1/4 " is overkill

psy-ops

psy-ops

Joined
Sep 27, 1999
Messages
3,164
there are some awesome knives I love the design, then I find out they are 1/4 and I think about the weight.

has anyone ever snapped a 3/16th?

I think if you are building a house then maybe 1/4 but for an all purpose utility. I think 3/16ths will do it.
 
Chris,

I have to agree with you, 100%. Ever try to field dress a deer or small bear with a 1/4" thick blade - let alone a rabbit or squirrel?

For a utility knife / combat knife / general purpose / survival blade, make mine a 3/16th's inch, thanks. For a game processor, 1/8th inch werks fer me (just lik hukt on foniks did for my english skils.)

If I need a 1/4" thick blade, I think I'd be choosing my Snow & Nealley Hudson's Bay axe.

Mike
 
Hey Chris...

3/16", 1/4", 5/16",, theres probably only a few ounces in weight difference..

Unless your treking into some serious terrain where weight restrictions and ounces,grams add up,,why wouldn't you want that extra strength in a blade ?

Give me 1/4 or even 5/16",, the extra weight is no problem at all...



ttyle

Eric....
 
I think it has more to do with cutting efficiency - thick blades generally don't cut as well as thinner blades. Grinds and geomtries will play a big part.

Personally I'm settling on 3/16" - maybe .2" and anything thicker will be a kukri or dedicated chopper. I'm sure it is comforting to have a 1/4" blade, but I think it sacrifices a lot (cutting efficiency) for something that I don't do that often (ie chop).

If I had to choose a "do everything / depend my life on it" kind of knife and compromises are necessary, then maybe a 1/4" will be the ticket. However I think 3/16 is pretty strong (carbon/tool steels) and but is more weighted to cutting efficiency than chopping.
 
Hey Guys..

That's why I take 3 different knives...

Battle Mistress, Fallkniven FI and my RUK SAK...

Each one has it's job and purpose in life..

One knife won't do everything...
I'll take the extra weight any day, and skip something else instead...

ttyle

Eric...
 
The way that I tend to see this issue is that a heavier blade is more adaptable. You can take a larger heavier blade and do the tasks that might be better suited for a smaller blade. Now, the result might not be as easy to come by or may be an absolute pain in the butt to complete, but it will get done. Trying to use a thinner or smaller blade for a job better suited for a beefier knife is more likely to be an impossibility and may result in the failure of the knife.

Having said that, a good hatchet or axe is better for chopping than most beefy knives. However, if I had to carry one knife only, I would want it to be on the larger side for the aforementioned reasons.
 
I tend to err on the side of "indestructible" whenever possible. My 2 main field knives are both thick, with full flat grinds: a BK&T Campanion (1/4), and an M-95 Ranger Puukko (7/32). Either of these knives will whittle a fuzz stick as fine as you need it, and yet are strong enough (with a baton) to split wood or the pelvic girdle of large game. The M-95 even has a tip fine enough for making the initial belly slice when skinning a critter out. If I need a *really* thin blade, I have my Mora 2000 hanging around my neck. But either of those "big, thick" knives will slice just fine. And while the Campanion is heavy for a 5 inch knife, it chops like it's MUCH larger, since that weight is where it needs to be: in the blade.
 
The way a blade is ground is critical. There is little in common between a production 1/4" sabre flat ground bowie, and a custom 1/4" full convex ground bowie with a full distal taper.

In regards to cross section, it is not required simply for brute strength in regards to prying, but also in regards to being stiff enough for chip removal during chopping as well as an reduction in binding which can be critical.

For those complaining about the cutting ability of 1/4" knives, check out the work of various ABS member like Fitch or some of David Boyes work.

-Cliff
 
Maybe not 3/16, but I have snapped a 1/8th with very little effort. In all fairness, I was abusing it, but I still don't think it should have snapped.

I agree 100% with Normark, bring what you need. The extra weight that people tend to fixate on is negligible, in my opinion. I have played around with how much weight that I've carried, and the difference in how tired I was at the end of a day is pretty much in my head. The kind and amount of hiking I do has a lot more to do with my tiredness than how much weight that I carry. I see people all the time with backpacks, carabiners, etc., all drilled out to save weight, and they look ridiculous.

