Blade Profile Preferences & Why?

[Mistwalker]

Rotte and I have been having a discussion on blade profiles, in one of my threads and behind the scenes. It has always been a subject of great interest for me. I have been interested in the various uses of cutting tools of all sorts, since I was still in elementary school. I grew up hunting and fishing, and we heated with a wood stove and a fire place. So cutting tools were just a part of every day life for me. My earliest studies led to studying the late stone age, and their approach to cutting tools. My earliest knives were a three-bladed stockman that I carried for years and a small stag handled hunting knife I bought after the blade of the stockman closed on my finger while trying to cut open a burlap sack of sweet feed one winter. Since that time I have gone back and forth through various blade profiles from straight spines, to trailing points, to trailing clip points, straight clips, reverse tantos, tantos, wharncliffes and sheepsfoots, drop points and spear points. Over time, regardless of overall profile, I came to prefer pointy tips for my uses. There are different reasons for this. Cleaning my finger nails, needing to penetrate tough hides, picking the inner meat out of hard to work with black walnuts, digging out splinters and thorns, finer carving and detail trap component work, even defensive capabilities at times. I have found I can adapt a pointy blade to every use I have done other than the skinning of large game, which I don't do much of. So over time my three favorite Fiddlebacks that have gotten the most use were: the Woodsman that has seen countless hours in the field and kitchen, the Kephart that has become a near constant companion for me, and the Gaucho which I have very much enjoyed using for the last three months, and the KE Bushie being the fourth, and only in that spot due to lack of guard. I still envy Will for snagging the only guarded KE Bushie ever made, even if it is a scandi

So I am curious. What are you go-to profiles now? What did you start your knife fondness out with? How are they different, if they are different? and What changes in use led to changes in profile preference?

 

[theJman]

I tend to favor either simply drop points or something in the Kephart mold. For what I do those profiles seem to work well. As an example, some of the knives in my collection are the Ambush Alpha Gen2, 3 River Blades Bushman, LT Wright Genesis, Alpha Knife AK2 First Strike, BR Bravo 1.25 and 1.5, Fletcher Knives Delta 5, Mora Bushcraft Black, SAZ Bushcrafter and the Utility Tool UTK0151. They all share similarities.

 

[Mistwalker]

For me it tends to be size and task specific. For smaller edc up to 4 inch blades, I prefer pointy. After using an EDC-II for a bit I want a Lone Star EDC pretty badly. After about 5.5 inches or so I don't mind less pointy so they will function in lighter chopping. The Woodsman has been the exception to that rule. Maybe because I am getting older and if I'm going to chop at all I want something bigger to just get it over with

 

[swonut]

I was a Boy Scout growing up, so that forged my knife needs. Fortunately, we could have fixed blades back then and I settled on an Old Timer Sharpfinger that lasted most of my scouting time. I also had a Buck 110 scouter (red plastic handle) that I carried for a few summer camps while I was on the Staff. From there, I went into the Navy and the Sheepsfoot blade shape (Camilius folder with a fid on the other side) was very common as was the big Old Timer single blade and Buck 110s.

Today, I am a huge fan of the blade shape that is on the Chris Reeve Insigno blade. It's got some belly, but is pointy enough to cut what I need. In reality, the biggest cutting challenge for me is those evil industrial strength blister packs that seem to hold tools and be designed to defeat a box-cutter.

 

[Rotte]

Brian, does your Woodsman look something like this?




I'm glad you brought this particular knife up as an example, I think it makes a good jumping off point (no pun intended) for such a discussion. I think, it was a while ago, that the above Woodsman was the first Fiddleback I acquired. And it was love at first grip. I liked the overall blade shape and it seemed a bit like a cross between a small chef's knife and a Kephart design. I had been using chef's knives for quite a while, and I thought this shape: 5.5" length, drop point, acute tip, medium-broad blade, and near-continuous curve to the edge would prove to be a versatile knife.

