Blade to Handle Ratio...

EZ Bake

EZ Bake

Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
1,752
Why is this such a big deal for a lot of folks? I hear the phrase "I love it, but it's got a terrible blade/handle ratio" said on here fairly often (typically about Spyderco knives - especially those with a finger-choil in the blade-tang) and I always wonder what that means.

What makes a blade/handle ratio good or bad? I personally love the extra space on the handle/choil and rarely find myself in a situation that I don't have "enough blade".

I've got a Para-2 (which is a commonly noted knife as being a great knife but having a poor handle/blade ratio) and have never felt like I wished the handle was slightly smaller or the blade slightly longer (or the choil removed to give me extra cutting edge).

This is a serious question too - what makes a blade/handle ratio good or bad to you personally (and please explain why)?
 
I'm with you on the PM2. I've heard people complain about it, but I've never had a problem with it. The handle fits comfortably in my hand, and I've never felt like I needed more blade length. I actually really like usable choils, as I like choking up on my blade for detail work. I'd probably have more of a problem with it on a fixed blade, but on the Para2, it just seems right.
 
When it comes to fixed blade knives I would never buy a knife that has a handle longer than the blade. I think it is more about the way it looks rather than function but for some reason I just can't get past it.
 
shaving sharp said:
When it comes to fixed blade knives I would never buy a knife that has a handle longer than the blade. I think it is more about the way it looks rather than function but for some reason I just can't get past it.
Click to expand...

I'm the opposite.

I have never used that phrase but I have problems with fixed blades when the handle isn't long enough. I don't want a 5.5 inch blade with a 5 inch handle. I have a larger then avg hand (2xl or 3xl work gloves) and I don't like when my pinky hangs off or they have a curved butt end (not sure how to describe it) that the pinky fits into. I could care less how it looks, I want to be comfortable holding it.

Again, no right or wrong answer, it's about personal preference and hand size.
 
Last edited:
On the one hand there is an issue of aesthetics. If you put a Dragonfly blade in a PM2 handle it would really look odd. But there is also an issue of function. Maybe people only need a 2" or 2.5" blade, but if you put a proportional handle on it then it is hard to hold and use. And then on the other hand why have a handle that is bigger than what you need? If you wanted a bigger handle or if you must have a bigger handle, why not have a bigger blade too? I can legally carry a larger blade than I can comfortably fit in my pocket, so if the handle is bigger than it needs to be it just hampers my ability to carry it. I have a PM2 and I agree that the handle looks a bit long compared to the blade, but I haven't had it long enough to decide what I think about the size after actually carrying it. The other knives that I like are Benchmades and I notice that Benchmades with longer blades than the PM2 sometimes have smaller handles than the PM2 so might be easier overall to carry.
 
I never understood this either. My buck vantage small has the same length blade as my delica. Delica has a longer handle that is much more comfortable. When it comes to an edc knife, i care more about how thin the handle is than how long it it.
 
It's personal preference usually based on comfort. It's very subjective. I personally like longer handles.
 
I've found that a 4 1/2" handle and a 4-5" blade length is about perfect for a fixed blade bush knife.
On folders I like anything around the 4" mark. Any longer and it's a pain to EDC ; shorter is acceptable but the pinky misses out.
 
For folders, anything close to or over a 1:1 ratio, though rare, knives like Benchmades LFK at least for me offers a good handle size to a great blade length.

I've got small pinkies on med/large hands, so having room for purchase with my pinkies is more of a bonus than a requirement.
 
I like knives with a long blade and as small a handle as can fit that blade. Thus if your knife has a massive handle it should have a massive blade and if it doesn't that is a problem.
 
I want an adequate handle no matter the blade length. I have often wondered why someone didn't make a folder with a 2-1/2 inch blade in a five inch handle, for those places where longer blades are illegal. You can use the thing better if you can get a solid grip on it, asthetics be hanged.
 
MikeH said:
I want an adequate handle no matter the blade length. I have often wondered why someone didn't make a folder with a 2-1/2 inch blade in a five inch handle, for those places where longer blades are illegal. You can use the thing better if you can get a solid grip on it, asthetics be hanged.
Click to expand...

I've seen some.
 
for a working knife, i'd like a 4 1/2 inch handle that's nice and smooth and a blade less than 2 1/2 long. whittling wood using the edge that's more than 3 inches away from your fist can be tiresome (and non-dextrous.)
 
res1cue said:
Aesthetics mostly. A poor blade:handle ratio is just plain ugly to me.
Click to expand...

I like a knife where the blade comes just short of the end of the handle. That makes the design "efficient." I do realize that you want a handle long enuf to fit your hand.
Sonnytoo
 
If it feels comfortable and cuts well, I absolutely don't care about the ratio. And while I'm particular about the look of my knives, this has never been a consideration for me. The PM2, for example, is one of my favorite knives -- both in comfort and looks. I've never held a Spyderco Dodo, but I'm banking on liking it based on the design alone. The ratio looks perfect to me. Same goes for the Yojimbo.
 
I would also vote 'aesthetics'.

But you know that feeling when you open a bag of potato chips and notice that the bag is only 1/3 full? Probably some of that going on too... :D

Personally, I don't mind a shorter blade that functions well if it has a larger (and more comfortable) handle.
 
I really like big handles with smaller blades. The cqc-14 "snubby" is darned near ideal folder territory for me. You can put some serious pressure down across the whole blade length which makes it one mean little cutter.
 
IMO, if you're going to make a folder, it better have as much edge real estate as you can cram into that folder. Anything less is just wasted space. It's one of my pet peeves. If you have that much wasted space, it's time to get back to the drawing board to figure out where you're wasting material. I don't buy knives with a 4 inch handle and a blade that's 3 inches, just an example.

As far as fixed blades are concerned, the one I have now is a custom I designed to fit my hand exactly while still being pretty pocketable. It's 7 inches overall length with a 3.75 inch blade.
 
EricV said:
I really like big handles with smaller blades. The cqc-14 "snubby" is darned near ideal folder territory for me. You can put some serious pressure down across the whole blade length which makes it one mean little cutter.
Click to expand...

Y'know, I've often thought that the best 'fighty' type knives have more to do with the handle than the actual blades.

Not much of a 'tactical' type guy, m'self though... so what do I know? :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top