Some thoughts on the Scandinavian Grind

[Draven]

Howdy folks,
DISCLAIMER: This is just stuff I've been mulling over. I'm not making any real attempt to define what is or isn't scandi or tell people what they should or shouldn't use - the assumptions I'm making in what I call "scandi" vs what I call "saber grind" are just based off of trends I've seen on numerous forums that "V grind" with low height = scandi and high height = saber, before getting into full flat.

This is something I've been pondering for a while. When I lived in Scotland, I used Scandi grinds almost exclusively - I had an Enzo nordic that I loved, a bunch of old E. Jonsson Moras (still my favorite Mora) and a Bernie Garland. Since being in the US, I've moved away from them. In fact, right now I only have one mora, one Enzo Nordic (that I like considerably less than my old one) and an Enzo Borka. Regarding the Enzo Nordic, what first struck me when I took the blade out was that the grind was quite a bit lower than my first one:

Newer Enzo

Older Enzo

Perhaps both grind heights are still available, I'm not sure. But it did make me think some about the geometry of Scandi knives. For the record, the Enzo Borka geometry is quite similar to the newer Enzo Nordic:

And that is also the only Mora in my possession.

To be honest, I found the newer Enzo quite a bit less likeable than the older one - it still cuts well, being relatively thin by many standards, just not as well as the older one. Now, the grind on the older one was so high that many would likely call it a "high saber" rather than a Scandi grind (more in keeping with a Tommi knife, I suppose). Naturally, the smaller primary grind angle cuts better, but is more in need of a "microbevel" as they have come to be called.

Now, I consider the Mora to be the "benchmark" for Scandi knives. If it's not considerably superior to the Mora, it's probably not worth the inevitable increase in price. Moras are very thin, but also very tough and IMO slice quite well for what is - overall, from a strictly geometric perspective - not a very slicy knife grind. But most modern, custom-made (or "higher-end" production) Scandis are quite a bit thicker - 4mm, 5mm, 1/4" (etc).

So, for the sake of boredom and education, I thought I'd try to extrapolate my preferred Scandi geometry to different blade thicknesses. As mentioned above, my favorite Moras were the E. Jonsson moras with a total primary grind angle of about 16-17 degrees if memory serves with a grind of about 7mm. A little geometry and a caliper gives me the following sketches for a 4mm, 5mm and 1/4" blade thickness. I traced around my Enzo Nordic blade for the blade profile, to give it a sense of scale. First up is 4mm:

This grind is quite high - 14.2mm on a 4mm thick and 23mm wide blade, for the total 16 degree angle.

Definitely getting there! 5mm blade has a 17.8mm grind height.

And the 1/4" blade has pretty much a full flat grind at 0.889".

This is a somewhat extreme example, as 16 degrees is very fine and definitely in need of an additional bevel, albeit a small one. But, given that those were my favorite Moras... I think it might just be why I don't use Scandi grinds so much any more. On thicker knives, it quickly starts being called a "saber grind" or "full flat grind" when the geometry is likeable for me.

Since "zero ground" still seems to be the popular way for a scandi to be, makers are left with a rather difficult compromise, which I think has led to a lot of undeserved hate for the grind.

Anyway folks, that's all from me... like I say, just a few thoughts I had kicking around in the old noggin. I guess it's a quirk of the terminology (and probably the fact that Moras, with thin blades and therefore low grind heights are probably the best known Scandi knife) that Scandi grinds are often thought of as having "low grind height" even when the thickness of the blade makes it impractical (for me, anyway).

Hope y'all are having a good new year!

 

[HillBill]

Sabre grinds have 2 distinct bevels Pete. They are basically a high scandi with pronounced secondary bevel... Look at the original S4 as an example of a sabre.

 

[Draven]

Sabre grinds have 2 distinct bevels Pete. They are basically a high scandi with pronounced secondary bevel... Look at the original S4 as an example of a sabre.

I basically agree Mark... but so do a lot of knives that are called Scandi. The Mora I mentioned above came with a small secondary bevel and was maintained that way. So have other Moras (by makers other than E. Jonsson) I've had, Jarvenpaa and at least the first Enzo (I can't remember if the second did) while all being generally described as having a scandinavian grind.

 

[HillBill]

Those are micro bevels... not quite the same thing.

 

[HillBill]

I call the grind on my Croc a sabre, though the secondary on that is fairly pronounced.....
http://www.markhillknives.com/utility--survival-knives?lightbox=image3i6

 

[Draven]

I guess we could argue about the definition of pronounced - but I tend to think that a visible change in angle is sufficiently pronounced to be called another bevel. All the micro adds is "small" - which is also pretty relative. Compared to the example above, my Becker BK7 has a secondary much closer to that on my Jarvenpaa despite one being called "Scandi" and one being called "Saber".

