beera said:
1-Hollow ground blades. I think they are mainly meant to make the knife look better for people who don't know knives. Functionally, they are a bad idea. (Love flat)
2-Thumb studs: They just stick out. Very bad cosmetically. (love opening holes whatever shape)
3-G10: very durable but looks cheep. Look at Spyderco's manix, Military, para, They all look the same. Its takes away from the charachter of the knife.
plastic: Because its plastic
4- recurve blades: Hard to sharpen with no significant function.
All of this is in my opinion of course.
What about you guys?
I disagree. Let me explain why.
1) I like flat ground blades, but I also like hollow ground blades because I feel they are better for shallow slicing as the front part of the blade is thinner compared to a flat ground blade of the same thickness. It's not just for looks, it has a very important functional benefit (and also a downside, which is why flat and hollow both exist).
2) I prefer thumbstuds as I find them easier to flick and better looking. They can catch your pocket, but that is their downside and that is why holes also exist. I can use holes just fine, even for flicking, and I think they can look cool, but I generally prefer the looks and feel of a thumbstud.
3) I don't think G-10 is as classy and bird's eye maple, but I think it looks very rugged and feels great. What I like about G-10 is that you can abuse the poop out of it with dirty, inky hands, and it still looks great. It may show some wear, but the wear looks good on it. I don't think it looks cheap unless it is too smooth, such as on the AFCK or 710. I do think it looks cheap and plastic-like on those knives. But I like Spyderco's, Al Mar's, Strider's, and Emerson's G-10. I am not a big FRN fan, but it is inexpensive and works very well.
4) Recurves are great slicers. Period. I usually sharpen by hand using a diamond taper, so the recurve is not a sharpening issue at all. They are also not any harder on a sharpening system like the Sharpmaker.
I am not saying you are wrong, just giving my opinion which is contrary to yours.
Not some of my own rants.
I dislike:
Tantos. That is not to say I hate tantos or will never buy one. I already own two and am planning on buying a Firetac tanto. They are just not my favorite and I feel they look bad on most (but not all) knives. I also feel they tend to be too much about looks instead of function, but they do have their uses. I'll put it this way: I do like tantos, but I dislike all of the hype over them since they are generally very ugly and very poor in terms of actual performance. See my rant #3 to see why. I think tantos can look good and classy, and can perform well for certain purposes, but in general I feel they are just a part of tactical "extreme conditions" and SD hype. Mall ninja stuff.
Cold Steel. I just find all of their knives ugly. Their expensive knives look high-end, but their designs make me vomit. Their cheap knives are good for the money, but look like swap meet junk. And I hate their promotion style.
Tactical advertising. I like tactical knives. Hell, they are my favorite type. I like big, heavy duty, modern folders like the Manix, SERE, SMF, Commander, Lone Wolf Harsey, MPC etc etc etc. But I like them because they are strong, beefy folders that perform well. I hate all of the "our knives are used in the field by real operators under extreme conditions" crap. You know what knives get used for in the field? Opening MREs. You know what cops use them for? Cutting seat belts. You know what's a better SD option than any knife? A gun. A can of mace. A stun gun. A baton. Now, there are exceptions of course. I know knives do get used in real "tactical" situations and for SD, but most of the time all of these knives get used in the field to do things no more mundane than civilians do at work. Knife ads shouldn't be centered on tactical wannabe bullcrap so that soilders can feel like SEALs and civilians can feel like soldiers. I know the good tactical makers can back it up, but I'd rather them make a strong knife that just looks like a tool, rather than trying to look like a piece of military equipment. I don't need my MRE-opening tool to match my tank, thanks. And if I am trying to open an MRE, I am probably not dodging gunfire at the moment and the conditions are no more extreme than my kitchen at home.
No disrespect meant to military personel, LEOs, rescue workers, or the designers of tactical knives. I consider the likes of Strider and Emerson to be some of my favorite brands and knives and prefer them to fancy pants knives that aren't as good of users (though I love fancy pants knives, too). I'd just prefer a less "OMG look at what a SEAL Ranger Ninja SAS Storm Trooper I am!" look. The same goes for Samurai-wannabe knives like Steve Corkum is known for. Yeah, I love them, but I think the look is a little goofy.
Also, I suppose my problem is more with the marketing claims than the looks. I like how Emerson's look, for example. I just don't like the "our knives will not fail in extreme conditions when your life depends on it." I know they really do get used by "operators", and that their lives are at risk, but I think they are the minority of knife knuts, and in general, even soldiers only use knives for things no more extreme than I do at work. My life isn't in danger when I need to cut some bundle strap, and I don't think ninjas will jump out at me. I just want a very strong knife that I know will handle everything I will need it for, so that I don't have to worry about it. I wish marketing was aimed more at me than mall ninjas and the very rare true "operator".
Keep in mind I love pretty much all knives. Even cheap pieces of crap. I just like knives. So these are just things I am less in love with.
I think I'll go ahead and stick with my Remington 1100 for a couple more years.
