Doc, to me it seems like we agree more than you seem to think.

First of all, the knives I posted in the picture were not intended to be viewed as "ALL" being dedicated "Skinning" knives.

I posted knives that I thought were well rounded for the entire process: skinning, cleaning and processing.

Some are better at skinning, others at cleaning and processing, etc.

I have never used a Wyoming knife. For pure practical purposes, I can actually see were the Wyoming knife's hook would zip open a cavity better and faster than any knife. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbup.gif" alt="" /> But, that is about the end of the advantages I see for the Wyoming knife. I am quite certain I personally prefer other knife designs for everything else. To each their own.

In regards to you feeling a skinning knife needs an upswept blade, I "AGREE" - to a point. For me, either upswept or just a good sharp belly with a good curve all work well with each having a bit of a compromise to the other.

I tend to like a bit more on the curve side for skinning and less sweep with too much point.

For me, the pointy tips like on the larger Marbles tend to cut back into the skin too easily rather than slicing under the skin.

I like the more rounded tips like on the smaller Marbles and the Bark River Fieldsman II (2nd from left). Those tips work just a bit better for me for "skinning". For other parts of the process, other knives have their pros and cons.

In regards to length of blade, see your own preferences with the VERY short bladed Wyoming knife. Along with a short blade, your Wyoming knife also has ergos designed for tight control. Shorter blade and ergos for good control are also features I prefer for skinning and cleaning and most of the knives I included in my picture have smaller blades offering good control.

My dad's old knife and my old Buck 118 do NOT offer the control of any of the knives I pictured or your Wyoming knife. So, I see a dis-connect in some of your comments there. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

But, the "Sweeps" on many of the knives I posted are actually quite similar to my dad's old knife and my Buck 118.

The larger Marbles has as much sweep as my Dad's knife, but in a shorter easier to control blade and handle - which I prefer for skinning and cleaning.
Sometimes in processing the larger flanks a longer knife is better. But, I can manage with a shorter knife just fine.

I don't argue that my Dad's knife could be a very worthy skinning, game-processing all-in-one knife.
My only real issue with his knife is mainly being a longer blade than I prefer for the majority of the work.
I still feel that knives that size also commonly called "Hunters" where designed to do much more than skinning and game processing and were given a bit more size and length for those "other" camp tasks. But, the extra size is not as good for skinning and cleaning game IMO. The extra length is fine for quartering and butchering larger game though. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbup.gif" alt="" />

However, I have never needed that much blade length for skinning and cleaning and for me, shorter blades offer more control. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbup.gif" alt="" />

My dad's blade was also hollow grind. Which I "Often mention" that I don't "generally" prefer. BUT, I don't find hollow grind to be much of a draw-back at all when skinning or processing game if the edges are good. I just don't "prefer" hollow grinds for most everything else (camp, trail, general task cuting chores, etc.)
And these days, for me, 99.9% of what I do is "everything else" since I don't get to hunt much anymore - at least currently and for a few years now.

So, 99.9% of my influence and preferences in knife design, function, shape, features, etc. is NOT about skinning and cleaning game and more about everything else.

If, as you say you: "already know we differ in opinions", I am not sure what we differ so much about. When I break down what you say and what I say in regards to "Certain" things, I see similar views. If we differn in so many other views, maybe we just have different uses and preferences most of the time.

If your primary use for knives is for game cleaning, skinning, processing and so forth, I honestly don't feel Busse and kin offers the best choices.


The Buck 118 also has a longer blade than I prefer. And a large/long flat area that adds a long section that I almost never used when skinning or processing deer. I "did" use that area of the knife for other chores.

You mentioned: "quartering, butchering, de-boning, etc.... are better left to those knives you depict".
Yeah... we disagree a bit on that. And if ANY knife is well suited for "quartering, butchering, de-boning, etc....", the Buck 118 "IS" a Boning knife! And not even a good one as it's blade is too thick for it's blade height.

The Buck 118's was TOO thick for it's very short height blade. It was a bit of a mini spike than a slicer. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbdn.gif" alt="" />

If I had my belt-sander and current knowledge then, I could have re-profiled the VERY obtuse edge that came on my 118 and thinned out the lower saber shoulder as well (semi-convexed the blade) to make the 118 cut WAY better. But, I didn't have that knowledge then and the Buck needed a LOT of work to make it a good cutter. Same as some other knives I know. And same reason I think some people might not feel some knife brands are good since they don't come optimized from the maker for certain cutting tasks. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/banghead.gif" alt="" />

Receiving a knife from a maker that needs THAT muck work to the blade to make it a GOOD cutting tool is TOO much to ask for your average knife user who only has basic sharpening skills and simple tools like a sharpening stone or two.

I STRONGLY feel knife makers should put HIGH PRIDE in providing optimized cutting edges out of the box.

