Now I'm thread hi-jacking, but I'll go through this piece by piece:
... It's definitely boxy but the corners fit into the joints of my fingers and this is the first knife that has the indentation for a thumb in the scales that actually feels comfortable on my thumb (and fits). I think a simple fix is what a couple of guys have done: sanding the edges a little. It reminded me of the size/boxiness of a BHK Bushcrafter and I know that larger design helps with fatigue for prolonged use over a thinner handle.
When I look at fat/skinny parts of a handle for me it breaks down like this:
Fat heel/Skinny up top= more power & less control for fine cutting/carving task
Skinny heel/Fat up top= more control for cutting/carving & less power
Again this is just my opinion and experience... I'm thinking of an axe handle or machete when I picture the larger heel and of a carving knife when I picture the top of the handle being larger.
I think your assessment of fat/skinny heel/top is
exactly backwards, and the BM162 agrees with me. The reason for tapering the handle thickness at the guard is to provide
more precise control for fine cutting (e.g. cutting soft tissue or very straight lines) by providing a flat wide+thin surface for pinching with the thumb and index or middle fingers as close to the cutting-portion of the blade as possible without interfering in the cut itself. This is
precisely why surgeon scalpels and scissors (which i have a LOT of experience with) and even box-cutters are so designed.
For fine controlled cutting, you should be using much
LESS power, and that doesn't require a thick handle for support. For heavy chopping you need more power (and a thicker handle to provide the support) but that also translates to less control of the cut. More power also translates to higher rate of fatigue.
The BM162 tapers at the guard and even provides the thumb-grooves for pinch-grip like the TOPS BOB (unnecessary, but whatever), BUT it is SO fat immediately behind the taper that pinching there makes little sense. You will instead pinch the blade itself to give you the wide flat surface to control the cut, but meanwhile your middle-finger rests under the guard while trying to grip the poorly located golf-ball-like handle-swell which is useless in contributing leverage to twist/turn the blade.
Regarding the heel, a laterally-flared heel (as on the BM162 & Bravo 1) prevents the blade from slipping forward out of the hand
when swung forward as to chop, a
highly unlikely scenario for any of these knives given their size, unlike that of an axe or the pictured machete (golok). Such flaring is also much less effective than a significant bird's beak, i.e. dropped pommel, which the golok also illustrates rather dramatically. When swung forward, the dropped pommel catches the pinky, which is supported by the rest of the hand, and it cannot slide or rotate out. An even better design for such retention is to taper the handle from a wide pommel to a narrower guard (as seen on the TOPS BOB) as this matches the shape of the hand when gripping. If the lower portion of thee handle is NOT wider than the upper portion, then the lower portion of the user's hand will be unable to contribute to leverage and control of the blade..
Just thinking out loud here, but I also took some measurements and pics for you guys... just something "quick and dirty" but I think it shows some of the differences well:
...
From the top:
Ontario SK5
Bark River Knives Bravo 1
Blind Horse Knives Bushcrafter
Benchmade Bushcrafter 162
TOPS B.O.B
Becker BK15
The thin-ness at the top of the BK15 drives me crazy and I feel like I'm trying to make a tight fist to hold it... I'd use this knife for cutting rope or anything I'd just need some power for. The handle on the BOB is great and I like the length of it, like I mentioned before the SK5's scales are "wrong" from first glance... no palm swell, block and straight but once I handled it I think it's great and it just "works"...
Here's a shot of the side profile... another thing I meant to bring up was the actual circumference vs the boxy look of the 162 scales, so I took a piece of painters tape and wrapped each handle marking the exact spot where they overlap. Using a piece of thread would've been more "scientific" because the tape is wide and it catches on any profile but hopefully this is good enough.
Here's a close-up of the measurements and how they compare on these three knives:
Circumference at the guard (and of the handle overall) is certainly important, but of far greater import is the
ratio of handle
width:height. Of the knives pictured, the TOPS BOB presents the lowest ration, best handle for control. From a review I wrote:
...In essence, this is a measure of circularity. Why do these values matter? In cold, wet, or slippery conditions, proper indexing and manipulation of a cutting tool (i.e. keeping the edge cutting in the direction intended) can become challenging. A tool in which the handle is close to equal width & height is difficult to index properly at the outset, and also has a tendency to twist in hand or not twist as desired unless a very firm grip is maintained. As the ratio of width:height reduces, ease of manipulation increases, allowing for a lighter, more nimble grip, ease of use with gloves, etc. Surgeons' scalpels have flat handles (width:height) to maximize control at the finger-tips. A nearly circular and highly polished handle make the Bravo 1 harder to control and prevent dangerous slipping & twisting unless held with a very tight grip. ... The Swamp Rat HRLM ... 0.554 in the swell and 0.735 in the index groove, much easier to manipulate.
Here is a quick video I made about some handle-designs:
[video=youtube;welPk493sPM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=welPk493sPM[/video]
... when he mentions that he likes knives to have a straight line from pommel to tip (think BK2/KaBar) I was turned off. If I was a caveman I'd be ok with the straight stick design but the more I have to bend my fist/wrist forward to cut something flat in front of me.... or the straighter a knife is the less I like it. He definitely has a point about the sheath though... the leather is very thin and the belt-loop thingy is sewn on slightly crooked so the blade side is touching you and the handle is out away from the body.
About the flat-spine handles, you are
absolutely correct.
In a closed grip, the hand is NOT straight. Any handle which does not match the vertical contouring of the pocket of the hand (spine-to-belly on a knife) will be MUCH less comfortable, much more likely to induce blistering, much more fatiguing. This is even the case on pencils and scalpels! Now, many knives present vertical contouring along the belly but
not the spine - Becker BK16, Ontario SK5, BRKT Bravo 1, Survive! GSO-4.1. I will never buy the Ontario Blackbird because the handle is so thoughtless. Compare any of these to the Swamp Rat RatManDu or HRLM or the bussekin "mudder" handles (image by
=MAX=):
The contouring of these knives allow them to "melt" into the hand, requiring very little effort to grip and control the blade.
The BM162 exceeds the Bravo 1 contouring along the spine, dropping/curving to the pommel to better fit the pocket and provide handle to the lower portion of the hand for leverage which the Bravo 1 fails to do unless gripped
very tight (which is required on the BRKT anyway due to how round and slick the handle is).
But that is vertical contouring. The lateral swelling in the BM162 pommel and guard area is positioned completely contrary to the shape of the pocket in the human hand, which is why it concerns me...
Regarding the sheath, it's
intended to place the handle further from the body just like handgun holsters - quick on the draw
. Unfortunately, that means the handle can be obnoxious as it snags on stuff and generally gets in the way. I think "fast-draw" scenarios for the knife are pretty unlikely anyway
So there's another contribution to derailment or maintenance of the thread. Thanks for the reply,
Godspeed!
