Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!military
From: wmartin@STL-06SIMA.ARMY.MIL (Will Martin)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Sawbacks on knives
Message-ID: <9874@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 3 Oct 89 13:07:16 GMT
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Lines: 58
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: Will Martin 
This is a very late response; I just finished reading thru the last 30 or so
Digest issues of sci.military and noted this subject mentioned a while back.
For those who are interested in this, there is a magazine still currently
on the newsstands that has an article on the subject of sawbacks on knives
and the effectiveness of various styles. That is the Fall 1989 issue of 
"Fighting Knives" magazine. This publication is an outgrowth of the 
magazine "SWAT"; these were just sold by their original publisher in Arizona 
to another firm based in California. [It's rather ironic for weapons-
oriented magazines to be moving *into* California these days! I would have
expected all such firms to be moving *out* of that state...]

(If you cannot find this on the newsstands in your area, it is Vol 1 #3
and costs $3.95 cover price. A 4-issue subscription is $9.95 from 
Fighting Knives, PO Box 16598, North Hollywood, CA  91615.)

Anyway, this issue has an article beginning on page 232 on the "Modern
Survival Knife" which includes a series of tests of different knives'
sawback teeth on various materials, including plexiglas from a helicopter,
sheetmetal claimed to be equivalent to helicopter and military aircraft
skin, and wood. There have been other knife publications that tested
sawteeth in the past, but those articles are probably impossible to find
via any regular reference channels, since just about no libraries stock
this sort of publication, and they aren't listed in any of the standard
indexes. So check out this current article if you care about this.

As someone who acumulates knives to a ridiculous degree, I can state
that the vast majority of sawtooth-backs are totally worthless,
especially those on lower-cost imported hollow-handle knives that have
been so prevalent since the "Rambo" movies made them popular. They are
for show and not for any real use. (But there's nothing wrong with buying
such toys just because they look neat! :-) You just have to remember
they are image and not substance.)

The relatively small and unimpressive teeth on knives like the USAF
survival model and the Randall Model 18 Pilot's Knife (the latter being
the first widely-known modern hollow-handle model) were designed to cut
through sheetmetal for aircraft-evacuation or rescue use; those teeth
are just about useless on wood. Some modern survival knives have much
better wood-cutting teeth, and it is much more likely that wood will be
the material somebody will need to cut with them. None of them are as
good as cutting wood as a real saw, which has outspread teeth which cut a
kerf wider than the tool -- teeth on knives don't do this, so the blade binds
in the cut as it gets to any depth. Usually it is better to just chop with
the blade part of the knife to cut down a sapling for a tent pole or the like.

Actually, the saw blade on the military-model "Swiss Army" knife -- the
model really issued to the Swiss and sold as the "Trooper" [and the equivalent
one issued to the German army] -- has been widely praised as being the best
wood saw built into any knife. The teeth on that folding blade are still not
set to protrude outward, but the blade is thin enough and there are a double
row of alternating teeth that cut on the pull stroke so the net effect is
functional. Of course, the length is short enough that it won't be used for
large timber; it works fine on the size of branch it can handle. 

Regards, Will Martin