Categories
Phillosoph

Designing a Fighting Knife

In a recent blog, I had a wander into the field of fighting knives.
Today I would like to share some additional musings.
Firstly, it is valuable to recognize that names such as “fighting knife”, “combat knife”or “tactical knife” are in actuality rather euphemistic, particularly in modern applications.
A knife vs knife duel is unlikely.
There is an adage that if you find yourself in a fair fight you did not plan properly, and this should be remembered when considering knife use.
Knives are generally used either as weapons of desperation or advantage.
One of the points I made in the previous post is that probability of use did not justify carrying a large combat design.
A multi-role survival blade is a far better encumbrance, and most such designs usually serve well in a defensive or offensive role.
It is no secret that I regard the kukri as superior to most fighting knives on the market.
If a dedicated fighting weapon is needed, it should be a small to medium-sized design that compliments the large and small survival designs likely to be carried as well.
That said, what are useful features to have in the hypothetical situation where carrying a large combat blade is prudent? Something for you time-travellers and trans-dimensional trippers to consider 🙂 Some of these comments may be relevant to medium combat knives too.
Firstly, we will ignore the field of swords and stick to knives and daggers, not anything longer than a cubit.
A point ignored by many manuals on knife use is that even relatively light clothing can provide a surprising amount of protection from a knife cut. The garment may be shredded. but very little damage may reach beneath the skin.
Even if you are using a knife defensively with the intention of “cutting and running” it is important to use the point first against any clothed area.

Pesh Kabz

The second consideration for a fighting knife is with respect to whether the opposition will be utilizing armour.
One of the most useful designs for use against armour is that of the pesh kabz.
Mechanically a knife is a wedge. The pesh kabz blade tapers in both width and thickness, and has a T-shaped cross section. In effect the blade is an isosceles triangle in all three planes.
The blade is narrow enough to find its way through openings in the armour, yet retains a useful cutting edge if needed.
Some time back there was a vogue for non-metallic knives, including those in a tanto configuration.
A pesh kabz configuration would have been far superior.
As stated in “A Glossary Of the Construction, Decoration and Use Of Arms and Armor In All Countries and In All Times” by George Cameron Stone, “The knife is obviously intended for forcing an opening in mail; and as a piece of engineering design could hardly be improved upon for the purpose.” (p.494)
Pesh kabz are either straight, or have a recurve that brings the point closer to the axis of the hand. The latter are often very attractive in form.
I have an example of each, and I would not complain if issued one of these instead of a Fairbairn-Sykes. A modern pesh kabz has a useful potential as a knife among modern medium fighting knives.

Bagwell and Bowies

Shortly after writing the recent blog, I came across some references to Bill Bagwell, who claimed to have identified the features that were most desirable on a combat bowie.
This list of features included a distal taper, convex profile and edge and a sharpened false edge. The false edge is often quite long, creating an acute point. The blade is over nine-inches long, and over an inch or more wide.

Pugio

If you are going to have a long, sharpened false edge, an obvious question is why not have a double-edged cut and thrust blade?
Historically, one of the cut and thrust weapons par excellence was the Roman gladius. The gladius was a sword, but if you shorten the blade you have what is effectively the Roman pugio.
I have seen it claimed that a Roman soldier who lost his gladius could still fight effectively with his pugio. The width and length of pugiones give some credibility to this claim.
Supposedly the Gerber MkII was inspired by the Mainz-pattern gladius.
Pugiones seem to have retained the more attractive, wasp-waisted leaf-shape of blade long after the gladius had become straighter-edged and more utilitarian looking.
This may have been that swords were issued while daggers were commonly a private purchase.
In other words, a pugio-type design offers a broad blade, acute point and the cutting advantage of curved edges.
A central rib was a common feature, increasing the capability against bone or body armour.
A flat blade with a rib is effectively a pair of pesh kabz back-to-back.
Fullers might also be included in a modern design, and some use of them was made in ancient pugiones.

