GSO 3.5 (2nd Generation)

Packerrat said:
oh my goodness. this is going sideways quick. I agree with Scout and Oyster- IF there is in fact a difference. Absolutely, without hesitation: there should not be a major design change without consulting the customers who paid up front, based upon the promise of a particular design. But is there a difference? Is that conclusive yet, or is this just another misunderstanding?

What I'm not clear on is if we are seizing upon Millet's vernacular, in error. What if Millet is going to be doing precisely what Guy has been doing this whole time, but we never heard it described that way before? How did Guy grind the prior iterations? I can't tell you without holding a 3.5 up next to another knife, or hearing from Guy.

My quote from the FAQ about not promising a particular grind was meant more to highlight that the exact type of grind that they are using was not specified, not to scare everyone into thinking they could radically change their designs over night.

Sounds like I must have missed some of your analyses in this thread somewhere, I will try to go back through and review them. and if you get an update from Survive!, Mumblings, please come share it. :)
Click to expand...

You're GTG, that's all I'm hoping for as well as just some clear info from the top. Until than I have to rant a bit (lol).
 
^ I can sympathize with much of the sentiment. But I also feel we're getting very deep into the realm of speculation - esp as relates to what percentage of blades weren't up to spec (in any iteration - as firsts, seconds, or even as UBs)
 
Long story short, my point concerning the rejects from F1sts were that the quality in my opinion was pretty superior and something I'd still prefer over an alternate primary grind (hollow-sabre).
 
Jordyn emailed me yesterday after I had asked about my 4.1 f2 grind and said, "Your GSO-4.1 Factory 2nd has already been through production grinding, so it will have a Saber-Flat grind."
 
^ Yes, given that Survive! (as implied by the name itself) has focused on producing tough, hard use knives, most would expect stronger grinds (flat saber, convex etc). Hollow has its benefits in certain uses and for certain types of blades but is probably not the immediate choice for THIS style of knife.
Still, I remain with my thoughts about making a limited exception for the 3.5 as described earlier above.
 
Oyster said:
^ Yes, given that Survive! (as implied by the name itself) has focused on producing tough, hard use knives, most would expect stronger grinds (flat saber, convex etc). Hollow has its benefits in certain uses and for certain types of blades but is probably not the immediate choice for THIS style of knife.
Still, I remain with my thoughts about making a limited exception for the 3.5 as described earlier above.
Click to expand...

True, but that doesn't neglect the fact nothing was known until now that a grind change may or will be in the making. I'm not contesting/arguing the fact that there are benefits to having a hollow-saber grind but what I've been saying all this time is that prior knowledge would have influenced those ordering a 3.5 let alone the other offerings that may be cut in the same manner. Until I hear from Jordyn, Ellie or whomever I'll never know what grind my orders will come in and I believe its something more folks need to look into.
 
scout1sg said:
True, but that doesn't neglect the fact nothing was known until now that a grind change may or will be in the making. I'm not contesting/arguing the fact that there are benefits to having a hollow-saber grind but what I've been saying all this time is that prior knowledge would have influenced those ordering a 3.5 let alone the other offerings that may be cut in the same manner. Until I hear from Jordyn, Ellie or whomever I'll never know what grind my orders will come in and I believe its something more folks need to look into.
Click to expand...
I agree and the issue that I am now contemplating as a result of the change is the steel choice.
I emailed and said I'd like to hear/read Guy's thoughts.
 
I don't know how well the original grind shop performed.
Guy reworked blades as necessary to reduce the scrap losses, offered the merely cosmetically challenged blades as seconds and uglies, and recovered as many of the blanks as firsts as possible. I am confident that if all he had to do was assemble and sharpen knives from flawless components he wouldn't be this far behind on production.
I think that everybody would like to receive timely updates from Survive, and we all wish that Survive wasn't enormously backlogged.
 
Oyster, this is a bit off topic, but if 20CV won't handle your particular cutting task at the factory sharpening angle why not just increase the angle a bit until it holds up?
What does that have to do with the primary grind geometry?
 
Am i the only one who's stoked about a possible hollow grind on the 3.5?!
I know it's not what i expected when i ordered over 2 years ago but it's an improvement in my book.

I think on such a small blade a hollow grind makes much more sense,since it isn't really suited for real hard use IMO.
The tip will still be adequately strong.
 
Last edited:
GAGL, I expect that a hollow ground 3.5 would perform adequately.
There are other knives still in the production sequence for which this is a larger issue.
 
Fancier said:
Oyster, this is a bit off topic, but if 20CV won't handle your particular cutting task at the factory sharpening angle why not just increase the angle a bit until it holds up?
What does that have to do with the primary grind geometry?
Click to expand...
I don't know if it's off topic since - I'm no expert, mind you - the primary grind determines the amount of steel behind the edge. 20CV is known for its wear resistance, but 3V is arguably the much tougher steel and with better edge stability. I'd like to understand how the change in grind might exacerbate the difference between the two steels.
 
GAGL said:
Am i the only one who's stoked about a possible hollow grind on the 3.5?!
I know it's not what i expected when i ordered over 2 years ago but it's an improvement in my book.

I think on such a small blade a hollow grind makes much more sense,since it isn't really suited for real hard use IMO.
The tip will still be adequatly strong.
Click to expand...
I'm slowly coming around to your way of thinking - although I don't think of 8.25" as tiny and it's still quite hefty at .140 at the spine. I just think that many of us look to Survive to produce a hard use blade and to other options if we're in the market for an exceptional slicer...
 
Fancier said:
GAGL, I expect that a hollow ground 3.5 would perform adequately.
There are other knives still in the production sequence for which this is a larger issue.
Click to expand...

Yeah,i know. I just wanted to brighten up the mood in here a bit.

I got some Knives from russian manufacturer Kizlyar which are also hollow ground and quite thick on the spine. I used and abused those knives REALLY hard,for years and none of them broke,yet..
i know its anecdotal evidence but still shows (at least to me) that a hollow grind combined with a strong spine,done right, can take much more than one might think.
 
GAGL said:
Yeah,i know. I just wanted to brighten up the mood in here a bit.

I got some Knives from russian manufacturer Kizlyar which are also hollow ground and quite thick on the spine. I used and abused those knives REALLY hard,for years and none of them broke,yet..
i know its anecdotal evidence but still shows (at least to me) that a hollow grind combined with a strong spine,done right, can take much more than one might think.
Click to expand...
Thanks for sharing your experience!

I guess I just haven't been able to quite understand the hollow/saber combo. Just seems contradictory to me.
 
Oyster said:
I'm slowly coming around to your way of thinking - although I don't think of 8.25" as tiny and it's still quite hefty at .140 at the spine. I just think that many of us look to Survive to produce a hard use blade and to other options if we're in the market for an exceptional slicer...
Click to expand...

I didn't say it's tiny..it's small:p
Like you said .140 is still pretty hefty for such a small blade.
Even with that hollow grind (which is very subtle IMO) it will still be a hard use knife and i actually would like to see someone try breaking it.
now it's a hard use knife and almost a slicer.

I was a bit frustrated about the long wait times and so on but that possible grind change lifted my knife-spirits

I can understand everybodys concerns tough.
 
GAGL said:
I didn't say it's tiny..it's small:p
Like you said .140 is still pretty hefty for such a small blade.
Even with that hollow grind (which is very subtle IMO) it will still be a hard use knife and i actually would like to see someone try breaking it.
now it's a hard use knife and almost a slicer.

I was a bit frustrated about the long wait times and so on but that possible grind change lifted my knife-spirits

I can understand everybodys concerns tough.
Click to expand...

I have no issue with the purpose and function of hollow grinds and happy to see that you understand the position of others. Over the years though I just got more accustomed to FFGs, Scandi's and Convex Blades. I actually believe S!Ks was one of the 1st Flat-Saber grinds I used (other than maybe a Strider or two) and they've done these flawlessly. Change is not my strong suit yet after 20 years in the service I'd think I could easily adapt to change, suppose I'm just getting set in my ways/thoughts now. I just believe in 360deg communications. Last minute changes or changes in the mix with no forewarning can be problematic. Despite my frustrated language at times I do have S!Ks best interest in mind, I (and others) just want some answers.
 
Completely off topic, the first flat saber I used was an Ontario Old Hickory butcher knife.
I still keep it around for the ease of sharpening and I find that the short bevel carves meat pretty well. Image that . ;)
It is pretty thin, but still stiff enough because of all the unground stock above the bevel.
To me the beauty of the saber grind is how much thinner the stock can be because of the stiffness of the spine.
I consider the Survive knives to all be rather overbuilt, but not obnoxiously so.
 
Fancier said:
Completely off topic, the first flat saber I used was an Ontario Old Hickory butcher knife.
I still keep it around for the ease of sharpening and I find that the short bevel carves meat pretty well. Image that . ;)
It is pretty thin, but still stiff enough because of all the unground stock above the bevel.
To me the beauty of the saber grind is how much thinner the stock can be because of the stiffness of the spine.
I consider the Survive knives to all be rather overbuilt, but not obnoxiously so.
Click to expand...

I believe my first was a Green River back in the later 70s.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top