Are big knives with thick blades made for inexperienced users?

This is the age of multitools, one tool does everything. Old timers had kitchen knives and woodsmans tools. Thin tapered kitchen knives for food preparation and cast stout hatchets, axes and saws. They also wore them out and broke them often, but that didn't matter so much as the local blacksmith could mend them. There were blacksmiths everywhere, because horses need shoes. Mass produced export knives were produced from several European steel centres, Soligen, Shefield etc. The iron was good and the understanding of how to get the best out of it good too. Military swords and armour and the cost of raw material made sure of that. OK, so, much was carbon steel and it did rust quite badly in the tropics, but on the whole it did the job of empire building well. The naval fleets of Europe were cut from the Oak forests; this was deforestation on a huge scale. All done with man, water, and horse power with iron tools.

Todays industrial steel list has almost any criteria/properties you wish right off the shelf, its just how much you want to spend. One reason the aero and space projects cost so much.

Take a large Victorinox kitchen knife into the field and you would be surprised how well it stood up to the punishment. You might bend it or chip it on something very hard but with some maintenance it would still function. It wouldn't look pretty but it would work and you could always buy another. However, start felling some serious wood and it wouldn't cope, but a $50 axe would. I think our forfathers would laugh "whoever thought up the idea of a knife cutting up logs".

I think it is definately the fashion for "tactical/survival" thicker stock knives. If you want to chop then there is good reason for it, but if you don't then there isn't.

Finally, there is a limit to what steel can do however well made and heat treated. A lot of the over built is there for insurance against the lack of understanding of many users of what a knife can or cannot do. Individuals are far too quick to blame the tools rather than question their own ability. Rifles today have never been so accurate off the shelf, but there are few riflemen that away from a bench rest can utilise it. To compensate for lack of marksmanship/fieldcraft there is an industry of accessories to provide excuses.
 
It is very true that the majority of knives now being made are being vastly overbuilt, however this isn't simply a case of stock thickness, but more importantly, profile. However, there still are makers who are grinding blades at their performance limits, so you can still find them if you look through the hype. A basic guideline is to look for makers who advertise for high levels of cutting ability, and not just on the great "toughness" of their blades. As of course all the durability that is required is that the blade doesn't get excesive damaged during the cutting, it is a secondary requirement.

In general though, it is impossible for a maker to grind the optimal blade profile for a user as this is dependent on the user skill, physical abilities and enviroment. Thus the maker can chose to grind to be in the middle of the pack, and thus see some damage for some people, or grind so as to have the necessary durability for even the harshest of users and thus in general most users will thin out the profile. As noted today, damage is a much harsher complaint than a little edge work being necessary, so to be safe, makers tend to overbuild, and some carry this to extremes. As well, steel influences this quite a bit. In the past the materials used had much higher toughness levels than are common now, mainly because of the level of popularity of stainless steels.

To clarify, lacking skill doesn't mean you are incompetent. There is a simple range from the person who twists and hacks at random until brute force does the job, to the one who cuts with no lateral load on the edge at all, avoiding inclusions, even when heavy chopping. The latter is very rare. Even at the highest levels of competiton, for example, it is only the top few percent who have this ability. It would obviously not be sensible for makers to grind production blades for these individuals, as the blades would get damaged for more than 99% of the people who used them.

There of course is also the issue, that blade damage isn't always a bad thing. For most of my knives that are used heavily, they are ground so thin that they do on occasion suffer edge damage. Right now for example I am using a Tramontina bolo for most of the limbing and brush work. The edge profile is right at the level where is will handle all properly done cutting fine, even on the hardest of woods, but if the wood breaks poorly and the edge gets a lateral contact, it can dent. I could just grind it more obtuse so this wouldn't happen but then the cutting ability would be reduced, and the frequency of such events isn't enough for me to want to compensate for them.

