91bravo
Gold Member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2008
- Messages
- 28,431
Well, Vik's 29 arrived in the mail today. The first thing I did was tighten up the handle screws; they were loose as a goose. First initial impressions are that the 29 is just a tad lighter and quicker in hand. It is more pointy as I expected and has a smaller forward finger guard.
At the hilt, the 29's blade height is approximately a hair shorter than 1 13/16"
The 20 is approximately a hair longer than 1 9/16"
In the apex of belly, the 29 is about 2 1/8"
On the 20, there's about 1/16" difference
Test subject from this past weekend
Significant difference in the top swedge. The 29 swedge has more of an upswept, pointier tip and is longer overall.
The 29 is about 1/4" shorter
Sweet spot in the 20. Notice how there is a lot of meat behind the chopping edge.
Sweet spot in the 29. Not as much metal behind the sweet spot than on the 20.
Both are excellent choppers! The 29 feels a little quicker in hand, but not by much. The 20 seems to bite harder on the chop, but not by much.
Pretty significant difference in blade height near the plunge grind.
Another glamour shot
The spine of the 29 is slightly thinner than the spine on the 20
The most significant differences I can tell between the two is the weight and how the knife feels on impact with the wood. The 20 bites a little bit deeper on the chop. It also feels a little more weight forward as well. Time will tell whether the slightly heavier 20 affects fatigue in prolonged use. Honestly, I don't see enough of a difference between the two to rush and sell my 20, to pick up a 29. Trust me, you're not going to go wrong with either one. Both will serve extremely well in camp chores and small cutting/chopping jobs. I think it will evidently boil down to which look you like better. For me? I'm sticking with my 20. I just got new micarta scales in for it today, and they literally sealed the deal on this 20 for me. It made my 20 perfect and she is surely a keeper now!
A great big shout out to 1066vik for letting me put the first scars on his brand new bk29!
At the hilt, the 29's blade height is approximately a hair shorter than 1 13/16"
The 20 is approximately a hair longer than 1 9/16"
In the apex of belly, the 29 is about 2 1/8"
On the 20, there's about 1/16" difference
Test subject from this past weekend
Significant difference in the top swedge. The 29 swedge has more of an upswept, pointier tip and is longer overall.
The 29 is about 1/4" shorter
Sweet spot in the 20. Notice how there is a lot of meat behind the chopping edge.
Sweet spot in the 29. Not as much metal behind the sweet spot than on the 20.
Both are excellent choppers! The 29 feels a little quicker in hand, but not by much. The 20 seems to bite harder on the chop, but not by much.
Pretty significant difference in blade height near the plunge grind.
Another glamour shot
The spine of the 29 is slightly thinner than the spine on the 20
The most significant differences I can tell between the two is the weight and how the knife feels on impact with the wood. The 20 bites a little bit deeper on the chop. It also feels a little more weight forward as well. Time will tell whether the slightly heavier 20 affects fatigue in prolonged use. Honestly, I don't see enough of a difference between the two to rush and sell my 20, to pick up a 29. Trust me, you're not going to go wrong with either one. Both will serve extremely well in camp chores and small cutting/chopping jobs. I think it will evidently boil down to which look you like better. For me? I'm sticking with my 20. I just got new micarta scales in for it today, and they literally sealed the deal on this 20 for me. It made my 20 perfect and she is surely a keeper now!
A great big shout out to 1066vik for letting me put the first scars on his brand new bk29!
Last edited:
in comparison LOL. Rrrrr...I like it!!
.