Jambiya

Another good design for a large or medium combat knife is the jambiya.
Indian/Middle Eastern designs such as the jambiya and pesh kabz tend to be neglected in the west, but have much to offer.
The interest in kerambits/ karambits shows knife-users are open to the potential of curved blade designs.
Fairbairn himself experimented after the war with a jambiya-like knife he called the “cobra”.
Modern Reproduction of Fairbairn Cobra
Like the pugio, the design of a large tactical jambiya could include fullers and a central rib.
A slightly curved blade can create an initially wider wound than a straight blade of similar dimensions. This is illustrated in the figures taken from Richard Burton’s “Book of the Sword”.
The very curved blade cuts a wide channel, but needs considerable force to penetrate sufficiently.
Incidentally, the primary cutting edge of a jambiya is the concave edge. You will commonly see it held or photographed upside down.
Examples with a false edge, and the geometry of some grips make it clear that the main edge is the concave.
The jambiya is held like a claw or hook. This has the tendency to drive the point into a target rather than causing it to glance off. The blade can also reach over and hook limbs. The curved edges give a cutting advantage.

The Russian/Caucasian/Georgian khanjali/kindjals/qama have straight or curved blades that resemble gladius, pugiones and jambiya, but some are long enough to be considered short swords.

Some decades ago, a knife called the “Hobbit” gained some attention.
The Hobbit was effectively an inverted jambiya.
The main edge should have been concave and the serrations would have been more useful on the convex side.
A modern, medium tactical jambiya would also be a welcome addition to the market.
Many years ago I attempted to sketch what one might look like

Length

Around 1922-24, the British Army conducted an extensive series of experiments.
The 17" sword bayonets then in use had proved to be unwieldy and too heavy for trench warfare. Their reach against cavalry was no longer needed and they were poor multi-purpose implements.
On October 2nd, 1924, a report by the Small Arms School stated:
“ (a) It has been conclusively proved during the war, and since, with our present system of training in the bayonet, that ‘reach’ is not a main factor but that ‘handiness’ is. A man with a short handy weapon will beat an equally skilled man with a longer cumbrous weapon practically every time. As regards length of blade for killing purposes, the Physical Training Staff went into this in considerable detail during the war, and came to the conclusion that a 6-in. blade was sufficiently long to deal with the most thickly clad of our enemies—potential or otherwise. The most thickly clad was taken as being a Russian in winter clothing.
…(c) The bayonet suggested for future adoption on the Mark VI rifle is one of about 8 inches in length, cruciform in section, and without the useless handle and cross-piece”
reproduced in The Lee-Enfield Rifle (p.135). Maj. E.G.B. Reynolds.
Also found in “The Bayonet Book” by Johm Watts and Peter White, quoted p.8 (“Short and Sharp”) of The Times Literary Supplement Oct 17 1975.
The Roman Vegetius famously declared “…a stab, though it penetrates but two inches, is generally fatal”.
He was talking of a stab from a broad gladius blade, rather than a narrow bayonet or knife, however.
Many authors clarify “two inches, in the right place”, the latter condition not always possible to achieve in combat!
Some of the criteria for a primary fighting knife are different to those for a bayonet.
A blade of between nine and eleven inches seems to be the optimum, and was the size of most pugiones.
The blade should be at least one and a half inches at its widest.
Specialist fighting designs, such as main gauche, may need to be longer.

Grips

If we look at pugiones, kindjals and jambiya we find something of a consensus on grip form.
Most examples feature a relatively slim grip with a broad, flattened butt.
A narrow grip between two wider areas often gives a good grip for a single hand.
If you hold the knife or sword with the blade flat and level and the knuckles upwards you will find the pressure of the palm on the butt nicely counterbalances the weight of the blade.
The pugio usually had an expanded section in the middle of the hilt which improved grip, functionally similar to the ridge on a kukri handle.
Any grip should include provision for a wrist loop. It is surprising how many knives costing hundreds of dollars lack this useful feature!
On the subject of grip, how a knife is gripped is a topic that some authors treat in some depth. Fencer grip, hammer grip, sabre grip, ice-pick grip, foil grip, ninja grip and so on.
Only recently, I noticed that the actual orientation of the hand was seldom mentioned.
Elsewhere I have discussed the “paintbrush grip” for double-edged blades. This tends to place the blade with the flat of the blade in a horizontal direction.
When I hold a single-edged knife I place the blade in a similar orientation, although my finger positions will be slightly different.
The reason for holding the knife so is not so the blade will slip between the ribs. Whenever possible, you should avoid thrusting at the ribcage.
If you do have to strike the ribs there are advantages to a horizontal blade angle, however.
I have seen it claimed that a horizontal blade that strikes a rib is more likely to glance past or split the rib than be stopped by it.
The main reason I hold a blade horizontal is that it makes more sense to me to have the edge as well as the point directed towards the threat.
If my hand is pronated (palm down) the blade slopes in. If palm up, it slopes outward. In either case, the main edge is towards the enemy rather than down towards the floor.
Some older sources describe holding the blade edge up, but this limits manoeuvrability.

