Fallon
Super Member
My 1,300lbs or so 76" Gannon box blade wont cut a lot of clay, even when it's not super hard or packed. You need to deploy the rippers a fair bit.
I'd like to be able to replace my box blade with a back blade as the back blade is a bit more flexible. But it ends up being a case of each impliment having their own strengths & weaknesses.
My concern personally that a back blade ends up being worse than the box blade, other than the ability to roll material laterally. Less weight & wider blade for notably lower lbs per foot of cutting power. Add in the lack of rippers & it cuts a lot less. Also the box blades have 2 or 4 connection points between the blade, especially out at the edge. The back blade can be a bit to wide when not angled. Side plates intrinsic to a box blade are uncommon & only optional on some blades. Those side plates really help the amount of material you can carry.
I'd like to be able to replace my box blade with a back blade as the back blade is a bit more flexible. But it ends up being a case of each impliment having their own strengths & weaknesses.
My concern personally that a back blade ends up being worse than the box blade, other than the ability to roll material laterally. Less weight & wider blade for notably lower lbs per foot of cutting power. Add in the lack of rippers & it cuts a lot less. Also the box blades have 2 or 4 connection points between the blade, especially out at the edge. The back blade can be a bit to wide when not angled. Side plates intrinsic to a box blade are uncommon & only optional on some blades. Those side plates really help the amount of material you can carry.