Re: SR77 VS SR101
[Re: Flux]
#631943
09/03/12 02:59 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,795
pitman
Junk Yard Dog
|
Junk Yard Dog
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,795 |
Forgive my ignorance on blade grind geometry but wouldnt a full convex grind be best with this thickness? Would bring it closer to a hybrid machete/chopper? I would guess that would bring the cost way up on them though. Maybe if the coating ever gets to ugly it would be worth trying. All speculation of course. I kinda like the extra beef, dont need to worry about what I sink it into. As far as I know the only way to put a full convexed grind on a knife is to do it by hand. Obviously this would take far more time and effort thus substantially raising the cost. Interesting. Not to doubt your knowledge, but do you have any sources? You could be absolutely right, but it would be surprising to me. Logically, if one blade geometry could only be accomplished by hand, it would mean that a blade with that geometry would cost a great deal more than a blade with a geometry that can be produced by machine. I own several Busses that have full convex grinds and they were not more expensive to comparable blades with a FFG or Sabre grind. One example would be the NMSFNO and the SFNO. The former has a blade that is just over 8" and has a full height convex grind, the latter has roughly a 7" blade and is full flat ground. The SFNO was sold for $287 and the NMSFNO was $327. The difference of $40 can easily be attributed to the longer & thicker blade, the nuclear meltdown treatment, inflation, et. al. Their are many other examples of full height convex ground Busses that are priced similarly to comparable blades designed with other grind geometries. To name a few: the original Team Gemini; SAR 4, 6, 8; SARSquatch; SARGE-7; NMFBM; SJTAC; et. al. If what you say is true, I think Busse would charge far more for any full height convex ground blades. This was taken from the site of a popular knife brand: All Knives-Swords-Axes and Cutting Tools have been Convex Ground and Sharpened from the Bronze Age to about 1900. The Advent of Automated Grinding during the Industrial Revolution saw the first V-Bevel methods of Sharpening knives. This was necessary because there are no machines--even today--that can do a proper Convex Grind or Convex Edge. Convex Grinds and Edges are all Hand Done. The Advantage of the Convex Edge is that it supports the Carbides on the Cutting Edge by an almost 400% advantage to the -now common- V Bevel. Convex Edges hold thier level of sharpness far longer than a V bevel and are 4 times tougher. They are also deceptivly sharp. The Thick Edge Spine holds the carbides on the edge to such a longer degree that the knife stays sharper far longer and will still cut long after a conventional V bevel has gone stone dull. Convex Edges are also the Easiest to Maintain and restore.
|
|
|
Re: SR77 VS SR101
[Re: rockgolfer]
#631944
09/03/12 03:43 AM
|
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 341
JavaDog
Mongrel
|
Mongrel
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 341 |
I had the same opinion previously that SR101 would not be good for choppers. I was wrong. I've been using it for hard chopping and batoning with a 711 on oak and maple hardwoods. It not only chops like crazy, but the edge holds up incredibly well. No chips yet. Cuts through like butter. From my own experience I agree that SR101 is super to SR77 in edge retention. However, SR77 is more rust resistant in a satin finish. Having used both, I'm glad the 1311 is SR101. I would trust me life to either without hesitation.
|
|
|
Re: SR77 VS SR101
[Re: JavaDog]
#631945
09/03/12 04:20 AM
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 1,037
tedsterosa
Junk Yard Dog
|
Junk Yard Dog
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 1,037 |
All I have used is the SR 101 and it was just light chopping and batoning. I accidently hit a hidden staple smack in the middle of the blade. It barely nicked it and it is still hair-shaving sharp. sr-101 all the way! (Especially at these prices.) I just can't wait till my 911 shows up. Super excited. The 1311 sounds sweet, but the thing that attracted me to busse kin is the amount of steel they use.
Also, the composition of these steels is really going to tell you how they perform, although I will say, "Heat treatment, Heat treatment, Heat treatment!" Look at the difference in carbon content man.
