Blade to Handle Ratio...

harkamus said:
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.
Click to expand...

The 'Potato Chip Theory' :D
 
I hear a lot of "I prefer" or "I like", but not really a lot of reasoning behind it.




timberweasel said:
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
Click to expand...
This however, is probably one of the better posts I've ever read on BF in a while. Pretty awesome man.





harkamus said:
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.
Click to expand...
I understand this line of reasoning, but isn't that a little extreme? By that same logic, wouldn't a cutting edge on both sides (dagger-style) be even better? Or a Pizza cutting wheel (then it's edge forever man :D)?

If the handle sticks out beyond your hand at all, does that equate to wasted handle-material? I guess I'm ok with different designs that make things more ergonomic, or even aesthetically pleasing as long as it doesn't hinder usefulness and I don't see a slightly smaller cutting edge at the gain of more control (i.e. a finger choil) or ease of sharpening (larger sharpening choil).

Still, I at least can follow your line of thought. I seriously thought there was some secret inference to manhood being tied to cutting-edge length or something, so I didn't want to whip it out (the knife, that is) and have someone presume that my cutting edge stopping short of the finger-choil meant that something else might be inadequate :)
 
EZ Bake said:
I understand this line of reasoning, but isn't that a little extreme? By that same logic, wouldn't a cutting edge on both sides (dagger-style) be even better? Or a Pizza cutting wheel (then it's edge forever man :D)?
Click to expand...
Double edged blades are illegal here, and a pizza cutting wheel has almost no utility outside of cutting pizza. :P

If a handle sticks out past my hand it's fine, provided the blade is long enough to warrant it. There's no real secret inference to anything. It's just personal preference. Conversely, if a handle is shorter than my hand grip, it had better be designed in a way that makes it secure in the hand. I had a fixed blade once that was 6.5 overall length with a handle that was 2.75 inches, but it fit my hand like a glove and was as secure as could be. The maker designed a finger groove just in the right spot where the knife would lock in the hand securely.
 
MikeH,

I made custom scales for my Kershaw Half Ton, so now it has a 2 1/2" blade and 4 1/4" handle. The handle itself is about 1 1/4" wide and 3/4" thick. At first I thought it may be too chunky, but as I use it I really like the larger handle. It feels a lot like a utility knife in my hand.

Ric
 
Sigh, what kind of guy replies to a 6 year old thread? Completely depends on the purpose of the knife.

If the purpose is to make you feel like a big man which is a very common and maybe even valid purpose for knives, go long blade short handle. When people say things have a bad blade/handle ratio, they mean that it lacks the "cool" factor that gives them special feelings when they carry/hold it, and make no mistake, feelings are important.

If the purpose of the knife is to cut things, long handle, short blade all the way. More leverage and control on the tip of the blade. The oldest metal knives we've found have handles much longer than the blade partly due to limitations of materials, but those knives were used for very utilitarian purposes.
 
IMO, there's no such thing as too much handle, unless it's ridiculously so. Blade to handle ratios are for nerds to quibble over. The only thing that matters is how YOUR knife works for YOU. If you like something, does it matter what the next man thinks about it? Nope.
 
VG10isjustfine said:
Sigh, what kind of guy replies to a 6 year old thread?
Click to expand...

Indeed. What was the purpose?

“VG10isjustfine said:
When people say things have a bad blade/handle ratio, they mean that it lacks the "cool" factor that gives them special feelings when they carry/hold it, and make no mistake, feelings are important.
Click to expand...

You are very poor mind reader. When I say a knife has a poor blade to handle ratio, it means I dislike how much room it takes in the pocket for the amount of blade. I have a limit on the amount of pocket space to allocate to a knife, and a minimum length blade I need to do some chores. That’s it.
 
Old thread, but still relevant. I’m in.

I reference b:h a bit when talking about Spyderco, because it is often the case that they give us an unnecessarily large handle for how much blade we get. The Para 2 is a prime example. That’s a lot of handle and overall length for a 3” blade. Now, there are a couple ways to think about it. One is obviously “I have enough blade, and enough handle. I’m happy.” Another is, “what’s a good reason for me to carry this instead of a Gemini or 0609? Those give me equal or greater blade and full grip, in a much more space efficient package.”

So far, that’s mostly subjective. As I’ve often said in other threads, weight as a hot button is a joke to me, and I can carry a large-ish folder just fine.

Here’s where the PM2 and some others completely lose me: the way they get to that poor b:h ratio... the choil-thing.

One of the most common ways for me to use my knives is breaking down cardboard constructs at work. They’re frequently multi-wall things, bound together with carpentry staples or strong mounting foam or adhesives. Like this...

yFQYGZmh.jpg


When I do those tasks, I want my hand close to the blade, and I want the handle to be somewhat hand filling and comfortable in a very tight hammer grip. I don’t want to have to choke up off the handle to chase the blade, or decide whether I want to be working with *either* good ergos *or* proximity to the blade. By carrying a Gemini, Ursa Minor, 0609, etc, I can have a very comfortable working grip, and also have my hand close to the blade.
 
bdmicarta said:
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.
Click to expand...
I want to see a dragon fly blade on a pm2 handle! ;)
 
EZ Bake said:
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)?
Click to expand...

I think alot of the time it is when you look at the closed blade in the knife and see that without changing the design at all they could have stuck a longer blade in there.
 
I think "blade-to-handle" ratio is a term made up by knife reviewers who have run out of things to say about a knife but still have another quarter of a page to fill with drivel. The ratio has no meaning and imparts no useful information.
 
So me it's about efficiency, a big handle on a folder on a well designed knife can pack a big blade. If it doesn't it seems like bad design to me, which I don't like. The PM2 has a Finger choil so it's part of the design element, which gets it a pass in my book. But if it's something like a 4.5 inch handle that pops out a 1.5 inch blade I'd laugh and move on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top