In practice, a microbevel is exactly the same thing as a secondary bevel. It's an increase in the edge angle to provide durability. The size of it is determined only by its angle and the geometry of the primary grind.

Regardless, the point I was trying to make is that as the thickness of the blade increases, so does the grind height for a given angle and therefore my "ideal scandi" in 2mm is a full flat grind at 1/4" with identical primary bevel angles, identical secondary bevels/microbevels depending on how you sharpen it and identical edge toughness.

 

[Stew]

I'm confused. You seem to be over complicating this.

Isnt it it just that you have a preferred angle rather than grind height so it doesn't matter what thickness the stock is.

 

[LostViking]

Draven,

Interesting observations. They seem to parallel my own findings, and mimic my likes or dislikes.

I'm new here to B.C.U.K. But have been on the U.S. site for years. And I generally try to avoid such discussions. Because it is like Mods and Rockers. People like what they like. And personally, I think it would be a boring world if we all like the same things.

Coming from the "Other Side" I sometimes wonder if we aren't mostly to blame. From extra strength Asprin to Americanized Tantos, and now Scandi grinds. It seems we are always searching for solutions to a problem that never existed.

Here is a shot of my Helle Harding, with what Helle calls a Scandi Grind.



And here is my more recently acquired Aito,



I agree the older, or at least more traditional Scandi grinds seem higher, and In use I prefer them.

I also agree with Stew. I think steel thickness has a lot to do with the success or failure of the Scandi grind. I have seen these more acute Scandi grinds on 1/4" steel. An example is the older Habilis Bush Tool. It just didn't seem to work for me.

Take that same grind and apply it to an eigth inch Mora and it is a cutting machine.

I see this as mostly a subjective observation. But I like the older higher grinds of your older Enzo batter for what I do.

Just this week I managed to pull the trigger on a Malanika Rhombic Puukko style knife. So this whole concept has me really looking into this more than usual.

The Aito and the Harding are both Nordic knives with Scandi grinds. Yet they are quite different. I think at some point. We may have to split the Scand definition into two groups. Modern Scandi, and Traditional Scandi. Because it seems there is a difference. At least to me.

For the sake of discussion, here is a shot of my Kellam Wolverine. Which seems to fall somewhere in between the Harding and the Aito. And the KA-BAR offers a good view of a Saber grind.


What complicates this whole issue for me is the additional complication of Secondary bevels, micro bevels, inclusive and other edge terminology.

I'm fairly simplistic in my knife world. I need it to cut. I sharpen freehand. And I don't bet too bound up in the terminology. Perhaps to my undoing. But my knives shave hair, push cut paper and scrape fingernails. So for me they work.

Perhaps it is usage parameters. I find the higher grinds like my Aito, suit me better over a wide range of uses. Camp knife, kitchen knife, bushcraft knife, hunting knife and so on.

I hope by posting my thoughts. I have added to, rather than taken away, from this conversation.

 

[Pioneer72]

Always interesting to read thoughts like this, similar stuff rolls around in my head too

I tend to think of a scandi grind being a single bevel each side - that is no secondary / micro bevel at all. Straightforward sharpening method due to an easy to follow angle, but more metal to remove to get it sharp.
Horses for courses - I have a 3.2mm thick bushy with a sturdy scandi grind which is ace for batoning etc, and 'acceptable' for carving, but then I have a much thinner karesuando with primary and secondary bevels which I like much better for smaller work but is no use at all for bigger jobs

 

[mrcharly]

Those are micro bevels... not quite the same thing.

Is that the micro bevel you get when you strop a mora (or similar) knife on anything with even the slightest give to it? I use thin leather glued to wood, hold the blade flat and end up with a very tiny bevel, almost need magnifying glass to detect it.

 

[redneck]

I think Im with Hillbill on this, if you like a high grind with a small or micro bevel then you like a sabre grind, if you like a grind straight to zero then you like a Scandinavian or scandi grind. there's too much confusion around what a scandi grind is..

 

[Draven]

I'm confused. You seem to be over complicating this.

Isnt it it just that you have a preferred angle rather than grind height so it doesn't matter what thickness the stock is.

Basically, yes. It is somewhat confusing, but I think that's largely because we have terminology (scandi, saber, full flat) that is often only somewhat-defined but many people (myself included, back in the day at least) adhere rigidly to their preferred grind.

Draven,

Interesting observations. They seem to parallel my own findings, and mimic my likes or dislikes.

I'm new here to B.C.U.K. But have been on the U.S. site for years. And I generally try to avoid such discussions. Because it is like Mods and Rockers. People like what they like. And personally, I think it would be a boring world if we all like the same things.