Carbon Manganese Chromium Vanadium Tungsten Silicon 52100 1.10% 0.35% 1.50% - - 0.35%
Carbon 0.55%
Manganese 0.70%
Chromium 3.25%
Molybdenum 1.40%
Vanadium 0.25% Silicon 0.35%
JYD #181
|
|
|
Re: SR77 VS SR101
[Re: Spider-Pig]
#631946
09/03/12 05:37 AM
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,279
Rat Finkenstein
Junk Yard Dog
|
Junk Yard Dog
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,279 |
Never heard of a Battle Rat fail at chopping, but it amazes me how some people feel that the ones that are through hardened are not suited for chopping. I haven't seen one of those fail yet either.
If I were forced to pick between SR77 and SR101, I would pick SR101. I have thrown my Through-hardened Battle Rat hundreds of times and pried apart a big log down the middle with it to make a new throwing target. I did manage to destroy the handle and slightly blunt the tip, but they fixed it right up for me. There is no chance it will break under human power unless that is what you set out to do.
Signature line-> ______________________________
|
|
|
Re: SR77 VS SR101
[Re: pitman]
#631947
09/03/12 05:42 AM
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,279
Rat Finkenstein
Junk Yard Dog
|
Junk Yard Dog
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,279 |
Forgive my ignorance on blade grind geometry but wouldnt a full convex grind be best with this thickness? Would bring it closer to a hybrid machete/chopper? I would guess that would bring the cost way up on them though. Maybe if the coating ever gets to ugly it would be worth trying. All speculation of course. I kinda like the extra beef, dont need to worry about what I sink it into. As far as I know the only way to put a full convexed grind on a knife is to do it by hand. Obviously this would take far more time and effort thus substantially raising the cost. Interesting. Not to doubt your knowledge, but do you have any sources? You could be absolutely right, but it would be surprising to me. Logically, if one blade geometry could only be accomplished by hand, it would mean that a blade with that geometry would cost a great deal more than a blade with a geometry that can be produced by machine. I own several Busses that have full convex grinds and they were not more expensive to comparable blades with a FFG or Sabre grind. One example would be the NMSFNO and the SFNO. The former has a blade that is just over 8" and has a full height convex grind, the latter has roughly a 7" blade and is full flat ground. The SFNO was sold for $287 and the NMSFNO was $327. The difference of $40 can easily be attributed to the longer & thicker blade, the nuclear meltdown treatment, inflation, et. al. Their are many other examples of full height convex ground Busses that are priced similarly to comparable blades designed with other grind geometries. To name a few: the original Team Gemini; SAR 4, 6, 8; SARSquatch; SARGE-7; NMFBM; SJTAC; et. al. If what you say is true, I think Busse would charge far more for any full height convex ground blades. This was taken from the site of a popular knife brand: All Knives-Swords-Axes and Cutting Tools have been Convex Ground and Sharpened from the Bronze Age to about 1900. The Advent of Automated Grinding during the Industrial Revolution saw the first V-Bevel methods of Sharpening knives. This was necessary because there are no machines--even today--that can do a proper Convex Grind or Convex Edge. Convex Grinds and Edges are all Hand Done. The Advantage of the Convex Edge is that it supports the Carbides on the Cutting Edge by an almost 400% advantage to the -now common- V Bevel. Convex Edges hold thier level of sharpness far longer than a V bevel and are 4 times tougher. They are also deceptivly sharp. The Thick Edge Spine holds the carbides on the edge to such a longer degree that the knife stays sharper far longer and will still cut long after a conventional V bevel has gone stone dull. Convex Edges are also the Easiest to Maintain and restore. By hand. . . on a machine. It's just marketing spiel that comes close to misinformation.