I suspect that our history plays a major role in our choice of blade shapes. For me, most of what I did with a knife was food prep and wood prep for fire, usually to make food. I had cooked since I was young and ended up working as a prep-cook in a small restaurant for a couple summers. Obviously a chef's knife was very familiar to me, part of my history, so the Woodsman had some instant appeal for me (as it still does).

However, with the Woodsman, as well as, the other knives in my kitchen, I realized that I didn't use the point of my knives all that often. So I tried a Santuko in the kitchen. Soon I was reaching for that more often than my longer Chef's knife. It somehow seemed more 'handy'. And then I watched a woman using a Chinese cleaver. She could do anything with that knife, and faster than I could with my Chef's knife. Plus it worked like a big scoop.

Now the cleaver strikes me as being deceptively simple. Almost stupidly simple. It's a rectangular piece of metal with a slightly curved edge. But it has a points, two points actually, tip and heel. It's a 90º point, but it's still a point. Take the cleaver and modify it a bit more and you end up with an Ulu. I find it hard even to call this a knife. And yet look at how versatile the Ulu is.

The Ulu is a good example of a characteristic I've come to value in a knife, one that the Woodsman is missing: a drop edge. The Chef's knife and Santuko usually have a drop-edge, a braod 'heel' in the knife that allows space for the fingers while the edge is pressed against a cutting board or log, etc.... The Chinese cleaver takes this idea a little further with a really broad blade that keeps the fingers in a different area code wile the edge is down working. The Ulu takes the idea to the extreme and is almost pure drop-edge, there is no conventional, western handle.

Here is where the Woodsman could be improved for me: broaden the blade and add some drop-edge for working with a cutting board or other surface. Because the blade is relatively straight, without a big 'belly', the useful edge is limited to the distal 1/3 or so. Sure, moving the hand back and off the cutting board allows the proximal edge, or heel, to be used, but that isn't always possible (huddled in a tent, working on the floor cloth, shivering, just wanting to make some soup.). One is limited to using a short section of blade in a draw cut.

I'd argue that if the Woodsman had a bit more belly, maybe at the expense of an acute point, the knife would be more versatile on a cutting board and maybe for skinning as well. Adding some belly would allow a push cut with strength. The geometry would move the direction of cutting to be more axial and therefore more efficient and natural...

Wait, did I just talk myself into a Duke?

 

[Rotte]

...

Today, I am a huge fan of the blade shape that is on the Chris Reeve Insigno blade. It's got some belly, but is pointy enough to cut what I need. In reality, the biggest cutting challenge for me is those evil industrial strength blister packs that seem to hold tools and be designed to defeat a box-cutter. ...

I have an Insigno and love that blade! What is it? A modified Sheep's foot. That lowered point allows a powerful draw cut, like one uses on those damned blister packs. :thumbup: I think a cleaver has a similar virtue.

 

[Tim the Wizard]

As much as larger blades intrigue me, with my lifestyle anything I can't EDC comfortably and in a concealed manner will be in the safe.

Therefore, most of my knives are in the 2" to 3.5" category. I do like a 4" blade when on the trails. They make me feel good about myself.

Although the Scandinavians would laugh at me, I very much appreciate a knife with a guard, as my lineage includes some clumsy cave folk, and I am only here today because they did not bleed out on a trail. I intend to honor this legacy!

Aesthetics play a big role.

One of my all time favorite designs was the Jack model from Andy's Apprentice, Judy Yoon:

I also like a nice point. I have to say my favorite model right now is the Kephart, although the first Fiddleback that ever grabbed my attention was a hiking buddy.

 

[Rotte]

I tend to favor either simply drop points or something in the Kephart mold. ...

I remember the first time I used a drop-point to skin out a squirrel. It was a revelation. I thought the knife had finally been perfected. I thought Bob Loveless had to be a genius.