I think you should carry whatever knife/knives that will perform whatever functions you need. If you are going to be skinning, have a great cutter. If you're going to be chopping, have a nice big beefy blade, or a hatchet/saw. I wouldn't hesistate to use some of my larger blades for skinning, as they are all very sharp! Just gotta be a little more careful.
 
mostly I was commenting on the "it's gotta be 1/4" or it will break" mentality. I have nothing against 1/4" but so many makers and users swear by 1/4 that is overkill.

I was a huge busse fan a 3-4 years ago. I had 2 steel heart 2 and mean streets. well I sold the mean streets within a month. It was like a stone chisel so heavy. why would anyone need a that knife. by the way I love the look of it and the general design. it was way overkill.

that same knife in 3/16ths would be one hell of a knife.
 
Well 1/4" stock is much stiffer and stronger than 3/16". The critical question is are 3/16" blades enough, well that depends on both the user and what they are being used to do.

In regards to smaller blades, yes the need for strength decreases as the blade length drops. I would assume that Busse went with 1/4" for more production reasons than actual functionality.

As for fatigue and ease of use, balance plays a larger role than actual mass. A blade heavy 3/16" knife generates a lot more wrist strain than a 1/4" one with a neutral or palm heavy balance.

For small knives I have a place for both thick ones like the Mean Street and thin ones like the A.G. Russell Deerhunter.

-Cliff
 
There's nothing magic about .250 except that popular stock comes in that thickness. I do not believe that it had better be 1/4" or it will bust, but Cliff is right, 1/4" is much stronger than 3/16" and the weight difference is nominal. Balance is more important a factor.

Now, I do believe that there are chores more suitable for thinner blades. Normark hit the nail on the head: bring more than one knife. A Natural Outlaw and a RuckSak make a great team. Through a Fallkniven WM1 around your neck and the deer and rabbits will come out just fine.

Like so many other things, knive are a compromise.
 
The steel used and the heat treat make a big difference. I have some CPM3V steel that is thicker than 3/16", but not quite 1/4" and I dont think even Cliff could break a knife made from that stock without REALLY trying. I am a big fan of the full flat ground blade, but must admit to loving my new Project II. It looks to be 1/4" stock with a deep hollow ground blade.
 
After reading all these comments on blade thickness I have a feeling that that the fact off strength has somewhat been overlooked. Steels have varied yield and breaking strengths at specific heat treatments and thats about it, without specifying the strength the discussion of thickness is quite meaningless. At a fixed steel strength the blade bending strength varies with the square of thickness (and stiffness with cube). These physical facts do not care much about any opinion, you can hit your head against facts but it only hurts.

TLM
 
after comments on uses of urban survival knife.

would it make sense to have a pure cutter and a real pry bar in a BOB?

basically a 1/4" knife is a sharpened pry bar. which is a compromise to have 2 tools in one.
 
Originally posted by chrisaloia
after comments on uses of urban survival knife.

would it make sense to have a pure cutter and a real pry bar in a BOB?

basically a 1/4" knife is a sharpened pry bar. which is a compromise to have 2 tools in one.
Click to expand...
I agree. For my part, I don't really care for a blade any thicker than 5/32", and prefer a thinner blade. My knife is a cutting tool, it's use beyond that doesn't figure very heavily in my calculations. As for chopping, I've never seen a machete or leuku with a 1/4" thick blade, most are more like 3/32"-1/8" thick.
 
I agree. Definitely 1/4 inch thick is overkill in most cases. I personally think the optimal perfect thickness for most blades is 3/16". With a 3/16" thick blade you have as much strength as any knife would ever need. I believe only a Kukri or sword should be 1/4 inch thick, and find it rediculous that some folks insist on making even their small blades out of 1/4 inch thick stock. If you need a 1/4" thick blade on a knife, then you are either chopping or prying with the wrong tool.
 
x39 :

As for chopping, I've never seen a machete or leuku with a 1/4" thick blade, most are more like 3/32"-1/8" thick.
Click to expand...

Because they are not designed for woody vegetation. For that task look to blades like parangs, bolos, khukuris etc. which all have profiles very similar to the bit of a quality felling axe . Something like the Busse Battle Mistress is basically a very small parang.

-Cliff
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top