Are big knives with thick blades made for inexperienced users?

[not2sharp]

Somewhere within the nearly 1 million posts that we have exchanged on this site we have discussed knife blade lengths, blade shapes, best steels, and who knows how many other subjects. Lets put most of that aside for now and look at some of these questions from a fresh perspective.

Whatever your favorite blade length, there is a strong correlation between blade length and blade thickness and width. The longer the knife gets, the wider it tends to be and the thicker the stock becomes. Clearly there are often real advantages in having the extra mass. But, whatever these advantages might be, and whatever their merit; when we look back a half century, or a century, or more, knives were lighter. They may have been as long or longer then some of your favorite knives, but the stock tended to be thinner.

We know that as the blade gets longer the stresses on the blade grow exponentially. Not only do we have more mass, but also much greater velocity and leverage at the point of impact. So adding reinforments to the blade makes some sense. What doesn't make sense is that after the tremendous progress that we have made in metallurgy, that our blades have actually grown heavier rather than lighter. Souldn't our new alloys allow us to build knives that are lighter and stronger than what our ancestor's used multiple generations ago?

I'll start us off by arguing that the reason knives have grown heavier is because we have lost many of our skills and our knives have to be overengineered to compensate. We might simply walk into a forest and start hacking on a seasoned oak for firewood, when our ancestors would have used the more suitable pine tree just a few feet away. Or perhaps, they simply knew enough to tempered their swing, when they were forced to use their knives on harder materials. Would you agree?

n2s

 

[Ed Fowler]

Some clients order a heavy blade for special needs.

It all depends upon the use the knife is made for. If chopping and heavy work is in the plans, a heavy blade can be an asset.

Light blades can get pretty close to doing the work of heavy blades and even out work them when all is done right. Many blades are overly heavy because the maker does not have a full understanding of the true nature of the steel he develops and he over compensates. I have seen some very expensive light blades that were incapable of the easiest of camp chores. The maker simply had no knowledge of what a knife needs to be.

You are absolutely correct when you state that many are too heavy. I feel that many times the overkill in weight or mass is due to a lack of confidence. Others are too light and incapable of the work intended. A lot of communication and knowledge on the part of both maker and client can lead to the perfect blend.

 

[not2sharp]

A lot of communication and knowledge on the part of both maker and client can lead to the perfect blend.

Perhaps? But, I suspect that we would all too often end up with the blind leading the blind.

There is an old story about a team of Psychologist who had traveled to the Australian outback to study the mental capacity of the local aborigine people. They had painstakingly developed a battery of intelligence test and spent weeks visiting and testing each of the groups. Their preliminary data clearly indicated that the people had sub-normal intelligence; surely their primitive state of development had resulted from their lack of ability.

One day, on the way back from their field work, the team's truck stops running, and they are forced to take to the desert on foot. It wasn't long before they ran out of water and begin to weaken. They had just about given up hope when a couple of local tribesmen come upon them in the desert. The aborigines take one look at them and immediately dig a hole a few inches deep in the sand to fill their bowls with water. The scientist were saved, but, the locals had now developed some doubts of ther own about the scientist.

The though crossed my mind this afternoon, that it would be interesting to be able to invite a few of our pre-industrial ancestors up to the 2002 blade show. I suspect that it would take any of them about 20 minutes to conclude that their great-great-grand kids (ok I am being generous), and the rest of their generation, had grown seriously retarded over the years. Most of these guys would have lived with knives ever day of their lives. Food would have been something that came packeged on hooves or wings, rather than paper or plastic, and clothing and furniture were things you made and not purchased.

I am sure that they would have share our appreciation and respect for knives; but, they would have consider us clueless none-the-less. Most of them could probably have taken a sharp rock and process a bull moose faster than we could run to a knife store and select a suitable knife.

Unfortunately, our ancestors will not be able to make the show, but, there is still alot they can show us if we are willing to take the time to look at their tools, and listen to their words.

n2s

 

[Crayola]

I have recently begun experimenting with Scandinavian styles. I have a Mora blade I am putting a handle on, I bought Bo Bergman's book, I've been searching the net, and I've read Mors Kochanski's Bushcraft book.

