Comparison Photos - Round Three - 25 Different Models

Nc that is a very nice canary wood recluse!

I just noticed this thread, and its amazing the differences you'll find within the same model. This thread is pretty nice for some one just getting their feet wet in the fiddleback waters.

Thanks everyone for taking your time to post your pictures and comments.
 
These two photos show how Effective Handle Length can make a difference in how comfortable a knife can be. I have large hands and look for knives with handles long enough to extend to the edge of my palm. (EHL refers to the distance from the indentation near the front of the handle where your index finger locks in, to the butt end of the handle, in other words the length of the handle that your hand actually grips.)

The black and white photo shows a Bear Paw with a handle length of 5.0". Its steel is 5/32" with a tapered tang, and the palm swell thickness is .782". My pinky finger won't fit on the handle in a pinch grip. In fact I typically place it to the back to ease the spot where the top edge of the butt end bites into my palm.



The color photo shows a Bushfinger with a handle length of 4.94". Its steel is 5/32", SFT, and the palm swell thickness is .815". The handle extends almost all the way to the end of my hand, far enough so that the butt edge doesn't bite. There's even room for the pinky to squeeze on.


In my hands the Bushfinger is considerably more comfortable. The main reason is that its EHL is longer than that of the Bear Paw, even though the overall length of the Bear Paw's handle is slightly longer than that of the Bushfinger. The Bushfinger's EHL is longer than the Bear Paw's primarily because its index-finger indentation is considerably closer to the front of the handle than that of the Bear Paw, and also, as a friend has pointed out, because the location of the Bear Paw's palm swell farther back forces one's hand to choke back on the handle. The handle of the Bear Paw is very comfortable -- as far as it goes. But if you have large hands and want a knife handle to extend to the edge of your palm, the Bear Paw may not go far enough because of its shorter EHL.

Other aspects of this Bushfinger's handle's also help my grip: (1) its palm swell is thicker than the Bear Paw's; (2) the top of its handle seems to curve a little more downward at the butt end than that of the Bear Paw, so that there's less chance for the top edge to bite into my palm; (3) the Bushfinger's pommel is thicker, so there's more to grip; and (4) the underside of the Bushfinger's handle has more of a hook to it, which locks my pinky into place. It's a bit of a squeeze, but it works. The squeeze occurs both forward, because of the palm swell's forward location, and aft, because of the hook. It's possible that a Bear Paw handle that had more handle length aft of the palm swell would be very comfortable for someone with large hands. Overall, the Bear Paw's handle feels as if the front half, including palm swell, was shaped for large hands, while the handle section aft of the palm swell was shaped for smaller hands.
 
Last edited:
Thanks, Dogbone11,

A couple of us have taken to heart Phil's (Comprehensivist) advice to try to understand what makes a handle work for oneself. Getting my hands on a Bushfinger yesterday sure made me think about basic specifications differently. It has also really boosted my admiration for a knife that so many others have praised, but which I assumed wouldn't work for me. Not one of the 7 knives I have now, including 2 by Allen Surls, were even on my try-out list 18 months ago, when I first became aware of Fiddlebacks. If I'd placed a custom order somewhere for what I would have thought back then would be the "perfect knife," I'd never found these terrific seven.
 
Last edited:
In the first photo a Camp Nessmuk and a Bushfinger are aligned according to Effective Handle Length (distance from indentation near front of handle where index finger locks to the butt end of handle.) The Bushfinger's handle is 4.94" long and the Camp Nessmuk's handle is 5.34" long. Yet their EHL is essentially the same, even though the overall length of the Camp Nessmuk's handle is 4/10" longer than the Bushfinger's. On the Bushfinger my thumb hangs a half inch or so over the front of the handle. That's OK, but on the Camp Nessmuk my thumb lies entirely on the handle, which is better.


The second photo shows where the both handles end on my hand with a pinch grip (black line.) The red line shows where ideally the handles would stop in a pinch grip. The actual line works well enough, but it would even better if both handles were a little longer, as long as the red line.
 
Last edited:
Hey Jim,

Nice job on doing your own research to find out what handle designs (and lengths) work for you and why. I agree that the length of the bottom of the handle, particularly from the center of the index finger indentation back, has a lot more to do with handle fit and comfort in my hand that overall length does. I like that you have established a term for this measurement with "Effective Handle Length" or EHL. Makes perfect sense to me. Well done.

I think that you would like a thicker handled tapered 5/32" Woodsman if you can find one based on your comments on the Bushfinger.

Good luck with your search (and research!)

Phil
 
Bumping this to page 1! I wanted to show this thread to my buddy and had to go digging.
 
Threads like this have proven invaluable in trying to understand the various attributes of the different patterns, and their relative sizes. Thanks!

Please feel free to request shots of smaller groups of knives that you're specifically interested in.

Well, since you asked (even way back when), I'd love to see groups of smaller knives, those that fall under the length of the 7.x inchers-- such as the first 5 from the left here (with the 7.x" knives -- Patch, Hiking Buddy, EDC II-- providing a helpful reference point, if only because I have a Patch knife :o):

Runt
2 Finger Karda
Esquire
3 Finger Karda
EDKarda
Patch Knife
Hiking Buddy
EDCII



23627249193_62c67b67bb_h.jpg

23627267823_0176cdf98e_h.jpg


... Because I keep running into names and knives I wasn't aware of before:

Stubbymuk (middle, shown with Runt & Minnow)

2 ½” blade, 3 ½” handle, 6” oal

IMG_9693-vi.jpg

Minnow? And I've now seen a Mosquito as well. I know there are more out there, the bow-leggers and such-- yes?

I apologize if I've missed a thread dedicated to the smallest knives.... [Anyone have a link, if so?]

(But, if there isn't one yet, I'm heartily in favor of someone starting one.) :)

~ P.
 
Back
Top