S!K 4.7 Mystery Steel vs GSO 5.1 in 3V (pic heavy)

Joined
Feb 23, 2015
Messages
264
So I got a GSO 4.7 sample to test. Hmmmm. What to do. What to do?

Well, it is mystery steel after all. How does it stand up in the wild? I suppose comparing it to another steel like, say 3V, in use scenarios where I have a baseline for how the 3V behaves might be good. We can see how the edge retention/integrity compares between the two. Good thing I have a GSO 5.1! I think the blade geometry is similar enough between the two that comparing the two would be fair. That is definitely an assumption on my part. Input or feedback on this would be welcome!

Continuing the theme, for the same tasks is one more nimble than the other? Is one more efficient or make the tasks easier? What are the trade-offs? Is one better suited in answering another thread's question about being reduced to a single GSO model?

For the sample 4.7 specifically, how about that coating? How are the ergonomics and the size?

Good thing I have an on-going project with lots of repetitive tasks where I have already used the 5.1 extensively! Experimentation on shelter building (hope you guys aren't getting tired of it)! I can put the 4.7 sample through the exact same kinds of tasks and see if anything jumps out. Here we go!!

I'll be referencing things I wrote in two other threads about the 5.1. If you want to go back and read them they are titled:
"Two Weeks with the 5.1 - (vs RMD) Pic heavy"
"More time with 5.1 experimenting on shelter (long and PIC HEAVY!)"

*** My first impressions upon unboxing:
Visually, the coated blade looks awesome! The grey-green color is very appealing. I am not a huge fan of coated blades in general. The coating is either rough and increases friction with whatever is being cut (looking at you, BusseKin). That is until the coating wears down until it's smooth or gone. Then visually it's not so great. Personally, I don't care since I am a user. But some people might. Or the coating is smooth and wears off so quickly it begs the question why do it in the first place? This coating doesn't suffer from either problem...as you'll see in the post-use photos. Her it is prior to use. There are some finger print like smudges from all of the initial fondling.

yqBJeUO.jpg

v3Upta0.jpg



I pointed out in my first review of the 5.1 that the handle didn't immediately appeal to me. Compared to the RMD the 5.1, at first, felt too thick. The 4.7 sample is a different story. It fits my hand better that either the 5.1 or the RMD. The handle is definitely shorter but the curves look to be about the same so I'm not sure why it feels better. Maybe it's the balance? Maybe there are subtle differences between the 5.1 and 4.7 contours? Whatever it is, it fits!

Fit and finish, much like the 5.1, is fantastic. No need to say more. And yes, it's damn sharp out of the box.

As I was playing with it, holding it in one hand and switching between the RMD and 5.1 in the other I started to worry a bit. I noticed something that made me wonder if I'd made some pre-mature decisions. Up until that moment I had decided that the GSO 6 was going to be my go to knife. The 5.1 was impressive enough that it made the GSO 6 without the choil very, very appealing. So much so, I ordered a second one. But the 4.7 sample gave me a moment of concern. The effective blade length is what I am labeling the cutting edge of the blade (sharpened edge minus the choil). The effective blade length for the 4.7 was only about a half inch less than the 5.1!

Hmmm. The 4.7 is lighter, seems to fit my hand just a smidge better, is just as beefy and has nearly the same cutting length. Does that extra overall blade length from the 5.1's choil add enough benefit to justify it over the 4.7?

Uh, oh! Things just got interesting! Stay tuned for my opinion...

GSO 5.1 vs 4.7 sample effective blade length. Pretty close!!!

Side by side:
Bcc86TS.jpg



Overlaid:
QMmJdCc.jpg



And the 4.7 effective blade length is the same as the RMD. Bad news for the RMD!!!
xD55rZx.jpg



Here is a quick summary of what kind of use I put the 4.7 sample through (the same stuff the 5.1 has already done). I'm experimenting with building a free-standing shelter without using any cordage. Basically, I want to use some woodworking techniques to join the wood together with notches, squared posts, grooves and pegs. I've gone through several iterations and finally have something I think will work. I did one sample with the 5.1 a few nights ago but tonight I did several more using the 4.7 sample with the Mystery Steel! Where there are significant differences between the 5.1 and 4.7 I will definitely point them out. You can jump to the bottom of you don't want to look through the pictures and steps.

All of the work below was done with a Gomboy saw and the GSO 4.7 mystery steel.