There is no real right or wrong on edge profile, the more durability you have the rougher you can use the knife, and this is in many ways a good thing. I have several limbing knives for example that don't have edge profiles robust enough to cut harder woods, even with the best of technique. They excell on the softer ones, outperforming the Tramontina, but are limited in overall functionality because of the relatively low durability. This is the other side of the argument - cutting ability comes at the expense of durability. The more narrow the focus of the blade, the greater the cutting ability you can have. With highly optomized blades you tend to carry more than one knife, or go smatchet-like in design, which also has its drawbacks.

I do agree with the basic point though, about better materials leading to a lower requirement for steel, thus a more acute profile.

-Cliff
 
"In the past the materials used had much higher toughness levels than are common now, mainly because of the level of popularity of stainless steels."

Do you mean greater use of carbon steels, or just better steel? In the old days many things were built over engineered because of posible manufacturing flaws. If not overbuilt then through higher quality control throughout. Swords can't be built wrong as they just don't perform as they should. The end users knew exactly what was expected performance. Cannons and cannon balls came under huge scutiny due to several highly embarrassing examples of industrial fraud; cannons blowing up are rather obvious that someones not doing their job!

Profile, has huge influence to how a blade performs at a certain task. I think that some of the manufacturing techniques used, to get a product finished for the market at the right price, limits, to some extent, to what profiles can be provided. Funny how a great design isn't made in several profiled types/weights. Even when different sizes/length are produced of the same style of knife, the same stock and profile is retained when a more proportioned throughout blade would work better for that size/length. Most of the arguement is in the tooling up and limited stock/billets thickness of steel available from steel suppliers. Custom makers with forges can make whatever they like or if doing stock removal use up grinding belts to get what they want (expensive though).
 
GREENJACKET :

Do you mean greater use of carbon steels, or just better steel?
Click to expand...

Carbon steels generally. Currently, the vast majority of people believe stainless steels are directly better than carbon steels, and thus since you market to the majority, there has been a large switch to stainless steels. One of the most telling statements can been seen in the book on sharpening by Lee where he notes that the edge on a felling axe [for notching, not wedging, which is even easier but wastes more wood] should be between 20 to 25 degrees included for dry wood, and 15 to 20 degrees for green. This is 3-4 times as acute as what most people would recommend for a knife built for chopping. Now consider the energies than a full size axe will see compared to a knife and the difference becomes just absurd.

Even when different sizes/length are produced of the same style of knife, the same stock and profile is retained when a more proportioned throughout blade would work better for that size/length.
Click to expand...

Yes, as you noted it is just materials constraints, same thing with the same steel on vastly different knives, or everything being the same hardness. A lot of it is again selling to the perception, not in what is actually functional, but simply what it thought to be functional. Benchmade for example commented that one of the reasons they didn't switch steels very readily was the huge amount of money it would take to promote the change. Bottom line, money is obviously at the root of most decisions, as it is with all markets, this isn't charity work. The user needs to have a critial eye and an open mind and not be lead blindly by the manufacturers. There are execeptions to this, some who speak without a promotional bias, but it is rare.

-Cliff
 
Blade thickness needs to be viewed in terms of blade width, since a wider blade will cut better than a narrow one of the same thickness and grind. Imagine two flat gound blades, the same except one is both twice as thick and twice as wide. If you think about it the blade geometry behind the edge is the same, and cutting performance should be very similar, except for chopping, deep cutting or slicing, where the differance in blade wieght and width would come into play.
 
Great thread!

I own many many blades of different size and thickness... However:p 1/8 is OK and cuts very very well. My convex CPM 10V at 40 degree overall cuts and slices as well as any of my fixed blades at a lower angle as a result of the steel type! Back this up with mega size and chopping power and its a good all rounder that will simply not dink or snap with a tickle!:D

My 1/8 stock? 1095 Ontario Marine was rather less able to take the knocks.