Coming from the "Other Side" I sometimes wonder if we aren't mostly to blame. From extra strength Asprin to Americanized Tantos, and now Scandi grinds. It seems we are always searching for solutions to a problem that never existed.

Here is a shot of my Helle Harding, with what Helle calls a Scandi Grind.


And here is my more recently acquired Aito,


I agree the older, or at least more traditional Scandi grinds seem higher, and In use I prefer them.

I also agree with Stew. I think steel thickness has a lot to do with the success or failure of the Scandi grind. I have seen these more acute Scandi grinds on 1/4" steel. An example is the older Habilis Bush Tool. It just didn't seem to work for me.

Take that same grind and apply it to an eigth inch Mora and it is a cutting machine.

I see this as mostly a subjective observation. But I like the older higher grinds of your older Enzo batter for what I do.

Just this week I managed to pull the trigger on a Malanika Rhombic Puukko style knife. So this whole concept has me really looking into this more than usual.

The Aito and the Harding are both Nordic knives with Scandi grinds. Yet they are quite different. I think at some point. We may have to split the Scand definition into two groups. Modern Scandi, and Traditional Scandi. Because it seems there is a difference. At least to me.

For the sake of discussion, here is a shot of my Kellam Wolverine. Which seems to fall somewhere in between the Harding and the Aito. And the KA-BAR offers a good view of a Saber grind.


What complicates this whole issue for me is the additional complication of Secondary bevels, micro bevels, inclusive and other edge terminology.

I'm fairly simplistic in my knife world. I need it to cut. I sharpen freehand. And I don't bet too bound up in the terminology. Perhaps to my undoing. But my knives shave hair, push cut paper and scrape fingernails. So for me they work.

Perhaps it is usage parameters. I find the higher grinds like my Aito, suit me better over a wide range of uses. Camp knife, kitchen knife, bushcraft knife, hunting knife and so on.

I hope by posting my thoughts. I have added to, rather than taken away, from this conversation.

I pretty much agree - I think there are definitely "new scandis" and "old scandis" and I think I do prefer the more traditional style also. In the example above my "ideal" scandi grind is a full flat at 1/4" - so, for me at least, I don't think that a 1/4" puukko-style knife that cuts well exists. I don't think you're doing yourself a disservice at all by not getting bound up in terminology - like you say, you need it to cut and I think it's all too easy to demonstrate that even full-flat grind isn't always a good cutter! For me, I think I'll always look for scandinavian-style knives to stay in the 2-3mm region. I'm not really sure who's "to blame" - we (Americans, that is) have definitely done some strange things in the world of knives at times but part of my inspiration for this post was actually how the Scandi grind seems quite a bit less popular here than it was in the UK, in favor of some combination of saber grind, convex or full flat. Maybe that's just my perception though, maybe it isn't less popular at all. Beautiful knives, btw!

Always interesting to read thoughts like this, similar stuff rolls around in my head too

I tend to think of a scandi grind being a single bevel each side - that is no secondary / micro bevel at all. Straightforward sharpening method due to an easy to follow angle, but more metal to remove to get it sharp.
Horses for courses - I have a 3.2mm thick bushy with a sturdy scandi grind which is ace for batoning etc, and 'acceptable' for carving, but then I have a much thinner karesuando with primary and secondary bevels which I like much better for smaller work but is no use at all for bigger jobs

I agree that is the simplest definition of Scandi and the world would be a simpler place if I had never been corrupted with thoughts of microbevels and scandivex and so on

 

[Robson Valley]

Leonard Lee suggested that any edge must have enough steel behind it to support it in service. (The Complete Guide To Sharpening).
I thought that was a sensible argument.

Measured as the total included bevel angles among my wood carving tools (from adzes to gouges and knives),
I use 30, 28, 25, 20, 15, 12 with most being single bevels, a few (detail knives and stop chisels) being double bevelled.
Simplistic single angles, never any microbevel, soft woods and hard woods. I use 20 in the kitchen except 40 for the bone cleaver.

 

[HillBill]

Good to see a man from over your way who doesn't think less than 30º inclusive is too weak to use!

But then, we don't envisage cutting through nuts and bolts as standard knife useage

Yes, i know your Canadian, Not American lol .... No need to apologise

Leonard Lee suggested that any edge must have enough steel behind it to support it in service. (The Complete Guide To Sharpening).
I thought that was a sensible argument.

Measured as the total included bevel angles among my wood carving tools (from adzes to gouges and knives),
I use 30, 28, 25, 20, 15, 12 with most being single bevels, a few (detail knives and stop chisels) being double bevelled.
Simplistic single angles, never any microbevel, soft woods and hard woods. I use 20 in the kitchen except 40 for the bone cleaver.