Guards

The guard of the fighting knife is something that is not usually given sufficient thought.
If the knife has a guard, it is typically a simple crossbar or equivalent.
A simple crossbar works well on a sword. It will usually be wide enough to protect the hand. Enemy blades seldom touch the guard since a sword is long enough to parry attacks a foot or more away from the hand.
Some writers claim the main function of a sword guard was originally to stop the user from hitting his knuckles on an enemy shield.
The crossbar on a knife is seldom wide enough to effectively protect the hand. At best, it acts as an arrest to reduce the chance of penetration beyond the blade and to compress tissue for deeper penetration.
Even when the crossbar is long enough, it only provides protection in one plane.
Suppose, for example, you parry or block an attack with your blade. Since the blade is shorter, the contact point is going to be much closer to your hand than if you were using a sword.
Contact point is most likely to be on the flat of the blade, so the strike is very likely to glance down and hit your thumb or back of your hand. Potentially very nasty
In a Modesty Blaise novel, a character observes that Willie Gavin makes a steel against steel block, and reflects on Gavin’s skill, knowing that this is the most difficult of defensive movies with the knife.
Substitute “bloody dangerous” for “difficult”!
Certain styles of knife-fighting base themselves on sword fighting, so techniques involving parrying may be encountered.
One of the lessons here is to avoid using your knife (or your other hand) to parry, if possible.
Avoid letting your enemy make any contact with your weapon or hand.
If you do make contact, execute a “beat” and strike to the hand and arm beyond.
Keep both hands moving, and keep moving yourself.
Use your ginga and the other techniques in my books to avoid and attack rather than parry and block.
As an aside, the above implies there must be some length of blade over which parrying becomes practical.
Drexel-Biddle taught parrying, but had his students were training with hand-held sword-bayonets.
I would be fairly confident parrying with a ten-inch kukri. Shape and design probably contributes too. The forward curve of a kukri or jambiya increases control and compensates for length.
All that said, if I am designing a primary fighting knife, I would include a guard. Down-curved quillons that can catch a blade would be nice, although how realistic this is is debatable, and such a feature certainly needs to be backed by protection for the hand behind.
An oval or ovaloid guard, such as found on a tanto, might be a good option.
As I understand it, “tanto” actually means (very) short-sword and it is not technically a “to” or sword unless it has a to-type guard and other sword fittings (Cameron Stone, p.604).
Most modern knives sold as tantos would not be classed as such, and the wikipedia article is erroneous [!]
A guard that provides protection in two planes may be problematic to wear.
One option is to offset the disc so less of it is against the body but it still protects the outside of the hand.
Renaissance daggers often combined quillons with a “thumb ring”, the latter a misnomer since it was positioned to defend the outside of the hand rather than involve the thumb.
Categories
Phillosoph

Fighting Knives in a Modern Context

The other day, I found myself thinking about the variety of weapons taught by many martial arts.
When these arts were created, most of these weapons were relatively common place.
The battlefield, and the street, have changed since those times.
You are unlikely to fight with a sword, a knife or machete being more probable.
The entrenching tool is more likely to be to hand than an axe or mace.
Your spear or staff will seldom have to deal with a horseman, and is much handier if its length is less than your height.
The stick remains a useful weapon, but nowadays will often be wielded with the intention of not seriously injuring a foe.
Those of you that wisely have invested in a copy of “Crash Combat” will recognize the above as the arsenal of modern weapons included in the course.
The above reflection melded with a question my subconscious had recently posed to me: “Does one need a combat knife?”
Some authors use the term “combat knife” or “tactical knife” to mean a variety of multi-purpose knife.
In this blog, I am talking about specialist designs that have the primary role of use against two-legged predators.
Certainly, it is prudent to have a knife that one can fight with, but what are the merits of spending good money on a knife that is primarily designed as a weapon?
And what form should such a knife take?
There is a baffling variety of supposed combat or fighting knives.