Oh and if training wheels save my life and give me 90% the slicing power I can live with that analogy! My life is not a commodity I am willing to trade with, hence I carry a Sebenza in the field to back up a M2 Nimravious and SuperTool!

Heck its not that heavy!:cool:
 
It definitly seems that the more experienced knife users use smaller and thinner blades (not including lumberjacks and such).
I'll bet that most big thick knives are sold to folks under thirty.
Maybe it's just because as we get older we get tired of lugging around a big heavy knife, and experience teaches us that you seldom need a such a knife.

Good luck,
Allen.
 
I think another consideration is sharpening.

Given Cliff's very good point at durability....

If you have a knife with durability that has been lowered significantly by thinning it out, that knife will likely need sharpening regulary and will take damage at a greater level. If the owner is now very confident of their sharpening skills, then the need for frequent sharpening maintenance or even re-profiling due to edge damage may, in his mind, reflect on the quality/value of the knife.

Think of all the people who judge a knife on initial sharpness.

Given not2sharp's analogy of old-timers....

How many of those regular users employed the services of a professional sharpener.
 
Marion, I think the difference in viewpoint is critical. Currenty a lot of promotion is done on durability and edge retention. Whereas a generation ago, people were mainly interested in cutting ability. It was expected that edges would get damaged periodically (otherwide you were running them too thick), and sharpening was a daily activity. To some degree this perspective should of course be influenced by steel. You don't need to sharpen 10V with the same frequency as 1095 in a hunting knife for example. However the damage issue isn't effected in the same way. As you pointed out, the difference in skill in sharpening has had a major influence.

-Cliff
 
No, you cannot equate the experience of the user with the thickness of the blade, no matter how much you would like to.

How many times is this going to be brought up? Maybe we should add "knife thickness snob" to the term "steel snob".

Cliff actually brought up a good point about makers not being able to anticipate every possible use for a knife. That is very true. I don't mind carrying the extra weight, and I know quite a few people like me. You only have to be let down once by a little bitty blade to appreciate a strong one.

I'm over 40, not under 30, it took many years of personal experience to come to this conclusion.
 
I do not believe that just because you like knives with thick blades that you an inexperienced knife user. If you use a thick blade for jobs where a thinner blade would do better then I do believe that you are someone that does not believe in the old adage, the right tool for the job. I guess, if you want to carry just one knife to fill all of your possible cutting needs, then a thicker blade is going to be required. One the other hand, I have never felt that the extra few ounces that are presented by carrying a small thin fixed blade along with a larger, thicker bladed knife, was going to wear me out. In fact, I have gone into the woods on survival trips that have covered over 100 miles in a week and never felt weighed down by my camp axe, camp knife, small hunter and fillet knife. Total weight, under three pounds.

The amount of times that I have appreciated having the right tool for the job at hand far outweighs the effort involved in carrying the extra weight as far as I am concerned. I have never felt that the one knife for all chores approach makes any sense.
 
To clarify my posts in regards to the original question....

People buy and use what they like.

What they like, and why they like it, is sometimes based on experience, sometimes based on fantasy, sometimes based on nothing at all that they can quantify. As a acquaintance of mine says.... "Go with God". That is his way of saying.... If it floats your boat, who am I to say otherwise?

Now, once someone states that "This here thick bladed Rambotron Ninja Deathmonger 2002 is the only blade that any man I will ever respect would use..." Then, the presenter of such a perspective may have a flock of dissenters besetting on all sides, or ignoring him.
 
I USE smaller knives but I COLLECT big knives. I just like big knives. They are funner to handle.
 
This is a really interesting thread. Thanks to everyone for the info. I recently ordered an SW6 knife from Barry Dawson. Its a spearpoint hunting/small camp knife with a blade made out of 440C that is 6" long and about 1 3/8" wide. At first I asked Barry to make it out of 1/4" stock instead of the 3/16" he usually uses for this knife. He said he could easily do that since he keeps both thicknesses on hand, but that I would get better performance from the 3/16" stock.

