is 1/4 inch necessary?

food prep knives are think not for sharper cut but due too weight and allow thin slices not neccassary sharper edge. I am sure a good fighter is sharper, unless high japeese knife or similar, then my chicago hollow ground.

thickness is also from lazy knife makers who do not want too remove steel - lot blanks are heat treated before hand.

I listen too video from a $200 survival knife spam ad, the maker said it worked out better that way - o ya?

how many different types of heat treat did you try?

also they where using the latest fancy alloy from CPM, i have a lot respect for CPM, but not for knife makers where the easy method is the best method.

then again lets take you tube video craze, lets get ron hood knife heat it, plunge it in water, heat up then repeat, try to break it! no one would watch the video if we "did not break it" - we leave out the reverse heat treating.

thin or thick depends on the maker, better and more skilled the maker, the larger the r&d, the older the technolgy shoud say the more mature there skill and technolgy - better your trust the knife is made too its optimum thickness.

skill does not equal technolgy but go hand in hand - skilled samuri maker from 400 year old shop will make a think sharp blade. it would make good kitchen knife if cut down or good survival knife as was used in wwii

since orginal thread maker is happy - i leave this complex subject alon
thickness is not function of intended use it just is not that simple
 
Smokinape said:
That 1/4" could be the only thing between you and death if SHTF...
Click to expand...
I have a few 3/16 blades that I would have no problem taking to Zombie Apocalypse when TSHTF. If it was an invasion of wooden zombies, sure, I'll take the quarter inch chopper. But until that happens, a "hard use" 3/16, or thinner, works fine for me.
 
add 1/16 more knowledge with your skill set and the thicker blades are not needed.
 
Thicker knives are usually only necessary in one of the two situations:

1) You're going to be prying with it

2) You need to meet a certain amount of mass (usually for a chopper) but ALSO have to constrain the blade dimensions to a particular profile, so widening the blade (instead of thickening it) isn't possible or practical.

For a chopper it's better to put mass behind your edge so that your sectional blade volume is small and less energy is lost through matter displacement during the cut. The greater your volume the greater volume must be displaced. Say you're building a fence and you have 12 lengths. You can arrange them in a square that's 3x3 or in a rectangle that's 2x4. The 3x3 has the larger internal volume and the 2x4 a smaller one. If you were to apply the same concept to blade cross sections (and sticking with the same "fence numbers" for cross comparison simplicity) the 3x3 would be heavier but lose more energy to matter displacement because it would have to push a volume of 9 out of the way at a rate of 3 units per one unit of target penetration. The 2x4 (presuming the 2 dimension was the edge) it would only have to displace a total volume of 8 at a rate of only 2 units per one unit of penetration. This is a grand oversimplification of the principle but I find it an effective one.
 
I do appreciate belly depth and a thin spine for versatility- that is if you have a high grind with a strong 2ndary edge, say convex. This is for blades that i use often.
 
A convex is not necessarily stronger than a conventional V edge and if it is it'll have a broader edge angle. Thicker edge = stronger, but also less effective of a cutter. For equal edge angle and stock thickness a convex is actually thinner, with a greater visual "width" to the bevel when viewed in profile.
 
I have both the BK2 and the RD4. They are both 1/4" pry bars and about the same overall. However, the RD4 has a full flat grind which to me makes more sense in a big knife. The 5160 seems to hold an edge better.
 
I recently asked the maker of this knife:
2013-04-20143928_zps2099de2c.jpg


Why so thick (I think this is close to 1/2" or so)?

He said....because that way I can say I've done the thickest.....and it's fun.

Basically....because he could. There's no other real reason. And a 1/4 inch isn't all that much when the blade is truly big.
 
Pretty much, hence my question to him. I was wondering if he had some special reason for it. But basically his answer was "because I wanted to" It was a fairly decent knife though.

2013-04-20144011_zpsedbf6b6d.jpg
2013-04-20143938_zpsaafc0af3.jpg
 
Smokinape said:
That 1/4" could be the only thing between you and death if SHTF...
Click to expand...

People survived much MUCH harsher conditions than you or I will ever see with very thin knives of questionable quality. IMO if you are at the point where needing an indestructible knife is somehow the difference between life and death, you are probably in a situation so hostile to human life that you have no hope of survival anyways. That, or you just should have practiced your survival skills a little more before entering this situation...

There are a bunch of things infinitely more important than having a ridiculous blade when it comes to survival, something most knife nuts with "survival" knives often remain clueless and unpracticed with.

Not knocking you if you simply like ridiculously thick knives, we all have different tastes and that's cool, I just think these apocalypse fantasies people have where they need to chop through armored tanks to survive somehow are a bit... entertaining.
 
I like thicker blades when I have a chopper and don't want a broad blade. More mass = better chopper. That mass doesn't always need to come from a blade being thick though. It can just be wide. Condor bolo is an example of what I mean. It chops as well as a lot of if not better than 3/16 or 1/4 knives, but it's only 1/8 or so. It has a broader blade near the tip for more mass.
 
TheGame said:
I like thicker blades when I have a chopper and don't want a broad blade. More mass = better chopper. That mass doesn't always need to come from a blade being thick though. It can just be wide. Condor bolo is an example of what I mean. It chops as well as a lot of if not better than 3/16 or 1/4 knives, but it's only 1/8 or so. It has a broader blade near the tip for more mass.
Click to expand...

Just bear in mind that more mass doesn't ALWAYS mean a better chopper! Since force = mass x velocity, you have to remember that you have to provide acceleration to that blade in order to achieve a given velocity at time of impact. Mass distribution will play a role in this, but total mass is likewise a factor. Too much mass and you simply can't realistically reach desired velocity with that short a span of travel. So you can potentially have a lighter blade delivers greater force to the target!
 
FortyTwoBlades said:
Just bear in mind that more mass doesn't ALWAYS mean a better chopper! Since force = mass x velocity, you have to remember that you have to provide acceleration to that blade in order to achieve a given velocity at time of impact. Mass distribution will play a role in this, but total mass is likewise a factor. Too much mass and you simply can't realistically reach desired velocity with that short a span of travel. So you can potentially have a lighter blade delivers greater force to the target!
Click to expand...

Being pedantic, force is mass times acceleration. Mass times velocity is momentum. Of course the rest is correct. The more acceleration you provide to an object the more force will be delivered to the target. For kinetic energy E(k)=1/2mv^2 so doubling the mass only doubles the energy, doubling the velocity quadruples the energy.

Of course then we run into the limits of biomechanics, and how fast can you move a blade anyway. If you're moving the blade as fast as you possibly can, then increasing the mass will deliver more energy, but if reducing the mass will allow you to move faster it's better to drop the mass.
 
FortyTwoBlades said:
Just bear in mind that more mass doesn't ALWAYS mean a better chopper! Since force = mass x velocity, you have to remember that you have to provide acceleration to that blade in order to achieve a given velocity at time of impact. Mass distribution will play a role in this, but total mass is likewise a factor. Too much mass and you simply can't realistically reach desired velocity with that short a span of travel. So you can potentially have a lighter blade delivers greater force to the target!
Click to expand...

True. I was just saying the more mass usually means it will chop better, which with the knives I buy, has been true. Of course more mass can be a negative, too. Although it has yet to be for myself. :)
 
I have broke a few choppers in my day. Most were 1/8" but one was 3/16".

I can swing a blade like a mad man though. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top