Context

To answer that last point, we must return to the theme noted in the first paragraph.
We cannot really consider a fighting knife without also considering context. The requirements of a fighting knife have changed as the nature of combat has changed.
In the Middle Ages, for example, it was desirable that a blade be stout enough to deal with body armour, yet narrow enough to slip between plates or through a visor.
Jump forward to the age of the rapier, and a dagger might be required to serve as a main gauche.
The Bowie knife provides us with another illustration. The Bowie blade shape is commonly used for survival knives, which tends to make us forget the original Bowie knives were primarily fighting weapons.
The Bowie came into fashion in an era when pistols were generally single-shot. The Bowie was a handy alternative to a sabre or smallsword.
The fighting Bowie was at least eight inches long, with examples longer than twelve inches by no means unusual. A blade might be a quarter of an inch thick and broad enough to look like a pointed cleaver, which essentially was what it was.
A Bowie might be used against other knives, or longer edged weapons.
The usefulness of the Bowie waned with the increasing availability of mass-produced revolvers. Apparently many volunteers in the War Between the States invested in impressive Bowies, only to discard them once the wisdom of a lighter marching load became apparent.
There seems little point nowadays in carrying a large fighting knife such as a Bowie or smatchet.
Many large utility knives, billhooks and machetes can defend our person equally well and prove far more useful for other, more likely tasks.
You probably also own entrenching tools, hatchets and tomahawks that would also be superior weapons.

The Modern Fighting Knife

Let us assume that you want a fighting/combat/tactical knife, on the basis that you may one day perhaps need it.
The fighting knife will be carried in addition to more general-purpose blades, so cannot be too large or heavy.
If a fighting knife has a place in our arsenal, then logically it must be because it can meet a requirement or scenario better than our large survival knives and other tools.
Large knives are not particularly concealable.
While it is possible to thrust effectively with a machete or kukri, it is not the ideal shape for use against thick clothing and a hypothetical “take out the sentry” application.
These criteria narrow down the form that a modern fighting/tactical knife should take, and what we should be looking for when making our selection.
This is best illustrated with some examples.

Fairbairn-Sykes Commando Knife

No discussion of modern fighting knives would be complete without mention of the Fairbairn-Sykes knife, aka “The Commando Knife” or F-S.
If fighting knives are mentioned, this is most likely the image that popped into your head.
At the start of his book “Combat Use of the Double Edged Fighting Knife”, Rex Applegate gives a nice summary of desirable features for a modern fighting knife:
“The heart of the fighting knife is its blade. It should be 5 to 7 inches in length, double-edged, and wide enough to be razor sharp on both sides all the way back to the cross guard. The point must be sharp enough to penetrate and thick and tough enough to withstand side pressure.
The blade should provide slashing, ripping, and thrusting capabilities. Stainless type steel, correctly tempered, with a dull finish is preferable. The blade should be tempered to hold an edge as well as being easily sharpened and, at the same time, not brittle.
The oval-shape handle should fit the palm of the hand and be designed so that the edges of the blade can be immediately, and automatically, located in dark or light conditions. A nonslip surface is another feature that should be incorporated. The handle should not turn in the hand (sweaty palms, etc.) when the blade strikes resistance. The knife should be handle heavy with relation to balance. Nothing in the design should limit its possibilities for use as a weapon from any position or either hand. The overall length should be approximately 10 to 11 inches; anything longer makes it too unwieldy and cumbersome to carry. The weight should be in the 1/2 to 3/4 pound range.”
Applegate’s earlier work, “Kill or Get Kill”, has a similar description, although includes the suggestion that the blade be no more than an inch across at the guard, and that the handle have its largest diameter at the centre and taper towards both the guard as well as the butt.
Contrary to what you may often see claimed, the F-S is not the “Ultimate Fighting Knife” [ignoring that this is not what “ultimate” actually means!].
Comparison to Applegate’s description quickly illustrates why.
The grip of the F-S is round in section, rather oval. Being of cast metal, the grip is difficult to modify or replace.
While the balance point is in the grip, the cast grip possibly contributes some unnecessary weight.
Oddly, my F-S seems heavier than my M3, but is actually half an ounce lighter.
If you own an F-S, you will know that it is very difficult to get a sharp edge on it.
Common advice on the net is to regard the F-S as a thrusting weapon only, and steel the edge at an angle of about 40 degrees. The “razor-sharp commando knife” is a poetic licence of the novelist who has never owned one!
Some of these features seem to have been the result of wartime mass-production, which have persisted.
The F-S gets a lot right too! My step-son, on first holding an F-S declared:
“Woah! I feel like it wants me to do something, but I am not sure what!”
Fairbairn’s writings on how to use the F-S knife include illustrations of cuts and slashes directed to the forearm and inside of the elbow, although how practical this would have been against a woollen greatcoat or tunic is debatable.
Incidentally, the ancestors of the FS were the Shanghai Fighting Knives, which were made from obsolete double-edged Lee Metford 1888 bayonets. In Fairbairn's own words:
In choosing a knife there are two important factors to bear in mind: balance and keenness. The hilt should fit easily in your hand, and the blade should not be so heavy that it tends to drag the hilt from your fingers in a loose grip. It is essential that the blade have a sharp stabbing point and good cutting edges, because an artery torn through (as against a clean cut) tends to contract and stop the bleeding.