 

[Mistwalker]

I was a Boy Scout growing up, so that forged my knife needs. Fortunately, we could have fixed blades back then and I settled on an Old Timer Sharpfinger that lasted most of my scouting time. I also had a Buck 110 scouter (red plastic handle) that I carried for a few summer camps while I was on the Staff. From there, I went into the Navy and the Sheepsfoot blade shape (Camilius folder with a fid on the other side) was very common as was the big Old Timer single blade and Buck 110s.

Today, I am a huge fan of the blade shape that is on the Chris Reeve Insigno blade. It's got some belly, but is pointy enough to cut what I need. In reality, the biggest cutting challenge for me is those evil industrial strength blister packs that seem to hold tools and be designed to defeat a box-cutter.

The Insingo is my favorite CRK folder

Brian, does your Woodsman look something like this?

No, that was the model that caught my attention though. Mine was the newer generation he does now. The adjustment to the guard area and handle scales allows for the entire edge to hit the cutting board if you hold the handle in a pinch grip while rocking, and I usually do even with more of a dropped edge. Mine has seen much more use in cooking than anything else, but has been used in harvesting and fire prep in the woods. I won't deny that it could perform a little better at the cutting board with a little more drop to the edge, but I think that might increase wrist fatigue in whittling uses, so I am happy with the new profile as is really.

This is an older thread I did with it.

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php/1095262-Soup-s-On-)

Wait, did I just talk myself into a Duke?

Hmmm....the Duke doesn't do bad at all it the woods

.

 

[Rotte]

OK, the Duke and the Woodsman seem to be...somewhat...similar. Both 5+", both drop points to a degree, both with some ricasso. How would you compare them, having used both?

 

[Mistwalker]

OK, the Duke and the Woodsman seem to be...somewhat...similar. Both 5+", both drop points to a degree, both with some ricasso. How would you compare them, having used both?

The Duke Chops better due to more forward mass / more belly, but the guard holds the back of the edge off the cutting board a bit, and it isn't as pokey If the Duke were guardless it would be a like a Woodsman with more belly. BUT, I'd rather have the guard like on the Duke or the Kephart when it come to cutting small cord or fishing line in the dark. They both have their virtues

The mid tech Duke has really nice balance. I haven't tried a hand made one yet.

.

 

[VANCE]

my favorite big knife and in my mind it i the best Production model

 

[Rockywolf]

Definitely into wider spear/drop points for the most part. I recently bought one of Andy's kepharts and it is awesome. I've bought several blades from Mist over the years, so his tastes are quite up my alley. I putz around in the woods and use my blades for food prep (my knife block is all customs). Maybe I should try a Duke, looks like a good one.

 

[SA Condor]

. . . although the first Fiddleback that ever grabbed my attention was a hiking buddy.

This. The Hiking Buddy was the knife that first brought me to FF. It's kind of an all around useful profile. Although there may be other profiles that catch my eye, the HB just has so much going for it.

 

[Rotte]

my favorite big knife and in my mind it i the best Production model

Which model is that, Vance?

I like the elongated drop point on that.

 

[VANCE]

Production Duke


you need one

 

[Rotte]

Nice. The angle of the shot makes it look a little more elongated than the one in Mistwalker's shots.

Ya, I can tell I need one.

 

[VANCE]

Nice. The angle of the shot makes it look a little more elongated than the one in Mistwalker's shots.

Ya, I can tell I need one.

thanks

sorry for the confusion...he's a pro!

 

[Rotte]

I recently bought one of Andy's kepharts and it is awesome.

Rocky, what makes it 'awesome'?

Why, for you, does this knife work so well? Let's argue about why some knife designs seem to work better for us than others. Mistwalker and I were kinda focusing on blade shape or profile, but that is obviously just one element of knife design. So what makes the Fiddleback Kephart so good? What does that design do well? Does it have any short comings?

