Trad Gang

Main Boards => Hunting Knives and Crafters => Topic started by: gables on January 13, 2010, 04:11:00 PM

Title: Which woods don't need stabilized?
Post by: gables on January 13, 2010, 04:11:00 PM

I have seen this topic briefly mentioned in other posts. I would like to turn this post into a master list of woods that you don't think require stabilizing.

I have the following for starters.
Ebony
Lignum Vitae
African Blackwood
Cocobolo
Desert Ironwood

Your thoughts?

Title: Re: Which woods don't need stabilized?
Post by: beaver#1 on January 13, 2010, 04:42:00 PM

i dont stabilize any.  i use alot of walnut, elm, curly maple, .    i have never used any wood ther required it.  but i am not a pro or anything.  lets wait and see when one of the pros chime in

Title: Re: Which woods don't need stabilized?
Post by: robtattoo on January 13, 2010, 05:23:00 PM

No wood needs stabilising at all. A lot of burls are stabilised because they can be brittle, but with a little thought they can be used au-natural. One of the main advantages of stabilisation (well, other than turning the wood to a wood colored plastic making it waterproof & durable) is that dyes can be added to pretty up the wood.

Title: Re: Which woods don't need stabilized?
Post by: skullworks on January 13, 2010, 05:52:00 PM

Some of the woods that you rarely see stabilized are Bocote, Ironwood, Cocobolo, Snakewood, Ebony and African Blackwood. My experience with some of the burls, especially Buckeye burl is that they are pretty soft if not stabilized. Hope this helps!

Title: Re: Which woods don't need stabilized?
Post by: beaver#1 on January 13, 2010, 06:47:00 PM

zircote would be one i would not think would gain much from it

Title: Re: Which woods don't need stabilized?
Post by: LC on January 13, 2010, 09:49:00 PM

I think another good one would be Osage orange mentioned alot in this category but I've only used stablized a few times and mostly just use well seasoned wood.

Title: Re: Which woods don't need stabilized?
Post by: Lamey on January 14, 2010, 07:35:00 AM

there are woods that benefit more from the process (stabilization) then others.  ONe would be Redwood Burl, or anything "spalted", basically anything that is borderline "soft" for a handle wood.

My general thought is if it needs stabilizing I dont want to use it for a handle.  I would rather use woods that are suitable unaltered.

Title: Re: Which woods don't need stabilized?
Post by: Lin Rhea on January 14, 2010, 08:23:00 AM

I dont use many woods that require stabilizing, but I do think some should. When a wood is pourous or soft, stabilizing will just make the wood more impervious to moisture as well as make it harder, take a finish, enhance color, etc.

      There is a place for stabilized wood and I will use it sometimes when called upon. If I have wood that I think could use some "help" I take steps to improve it's stability. To me, it just makes sense.

     As for it's toughness, I have this knife to show that it can be tough too. I carry a small Ray Kirk Pocket Medicine. This one has stabilized Buckey Burl slabs for the handle. It held together after being run over by a car in a washed gravel drive. No cracks at all. Got scratched up, but to me, they are beauty marks.Lin

  (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3074/3032752011_a92215f1d5.jpg)