Blade to handle ratio

Buffalohump

Buffalohump

Joined
Sep 7, 2006
Messages
6,198
Am I the only freak who thinks this is important?

I'm noticing it more and more where blades are much smaller than handles.

I don't like this.... its lazy design, surely. I feel there should be as much blade as possible. I want to be able to slice an average size tomato comfortably. That's my test.

4 inches or as close to 4 inches as possible is best... but I don't want a giant handle to get that.

Does anyone else feel the same way?
 
I don’t feel the same way either. All of the knives that I carry have 3 inch or less blades. Partially because of a 3 inch blade restriction in my location but also because I prefer smaller blades.

I don’t require that the blade be shorter than the handle but I do like that feature. Knives like the Spyderco Delica for example, give me a four finger grip without exceeding my blade length restriction.
 
While certain large handled-small bladed knives just look awkward to me, I think the comfort of the handle is the most important aspect, followed by how it rides in the pocket. I don't like it when I can't access the rest of my pocket without rubbing my hand on some rough jimping or a sharp flipper tab. If you think of the handle as nothing more than a necessary component to hide the blade when folded I can see where you're coming from, but it should also be ergonomic, comfortable, and help you grip the knife in useful ways. A 4 inch blade is pretty large for a folder/pocket knife and you're going to need a certain size handle for it to fold into. I'm also not a fan of super minimalist handles like these:

21156_452-deejo-37g-juniper-wood.jpg
 
I understand your point about handles, like many small knives, having full size handles, but you need a minimum handle size for a hand and that's usually a minimum of a 3-4 inch handle. On larger knives you need more handle for multiple hold options. So, if you want usable handles, you likely can't live by your motto. in my opinion.
 
I agree in many instances.
Some designs utilize a shorter blade purposefully and it works.

Sometimes though, it seems space that could be utilized for blade length is wasted. Big finger choils..too big tangs.. poor design.

Another reason I always end up with a bunch of Shiros.
 
I disagree. Depends on what the knife is designed for, cutting tomatoes is not the be-all, end-all.

Check these out: same maker, same designer, same blade length, different design goals / handles. The left one makes switching to reverse grip fast and intuitive, the right is better for your tomatoes.

i-BmfZ2VV-X2.jpg
 
Agree Believe handle/grip ergonomics are as important as blade length. Not everyone will agree with my choices but my Sog Trident At-XR has the perfect blade length of 3.75 and the handle is more than generous for easy gripping. Also goes for my Buck/Topps CSAR folder to make tasks easier.
 
For me a full 4 finger handle is best although a 3 finger will work for light work and folders. Anything over 4 finger makes no sense to me like my Busse gemini that was way too long.
 
It bugs me on certain knives...specifically the Buck 500, the modern versions anyway. Nice size handle, but the blade is a little too small and makes the whole thing look doofy to me. Same goes with blades that aren't as tall as the handle. I dunno...just don't like it. All purely aesthetics and not from a functionality point of view...
 
It depends on whether it's a fixed blade or a folder. I prefer a 4 1/2" -5" handle on folders with the blade about 4". With a fixed blade, I prefer a 5" handle and the blade can be anything from 3 1/2- whatever.
 
i am not a 3fingers guy, and i like a full size handle for any lenght of blade. however, some short blades need short handle this is a knife i would qualify as a "flint" knife for specific use...
 
When it comes to folders, sometimes it's a necessity. Take something like a Cold Steel using a Triad lock. It seems the bigger you make the knife, the longer the handle has to be to incorporate the larger blade and locking mechanism. The 4 Max is 10" long. That's a 4" blade on a 6" handle. If you go up to a 5 Max, then you are talking a 5" blade on a 7" handle. That bigass Triad lock just needs about 2" to work.

On a fixed blade, I guess it just depends. Coming from the area of khukuris, you see some flat out tiny handles on some of the knives made for the local people. I have very average size large (thus not that large) American hands with thinnish fingers, and some of my samples made for the Nepali people cramp my grip.

I guess it depends what work you wanna do. Aesthetically I like the longer blade to handle ratio on a fixed blade. When it comes to looks, I have never liked those pistols that mate a compact slide on a full size grip either. However if I were tasked with chopping down a tree or being in a gun fight, I think pragmatism would win out over aesthetics :P
 
I do not see that blade length and handle sixe have anything to do with ech other. A serious wood carving tool will have a rather small blade and a relatively huge handle. A machete will have a near sword length blade and a hefty one hand handle. A folder will have a handle that is slightly longer thsn the blade regardless of the blade length.

I just don't quite "get" this concept of blade to handle ratio.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top