I'm kinda looking at a theory that the knife we are practiced at using is the design that works for us. Function follows form as much as form follows function. If we had all grown up using Ulus, perhaps that would seem like the ultimate design. Most 'skinners' have a lot of belly or curve; I knew a guy who swore by a standard utility knife with replaceable blades. Not much different from the well known and used Wyoming Knife. Totally different approaches, same results. So does design really matter that much? Is it all down to personal preference and aesthetic appeal?

 

[Mistwalker]

Rocky, what makes it 'awesome'?

Why, for you, does this knife work so well? Let's argue about why some knife designs seem to work better for us than others. Mistwalker and I were kinda focusing on blade shape or profile, but that is obviously just one element of knife design. So what makes the Fiddleback Kephart so good? What does that design do well? Does it have any short comings?

I'm kinda looking at a theory that the knife we are practiced at using is the design that works for us. Function follows form as much as form follows function. If we had all grown up using Ulus, perhaps that would seem like the ultimate design. Most 'skinners' have a lot of belly or curve; I knew a guy who swore by a standard utility knife with replaceable blades. Not much different from the well known and used Wyoming Knife. Totally different approaches, same results. So does design really matter that much? Is it all down to personal preference and aesthetic appeal?

I can't speak for anyone but myself on this, but after all the flack I have gotten from the lovers of the traditional Kephart pattern, for not being drawn to it at all but then falling in love with this one, I have spent a lot of time studying exactly why I do like this version so much. Essentially it comes down to the fact that it checks more boxes on my list of preferences than any other knife in this size range I have used yet.

I decided I liked pointy blades a long time ago, mostly from a primitive living type perspective. Part of that was for penetrating tough hides like alligator hide. Part of it was for making fine holes for improvised water filtration systems. Part of it was in finer detailed work with the tip in trap components. Part of it was a field expedient surgery on my leg to remove a honey locust thorn broken off in my calf. Some of it came from a defensive perspective.

At the time of some of this learning, I was carrying a Buck 103, and at the same time I learned that the deep belly was not a lot of benefit to me in my uses anymore once I had gotten away from skinning larger game.

At first I liked the blade profile of the pilot survival knife for this, though the edge of the old style needs a lot of work to become a good cutter, and the fine tips could be a bit fragile . Unlike the full flat grind of the new generation of that knife. Life on the streets and in the urban woods living off grid would actually cause me to develop a traumatic bond with this knife model and similar blade profiles, that became difficult to defeat long after some of the things that had drawn me to it originally were no longer a factor. I was still hung up on it years after needing a knife that could deliver trauma from either end quit being a thing for me. It didn't dawn on me that the SOG S1 Bowie, that I had carried for years at the time, really didn't check all that many boxes on my preferences list anymore for some time to come. Then a tried a lot of drop points since they were so popular at the time. I tried every knife RAT Cutlery made. And though the blade shapes were actually ok for me...albeit not quite as pointy as I would prefer, the handle ergonomics left much to be desired for me. After I met Andy I tried a few of his models, starting with the Bushfinger, then the KE Bushie, the Hunter, the Hiking Buddy, and I loved the ergonomics of all of them and the blade profiles worked well enough I was happy there. Then came the Kephart and I fell in love with all of it. I tried other models in that size afterward: the Bushcrafter and Arete, and loved the handles on all, including the rounded pommels, but the blades still just weren't pointy enough to suit me. So back to the KE Bushie, but then the foward part of the handle still concerned me in some applications. I would still love a guarded version I think. But all in all, the Kephart just checked the most number of boxes for me. Getting it in CPM S35VN, my current favorite steel after many tests (which would be another rabbit hole t go down), was a dream come true for me. There hasn't really been one of Andy's knife I actually haven't liked at all. Many I like very much. But all in all the Kephart is definitely the most well suited for me, and yes aesthetics could definitely also play a role in that.

One question I still have, with no way to get an answer to at this point, is whether guys like George Washington Sears and Horace Kephart were actually and truly 100% happy with the knives they carried, or were good knives so much less widely available, and harder to come by, that they were close enough to what they really wanted that they were just willing to settle for what they got and adapt themselves to them?