Boker Applegate-Fairbairn

Following World War Two, Applegate collaborated with Boker to produce a knife that met his requirements, called the Applegate-Fairbairn.
I have no personal experience of these, and they are likely to always be beyond my price range.

Gerber Mk II

The Gerber Mk II answers many of the complaints that can be made about the F-S.
While it is called the “Mk II Survival”, this is primarily a fighting knife.
Mine has taken a fairly respectable edge.
The bad news is that the Mk II tends to have a higher price tag than one might wish for a knife that will not be your primary survival tool.
It is rather baffling that copies or replicas of the Gerber Mk II are not commonplace!

M3 Trench Knife

Shown with my F-S and Gerber is my M3 Trench Knife.
The M3 was also produced in German as the “NATO Combat Knife”. This blade configuration has also been used for a variety of bayonets.
A nice design feature of the M3 is the asymmetrical guard, allowing the user to find the orientation of the main edge even in the dark.
While the M3 was designed as a utility knife, its configuration makes it a pretty good choice for a fighting knife. It compares very favourably to the Gerber Mk II in general size and features.
Personally, I do not mind that the M3 is not double-edged. The false edge comes already sharpened, and the balance of the knife is about an inch behind the guard, just where you would want it.
If you shop around, you can find reproduction M3s for a reasonable price.
Try websites that cater for WW2 re-enactors. Take a look at German trench knives while you are there.
In “Kill or Get Killed”, Applegate suggests “utility knives” can be reground into fighting knives, and shows a knife so converted. Presumably he means the M3, although he at one point claims that the utility knife has its weight too far forward in the blade.
The M3 as it comes is a pretty good fighting knife, with the option of serving in utility roles in an emergency.
Ideally, a fighting knife should only be used for its intended role, to keep it sharp.
Price of a reproduction M3 makes it a good basis for a custom project.
Blade blanks for M3s or the related bayonet models, may also be found.
As Applegate suggests, the top edge can be extended, and if you have a belt-grinder adding a hollow grind is relatively simple. Tapering the blade may be more challenging. Personally, I would not consider this necessary.
Adding a fuller to the unsharpened section might be considered.
The grip of leather washers is probably simple to reshape or remove. Grip tape may prove useful here.
The large metal butt-plate may be more problematic for a customisation project, A narrow pommel of similar configuration to that of the F-S or Mk II might be preferred.

The V42

The V42 is another wartime design of fighting knife.
The skull-crusher pommel is a nice feature, although probably larger than needed.
The leather padding applied to the upper side of the quillon is a nice feature.
I have seen claims the pommel on the originals had a tendency to catch on and damage equipment. I suspect the versions on replicas such as mine have been made blunter.
My main complaint about this knife is the guard could be narrower and the blade somewhat broader.

Smaller Fighting Knives

As implied above, your fighting knife should be chosen so that it can be carried in situations you cannot carry a larger survival knife.
With this in mind, I will present two smaller examples of what can be considered fighting/tactical knives.
The larger knife is a Smith and Wesson 820.
The false edge is not sharpened, but the main edge has sharpened up to a very sharp edge.
Very impressive, and a very reasonably priced knife with most of the features you might wish for.
The smaller knife is a CRKT version of the AG Russell Sting (as favoured by a well-known literary figure!).
Small, but very solid and sharp.
Note that both knives have lanyard holes, a feature that would be welcome on the larger knives.
Adding wrist loops is on my to-do list.
These are some of your off-the-shelf options, illustrated with examples I have to hand.
Later blogs will cover other options.