Handles and Large Hands

[Kymedic45]

Ok so how does measuring you hand help to identify what would fit best? I'll have a look through all of mine in the morning! And see which fits the best! I prefer a thicker handle usually

And Thurin. DAnG

 

[Brendanruch]

I can't tell if I'm glad to have a "large" glove hand or jealous of your XXXL glove hands

 

[thurin]

Ok so how does measuring you hand help to identify what would fit best? I'll have a look through all of mine in the morning! And see which fits the best! I prefer a thicker handle usually

And Thurin. DAnG

I can't tell if I'm glad to have a "large" glove hand or jealous of your XXXL glove hands

For me, my hands go along with being 6'6" and size 14 shoes which mean I get to have a hard time finding clothes and shoes that fit and spend more for the ones that do.

 

[joarthur]

Ok so how does measuring you hand help to identify what would fit best? I'll have a look through all of mine in the morning! And see which fits the best! I prefer a thicker handle usually

And Thurin. DAnG

Good question. We're all trying to find knives that work for us. In-hand photos help, but cameras can distort perspective. Measurements, combined with photos, might make in-hand photos easier to compare with one's own hand.

I figure I've bought 21 Fiddlebacks (15 different models, some duplicates) and have 4 models I'm keeping (one duplicate for a total of 5). That's 4 knives bought to find one keeper. The return fees to dealers and proceeds from flea market prices and transaction costs add up something over $1000 just to get those 5 knives. That's got to change. I can't afford $200 per knife search fees, so I've stopped buying for now. Last couple of weeks I've stayed safe by swimming laps in a local pool during Fiddleback Friday sales. That seems fitting place to exercise.

Thurin, your in-hand shots with a Runt were helpful. Phillip, your's too. Whenever either of you posts an in-hand photo, I'll be able to get a better idea of how the knife in your photo might fit in my hand. From your photo, Thurin, I can tell that your palms are bigger (make that BIGGER) than mine, especially width. Our fingers may be about the same length. Phil (Comprehensivist), from in-hand photos you've posted in reviews, I don't think my palm is much wider than yours, nothing like Thurin's.

So what could we measure to aid evaluation of in-hand photos? Googling hand size, I came across handspan, which the NFL Combine includes in its stats for quarterback prospects. It's a well-defined, point-to-point measurement for holding a football. I don't know if handspan would be a useful measurement for us or not. Maybe for Fiddlebacks we should use a Runt as our unit of measure.

All your comments have helped me. I'm going to let my two Bear Paws go (because their handles are just a little too short) and then try to get my hands on a Hunter with a long handle and a Camp Knife. And I'm hoping that Allen's big Palmer might feel in my hand like an oversized Runt.

 

[bear71]

Can't go wrong with a Camp Knife or Hunter, the Woodsman is one of my faves and has a larger handle than most (5").

 

[thurin]

Some better in hand shots for you. The Runt ones were more of a joke.

Duke:

Camp:

Sneaky Pete:

EDCII:

Patch:

Hiking Buddy:

2FK:

Runt:

Bushfinger:

Hunter:

Woodsman:

12" Machete:

 

[joarthur]

Thanks, Thurin. Good photos. Any showing Bear Paw, BC Jr., Monarch, and/or BC Karda? Those are models I have. In-hand shots of models we have in common, along with your handspan next time you're near a ruler, would help me estimate how the Bushfinger and others I don't have might fit my hand.

 

[joarthur]

Can't go wrong with a Camp Knife or Hunter, the Woodsman is one of my faves and has a larger handle than most (5").

Thanks, bear 71. I'll add Woodsman to the list. Dithered over one at Blade HQ earlier this year that had a handle they measured at 5 3/8". If I see another one like that, I'll grab it and ask questions later.

