Traditional puukkos thicker than you think

[jaspat3]

Absolutely! I'm not knocking the Scandi design. I'm a big fan and have more than my share of all kinds of Scandi knives. But I think you will find that most scandi knives (excepting the large leukus) are thinner than the Mears Woodlore.

As you say, there's more than one way to skin a cat.

The original scandi knives had thick blades. From museum: 4.6 mm to 6.1 mm for a blade length varying from 78 mm to 117 mm. AKS Puukko from 1935-1942: blade length 96mm, thickness: 6 mm. Not to be confused with Mora !

*Mod note: Posts split off from very old thread about general bushcraft knives into a thread of their own.*

 

[TLM]

That quote that gives AKS puukko's thickness as 6 mm is strange as the only reference that fits gives it as 5 mm. But even that is very thick for the type of blades I found under "AKS puukko". I don't have the book where the reference apparently is from so can't check directly. Anything over 3 mm on old working puukko is rare. Various fantasy knives and quasi military knives are not included as they might have anything. Presently I think anything over 4 mm is rare.

 

[jaspat3]

That quote that gives AKS puukko's thickness as 6 mm is strange as the only reference that fits gives it as 5 mm. But even that is very thick for the type of blades I found under "AKS puukko". I don't have the book where the reference apparently is from so can't check directly. Anything over 3 mm on old working puukko is rare. Various fantasy knives and quasi military knives are not included as they might have anything. Presently I think anything over 4 mm is rare.

Some data, showing that "Anything over 3 mm on old working puukko is rare" is a misconception.

Found during excavations

1350-1450: Blade 89 mm, Length 19,5 mm, Thickness 3,8 mm, beveled edge 12 deg.

1400-1450: Blade 92 mm, Length 21,4 mm, Thickness 6,0 mm, beveled edge 16 deg.

1400-1450: Blade 81 mm, Length 21 mm, Thickness 6,9 mm, beveled edge 21 deg.

1450-1520: Blade 120 mm, Length 21,6 mm, Thickness 5,1 mm, beveled edge15 deg.

From museums - Early Puukko manufacturers

1888: Blade 78 mm, Length 15,4 mm, Thickness 4,9 mm, rhombic

Before 1885: Blade 68 mm, Length 15,5 mm, Thickness 4,6 mm, rhombic

Before 1900: Blade 69 mm, Length 17 mm, Thickness 4,9 mm, rhombic

1815: Blade 85 mm, Length 17,1 mm, Thickness 4,9 mm, rhombic

Before1889: Blade 96 mm, Length 17,1 mm, Thickness 5,1 mm

Before 1898: Blade 80 mm, Length 18,1 mm, Thickness 5,8 mm

Before 1889: Blade 97 mm, Length 18,6 mm, Thickness 5,3 mm, rhombic

Before 1885: Blade 77 mm, Length 17,5 mm, Thickness 4,2 mm, rhombisch

1838: Blade 117 mm, Length 26,3 mm, Thickness 6,1 mm

Before 1889: Blade 65 mm, Length 17,7 mm, Thickness 5,2 mm, rhombic

1850-1900: Blade 81 mm, Length 17,3 mm, Thickness 5,3 mm, rhombic

1841: Blade 96 mm, Length 20,5 mm, Thickness 5 mm

1870: Blade 87 mm, Length 22 mm, Thickness 6,8 mm, rhombic

1897: Blade 90 mm, Length 17,3 mm, Thickness 4,7 mm, rhombic

1868-1876: Blade 97 mm, Length 19,9 mm, Thickness 5,7 mm

Academic Karelian Society

1935-1942: Blade 96 mm, Length 20 mm, Thickness 5 mm, rhombic

Puukko from Hackman Oy

1970-1972: Blade 178 mm, Length 31,9 mm, Thickness 6,2 mm

Tommi-Puukko from Jukka Värinen

1999: Blade 94 mm, Length 20 mm, Thickness 4,7 mm, rhombic

Jagd-Puukko from JT Pälikkö

2006: Blade 107 mm, Length 29,2 mm, Thickness 5,1 mm, rhombic

 

[TLM]

I saw some of the pics on the very old ones, one can't really tell what kind of tools they were, not enough left. Also they are very rusty and if the measurement is made in that state the number is kind of meaningless.

On a rhombic section blade with some of those widths the edge angle would be somewhat impractical for a general purpose puukko. Without seeing them can't comment much else.

Oh I see you copied the AKS thickness correctly this time.

Not very many thick modern ones really.

There is the possibility on the older ones that the quality of steel is variable and to compensate they would in some cases make them thicker, again without seeing can't comment much.

When the National museum had their puukko collection on show some years ago (15 ?) I went through it quite thoroughly, the only type with consistently thick blades were the large leukus.

That data is apparently from Ruusuvuori's book, have to look it up in the library.

 

[jaspat3]

I saw some of the pics on the very old ones, one can't really tell what kind of tools they were, not enough left. Also they are very rusty and if the measurement is made in that state the number is kind of meaningless.

On a rhombic section blade with some of those widths the edge angle would be somewhat impractical for a general purpose puukko. Without seeing them can't comment much else.

Oh I see you copied the AKS thickness correctly this time.

Not very many thick modern ones really.

There is the possibility on the older ones that the quality of steel is variable and to compensate they would in some cases make them thicker, again without seeing can't comment much.

When the National museum had their puukko collection on show some years ago (15 ?) I went through it quite thoroughly, the only type with consistently thick blades were the large leukus.

That data is apparently from Ruusuvuori's book, have to look it up in the library.

You should visit Museum in Scandinavia and buy a calliper. By the way, have a look at modern custom Puukkos. I recommend the excellent Pekka Tuominen rhombic Puukko knife with a thickness of 4.8 mm. However, I understand from your repeated comments you are truly a Mora fan !

​

 

[TLM]

Museum in Scandinavia

What is that?

buy a calliper

I do have several.

Pekka Tuominen rhombic Puukko knife

He seems to be fond of making jewelry, nothing wrong with that in itself but I prefer working knives.

you are truly a Mora fan

I have several but but have more of other types.

 

[Laurentius]

From what I can see, laying down the dimensions of a puuko is like trying to define a billhook, there are so many variants but you know one when you see one.