Signature line-> ______________________________
|
|
|
Re: SR77 VS SR101
[Re: Rat Finkenstein]
#631948
09/03/12 11:57 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,795
pitman
Junk Yard Dog
|
Junk Yard Dog
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,795 |
[quote]Forgive my ignorance on blade grind geometry but wouldnt a full convex grind be best with this thickness? Would bring it closer to a hybrid machete/chopper? I would guess that would bring the cost way up on them though. Maybe if the coating ever gets to ugly it would be worth trying. All speculation of course. I kinda like the extra beef, dont need to worry about what I sink it into. As far as I know the only way to put a full convexed grind on a knife is to do it by hand. Obviously this would take far more time and effort thus substantially raising the cost. Interesting. Not to doubt your knowledge, but do you have any sources? You could be absolutely right, but it would be surprising to me. Logically, if one blade geometry could only be accomplished by hand, it would mean that a blade with that geometry would cost a great deal more than a blade with a geometry that can be produced by machine. I own several Busses that have full convex grinds and they were not more expensive to comparable blades with a FFG or Sabre grind. One example would be the NMSFNO and the SFNO. The former has a blade that is just over 8" and has a full height convex grind, the latter has roughly a 7" blade and is full flat ground. The SFNO was sold for $287 and the NMSFNO was $327. The difference of $40 can easily be attributed to the longer & thicker blade, the nuclear meltdown treatment, inflation, et. al. Their are many other examples of full height convex ground Busses that are priced similarly to comparable blades designed with other grind geometries. To name a few: the original Team Gemini; SAR 4, 6, 8; SARSquatch; SARGE-7; NMFBM; SJTAC; et. al. If what you say is true, I think Busse would charge far more for any full height convex ground blades. This was taken from the site of a popular knife brand: All Knives-Swords-Axes and Cutting Tools have been Convex Ground and Sharpened from the Bronze Age to about 1900. The Advent of Automated Grinding during the Industrial Revolution saw the first V-Bevel methods of Sharpening knives. This was necessary because there are no machines--even today--that can do a proper Convex Grind or Convex Edge. Convex Grinds and Edges are all Hand Done. The Advantage of the Convex Edge is that it supports the Carbides on the Cutting Edge by an almost 400% advantage to the -now common- V Bevel. Convex Edges hold thier level of sharpness far longer than a V bevel and are 4 times tougher. They are also deceptivly sharp. The Thick Edge Spine holds the carbides on the edge to such a longer degree that the knife stays sharper far longer and will still cut long after a conventional V bevel has gone stone dull. Convex Edges are also the Easiest to Maintain and restore. By hand. . . on a machine. It's just marketing spiel that comes close to misinformation. [/quote] I'm not sure buddy, it would be good if Dan could confirm this. Looking at the various grind lines on many of the Busse-Kin blades it's obvious that the bevels are cut in on a machine probably using a CAD program. I have yet to see a machine that put's full convexed grinds on knives though, usually it is done manually by a guy at a belt grinder. I'm talking about a full convexed that begins at the spine, not a flat grind with a convexed secondary bevel.
|
|
|
Re: SR77 VS SR101
[Re: pitman]
#631949
09/03/12 11:59 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,795
pitman
Junk Yard Dog
|
Junk Yard Dog
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,795 |
|
|
|
Re: SR77 VS SR101
[Re: pitman]
#631950
09/04/12 03:09 AM
|
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,032
drbarnes
Junk Yard Dog
|
Junk Yard Dog
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,032 |
If it added significant cost why was the boss jack cg full convex and the le sabre grind and more money?
There is probably a way to automate the convex grind, engineers think of Crazy things
JYD # 146
|
|
|
Re: SR77 VS SR101
[Re: drbarnes]
#631951
09/04/12 03:13 AM
|
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,032
drbarnes
Junk Yard Dog
|
Junk Yard Dog
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,032 |
You could have a belt grinder inside a cnc machine - for the sake of visualization. and the cnc arm grabs the knife blank by the handle holes and holds it at the perfect angle and perfect timing to make a convex grind. Bam automated
Last edited by drbarnes; 09/04/12 03:13 AM.
JYD # 146
|
|
|
Re: SR77 VS SR101
[Re: drbarnes]
#631952
09/04/12 05:35 AM
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,279
Rat Finkenstein
Junk Yard Dog
|
Junk Yard Dog
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,279 |
A belt grinder is a machine. Even knives that have CNC work on the bevels are hand ground to an extent.
Signature line-> ______________________________
|
|
|
Re: SR77 VS SR101
[Re: Rat Finkenstein]
#631953
09/04/12 02:05 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 12,739
gun dog
OP
Junk Yard Dog
|
OP
Junk Yard Dog
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 12,739 |
Wow i havent seen this thread for some time. great topic. and i like convex edges. and if i remember right the R9 has a saber grind blade with a hybrid convex edge...... so if i compare my 911 and R9 the blade grind and edge grind are the same.
Any day I'm above the grass and I'm not a zombie is a good day! JYD#138
|
|
|
|
|