 

[thurin]

My handspan in 10 3/4" - with my dislocated thumb it becomes 11" but I don't hold a knife like that

Some other measurements:
Hand Length (from tip of your longest finger to base of your palm): 8 1/2″
Hand Width (across the palm above the thumb): 4 1/2″
Hand Circumference (around your hand at the widest point excluding the thumb): 10″

Bear Paw:

 

[joarthur]

Thanks again Thurin. With the Bear Paw in your Big Human Paw, plus specs, I'll study your other in-hand pics. Big help, thanks again.

 

[Comprehensivist]

Here is a photo heavy look at five models that are good candidates for folks with larger hands and/or wider fingers.

Here are the five models I will cover here. Top to Bottom: Camp Knife, Woodsman, Duke, Camp Nessie and Terrasaur.




I find that handle length by itself is a little too one dimensional as a factor to determine if I a knife is going to work for me or not. The reason I say that is because it is typically measured along the top where the handle is longest. Since most handle designs taper inward (front and back) from the top to the bottom, I believe measurements and contours of the bottom of the handle are more significant factors that help me determine if the handle is a good fit or not. To better explain what I am talking about, I have broken down my categories in the photos below.

Hand Measurements:

I am going to start with photos of my various hand measurements for size reference. I describe my hands as somewhat average size, but I wear a large work glove.

Palm Width 4”



Wingspan 8-1/2”



Hand Length (Base of Palm to Longest Finger) 6-1/2”



Longest Finger 3”



Hand Circumference 10-3/16”




In Hand Photos:

Note: All of these are shown with my index finger centered in the bottom of the forward depression of the handle.

Camp Knife



Woodsman



Duke



Camp Nessie



Terrasaur




Top of Handle Length:

Note: Knives are shown in order of longest to shortest.

Camp Knife



Camp Nessie



Woodsman



Duke



Terrasaur




Bottom Side Length:

Notes: 1) Measurement taken from the forward edge where the curved guard area of the metal ends to the bottom back corner of the handle.
2) Knives are shown in order of longest to shortest.

Camp Knife



Woodsman



Terrasaur



Camp Nessie



Duke

 

[Comprehensivist]

Distance from Center of Forward Finger Depression to Back Edge:

Notes: 1) I consider this a key measurement because your index finger will naturally settle into the bottom of the forward finger depression in a standard grip. This will in turn determine how much room is left for the rest of your fingers before you run out of handle.
2) Knives are shown in order of longest to shortest.

Camp Knife



Woodsman



Terrasaur



Camp Nessie



Duke




Bottom Handle Contour Comments:

Notes: 1) This is a subjective view that I use to compare various handle shapes. I lay a straight edge from bottom back edge to bottom front edge (or bottom of palm swell as applicable) to determine how open or closed I perceive the handle to be in allowing forward or backward movement for other grips. 2) The knives are shown in no particular order as to preference.

The Camp Knife has a tall “m” shaped bottom contour. This is by design. On the forward end, the handle height is proportionate to match the tall height of the blade. The back end is flared to provide a positive stop when a rear grip is used for maximum chopping power. The middle section of the handle forms a shallow “m” which is very comfortable to me in the standard grip. The overall length of the handle is more than I need for my hand size, but it affords many grip options that make this a very versatile model.



The Camp Nessie has a tall “m” shaped bottom contour. The reason for that is the tall section on the forward end that is proportionate to the tall height of the blade. Apart from that, the rest of the handle forms a relatively shallow “m” shape that allows a lot of hand movement. The top curve of the handle fits the most comfortably in the palm of my hand out of these five knives. Looking at the Sapphire section of the handle, I like how the bottom contour closely matches the top curve. Because the palm swell is relatively small on this model, the first finger depression doesn’t seem as positionally limiting to me compared to other models with a larger height difference between the first finger depression and the palmswell.



The Woodsman has a medium height “m” shaped bottom contour that gives it an open feel for hand movement. The palm swell height is taller or more pronounced than it is on the similar sized Duke. I would describe it as having a little bit of a pregnant fish belly feel to me. Because of this prominent feature, I always know exactly where my hand is located on the handle.



The Duke also has a medium height “m” shaped bottom contour. The main difference vs. the Woodsman is that the palm swell is not as tall on the Duke. This difference makes the Duke feel a little more maneuverable in hand to me.



The Terrasaur has what I would describe as a wide shallow “u” shaped bottom contour. Because of minimal downward curve at the front and back ends of the handle the palm swell has a pregnant fish belly feel to it. The palm swell is positioned dead center in the handle. The lack of downward curves on both ends gives this handle a very open feel and allows a lot of freedom of movement.




Final Summary Comments:

First off, I really like each of these models otherwise I wouldn’t own them. Each of them has more handle length than I need given my average hand size. Even so, I appreciate the freedom of movement these larger handles provide.

In regard to the specific knives, the Camp Knife is in a size category of its own with a tall 6-1/2” blade and the longest handle of this group. This model is so well balanced and versatile that it should be an easy choice for anyone with XXL size hands and/or thick fingers.

The Camp Nessie is my favorite handle of these five knives. It has the longest and most comfortable handle of the 4” to 4-1/2” family of knives. It is another top recommendation from me for anyone with XXL size hands.

The Terrasaur might seem like a surprise recommendation from me for large handed folks. I think that open feel of the wide shallow “u” shaped bottom contour of the handle along with the center positioned palm swell will surprise you once you feel it. I’ll admit that the Bushcrafter still remains my favorite handle in the 4” category, but I think the Terrasaur may fit better for some larger hands.

The Woodsman & Duke are closely related in size and overall length. They are both solid options for Fiddleback fans with larger hands. I’ll admit that I go back and forth with which model I like better. To be specific, I prefer the handle of the Duke and the guard-less blade shape of the Woodsman. Hey Andy, will you please make me a "Dukesman"?

I hope that you found something here thought provoking. I encourage you to take some measurements on your own knives to understand what works best for you when you consider future purchases.

Phil

 

[joarthur]

Phil,

Because of the thought you put into your thorough post -- and no doubt time -- those of us with larger hands now have information that we can use to help us decide which of the many larger Fiddleback models to try next, especially when combined with Nathan's in-hand photos and measurements. And "combined" is the apt word for me, as I have the same palm width as you and about the same palm and finger length as Nathan. Somewhat logically then, I suppose, my handspan (tip of pinky to tip of thumb) is just about exactly midway between yours and Nathans's.

I've done the homework you suggest, measuring the handles I have, and studying your photos to discern what makes a handle work for me. In addition, using both yours and Nathan's hand measurements and photos, I now understand why I need longer handles. For both of you, your fingers square up on a handle much more than mine do. My long fingers and palm, combined with narrower palm width, cause my fingers to line up more sideways on a handle, thus requiring extra length.

So from now on it's fatter handles -- to make my fingers square up more. I'll be interested to see whether fatter handles thus reduce the length of handle I need. I do know that 5 1/3" works as a handle length, as that is the length of my Camp Nessmuk's.

Everything in your post was thought provoking. I hope that others will also benefit from what you and Nathan have contributed.

Thank you,

Jim

 

[Marl71]

I am new to all of this, and this has been a very useful thread.

I do not have large hands width-wise, but I do have long fingers. My palm is only about 3.375" wide, but I have a hand length of 8" with my longest finger at 3.5" and a handspan of 8.75". I have the same issue as Jim (at maybe 75% scale) with laying my fingers diagonally across the handle, and I find shorter handles cramped and uncomfortable especially if they flare out at the end and square off. Being pretty new to Fiddleback knives, I would guess that the Terrasaur would be a good knife for me as well with the big palm swell, extra length, and "open feel" at the end.

I really don't have the funds to test more than a handful of models, pun intended. So far I think my Kephart (from two Fridays ago) is pretty comfortable, but the handle is predictably thin in my hand. Similar to Jim's conclusion, a fat-handled version of a 4" model Fiddleback may be a good fit, but I have not seen many. Does anyone have similar hands to mine, or would anyone have any recommendations? I am also interested in thinner blade stock; does that significantly impact handle width, or are handles shaped independently of stock thickness?

Thanks,

Karl

 

[Fiddleback]

This thread has made me miss making Woodsmen.

 

[ncrockclimb]

This thread has made me miss making Woodsmen.

That is great. I hope that means u will make a few. I think they will sell quickly.

 

[Comprehensivist]

Phil,

Because of the thought you put into your thorough post -- and no doubt time -- those of us with larger hands now have information that we can use to help us decide which of the many larger Fiddleback models to try next, especially when combined with Nathan's in-hand photos and measurements. And "combined" is the apt word for me, as I have the same palm width as you and about the same palm and finger length as Nathan. Somewhat logically then, I suppose, my handspan (tip of pinky to tip of thumb) is just about exactly midway between yours and Nathans's.

I've done the homework you suggest, measuring the handles I have, and studying your photos to discern what makes a handle work for me. In addition, using both yours and Nathan's hand measurements and photos, I now understand why I need longer handles. For both of you, your fingers square up on a handle much more than mine do. My long fingers and palm, combined with narrower palm width, cause my fingers to line up more sideways on a handle, thus requiring extra length.

So from now on it's fatter handles -- to make my fingers square up more. I'll be interested to see whether fatter handles thus reduce the length of handle I need. I do know that 5 1/3" works as a handle length, as that is the length of my Camp Nessmuk's.

Everything in your post was thought provoking. I hope that others will also benefit from what you and Nathan have contributed.

Thank you,

Jim

Thank you for the nice comments Jim. Nathan has been my mentor and friend since my early days on this forum. He is a wealth of knowledge and experience especially from the perspective of someone with XXl size hands. I have learned a ton from him and just try my best to emulate his style.

I am new to all of this, and this has been a very useful thread.

I do not have large hands width-wise, but I do have long fingers. My palm is only about 3.375" wide, but I have a hand length of 8" with my longest finger at 3.5" and a handspan of 8.75". I have the same issue as Jim (at maybe 75% scale) with laying my fingers diagonally across the handle, and I find shorter handles cramped and uncomfortable especially if they flare out at the end and square off. Being pretty new to Fiddleback knives, I would guess that the Terrasaur would be a good knife for me as well with the big palm swell, extra length, and "open feel" at the end.

I really don't have the funds to test more than a handful of models, pun intended. So far I think my Kephart (from two Fridays ago) is pretty comfortable, but the handle is predictably thin in my hand. Similar to Jim's conclusion, a fat-handled version of a 4" model Fiddleback may be a good fit, but I have not seen many. Does anyone have similar hands to mine, or would anyone have any recommendations? I am also interested in thinner blade stock; does that significantly impact handle width, or are handles shaped independently of stock thickness?

Thanks,

Karl

Welcome to the forum Karl (Marl71)!

Your comments (as well as Jim’s) about long finger length and handles that don’t allow you to square up your grip adds a new dimension to the discussion. I agree that both of you will have to keep your eye out for thick handled versions of models that you like. They are out there, but you have to be persistent in looking for them.

In regard to your question about steel thickness vs. handle thickness, there are no hard and fast rules. Some folks believe that knives with SFT (“skeletonized full tangs”) with have thicker handles than those with tapered tangs. Maybe, maybe not. I have had very thick handles on thinner steels and thin handles on thicker steels. Since each knife is handmade, there is a lot of variation from knife to knife in the same model.

To make the point about handle variations, I had the opportunity to visit my friend Phillip (“M4Super90”) earlier this year to marry up both of our collections at the time. We had eighteen Bushcrafters between us that day. Every one was different. My tapered 1/8” Oreo burlap knife had the thinnest handle and my SFT 1/8” Blue Jean burlap knife was by far the thickest.

Here is the link to that thread if you are interested in reading more.

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php/1271357-Arizona-Knife-Show-and-BBQ

I have attached a couple of pictures from that thread to show what I am talking about.

4 Bushcrafters (pommel view)



2 thickest BC handles



4 Bushcrafters (top view)



Here is something else that might help you get up to speed quickly. There is a Sticky thread at the top of the page called “Your Reviews of Fiddleback Forge Knives.” Here is the link:

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php/1321664-Your-Reviews-of-Fiddleback-Forge-Knives

About half way down the first page, I posted links to past knife reviews and comparison threads. I suggest that you camp out there for a while and study what others have written before. It will definitely help you learn a lot quickly and make wiser buying decisions.

This thread has made me miss making Woodsmen.

That is good news Andy about you wanting to make more Woodsmen. There seems to be a lot of pent up demand for these right now.

If you decide to make a “Dukesman”, I’ll do a full review for you on the first one!

Phil

 

[joarthur]

This discussion continues to be very helpful to me. And Karl, since I'm about a year ahead of you on Fiddlebacks, I'm going to post some photos, though it may be later this week, as my computer is down.

Chief lesson is, if your hand shape is in any way unusual, finding the right Fiddlebacks on a budget can be a challenge. For starters, in addition to the reviews that Phil suggests you read, take a look at the Fiddleback pages at BladeHQ. As far as I know, that Fiddleback dealer is the only one that includes palmswell thickness in their specifications. They don't often get shipments to sell, but their site includes a backlog of 30 or so handmade Fiddlebacks that they have sold, over what period of time I don't know. Just having them include palmswell thickness makes them my first stop whenever I'm looking for a knife. Until recently the two thickest handles on their list were ones I bought and which have become basic users for me -- the BC Jr. (1/8 SFT) and, even a tad thicker, the rattlesnake Toboggan (5/32 tapered tang). Since then they've sold a really thick Duke, SFT tang 3/16. They also list a sold Woodsman 3/16 tapered tang with a handle 5.375" long, though it's handle thickness is normal thickness, narrower enough compared to either the Jr or the Toboggan to make a difference in feel, I would think.

If you see a knife any place else that interests you -- Fiddleback Fridays, flea market, another dealer -- ask them for dimensions. Of course first you have to know what knife measurements are important for your hand shape. That's where Phil, Nathan, and others more knowledgeable than you or I have been helping on this thread.

Welcome to the search. Fiddlebacks are worth the effort.

 

[Marl71]

...

Welcome to the forum Karl (Marl71)!

Your comments (as well as Jim’s) about long finger length and handles that don’t allow you to square up your grip adds a new dimension to the discussion. I agree that both of you will have to keep your eye out for thick handled versions of models that you like. They are out there, but you have to be persistent in looking for them.

In regard to your question about steel thickness vs. handle thickness, there are no hard and fast rules. Some folks believe that knives with SFT (“skeletonized full tangs”) with have thicker handles than those with tapered tangs. Maybe, maybe not. I have had very thick handles on thinner steels and thin handles on thicker steels. Since each knife is handmade, there is a lot of variation from knife to knife in the same model.

To make the point about handle variations, I had the opportunity to visit my friend Phillip (“M4Super90”) earlier this year to marry up both of our collections at the time. We had eighteen Bushcrafters between us that day. Every one was different. My tapered 1/8” Oreo burlap knife had the thinnest handle and my SFT 1/8” Blue Jean burlap knife was by far the thickest.

Here is the link to that thread if you are interested in reading more.

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php/1271357-Arizona-Knife-Show-and-BBQ

...

Here is something else that might help you get up to speed quickly. There is a Sticky thread at the top of the page called “Your Reviews of Fiddleback Forge Knives.” Here is the link:

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php/1321664-Your-Reviews-of-Fiddleback-Forge-Knives

About half way down the first page, I posted links to past knife reviews and comparison threads. I suggest that you camp out there for a while and study what others have written before. It will definitely help you learn a lot quickly and make wiser buying decisions.

...

Phil

This discussion continues to be very helpful to me. And Karl, since I'm about a year ahead of you on Fiddlebacks, I'm going to post some photos, though it may be later this week, as my computer is down.

Chief lesson is, if your hand shape is in any way unusual, finding the right Fiddlebacks on a budget can be a challenge. For starters, in addition to the reviews that Phil suggests you read, take a look at the Fiddleback pages at BladeHQ. As far as I know, that Fiddleback dealer is the only one that includes palmswell thickness in their specifications. They don't often get shipments to sell, but their site includes a backlog of 30 or so handmade Fiddlebacks that they have sold, over what period of time I don't know. Just having them include palmswell thickness makes them my first stop whenever I'm looking for a knife. Until recently the two thickest handles on their list were ones I bought and which have become basic users for me -- the BC Jr. (1/8 SFT) and, even a tad thicker, the rattlesnake Toboggan (5/32 tapered tang). Since then they've sold a really thick Duke, SFT tang 3/16. They also list a sold Woodsman 3/16 tapered tang with a handle 5.375" long, though it's handle thickness is normal thickness, narrower enough compared to either the Jr or the Toboggan to make a difference in feel, I would think.

If you see a knife any place else that interests you -- Fiddleback Fridays, flea market, another dealer -- ask them for dimensions. Of course first you have to know what knife measurements are important for your hand shape. That's where Phil, Nathan, and others more knowledgeable than you or I have been helping on this thread.

Welcome to the search. Fiddlebacks are worth the effort.

Thank you both for such a warm welcome! I have already been doing some research in the knife reviews thread, and I ended up choosing the Kephart (mostly) based on the review by Mistwalker. The heterogeneity in proportions is definitely an obstacle, but it is also one of the best things about these knives and is what drew me to Fiddleback Forge in the first place. However, having a pretty limited knife budget at the moment makes it nerve-wracking to buy knives without having a clear idea of actual size.

Thanks Jim for the tip about palm swell thickness measurements on BladeHQ. That got me thinking about ways to estimate handle circumference, which is really the dimension we would like to know. If you know the width and height of the handle, you can roughly estimate it as the circumference of an ellipse with those axes. Here is a quick way to do that:

https://www.google.com/webhp?source...s_th=1&ie=UTF-8#q=circumference of an ellipse

Getting the width and height numbers can be tough, but I have a few ideas. Presumably handle height at the palm swell is less variable than handle width for a particular model. Is that correct? If so, you only need to figure out one number, handle width. You can get the handle width 1) rarely from the website, 2) by asking someone to measure it, 3) as a ratio to the stock thickness, but this works best if it is SFT and you have a square picture of the knife from above. Lots of estimating here, but even if you are off by 0.1 inches it only changes the predicted circumference about 0.25 inches, or ~5%.

How do you know what handle circumference fits your hand? You could measure it on a knife that already fits well. In my case, I have to again estimate. If I make an empty fist like I am holding a knife, the distance between the tip of my middle finger and the spot where it touches my palm is 5.5". That is a handle roughly 1 by 0.75 inches.

I will have some time this weekend to test this out. Plus lanky hand pictures if I can.

 

[Comprehensivist]

Karl,

You are on the right track with your observation that circumference at palm swell is another key indicator how well a handle will fit your hand once you know your ideal number.

I use the Fiddleback twine to measure circumference by wrapping it around the largest part of the palm swell and marking the spot where the twine crosses the starting point. The I straighten the string and measure the distance from the starting point to the mark on the twine to determine circumference.



I started including the palm swell circumference measurement to my posts in the "Models, Tang Types, Steel Thicknesses & Weights” thread exactly a year ago. Here is a link to that thread in case you have not looked at it. There is a lot of detailed info there contributed by various members.

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/s...hts/page4?highlight=Models,+Tang+Types,+Steel

It will be interesting to try your elliptical circumference formula against my twine measurements to see how they correlate on a few knives.

Please keep us posted on what you figure out works best for you.

Phil