It is amazing what he can get done with a thin blade! Thin blades are SHARP and easy to sharpen. And they cut like lasers. You can make them do big blade work by using them deifferently. To chop a tree, you can use a baton to smack the back of the blade and cut through the tree.

I agree that we are somewhat geometrically-deprived people still. However, I do think things are getting better.

Thick blades still have their place. If I were in the military, I'd have a thick blade to make sure I don't have to worry about my knife breaking. But when I go hiking, I want my nice 1/8" thick, fully flat ground MEUK with me for cutting performance.

Another area that shows to me that people are geometically-deprives is with tantos. I think it is funny when peopel say tanto tips are useless. I don't think they are any more useful or useless than a clip point! but you do have to use a clip point and a tanto DIFFERENTLY. If you can understand HOW TO USE THE GEOMETRY YOU HAVE, then things are fine.

For anyone who thinks really thin blades suck, a cheap experiment would be to get a Mora knife and play with it in the kitchen and int he bush. These Moras are often 1/16" thick but if you know how to use them (see baton method above), you can really make thigns shake and move! If it doesn't work for you, you are only out, oh, $8.


***Edited to fix spelling errors.

 

[C. Marlowe]

Well to start, I build most of my knives with thick blades, they fit the knife, but are thicker than most. I just like thick blades. THat said, I agree with what has been said here, the duty of the knife dictates every thing about it. But lets look at a different point of view, today steel is readily avaiable everywhere, types thickness etc. Way back in the day, steel was scarce and expensive, it had to be used as efficiently as possible, hence many cutting tools were only as thick, or big as they needed to be. Today we can use steel that is thicker than needed, because of availability.

 

[Keith Montgomery]

Check out one of Jerry Hossom's knives some time if you get the chance. His big knives have realatively thin blades and are super light. He uses CPM 3V and CPM 30V. With these steels he seems to be able to keep the mass way down and not have it adversely affect the strength and toughness of the blade.

If you want a pry bar you are going to need a thick blade. If you want a knife that cuts well it shouldn't be that thick, and it doesn't need to be.

 

[Buzzbait]

I blame overly thick grinds on two factors.

1. The first offender is Sylvester Stallone. Every greenhorn outdoorsman wants a Rambo knife, whether it actually works or not. After all, it is more important to look like Rambo than to actually cut stuff.

2. I do believe that knife makers have become less routed in reality. Today's fad is to make a knife that looks and feels impressive. This, in most cases, diametrically opposes the rules of what makes a knife cut well.

Let me state that I hate overly thick grinds, which are not necessarily overly thick blades. Marbles uses a very thick blade with a very thin convex grind. They cut wonderfully. It isn’t the thickness of the stock that kills you, but how well you can grind a blade from that stock.

 

[not2sharp]

Here is a twist. Perhaps the makers have become too risk adverse. They suspect that when their average customer goes out to cut something, their standard mode of operation, is to apply force until either the knife goes through the material or the material goes through the knife. The worse thing that can happen to you as a maker is to have your knives break. The market will forget, if they ever find out, what the user was trying to do with the knife at the time; but, they will remember that so-so's knives tend to break.

This is especially true for larger knives because they are easier to damage.

n2

 

[Ed Fowler]

Not2sharp: You started this darn thread and I am trying to get ready for Blade Show. Thoughts of the subject cloud my thoughts, I can't work. that is OK, I love it.

I believe the demise of the functionally orientated blade began as man entered civilization and forgot what a knife is for. Man being what he is could not neglect the fact that he should be able to judge a knife, therefore instead to judging knives on a functional basis, he started looking for things he could see. --- Sharp clean grind lines --- Pretty stuff --- Big and Small, knives became jewlery for men. Rockwell, a modern and scientific term, easily measured and possibly relaiable,sometimes, replaced actual cut in the assessment of knife.

Look at the 'priitive' knives of our frontier, many of them understand and worship cut. Then the Sheffield cuttlers copied them and sold them to civilization. They copied not the soul of the primitive knives, but what was to become known as the art.