*** Details on use and tasks:
First thing I need is four corner poles with squared posts on the top. This involves cutting guide grooves with a Gomboy, controlled batoning with the grain to take off the "meat" and then finer work cleaning up the sides. There is also some batoning against the grain to even things up. Here is what I am starting with as far as the log diameter. I am reusing some logs that show previous attempts and these will get re-worked:
Tu526ch.jpg

K5pOmE4.jpg

moRdbbd.jpg



Start making squared posts on top of the poles. The side that will face the cross members (later) should be cut back at least half the thickness of the post. That will give the cross member plenty of surface to rest on. Showing the 5.1 for comparison on how much blade sticks out past the wood. This is important in my final thoughts!
FAMhWM3.jpg

QLOtXXj.jpg

VCqCM5Y.jpg



This was a good test of knife control, edge angle and batoning not with the grain. No problem!
STkemy6.jpg



And we get these corner posts:
jCQpX9l.jpg

Jpv8gRL.jpg



Now we need cross members that tie the corner posts together. The plan is to use notches around the squared post that tie left rear post to right rear post and left front post to right front post. I'll refer to these as side to side cross members (or STSs). The cross members that go from front to back will have to wait until another day. But they will sit in notches I'll create tonight on TOP of the STSs and hold them in place. I'll call these front to back cross members (or FTBs). The STSs look complicated but they are actually really easy. Each one took between 10 and 15 minutes. All the angles and surfaces are 90 degrees/perpendicular. We only need to measure for width around the squared posts:
bLALPLs.jpg

cbijRdi.jpg



Yes, the 4.7 chisels/planes just as well as the 5.1. Probably my favorite technique. It's also tough on the edge. a lot of popping out chunks and scraping across the blade to clean up the inside angles. Good stuff!
prRntAt.jpg

ngWYZa1.jpg

zAeXihN.jpg



Make sure the surfaces are perpendicular! Adjust if necessary:
VTXfZjs.jpg

XltuX0R.jpg



Use the saw but only cut guide grooves for the much material that needs to be removed
hZwZgXw.jpg



Keep cutting necessary notches for square posts and FTBs:
Jm3x4UF.jpg

eSSdiO4.jpg

sCviJkK.jpg

ZtAxw84.jpg

c00KtR9.jpg

bfFKl5s.jpg



It fits on the square posts like so:
u3TOVyy.jpg

9IoqYNt.jpg

A1g9CFW.jpg

Z4Ybrzz.jpg



Do that for both sides until we get two corner poles with squared posts connected by a side to side cross member, ready for the front to back cross member:
iDWaV7i.jpg



To show where tis is all going, here is a test setup I did with the 5.1 that has the side to side cross member with one side of a quick and dirty front to back cross member. Just to give an idea. The FTB locks in both the side to side cross member and the squared post. Nothing can come apart! It's just a quick test so the quality could be better...
9MJv9vw.jpg

ezrwFWs.jpg

9BAkA64.jpg

hLVemkC.jpg

IQyojvc.jpg

ev6ZmCw.jpg



This method is going to work! More posts coming with progress!

*** My thoughts on the 4.7 sample:
The coating help up fairly well! It got dirty and suffered some minor scuffs but it cleaned up nicely. Before bath and after bath:
Bk1sj94.jpg

651Jr8c.jpg



VBQRdWD.jpg

LThpb5P.jpg



*** The steel and edge integrity:
It held up quite well, actually! I used it about the same as I did the 5.1 doing the same tasks on the same wood. The edge had no visible nicks, chips or rolls. There are two tiny spots that can be felt by dragging a thin wood shaving or edge of a piece of paper. At one point I was hacking on a pretty nasty little knot which was probably the cause. Remember that one of the issues I had with the 3V 5.1 was the edge seemed to nick and roll more than expected. I think the session where that happened with the 5.1 may have been a little longer than this session with the 4.7 mystery steel but not by much. It seems like the 4.7 mystery steel held up BETTER upon INITIAL USE. I mentioned that I am getting the geometry of the 5.1 dialed in and it now shows no damage from this kind of use. But out of the gate, it appears that the mystery steel(!) did a little better. Cool! And it literally took 3 strokes per side on a guided 25 degree 'fine' ceramic rod to fix. Not too bad, mystery steel. Not too bad at all.

*** General use:
The chisel/plane method worked just as well for the 4.7 as it did for the 5.1. Love that!!! The blade geometry is pretty spot on for my intended use. So far.

Remember that whole effective blade length thing and whether or not the extra length from the choil on the 5.1 (or RMD) is worth it? For what I was doing I'd have to respond with a resounding YES! The extra length is worth it. Here is why. This photo shows it:
FAMhWM3.jpg


See all that extra knife sticking out on both sides of the wood? Yeah, that means more striking surface for a whacking stick. This comes into play when trying to clean up after rough batoning.

These two pictures help explain:
QLOtXXj.jpg

VCqCM5Y.jpg



When trying to square up the posts I experienced serious hand and forearm fatigue from trying to control the 4.7. The 5.1 was MUCH easier to use. The amount of blade sticking out meant a more solid connection/strike from the whacking stick. I could slide the knife one way or the other and have plenty of room for whacking. I basically just had to angle the knife correctly and let the hammering do the real work. With the 4.7 the strikes were more sporadic and I felt like I was working harder to hold the knife in place. There wasn't really enough blade length to slide towards the hand to hammer on the spine above the handle. I was kind of limited to hammering towards the tip. This combined with having to hold the knife at consistent angles to bit in in various depths was pretty difficult. To prove to myself that I wasn't imagining this I picked up another pole and used the 5.1 right after the 4.7. Sure enough, it was easier. I think if I was using smaller diameter logs it would not have been an issue. I'll know more by the end of the weekend. The front to back cross members will be smaller so I can test that theory.

