"Beater and Biter..."
- Thread starter stuart m
- Start date
I'd go for a progressive edge. The far right for the first two to three inches for batoning then the middle cross section to the tip. I'd also make it a distal tapered blade, 5mm tapering down to 3 or 3.5mm near the tip.How about a compromise?
A bit less of the flat area, more convex and still 5mm at the spine.
Now that sounds pretty intelligent! - three inches of real grunt and then a tapered front end with a full height grind. How would you transition from beve to no bevel....a swept curve?
Red
Red
Yep, just gently increase the height of the grind as you work toward the tip. I've rethought the distal taper though. That might take too much weight from the tip and make chopping harder. If it was to be an only knife then I'd do it but as it's to be used in conjunction with a small slicer it's probably better to keep it beefy.
Personally, I don't see the point in changing the grind for a convex to a different convex, especially when the middle one can do everything that the far right can do, just as well, why use the far right?
Now if you change the grind from a convex to maybe a full flat, or even a hollow, so there are distinct different duties for each section, all well and good, but two convex, I'm not convinced!
The blade will be tapered towards the tip as a matter of course, and through the tang as it happens to compensate
Hmm good point Snufkin - biter can do any fine work so this should be a beater.
There is an attraction for leaving say 1/4" unground right aong the spine but I wonder how much real difference it would make?
Too many options
Red
Edit to say - overposted you there stu - s0rry
There is an attraction for leaving say 1/4" unground right aong the spine but I wonder how much real difference it would make?
Too many options
Red
Edit to say - overposted you there stu - s0rry
But that's like saying all scandi grinds are the same when a slight degree change can make a huge difference in performance and durability.Personally, I don't see the point in changing the grind for a convex to a different convex, especially when the middle one can do everything that the far right can do, just as well, why use the far right?
Now if you change the grind from a convex to maybe a full flat, or even a hollow, so there are distinct different duties for each section, all well and good, but two convex, I'm not convinced!
The blade will be tapered towards the tip as a matter of course, and through the tang as it happens to compensate
I imagined the blade progressing toward an almost full flat profile but you would probably run out of blade before you got that far. Or else you would make the transition too abrupt which could lead to problems during heat treat (although, if I recall you grind your bevels after HT?).
As you intend to taper the blade, if you keep the height of the grind constant you will introduce a progressive edge anyway
.My bad,
I thought you had said a flat grind right to the edge then convex, I thought that was what you were drawing on the right, which is now center.
I was just trying to get more spine strength than a flat grind would offer, but a full convex would do that just fine.
I thought you had said a flat grind right to the edge then convex, I thought that was what you were drawing on the right, which is now center.
I was just trying to get more spine strength than a flat grind would offer, but a full convex would do that just fine.
Not really... A slight degree of change does of course make a difference, but if either end of the change does the same job equally well, why introduce the change?But that's like saying all scandi grinds are the same when a slight degree change can make a huge difference in performance and durability.
I imagined the blade progressing toward an almost full flat profile but you would probably run out of blade before you got that far. Or else you would make the transition too abrupt which could lead to problems during heat treat (although, if I recall you grind your bevels after HT?).
As you intend to taper the blade, if you keep the height of the grind constant you will introduce a progressive edge anyway
For both these steels I utilise vacuum ht so quite a lot of the grinding can be done prior to treatment... They could in fact be fully finished.
Because you can?
I'm s o r r y, I only make knives for myself, to satisfy my own curiosity about theories. so I play around with these ideas just see what works. I like a progressive edge as it allows finer working with the tip with less physical effort.
Here's an example.
From the handle the first 2/3rds are convexed progressing to scandi at the tip. (the picture was taken during testing, the scandi section is now more pronounced).
I think that is what I said sadly!
I used the phrase "full flat convex" to Stu which drew some puzzled replies since it can't be both! I meant full convex as opposed to a convex bevel but lacked the vocabulary
Thats the reason I enjoy these threads - people like Shinken and you and Snufkin can offer input and its often on things I hadn't considered or didn't know the word for (e.g. distal taper). Thats not to say stu wouldn't do them anyway but the debate helps me consider more options and understand why I want what I want and whether it will work.
You are spot on in that spine strength really matters on this one - I plan to beat it with a branch HARD so it really needs to be strong!
Red
It's 3mm 01 tool steel and I HTed it myself In the oven so not super accurate, about 56-58Rockwell and I edge quenched it to keep the spine soft. It's probably not the best steel for the knife and I certainly would have gone for thicker stock but it's the only stuff I had to hand when the urge took me.
I like that. It reminds me of a kukri, but one that has been straightened out, if that makes sense. Does it chop well?
I'm leaning towards middle and right for the grind. I would also taper the tang to throw the weight forward.
I think you may be surprised how well the beater may chop Red. The handle shape looks ideal (depending on your hand size) for you to adopt a 2 or 3 fingered grip towards the rear of the handle and use the wrist (as opposed to the arm) to impart the chopping leverage. This works a treat on my 8" Leuku - but it's a 3mm spine with a Scandi grind so I'm reluctant to try it on hardwood.
I figure if my Leuku was a 5mm convex grind then I would have a true mini machete that might even replace the axe.
I think you may be surprised how well the beater may chop Red. The handle shape looks ideal (depending on your hand size) for you to adopt a 2 or 3 fingered grip towards the rear of the handle and use the wrist (as opposed to the arm) to impart the chopping leverage. This works a treat on my 8" Leuku - but it's a 3mm spine with a Scandi grind so I'm reluctant to try it on hardwood.
I figure if my Leuku was a 5mm convex grind then I would have a true mini machete that might even replace the axe.
Similar threads
