I don't even think it would make a good letter opener.....



I will say this though who ever did make it did do a nice job. The workmanship is is top shelf.

Yea, the work is very clean. Maybe a little too nice to use. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

.......LOL

It'd be nice to see the Tali-whacker again. One in SR77 with a 1 inch longer blade would be nice.

.285 thick. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

That's one fat tanto, but at least it can cut. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Skinny doesnt always mean too thin to be of use. I just got my Skinny Ash1 and you can tell next to the SAR and the DFLE it is still a substantial blade.



Now compare it to the Koster Nessmuk which is receiving rave reviews. Which one is really thin. I guess we just need them all!!!

It's a nice one.

any point to bringing up the (m)[censored] issue?

i say you need .01 inches blade thickness per 10 lbs bodyweight (if you're in shape).. @ 140 lbs the *average* thickness of *all* my knives would settle out somewhere around .14" .. and a guy twice my weight could certainly justify a blade of .285 just because he is able to put a heck of a lot more torque and stress on the blade without using a cheater to increase the leverage.

i might be off on the numbers, first guess and certainly a rough one, and there are sure folks smaller than me who love thick blades, and great big guys who like delicate thin ones. . but there's SOME correlation between size, weight, strength of the person.. and size, weight, strength of the knife. One size does NOT fit all.

I carry a hatchet in the woods and don't mind bragging that it's a sharp hatchet, and *from my point of view*.. that tool is more purpose built for chopping than almost ANY knife (a machete for cane & vines the exception) ..

but I don't regard the thickness as the issue, rather edge geometry, leverage from the handle length, and the concentration of momentum in a narrow band which all combined allows greater penetration than a more general purpose built tool. With care, you could build a knife that had a similar length, weight distribution, and 'sweet spot' for chopping, that MIGHT chop better than a hatchet. . but what's it cost to manufacture? THAT matters too.. an EXCEPTIONAL knife *might* do better than a hatchet but how many exceptional hatchets are there to test against directly? And moreso, how many people have the skill to use one optimally? You don't learn axework in a week.. or a year, unless you're doing it every day to stay alive..

I prefer blades from .1-.2 thickness, more has no purpose for me. Thinner seems fragile to me even if it's not, for the application. I want flat grind with convex edges for the kitchen, and full convex for camping.. and the harder the steel is, the thinner it SHOULD be.. and the less it should be thought of as a chopper and more a slicer.. I don't know of any choppers under .15" that have a good reputation (are there any?) .. nor do i know of any slicers that work exceptionally well that don't have a fairly thin profile AT the edge, no matter how thick the spine is. I can shave with a properly honed hatchet, at least enough to prove it's possible, but it's certainly been thinned a LOT behind the edge, and the first inch of the blade back from the edge is no thicker than an extreme duty knife .. (.25-.3) ..

Big boys like bigger knives cause they can break thinner ones, and it makes them nervous to trust a tool they can break. Reasonable... Skinny little poots like thinner harder slicers, cause they aren't as good with choppers and certainly aren't going to BREAK one.. just not enough (m)[censored]. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> sez me, the guy with no butt.. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Mass huh. Interesting way of thinking about it. Though I would argue that strength and muscle tone are the important factors, not body mass. Technique is also critical. What snaps thin blades is torque along the handle to tip axis, or bending around an axis that runs from cutting edge to spine. As long as the user is using a technique which only applies stress directly from edge to spine with no twisting, even a very thin knife will successfully stand up to a large amount of force...

I propose that to be effective in using a knife, the user must have good amounts of at least two of:
- body (strength, tone, and dexterity)
- knife durability (high thickness, high mass)
- skill (methods, patience, intuition)

If you are not skilled, you require a lot of physical capability and blade durability to work well. If you do not have a durable knife, you require a lot of physical capability and skill. And if you lack physical capability, you need a brute of a knife and a lot of skill. The last statement is the weakest of the three, but it can be argued that manual dexterity is a bodily attribute closely related to muscle tone, and that without fine control over your movement you are more likely to apply inappropriate stress to the knife thus require the thickness. So being of low strength but excellent muscle tone and dexterity counts as being physically capable.

... I think I had a point somewhere along the way, let's see if anybody can find it in there.

so can someone tell me this... is the busse scotch dispenser considered a THIN knife?? i know it is thin compared to SOME busses and dogs but is it thin as compared to other small fixed blades?

I consider 3/16" the standard for small and durable neck/companion knives. The Scoth Dispenser is the same thickness as the Fehrman Thru Hiker, for example. Not too thick, not to thin, so it is neither thick nor thin! For the record, I favor thick knives over thin ones for improved prying and pommeling <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> .

What I do a lot in the Summer times is to slice water melones. At this task, wider edge means awkward; but thicker edge means impossible (the melone peel simply crashes). So, thick knives can cut like thin knives (sharpened at the same profile) only if the cut doesn't involve deepness, if it doesn't require the knife itself to traverse through material.

However, regarding thin knives, not batoning is what I'm concerned about. I have a one millimeter thick blade which batoned through bones for many years, hammered into the spine and never had a problem. But the problem with thin knives is that they can't chop and can't pry. For me, for a multi-purpose knife, the ideal thickness is 4 millimeters (which means 1.575 inches). Otherwise I prefer thicker knives because their advantages seem more important than their dissadvantages in my use:

Advantages of thick knives:
- they can chop better being heavier
- are stronger for batoning
- thickness is an advantage for splitting wood
- have more lateral strength which grants the possibility to dig into the ground (even in rocky soil) or into the wood (even hard wood)
- you feel more confident if need to use it as a weapon

Dissadvantages of thick knives:
- are awkward for slicing when it needs to traverse the material
- are more difficult to regrind when consumed during repeated resharpening
- are more difficult to carry being heavier
- are more banned by police because they look stronger than kitchen knives.

remember fellas, and I am sure Renee can back me up on this, it is not the length, it is all about thickness <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />