ESEE Blade Thickness -- Case Solved!

LightGuy

LightGuy

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Messages
1,097
[EDIT]: Bottom line is, I'm an idiot. I didn't measure the thickness from the handle portion of the knife, where it is indeed 3/16" thick. Sorry for the stupidity, and thanks for setting me straight!

So I sold a custom 6+" fixed blade that I used as my main camp knife, and I needed something to replace it. It was 3/16" thick, which really made it nice for botoning - one of my major uses of that knife, and is the thinnest blade I want to use for that activity.

I've heard great things about ESEE blades, and the ESEE 6 fit the bill both in steel type (carbon), length, and thickness. These are advertised at dealer's websites to be .188" (3/16") thick. The ESEE website confirms this - they list the thickness as "maximum thickness .188".

Well, I just purchased a brand new ESEE 6 and I can tell you it is most definitely not 3/16" thick. It is precisely 5/32" thick at the very thickest point at the top of the spine, especially when you consider the blade coating. I also purchased the Junglas, and it is precisely 3/16" thick, so they are most definitely using two different thicknesses of blade stock for these two knives.

So why not advertise the ESEE 6 at the real thickness? Marketing hype? Is the 3/16" thickness going to make it sound stronger to potential buyers? If you are going to intentionally use 5/32" steel, don't advertise it as .188" maximum thickness... the ESEE 4 and Laser Strike are advertised the same way, but I don't have those knives so I'm not sure if it is accurate on those or not.

I had a specific purpose for purchasing a 3/16" thick blade, and thought I could trust the specs as this was a reputable company.

Very nice quality, well built knives, but not happy I didn't get what I paid for...........

8501346786_5d3f971311_c.jpg


ESEE 6 (left) / Junglas (right)

8501346884_fb07450d68_z.jpg


Junglas

8500239293_b7f6051e47_c.jpg


ESEE 6

8501346924_79a0940110_c.jpg
 
Last edited:
I was just looking at Esee"s at my local knife shop. It looked to me like the thickness depended on the blade length. the longer the blade, the thicker it was. I got a Tops because it was much thicker. That is why I don't like mail order, but I'm lucky to have an excellent knife store with a huge selection within 50 miles
 
Not likely going to get an official explanation here, ESEE doesn't have a forum here.
 
Esav Benyamin said:
Not likely going to get an official explanation here, ESEE doesn't have a forum here.
Click to expand...
I know, I was very surprised to see that. I was actually going to post this in that subform, but I saw that it had been closed. Very surprising that they didn't want to maintain a presence in the largest U.S. knife community...
 
It's a 1/32" difference. Maybe they only specify to 1/16" precision and they round up.
 
dogstar said:
It's a 1/32" difference. Maybe they only specify to 1/16" precision and they round up.
Click to expand...
If you had 2 large knives - one of 3/16" thickness and one of 5/32" thickness, you would notice a distinct difference in the width, weight, and heft of the knife. As soon as I got the ESEE 6 and pulled it out of the sheath, it was obviously thinner to me since I was so used to a similar sized blade that was actually 3/16" thick. Did you look at the Junglas and ESEE 6 in the side by side pic above? The difference is most definitely not insignificant.

If they are rounding up, why not do the same with the Junglas and call it 7/32"? No, they are intentionally using 5/32" stock on the smaller knives and calling it 3/16".
 
LightGuy, I understand you. I'm just trying to suggest a reason for why ESEE called it 3/16" and not 5/32".

I just looked at the ESEE website, the 6 is specified to be 0.188" thick. If they are using decimals, and not fractions, they should be more precise. 5/32 is 0.156, and they should use that. Maybe you should contact them and explain your beef. They might correct the spec.
 
KuRUpTD said:
Sell them if you're not happy.
Click to expand...
Cool, I wasn't sure I had that option. Thanks for the advice!

Obviously I will be fine...that's not what this thread is about. For knife manufacturer that is on top of the production knife food chain, I expected to at minimum get a knife that matches the advertised specs. I've seen knife enthusiasts on this forum complain because the font on a maker's mark didn't look "clean" because of the font used...I think this is a little more material, and I'd like the next guy getting ready to spend $120+ on a production 1095 knife to know what he's actually getting. If that's ok with you that is...


dogstar said:
LightGuy, I understand you. I'm just trying to suggest a reason for why ESEE called it 3/16" and not 5/32".

I just looked at the ESEE website, the 6 is specified to be 0.188" thick. If they are using decimals, and not fractions, they should be more precise. 5/32 is 0.156, and they should use that. Maybe you should contact them and explain your beef. They might correct the spec.
Click to expand...

Thanks - I'm sure they are aware that is incorrect, but I took your advice and sent them an email about this. I sent it to Jeff Randall and Mike Perrin. I will actually be curious to see if they are going to be willing to update the spec on their website. I'll post the response/actions back to this thread.

At minimum, I wanted to make my fellow knife enthusiasts aware of the discrepancy so they can make an informed decision in the meantime. I wish I had known before I made my purchase.
 
Last edited:
Apophis said:
I just measured my RC-4, it's 3/16" on the dot. Don't have a 6.
Click to expand...

Interesting.. how old is it? I'm wondering if they started out at 3/16", and moved to 5/32" at some point and just didn't go back and update the website. I'd be surprised if the most current 6" ESEE 6 would be 5/32" but the 4" ESEE 4 would continue to be made in 3/16". And I'm sure they wouldn't bounce back and forth from one size to the other.
 
Bear Claw Chris Lappe said:
That's a little strong of an accusation based on measuring 1 knife.
Click to expand...

Very good point - I have to agree with you. It could be that only my knife is out of spec. Now, if I was ESEE, I would rather people think that they moved to a thinner blade stock on purpose than to think there was that much variance from knife to knife. If that's the case, I wouldn't be surprised if you got a blade with a rockwell hardness of 60 and I got a 55..
 
Last edited:
Mine is a few years old for sure. I got it a few months before they did the name change to ESEE. I doubt they would have changed their specs without updating the information anywhere though. Just speculating, but I wonder if there was some kind of production mix-up and a batch of 6's were produced out of Izula stock, which is .156"... You've got a rare collector's item! -lol, just kidding, hopefully if you contact ESEE they will make it right for you.
 
The measurement on their website being a typo makes a lot more sense as a reasonable explanation for your experience vs. assuming that ESEE is intentionally falsifying details on their website in order to deceive their customers. It'd be like selling a 3" knife as 3.5" and expecting no one to notice... or for sales to increase as a result.
 
I just ordered a new one. Actually it was just the blade blank as I ordered separate Midnight Tiger G10 scales for it. I just measured mine with a set of calipers. It's starts out at .188 just above the scale, tapers to .170 past the jimping, and then to .156 near the tip just before the upsweep.
 
Why not just go to their own home forum and ask the question and post back here when you get a reply?
 
Ah, the website just lists "Maximum thickness". So if it's .188" anywhere along the blade that's fair.
 
rycen said:
Why not just go to their own home forum and ask the question and post back here when you get a reply?
Click to expand...

I actually went right to the source. I took the advice of Dogstar and emailed them directly. But as ESEE knives are recommended in virtually every "help me decide thread", this thread is informational for anyone looking for a beefy 6" camping blade. Assuming mine isn't a mistake, this is something this community just needs to be aware of at a minimum. It may not be an issue for most, but personally I would have liked to have known.
 
Brasso3 said:
I just ordered a new one. Actually it was just the blade blank as I ordered separate Midnight Tiger G10 scales for it. I just measured mine with a set of calipers. It's starts out at .188 just above the scale, tapers to .170 past the jimping, and then to .156 near the tip just before the upsweep.
Click to expand...

Ok Brasso3, you just exposed me for the idiot that I apparently am....I just measured mine at the spine in the handle area, and it is the same - .188". as it moves forward on the knife beyond the handle area, the spine does narrow to 5/32". I would still prefer the full thickness across most of the spine for botonning, but it is what it is - and it is most definitely NOT mis-stated specs.

Case solved, closed. Thanks for enlightening me!

Let the thrashing ensue.....[and updating thread title]
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top