I recently read a post - I don't remember where, but somebody was talking about kitchen knives provided by a Japanese maker who marked on the box what the edge was maximized for doing. I think Busse should consider the same. And most of their boxes would have a check in the box" "maximized for cinder block chopping". <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

Some of the Busse and kin knives have in recent months come with better edges. And some of those edges are "appropriate" for the given style of knife - such as my Waki'es edge and the M9LE had a good edge for it's style of blade. But, NONE of those edges are great yet. And they could all be better. NONE compare to Bark River or Spyderco in over-all performance. "Some" of the blades have come sharp, but still could be improved with better edge profiling at least - IMO. .... I am not saying I have received 100% perfect edges from Bark River or Spyderco. But, in a LARGE majority of cases, the edges I get from Bark River and Spyderco are so good, I don't think I can improve upon how they come to me. And ONLY consider sharpening after using and then they need touched up. Actually, I prefer convex on Spyderco knives as well. So, after some use, I tend to re-profile a bit. But, they are so sharp to begin with, I don't like to mess with them until they need it. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbup.gif" alt="" />

---------

My MAIN dislike on those old 1XX series Buck knives (aside from steel and referring to design) was the double-quillion guards. I didn't know what a quillion was back then, but I didn't like the top guard and often considered grinding it off. But, that was a time when I thought it was just WRONG to make such modifications to a knife. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/loopy.gif" alt="" />

In any event, I thought the Buck 118 was limited in handle holds and versatile ergos - as it came from Buck. Had it been worth the effort, I could have made modifications to the Buck 118's guard to improve it a lot.
My dad's knife was more versatile.

And again, I just developed a poor relationship with that Buck 118 since I couldn't get it sharp. Part of that may have been lack of knowledge on sharpening. I "Could" sharpen other knives at that time. But, I didn't know about different steels and hardness at that time, or different and sharpening media/techniques. All I knew was that I couldn't sharpen the dang thing and the Buck 118 frustrated me. I later purchased other Buck knives that I could sharpen better.

If I still had that Buck 118, I could probably "Now" get it sharp on my belt-sander and/or strop with compounds (??????) But, I sold it prior to sharpening that way. I could also modify the guard - although aluminum (Buck guard) clogs my belts. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbup.gif" alt="" /> But, I still felt it was too thick for it's height and longer than I prefer for skinning and cleaning game and not NEAR what I prefer for other knife uses.

I had that Buck as my only fixed bladed Buck since about 11 or 12 years old till in high school when I bought other "Cheaper" knives that were much sharper out of the box.

I agree the Buck (and my dad's knife) had a good sweep at the front. Had my Buck knife had a shorter blade and an improved guard, the handle was so-so, and steel that was sharp and I could get it sharp, then I might have liked the Buck 118 more for skinning and processing deer.

My issues with my dad's knife and my Buck 118 was NOT the front sweep.

If you look again, the knives I posted in the pick all mostly have a good sweep, but shorter for better control.

The custom is more of a caper (which I mentioned). Where I feel it is better for smaller game with it's pointier tip and less suited for skinning - although good for getting into and cutting around cavities - like a short boning knife. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbup.gif" alt="" />

The Highland, HCLE and SS4 are "sufficient" for multiple tasks including skinning and game processing. They are "specialist" knives, but versatile including still being pretty well suited for game skinning and processing.


Beyond that, I won't even claim to be the end-all be-all of skinning and game processing.

I have skinned and processed probably about 40-50 deer "Total" in my life. And it has probably been about 12-14 years since my last deer. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" /> So, it sounds like Stephen should easily have way more experience than myself - since he did almost that many last year alone.
Also, I have learned about 90%-95% about what I know about knives "Since" my last deer. But, I did use a variety of different knives over the years on different deer and various other game to get a good feel. And have used enough other knives to help forumlate my thinking. It is possible that some more hands on with some of these knives might change my views some. But, at least based on my past technique in skinning and processing game and significant other knife usage, I think I have a reasonable expectation of my preferences. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbup.gif" alt="" />

.

KG... you are as loquacious in the typed word as I am in talk....

As I stated in my post, I think the wyoming knife is good only for gutting and skinning.... it is weird to get used to at first...

as to skinning.... and those shown in your post were called as for skinning as well as processing game, either have drop points, or straight backs.... there was one with a slight up-sweep.... they does not make good skinners... the idea of a skinner being upswept is to see the point of the knife as you remove the skin form the animal... a drop point does not allow for this, and while there was a fad for a while in drop point skinners because they could afford a long cutting edge with a sweeping belly, they did not solve the need to see the point....

Heck, my uncle even made us a huge knife to remove meat from hogs...we called it the "hog knife".... If I showed a pic up here.. Horn Dog would want to convex it and chop down a tree...(its big enough to be a machete) and others would want to baton it through a railroad tie....

I do think my S5's would be excellent hunting knife... I can't help my love of the drop point...

I still disagree about the 118 as a boning knife.... it would serve... boning knives are generally long and narrow and straight backed...... the 118 is long and narrow, albeit upswept... I think the thickness is not really an issue.... I have several boning knives some thicker than others....and the 118 is not than thick...

but as I say to my boy scout troop, "not everyone likes chocolate cake"... meaning... everyone's tastes are different...some similar... some very diverse.... but that is why there are so many flavors ... be it cake.... or whatever.... so that everybody can eat (use) what they like...

You, as does everyone here, develop your own opinions, share it with others, receive other's opinions, and respect them... I love the sharing of thoughts and knowledge...

Wow... more than I like to type.....if we were partaking in adult beverages and having a one on one conversation... we could have a marathon...

How do you feel the SS4 works in comparison to these knives for skinning, dressing, etc.? It seems like it would make a decent hunting companion. Thoughts?