- Joined
- Jan 23, 2007
- Messages
- 8,216
We need to do a throwing knife as a field utility knife.
But until then you will not being able to give a flying FUC
Put me down for at least 10! Will they be ready before Christmas?
We need to do a throwing knife as a field utility knife.
But until then you will not being able to give a flying FUC
You already know the answer to that....Put me down for at least 10! Will they be ready before Christmas?
I used to think people are stranger than anyone. You all just proved it.
There’s a famous quote::
People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it!
Also if these numbers are even (remotely) correct, is that the reason as to why you tweaked the HT with cryo?
OK after the recent derailment of this thread, I found something on the GKD which piqued my curiosity to which I would like to hear Nathan's opinion because I have come to believe that Nathan would know the answer to this better than anyone else that I know of. Also if these numbers are even (remotely) correct, is that the reason as to why you tweaked the HT with cryo? I seem to have read something in the past written by you, but if I did so, I must have forgotten where!
Thanks Nathan:
https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/cpm-3v-real-use-advantages.1640943/#post-18763648
OK, here's a real question for Nathan. The original field knife was ground to .015 and then sharpened at 15 DPS, while the new one is listed as being ground to .020 and sharpened at 18 DPS. I think that most of us aren't interested in using one of these to chop through cinder blocks, and are more interested in slicing ability. So why the change to make the edge less acute?
^ I must confess to understanding not even half of it, but these are still among my favorite posts
(The post re narrowing the primary bevel and changing DPS is clear - even to me. I meant the one before that - the one discussing where the real magic happens)
I went from 15 DPS to 18 DPS back on the original FK because the average user needed a bit more. Advanced (and light duty) users were able to lean the edge as they saw fit. I carried this over to the new FK2
I narrowed the primary grind angles on the FK2 compared to the original and added .005" thickness to compensate. These are minor tweaks. Slightly less wedging (overall), better cutting, more durable. The average person won't notice any difference but in my opinion it offered a better combination of cutting characteristics and durability for the average end user. These are tiny tweaks.
In something like cardboard or vegetables the new FK2 will feel more slicy because of the geometry of the bevels behind the edge. But it would have been more fragile for bushcraft and tradesmen had I not compensated. Trust me, we thought about this. We also put a little less carbon into solution which ended up in a slightly lower hardness (HRC 61, about half a point). We didn't temper this back, we intentionally put less carbon into solution. I did this because I found, in the kinds of general purpose cuts this knife is made for, we get the best edge retention with this specific heat treat. Again, it's a minor tweak, but we did our homework and I felt it was a good tweak for this application. This is our best Field Knife ever.
Nathan, thanks very much for the detailed explanation. Everything you said makes complete sense, and I figured that you had good reasons for the change.
So, any chance that you might make a few "racing versions" of the UFK for those of us that prefer a very thin edge?
I read that too...yeah, it was the thin D2 slicey variant...I'm sure Nathan posted thatForgive me in advance if I'm wrong but I do remember reading some where the possibility of offering a standard vs thin variant of the field knife?? I'm not sure if it was the Master Carothers that had said this... Or a wishful forumite?
Care to put the kibosh on this Nathan before I mistakenly spread a false rumor ? Or was this an actual consideration on your part?