Blade to handle ratio

[Shorttime]

I get what Buffalohump is saying, because I've noticed it too. I think it's more than just blade:handle ratio, though.

For me, it's also the "chord", or the width of the handle as measured from the spine side to the choil side. The chord and length of the handle work together to give you a feeling of control. Since people are highly variable, the "goldilocks zone" for this ratio has less to do with blade length, and more to do with hand size.

The main complaint I have about any blade's handle length is when it ends with a huge, wide pommel on it. I swung a Kukri like a machete for about half an hour, gave myself an amazing blister, and decided that it was my technique not the design. It's useful as an illustration of both the kind of design choice I'm talking about, and the myriad of intangibles that go into creating the overall "feeling" of a well-designed implement.

For those who are interested, there are studies and tables listing average hand length and width. The internet tells me the average adult male hand width is 3.5", but I can't find a source for that (AI-generated) number, and I would round up to 4", anyway.

This link is to a "Golden Ratio" calculator. I get the impression that the Golden Ratio is purely aesthetic, but there are still some Greek buildings around, so maybe there's some engineering to it, too.

Golden Ratio Calculator

This golden ratio calculator helps you to find the lengths of the segments which form the beautiful, divine golden ratio.

www.omnicalculator.com

Usual disclaimer: mods please delete the link if it's not acceptable.

 

[Stelth]

For me it's not an absolute. I have some short-bladed knives with longer handles and vice versa. It depends on the application and attitude.

 

[chevyrulez1]

The OP didn't specify, but generally when people complain about handle to blade ratio they are talking about folders. I agree is seems odd when you have a pocket knife with a long handle when folded up, and open it to a blade that seems too short for the size of the folded "package"
Agreed that with fixed blades there are many different variations of blade length and this usually isn't an issue.

 

[Mistwalker]

I got used to blades being noticeably shorter than handles on folders a long time ago with the pivot at one end and the tip being inside the other end. And it's pretty hard to have a sheeplepfriendly edc fixed blade with a comfortable handle if the handle isn't longer than the blade. and I'm good with woodworking tools with blades shorter than the handle. But in a knife I'm going to field, I tend to like 4.5 to 5 inch blade with the handle no longer than the blade. Or a Bowie style knife with a handle significantly shorter than the blade.

 

[knarfeng]

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 disagree on the Lazy Design part.

As others have pointed out, you are talking about a specific use and a specific sized blade. Not all knives are designed for that specific use. And not everyone has the same size hand. So even if you have a knife designed for food prep, there's still going to be some variation as to what the designer feels is an adequate sized handle. If he is after designing a "one size fits all" handle, then it could be pretty large for someone with smaller hands.

For a foldkng knife, the handle is always going to be longer than the extended blade. The amount of difference will be partially dependent on the placement of the pivot. The farther aft the pivot point is, the stronger the overall knife will be, all other things being equal. With the current focus on producing "folding fixed blades", that can lead to some fairly large handles.

I also have to note that I see a lot of folks who want their woods knife to be suitable for food prep. Personally, that's not something that I find desirable. It forces "Jack of all trades, master of none" designs. There is a place for such knives, but I don't think every outdoors knive needs to be a hot shot at slicing tomatoes. YMMV.

 

[CVamberbonehead]

I think it depends on what the knife is for but in general I agree, I don’t like a short blade very much especially with a long handle. Just seems like a waste and a good way to get gunk in your pivot needlessly.

 

[elasmonut]

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.

Use

 

[Shrub]

In my opinion, this seems to me like one of those things that just needs to be considered on a case by case basis. What kind of knife are we talking about(?) and what's it gonna be used for?
Definitely not a good thing to try and create a "general rule" for.

 

[Jabrni]

Buffalohump , I agree with you when it comes to folders. I allow a bit more handle for a fixed blade, but it does depend on the purpose. I have an AD-10 and 4Max Scout that I love to hate. The handles are way too big for the size of the blade. Steely_Gunz provided a solid explanation, but I still don’t like it. Suffice to say, they are not carried much.

 

[Buffalohump]

Apologies, I was referring to folders.

Examples of folders with fantastic blade-to-handle ratios are the famous Griptilian and the the underappreciated Canis from Spyderco.

Cold Steel is the worst offenders because of the Triad lock.