[Ian]

Thanks Tom ... I think. My eyes are having trouble reading fast enough to keep up with your thoughts. Man, you pack a lot in one paragraph.

How does what you say here mesh with Carter Rila's essay on the machete posted elsewhere on this site?

Ian.

Originally Posted by tom hyle

The reason it's not good for (heavy) woody vegitation is certainly not that it lacks a primary bevel (which, rather subtly and best seen at the butt of the tang, many old ones do, anyway); if machete had a high and easily noticed primary bevel/wedge section at the thickness it's at it would have a very fine edge, rather than the heavy one it does have, and chopping wood would just snap its edge out, like a butcher knife (yes, I've seen it; it's sad). No, the reason machete isn't the best for cutting hard woody vegetation (though it will do it for a good long while before the tang finally breaks; seen that, too) is that it is too thin, especially at the base, but also in the cutting area. The increased width often seen toward the tip is not to add weight, as often said; that's incidental; the mass serves another purpose, which is to absorb some of the vibration that can be such a problem, especially with thin swords.
Why is machete thin? oh, fun times, explaining that! African influence?(check!) Cheapness (check!) The rise of spring-tempered blades (check!) Origins as a slave tool master didn't want to be too good for fighting (check!) It would really tire you out to use a heavy one all day (check!); lot of use I am there.....