Most Judges today have very little understanding of function, they can see grind lines and are incapable of entering the functional aspects, other than open and close (foloders). Symetrical handles have replaced handles that fit the hand, handles are judged by the criteria of being proportional to the blade, never mind the hand that holds her. The powers that be are very protective of this advantage.
When a knife wins the functional knife class of competition, it most probably is for other reasons than cut or user friendly.

The knife makers see what wins competition and those who don't know better conform to what has become tradition and strengthens the bonds to a false idol. Some are still makers capable of origonal thought and function still guide a few.

Cutting a pop can takes the place of real work and conformity to design faults continues with out any appreciation of why and what for.

I got to get back to the shop. Thanks for the opportunity for discussion.

 

[The General]

Well it seems there is a general concensus against thick blades here. However when I worked with Doug Mondt to get my first custom I went for a large 15" over all knive with a 10" edge. I wanted a steel that would keep cutting even once the razor edge had been lost long ago. It also had to be quite tough. As chopping mid sized wood and general use around the campsite would be its main use (a knife between my Gerber ASports Axe and M2 Nimravious) I went for a tough spearpoint design with CPM 10V steel. This was of slightly thicker than 1/4 stock and has a slight distal taper towards the tip. The knife is 58-59RC by Paul Bos and is of course full tang.

This knife is able to hammer through 3" branches with one solid hit, a clean cut. Move to hardwood and a 2" branch is easy pickings. It hammers through all I can expect a knife or even an axe to go through and shows no sign of chipping etc whatsoever!

Back to the thickness, this gives this knife a remarkable hitting power, greater than my Gerber BMF by a big margin, yet that knife in 440a holds up far less well. I have been on outdoor courses, I have a number of years experience is survival and outdoors, yet I chose the knife that would not fail on me. Yes a thinner knife makes a better cutter (though the convex edge is stunning!) and an axe a better chopper, but for all that I know I have a heavy duty knife that when tired or hungry I don't need to worry about using to hard and looseing a vital tool in the outdoors. When we a fresh inside or outdoors and happy, we can think straight. How about after a week on low rations and with little sleep? I have been in this place and I can tell you the last thing you want to worry about is your knife. That is the main reason I have a strong and thick fixed blade. Becasue I am not perfect and even with experience I would rather tab with a heavy blade than tickle with a thin one.

Does that make me an inexperienced user? Or one that thinks that overbuilt is a good thing? I used to use an Ontario Marine for daily camping chores, then it bent slightly, I started to notice other weak areas with this knife. Its not bad knife, but not heavy enough for a chopper and not strong enough for a pryer. I know a knife is a cutting tool and not a pryer, but when you need a job done fast, I would rather a knife that can split wood and take that rather than a knife that cannot. The next choice for me would be a 5" or 6" Busse fixed blade to replace my M2 Nimravious. When I can't justify the carry of such a large knife (1-2 day light carry camping) I carry my 6" Puma Cougar in 154CM. A great knife again in 1/4 stock. Strong and great edge holding. A good folder like the Sebenza and a SuperTool finish the package. Perhaps the Gerber Axe as well.

I like thick strong blades, I am a big chap and work with my tools. I understand uses and needs, I just like a margin for myself, for when I cannot just replace the knife with another. I plan for the worst and hope for the best.

 

[not2sharp]

Wayne,

It is good to hear from you.

I just like a margin for myself, for when I cannot just replace the knife with another. I plan for the worst and hope for the best.

A margin is a little bit like having training wheels on your bike. It is a bit safer to use, but you give up alot in performance; and, you still have to take them off before you can learn to ride.

n2s

 

[Crayola]

One part of thick blades that I think is VERY important is user preference. Here's where General's post comes into light. Yeah, if I buy a khukuri from CS for $200 instead of an $8 Mora, I may be giving up LOTS of performance advantages that I'd have with the thinner, easier to carry Mora. However, if I like khukuris and I am ready to learn how to use a thick blade to do what I need it to do, then there is nothing wrong with that! If you would enjoy using a big khukiri, but not get much enjoyment out of an $8 Mora, then I think it is well worth spending the cash on the bigger blade.

