Dennis,
MAYBE we moderns confuse ourselves by trying to make a generalization or lump too much into the generic term “Rifleman’s Knife,” that people in that time period would not have realized or possibly even cared about.
I personally believe a “Rifleman” would have chosen the knife that best suited the requirements for a knife he needed/used most often at a particular time period of his life or career and of course, what he could afford at the time. IOW, is the belt knife primarily going to be used as a combat weapon in time of war OR is the primary use to skin and butcher animals?
A Rifleman who mainly worked as a Scout or in time of a campaign or war against either other European Settlers or Native Americans (in what we might call a military capacity), MAY have more likely carried a knife with a guard on it as the primary use of the knife would have been a combat weapon. Of course, that includes the caveats that IF such a knife was available or he had time for someone to make up such a knife and of course if he could afford it. However, a good or “best” combat knife then or now does not make a very good “all purpose” belt knife.
A “Rifleman” who was a “Long Hunter” or market hunter or someone living on or close the frontier no doubt needed a belt knife that was better for skinning, butchering and any of a number of different all around cutting chores. In such cases, using the knife for combat would have been rare. Thus a blade thickness of 1/16’ to 3/32” is plenty thick and being a little thinner than what we might think of in a combat knife, is going to be easier to sharpen to a better edge for skinning and butchering.
I very much agree with the thinking that reason so many thousands of “trade” knives were imported on this continent were of some basic “styles” in the 18th century was because that is what people found were of the most preferred to be used by both European Settlers and Native Americans.
One thing we don’t often discuss is how many of the 18th century trade knives and other belt knives had the bottom of the back of the blade well below the grip. (The two pics you linked have blade styles like this.) This blade style actually forms a rudimentary “guard” to keep ones fingers from slipping forward on the cutting edge, just as many modern “butcher knives’ STILL do. With that blade style, you don’t really need a guard and a guard gets in the way when doing many cuts or slashes for skinning and butchering. So with this blade style, it offers most of the protection of a guard against fingers slipping forward, but without the disadvantage of a guard getting in the way of making some cuts and of course it costs less than adding a separate guard. (This style blade seems to have fell out of favor in the 19th century and especially later trade knives like Green River knives.)
Another thing that does not seem to be discussed a lot is the shape of the handle of trade knives. Octagonal handles were common, though the side flats may have been larger than the angled flats. However, there is also the diamond shaped grip that was common in the 18th century trade knives, but seem to have fell out of favor in the 19th century trade knives. Personally, the only diamond shape handled knife I ever used was many years ago and it was an old family butcher knife. That grips feels sort of weird the first few times it is used, but sort of grows on you, but it was/is not my personal choice for a shape of a grip. Maybe this is part of the reason the diamond grip shape fell out of favor or maybe it was just that it required more labor to shape? I don’t know. Maybe folks who have diamond shaped grip trade knives can will chime in and give us their thoughts on using that grip shape? Oh, here is a link showing that type of grip:
http://www.claysmithguns.com/trade_knife.jpgI don’t know if others have noticed this, but the style or styles of what was commonly ;thought of as a “Rifleman’s Knife” in the 1970’s and 1980’s, SEEMS to have been more late 17th century style knives. (I lost my files when my old computer crashed a little over a month ago and I’m trying to find excavated knife blades that were listed by period that seems to show this. I’m searching for this information again.)
I am in NO way trying to tell people what style of trade knife they should by or use, but am suggesting for a more historically accurate 18th century trade knife, I suggest they think about what colony or area the Rifleman came from. The reason I mention this is many hunters today are more used to a drop point knife that was much more common on French Trade knives than English Trade knives. That then leads to the question of how available was a French Trade Knife in the colony or area the Rifleman came from, for historic accuracy. Yes, I am aware that some English Trade Knives had drop points, but the archeological record shows most English trade knives had upswept backs or at most flat top/back knives. I don’t think a drop point of “French Style” knife would have been seen nearly as often in the Southern Colonies as in the Northern Colonies where French Traders were more common.
Gus