At first I was prepared to insist on 1/4" stock, but then I thought that Barry knows his knives best. I've owned several of his knives and each one performed flawlessly. So in this case I'm just going to go with the 3/16" stock like he advises and see what happens. I'll post a review of the knife on the forum when I receive it.

What are some of the other opinions out there? Do all of you readers have a definite preference for 3/16" vs. 1/4" stock, or do you think the level of abuse required to damage a 3/16" thick PROPERLY HEAT-TREATED blade makes it a moot point?

(Note: a lot of makers and users have abandoned 440C in favor of other steels, but Barry is famous for getting maximum performance out of it with his heat-treating methods. I carry one of his knives and one of his niece's knives on a daily basis and they hold an edge exceptionally well.)
 
Originally posted by Ed Fowler
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.
Click to expand...

Amazing that I should log on and read this today. Last night I was listening to the radio in the car. A British anthropologist was speaking about the advent of the bronze and iron ages. He argued that for many generations steel was technologically inferior to the flint and stone that was being used. It's purpose in the early days of metalurgy was ornamental - as a status symbol. It was only after several centuries of evolution in it's use did it begin to replace flint and stone for cutting.

His overall theme was that many of our greatest technoligal advances existed for some while in our society as novelty or ornamental things before their true utility was realised.

Who knows? Maybe thiick bladed Rambo knives will save the human race in a way that has not yet been forseen:p
 
Wow, this one really came back from the dead! That's great though, I didn't notice it the first time around and it's probably the most interesting and informative thread I've ever seen here on BF. I guess I have to agree with the right tool for the job crowd. I love my khukuris for heavy duty work because I'm not capable of significantly damaging them, and when properly sharpened they cut quite well. For my EDC folder, however, I've come to demand a very thin sharp edge, because I primarily use it for low stress tasks. A thick blade and edge becomes a liability in this scenario. So I either like them really thick or really thin, both certainly have their place regardless of skill level or experience.
 
Hello. I'm very new to knife enthusiasm; nevertheless, I'd like to throw in a few points.

Although I haven't ever gone through any sort of formal instruction as to how or how not to use a knife, it has been impressed upon me at some point or points in my thirty-one years that one uses a knife not much differently than a pair of scissors. I believe that people who use a knife to cut up trees are a bit daft; for crying out loud that's why we've got axes! I was taught that a knife is not a hacking tool, nor is it a saw, shovel, pry bar, screwdriver, or anything other than simply a tool for light cutting. :)
 
Good thread not2sharp
Maybe our ancestors had the presence of mind to use the right tool for the job. When they wanted to chop something they used an AX! When something needed to be cut they used a KNIFE! I think that all other points that have been brought up are valid with reguards to trends and makers abilities or maybe lack of I don't know. :confused: But to me this is really skirting the main issue. Today people want one tool to do many things and when that thought is brought to knifemaking I think the knife is something that now will be much more versatle but it will not do anything very well. That being said I have a machete which I use for chopping saplings as well as brush removal and it is much thinner than some of the "survival" knives sold. Go Figure.
my 2 cents for whatever it is worth.
 
Very interesting thread... and some very keen observations.

Tell you the truth, I've never really thought about it until now. So as a little experiment I took a quick look at some of my knives this morning and noticed the thickest blade I seem to own is an M7 Bayonet, followed closely by my Buck Special. Or was it the other way around...?

I don't own any knives with a thick, Rambo-esque spine.

The vast majority of blades I own seem to be around 1/8" thick, give or take a 1/32 of an inch. Fairly thin imho. The thickest folding blade I own seemed to be a hair over 3/16" and it's a cheap ass knife I bought when I was nine.

Now admittedly when it comes to being a knife knut I am one, but I'm an amatuer compared to a lot of the people who post here :D I wonder if it proves anything though that someone who knows a little bit about knives who never even thought about it before has spent a lifetime selecting thinner blades.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top