip. . . . Also, old M43's that I've seen were much thinner then their modern counter parts. I'm talking 1/4" to 3/8" thin. I used to own H.I. M43 #6. It was thinner then the current production models.

Keeping things on topic, I have more horn handed Khukri's then Wood. 5 with horn, 2 wood. The wood at the bell on my 20" Sirupati broke after only a few months of ownership back in 2003. A year later, I bought a Belt sander to aid in leather working and used it to grind of the bell and fit the handle better to my hand. A few of my horn handled Khukri's have developed small cracks over the years. Nothing that a little black JB weld couldn't fix. Actually, I have not repaired the 18" WWII or 12" AK's handle's yet. Eeven so, I don't mind using them with the small cracks. I may give the 18" WWII a big work out this summer before filling the cracks. Mainly as an experiment to see how much the hold will take after developing small cracks.

Wood handles are easier to work with. But both will last a life time or more, if properly treated and cared for. Which is lower mantenence? Wood, for sure. But even so, I seem to favor horn, accourding to how much I have vs wood. LOL!
 
i own a lot knives.

stablized horn, bone, that is dried for a very long time may or may not crack. Wood can be pressure stablized and it is much more dependable.

Survival knives are made micarta for it's long term no manitence and strength.

wood and horn should be oiled, horn is real problem with cracking but it depends on the type, how long it was dried and how it was stablized.

i would recommend wood. But Survival would be synthectic. so buy the one you like and have a back up handle and installation pins or glue, etc.

I just about given up on horn, i have some high end horn knives and horn just dries out and cracks. Jigged bone is not horn. It is much stronger and bones porous nature makes it super easy too stablize or fill in the holes with synthetic, really it is a composite just like micarta.

Horn is not as porous and therefore difficult too stablize. It will shrink and crack in many cases.
 
Hi guys,

Coming from a perspective of a person who have done some khukuri handles, here are my views:

- Material wise, in the condition of my country with 80% plus humidity, cracking is rarely a problem. I just look at them as different colors, grains, structures and choose any of them as I want.

- An interesting point is that making the handle of khukuri, especially hidden full tang (rat tail) type is the process of "stock removal". The maker have to shave from a block of material towards the center of the handle which is the tang. In the case of horn the outer bark is drier and tougher. The inner part has higher humidity with younger "horn cells", then it is more prone to shrinking and splitting as the finished handle loose its humidity. Same for bone and antler, the outer is tougher, denser with better color and texture while the inner part is more spongy and softer. It is always a pain to remove those beautiful outer part. Bone and antler has a limit as they are hollow and is always a challenge to work at the palm ring - butt cap area. For a bone / antler handle, if you shave too deep, you will reach the spongy part which looks not so nice. Both horn and bone has limit in size and might not fit large handle designs like the Chitlange type, and also handles with a strong curve / drop. Wood is another story. The material is large enough to cope up with almost any handle design, and their toughness as well as texture is almost consistent across.

Then base on their characteristics to pick the proper material for your project.

Cheers,

Hung
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top