 

[OwenM]

.

 

[not2sharp]

Crayola,

I am not as concern with the thick vrs. thin arguement as I am about thicker versus thinner. Each knife design has its own merit. But why do some designs seem to be getting thicker? Just look at the Khukuries produced by Himilayan Imports or Ghurka House today, and compare these with 19th century examples of the same length. In almost every case the older examples were much thinner. And they were thinner irrespective of whether they were low end villager models, military models, or the higher end kothimodas. The same thing can be said for bowie designs, camp knifes and most of the other large knives.

Perhaps as C. Marlowe suggested:

today steel is readily avaiable everywhere, types thickness etc. Way back in the day, steel was scarce and expensive, it had to be used as efficiently as possible, hence many cutting tools were only as thick, or big as they needed to be.

But, if so wouldn't we expect the upscale knives to have been significantly thicker than the norm?

Perhaps it is just an element of style? Thicker knives may just be something that is currently in vogue. Or, perhaps we are all developing a pathological need to vent our stress on deadwood.

n2s

 

[OwenM]

.

 

[Rebus777]

This reminds me of about 14 to 15 years
ago when the term "Strong Back" was a real
buzzword in the knife publications.
Really I think we have somewhat gotten
over that in the last few years.

-Rebus

 

[The Magician]

Originally posted by OwenM

Now I get it. Maybe it does have something to do with the trend toward "tactical". Thicker does seem to be more common. I'm all for a stout knife, but...it seems like with the superior steels available now that knives could be getting thinner, instead of the other way around.

My thoughts exactly. It is just a trend. How many of these huge thick tacticalcombatsurvivalfighters see thier actual intended use? Most are probably used only in the backyard.

 

[Jose Reyes]

Hi all,

I haven't been on in a while and I sure picked a good thread to start back on.

Not2Sharp, interesting thoughts and I certainly agree with most of your comments. However, I do wonder how much thicker a blade would have to be before you could compare the lost efficiency to a bicycle with training wheels. There must be a point where the gain in strength doesn't justify the added weight of making a blade thicker, but I think a good maker would reach that point before much efficiency of his design was lost. A thick blade is not necessarily bad, just one possibly made with a specific purpose in mind. In a blade like Wayne described the added weight can make the blade perform better, though maybe not as much fun to carry while hiking...

-Jose

 

[Crayola]

not2sharp,

I suspect, then, your concerns are due to changing consuemr trends. This may be somethign more peculiar to the North American knife buyer, but it seems to me that people want something different as opposed to "better". All of the major companies and many a maker who regularly goes to BLADE show ALWAYS enveils some new, kick butt model. But this si only to reveal different models the next year. And the next year. And the next. Firms like Randall Made Knvies are a rarity. Randall would keep a model that works and KEPT THEM IN THE CATALOG! Randalls are very popular today, but I bet if Randall Made Knvies started up today and had that mentality, they would struggle. After a few years of having "the same old thing" in the catalogs, people would stop looking at their knives.

Another example of this, as I see it, is with Chris Reeve knives. He invents the Sebenza, and lots go and buy it. THen he comes out with a new design for the Sebenza, and lots go and buy that one, selling their old ones off. Recently, Reeve unveils the "Classic" Sebenza, and peopel sell their new Sebenzas to buy a Classic which is just their old Sebenza!

I mean NO OFFENSE to Sebenza owners or Chris Reeve at all. But they do help make my point. I also recall reading in some knife book (Maybe Loveless?) that standard hunting knives were quite thick, but Loveless popularized (or helped to) thinner steels for hunting knvies. Now, if the trend you say exists not2sharp, thick hunters are back. I see this as just a cycle. After a few years of peopel likign thick knives, consumers will get bored with thick knvies and want thinner ones. And then they will want thicker oens. And so on. The trend you speak of is a desire for difference.

 

[Knife Outlet]

Fashion exists in nearly any type of consumer product you can name. No surprise it exists in knives as well.