Both the 5.1 and 4.7 sizes result in very usable, nimble knives. The 4.7 blade is not as wide so it will fit in narrower notches (wasn't really an issue for what I was doing). Both chiseled well. The 5.1 did perform plane-like functions a little better. The wider blade made it a more stable platform and seemed to shave off material more evenly. Even so, both were awesome.

Another interesting observation around choil vs no choil. When I use the 5.1 for carving I find that I put my thumb along the spine more frequently (damn jimping!!) because the cutting edge is further away from where the webbing between my thumb and pointer finger is applying downward pressure. With the 4.7 I don't think I put my thumb on the spine once. The cutting edge is closer to where the downward pressure is being applied so it isn't necessary. Not really a pro or a con, just information.

About that sudden feeling that maybe I had decided on the GSO 6 as the one go to knife? I think it was a good decision. The 4.7 is a great size and I think it will take the RMD's place as a good hiking/camp knife. But, in my opinion, the GSO 5.1 (and GSO 6) size is more versatile. They can do all that the 4.7 can do and more. The hand and forearm fatigue is one factor in that leads me to that conclusion.

Overall, I am happy with the 4.7 as far as size, ergonomics and usability (can't wait to get the 20cv I have on order!). I think the GSO 5.1/GSO 6 will be on my hip or vest and the 4.7 will be in the pack. It definitely will not be left behind. And the experience I had tonight with the mystery steel was very positive. The initial use seems like it beat out the initial use of the 5.1 in 3V. Unexpected but kind of cool. It is still too early to make a call one way or the other though. I'll keep using it and see how it fares longer term. It will be interesting to see how things change when I get my GSO7/7!

So there we go. As always, comments, feedback and suggestions are more than welcome!

Take care,
'scissors
 
Wow, loved the pics and your skill with a knife is impressive. I've held off on buying the Sk 4.7 because Survive's 3v version is tops but this review has me intrigued. Thanks!
 
At first I hated you and wanted you to die because you had a 4.7 and I didn't, but after reading your in-depth review, I'm totally over it................................................. mostly :D

Seriously though, I really enjoyed the review. You clearly put a lot of time and thought into it! You explained the pros and cons so well that even if this isn't YOUR favorite knife in the world, I learned enough to make a pretty good assessment that it could still be a great knife for me.

Random question: were you obsessed with Lincoln Logs as a kid?
 
I really appreciate you taking us along with you through that workout scissors. That's a very nice and thorough review on the differences between the 5.1 and 4.7 on that kind of project. A year ago we were talking hypothetically about what would be good/better/best in certain situations, and it's great that we are getting so much real use reviews showing up here. Thanks again man.
 
Thank you for the great review scissors. I'm impressed with your skill. After your day out working on your posts, what do you plan to do with the spot?

Last question, after all is said and done, do you think the 5.1's handle contributed to the reduction in fatigue at the end of the day?

I'm in a weird spot in my own search for the ideal knife where sometimes I'm starting to think initial comfort does not translate into best working grip. Maybe some of the smaller ones that fit really nicely, cause me to use more pressure on them or something while working. I'm not sure.

Thanks for your time, I appreciate it.

Justin
 
Hey, Justin

Great question regarding the fatigue and the 5.1 handle. I am tempted to say yes, the 5.1 handle made the difference. But I had to think for a second on how to describe what I think was going on.

I think it was a combination of the task I was trying to accomplish and the size of the knife. The posts were pretty thick for the 4.7. When I was doing the shaping of the squared off posts the wood would always need some fine tuning. With the shorter blade it felt like I was having to use less blade on wood just to expose enough blade to hit with the stick. That would always move my knife hand further away from where I was working which means I needed to grip harder and use more muscle to hold the blade at the correct angle. It's hard to explain and I hope it makes sense? With the 5.1 I could almost always whack the tip side of the blade which means my knife hand was closer to the work at all times. The blade to wood contact was more stable.

Damn. I'm not even sure the way I am describing it makes sense even to me. And I was there...

On smaller diameter logs I did not feel the fatigue when doing similar work with the 5.1. It boils down to the relative size of the knife to the log...just for this kind of task. Not for everything.

I hope that helps. I need to rethink how to explain this...
 
That's one hell of a nice job Scissors! It's really nice to see these being used and abused. You do some very impressive work and I hope to see a lot more of it.
 
Thanks scissors.

Your explanation makes sense as I can picture what you are saying in my mind's eye and have experience with it. I'm still on the fence with my my ideal handle size for blade length and thickness and handle diameter should be and your information is very valuable to me.

I really appreciate your skill level and sharing the experience with us. It's a great time of year up here :)
 
Thanks for another good review. I hope I get my shipping order for my 5.1 today. Im jonesin.
 
Back
Top