# Handle stabilizing question



## quags37 (Sep 29, 2020)

Question for you knife makers.. For those who stabilize knife handle material, do you cut it into scales, then stabilize? Or stabilize a larger block, then cut into scales? If so, what size block do you like to use for stabilizing? I ask because I have some really gorgeous slabs of maple burl that I think would make some awesome knife handles, and I'm just trying to figure out how I want to slice these suckers up. I usually cut 1.5" square blanks for game calls, but have a ton right now and would be happy cut other sizes and share the wealth. Let me know if you want to see pics of the stuff I cut last night to give you an idea of what I'm working with..


----------



## DLJeffs (Sep 29, 2020)

Nick,
I have only built a few knives but I've stabilized a bit of wood for reel seat inserts. I've found that the thinner the wood the better the penetration of the stabilizing liquid. I've taken to rough turning my reel seat blanks to approx 0.7" diameter before stabilizing. With a 0.375" hole through the middle, the wood is only 0.325" thick. It takes less time in the vacuum chamber (bubbles stop coming out sooner), you use less stabilizing fluid (less wood to fill), and I think penetration is better. The other advantage is the wood reaches curing temperature faster and more thoroughly and you don't get as much bleed out. When I've stabilized blanks that are an inch square with no hole drilled, the stabilization isn't as good (in my fairly limited experience).

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## TimR (Sep 29, 2020)

Part of the discussion includes the wood, how dense or punky and how thick you want your final blanks. To be be conservative in density issue and to reduce waste, you’re typically best off stabilizing for one pair, then cut in half. You’ll minimize having to clean 2 more surfaces of stabilizing resin per pair. If you have a good vacuum and the wood isn’t too dense, you can get 2 pairs from one block and save even more time and resin, just be sure it’s thick enough to cut up and allow for cleanup and kerf losses.

Reactions: Like 1 | +Karma 1


----------



## gman2431 (Sep 30, 2020)

I'll add the fact you are limiting yourself to only knofe makers by slicing first. If you leave whole now you also have an audience in the game call area.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## quags37 (Sep 30, 2020)

Alright, these are great points guys. Thanks for giving me some direction. I will probably continue cutting 1.5-1.75 square blanks, and let people decide from there. Much appreciated!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Echoashtoreth (Sep 30, 2020)

I prefer (and customers like) true, across the tang book matches. You can only do that with blocks... not saying that nice/rare scales don't end up on my knives but as Cody noted, blocks are much more adaptable/marketable... and there's no reason you can't do either (or shouldnt be) - just a matter of time to get it done properly...

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## quags37 (Sep 30, 2020)

Echoashtoreth said:


> I prefer (and customers like) true, across the tang book matches. You can only do that with blocks... not saying that nice/rare scales don't end up on my knives but as Cody noted, blocks are much more adaptable/marketable... and there's no reason you can't do either (or shouldnt be) - just a matter of time to get it done properly...


Yup, I definitely keep book matched blocks together even, that way it would give makers more options for scales if they want to cut them thicker from the blocks. Should be able to get two sets of scales out of a 1.5+ square block either way.. If I end up with pieces from a slab that aren't quite 1.5 thick, I would cut one set of book matched scales out of a thinner piece.


----------

