Gosut

Second attempt at a reply. If there's a double post, that's why. Thanks. Studying period carry is always fun. I was looking at some period carry for inspiration. I doubt any period sheath had a thumb break. I think the frog stud on waistband was used where and when cummerbunds were common. I had thought of making a Civil War period sheath after finding a Pakistani blade made like or close to a Milledgeville (Georgia) pattern. That sheath would have been the simplest as it had no strap retention and a leather piece sewn onto the back for a belt to pass through. Apparently this piece would tear off, as there are some Civil War sheaths that look owner modified by cutting two slits in the leather for a belt to pass through. Granted that's a common and cheap way to make a belt mount, but the instances I saw looked like they might have been done in the field. Unfortunately, the blade I was looking at seemed to be flared toward the point and what passed for a rat tang left something to be desired. If I did that one it, it would be for display only.

I did, first simply sticking inside my waist band. One period way of carrying a bowie was IWB with the frog stud resting on top. Clothing styles were different then and likely offered more security to the sheath. Came to the conclusion that this form of carry wasn't that secure. Main problem with my test was the blade being unsecured other than from waistband pressure. The ability to pivot makes it not as stiff and unwieldy. Same principle as on those big handheld radios we used to have that fit in a pivot attached to your belt. Pivoting let it move with the body. Other than that, it wasn't uncomfortable because it could pivot. The problem is a clip isn't going to pivot much if at all. That's going to make it stiffer. Unfortunately, haven't come up with anything better. The modern pivot clips are for outside the waistband or belt and more bulky. Have thought about a sort of dangle method to both secure it and allow it to pivot, but don't know. All that is where the original frog stud idea came in where I could experiment without making a series of new sheaths, but now think that scheme may be unworkable. Not the frog part, but for securing inside the belt. Only idea I could come up with was to somehow modify a clip into a frog that attached to the waistband with the frog stud passing though it. The idea would be to let it pivot. but still keep it secure. But the key word here is "somehow modify.." Never had a clear idea on how. I haven't been skinny in years, but I am over 6' / 1.8m tall.

I think so. It has a 10" / 25 cm blade and my plan is for the handle to ride above the waistband. Basically, a boot knife style sheath, only larger. Plan is to carry it at the side. A pivot would work better, which is why I initially planned on a frog stud so I could try different configurations, but thinking this would be too thick for inside the waistband carry. Why inside the waistband with the handle riding high? Only because I think it wouldn't have as much tendency to snag on things.

Not really. Plan is to use a thumb break strap. Have a boot knife with one that works well. It, too has the side with the clip two thinner layers glued together, on the rough side. The knife fits loose with the only retention the thumb break strap. Just wondered if keeping the rough side in was better.

I might be finally ready to try that Bowie sheath that brought me to leatherworking. Rather than a frog, have decided to opt for a clip for inside the waistband carry. With this in mind, thinking of going with two thinner pieces of leather for the waistband side and sandwiching the back of the clip between them. That way I'd end up with the desired thickness and prevent the clip from scrubbing the knife. But this raises the question of gluing the rough sides together and having a slick side in the sheath or gluing rough to slick side and having a rough side inside the sheath for better retention. Thoughts on this?

I was looking through knife sheath making videos on YouTube for a refresher when I found one using magnetic name badge clasps to retain the knife. The clasps were sandwiched in leather to prevent contact with the blade. It made a thicker sheath, but it might could be made thinner. Has anyone here done this? It looks like it could be adaptable to sheaths resembling 19th Century styles (thinking Bowie knife here). Having doubts about retention strength, but wondering if I could make a mock-up with magnets on a 3 oz piece of leather with a knife on the underside and add magnets until it had good retention. Would there be any long-term adverse effects like(collecting ferrous debris over the magnets?.

When a coworker nudged me at a meeting, I was glad I didn't say "Amen!"

What is a good mallet/maul weight for stitching chisels and hole punches? I have a nylon mallet that weight between 10 and12 ounces / 284 and 340 grams and don't seem to have a great deal of difficulty using it to drive stitching chisels through 8 ounce leather, but hole punching could be better. Yes, I intend to sharpen the hole punches, but in the back of my mind are a couple of projects with heavier leather weight. This has me wondering if I should move up to a heavier mallet. I'm considering a 24 ounce / 680 gram poly mallet, then got the notion of a split head mallet because it could have a heavier weight plus replaceable nylon faces. One I'm looking at is 2 pound (32 ounces / 907 grams). That's the same weight as a framing hammers we used, though we did most of our work with 1 pound hammers (16 ounces / 454 grams). The weight of mallet I have now is roughly the same as the finishing hammers we used. Comments? Opinions? Again, this is for stitching chisels and hole punches, not tooling or setting snaps or rivets. Thanks in advance.

I never see my preacher's eyes He hides their light divine. For when he prays he closes his, And when he preaches, mine.

As luck would have it, that's what I'm considering now. Toying with the notion of making a thicker work belt and/or reversible belt, and both will require stitching. Daunting to say the least.

I did on my first two projects, one of them stitching together a belt keeper. Since then, I place the needles a little less than a quarter of the way from the ends of the thread and allow it to slip through as needed as I stitch. It makes a lot of thread to pull through the hole, but i don't have to contend with pulling a long length of thread at the start of the stitching. That said, for a small project without an unwieldy amount of thread, I'd probably lock down the thread.

It's the right way up, but from the scratch marks in the photo, it looks like one side is resting on the leather. The beveler should rest so that the groove in the tool is 45 degrees to the surface. In the photo, it looks as though it's not. A beveler cuts off the corner of the edge, so that's how you want to turn the tool. You shouldn't have to press down on it, just glide the beveler over the corner.

Around here they go by the name monument companies. Usually it's grave slabs and tombstones, but they also do all sort of monuments.

Nearest one is a good distance away, though I drive past for a doctor's appointment (typical old age stuff, nothing serious). Monument companies are easier, with two fairly close. Have been thinking about talking to them.

Thanks all. What I was considering was that if it's the mass that helps, then I could use any similar rigid mass for punching, snaps, and rivets as long as I cover the surface. In particular is a cheap patio stone, which are made of concrete. Note that the leather wouldn't go directly onto the concrete, but on an old magazine, which I'm already placing under it. Possible drawbacks are the potential of a concrete "stone" breaking and would have to put something under it to prevent marring the work surface as well as on top of it. Before anyone points it out, this is one of those ideas that could easily turn into spending ten dollars to save one, all for a work surface that's not fit to tool on.