Kershaw vs. Spyderco

H

hardkiss

Joined
Dec 30, 2004
Messages
94
i am wanting to purchase a Kershaw to see for myself how it feels and stands up to Spyderco..i have pondered this for hours now and weird to say i fell like i am cheating..is the action of their product similar?? i am interested in getting the Splinter w.wood finish..aus 8 liner lock..no hole :( i don't know where else to get input..is there anyone out there who can help..
 
I have (well its AWOL) a leek. It did not compare to my calypso Jr in usability. It is however a nice knife. Kershaw is a quality company. They use lower quality steels, but you do get some interesting features. Keep in mind that they have collaborated, so it would take the most devoted Spyderco Collector to reject a kershaw. IMO, I buy knives I like and dont have problems with "cheating" on a certain brand. However I seem to buy primarily spyderco knives, as to me they always seem like a better option.

Anyhow, go for it, and if you want a hole, grab a spyker (though no assisted opening)
 
Scratch the urge! A couple of years ago I bought 2 Schrades just to compare them to Buck. I learned some stuff and it was fun too.
 
I've had several Kershaws that I liked just fine. The company has a great cust. service dept. and the knives feel pretty good in the hand with the exception of the very small ones.

For me Spyderco is the clear choice though for two reasons. One they are almost always the sharpest NIB knives I've ever bought and Two, they come with blades made of premium steel as the rule instead of the exception. Their Cust. Srvc. Dept. is top notch also.
 
I also have a few Kershaws and find them to be quality knives. Their assisted-opening, Ken Onion collaborations are fun to use and IMO, are very close to being (in most places) legal automatics.

Some of the higher end models come with premium steels too....I particularly like the 'Avalanche'. I confess a preference for Spyderco right now but would not hesitate, for a minute, to buy a model from any other company if it strongly appealed to me. I have done so many times in the past.

It's just that, by and large, I feel Spyderco ergonomics, construction, materials and price value are hard to beat. I still sometimes play with my snap-open Kershaws but I use my Spydies.
 
While I like Spyderco designs, ergos and steels better - Kershaws have always impressed me as being well made and with a lot of bang for the buck. I’m not much into the assisted openers, but I do have a Kershaw Double Duty (the discontinued big brother to the Double Cross) that I like very much and I carry it whenever I want a clipless ‘deep pocket’ knife. :thumbup:




- Frank
 
Kershaw makes pretty good stuff, but a lot of their knives are AUS6. I think the chives are/were 420. AUS8 is better.

A lot of their smaller knives, like the Splinter, have tiny thumb stud which are just not any good for opening. It hurts my thumb too much to use them. The leeks have the same thing, but they are also meant to be opened with the flipper on the blade. It looks like the Splinter has no such flipper. At least it isn't spring assisted, as I can't imagine opening one of those with the thumb stud.

I do like the shape of the Splinter, and Kershaw always makes very well made stuff. Mostly smooth and tight stuff.

low or medium price Spydercos are not as smooth, but they are OK and the blades are usually made of very good steel.
 
The bulk of Kershaw's knives have fallen into a semi-user, semi-toy catagory. The Leeks, Chives, Blurs, and other Speedsafe knives are great fun, and good for light use, but the 440A (or lower) common on these won't hold up well to hard use.

For example, for about $45-50 you can get a Kershaw Leek, or a Spyderco Delica/Endura. The Leek is definitely more fun, but the Spyderco is definitely mroe of a user. The VG-10 kicks the crap out of 440A, and the Spydercos will be more secure in your hand and take more abuse. Of course, the Spyderco looks like Rosie O'Donnel compared to the Kate Moss Leek, but the Spyderco ain't meant to look pretty.

In the end it depends on what you're looking for. I wouldn't use a Leek to cut up a dozen cardboard boxes, nor would I clip an Endura to my pocket for a company party.

One catagory where Kershaw and Spyderco are a dead-even tie is out-of-box sharpness. Kershaws have a razor-like polished edge, and Spyderco has the micro-serrated edge, and they both astound me when brand new. I've purchased $400 that aren't as sharp as a $50 Kershaw or Spyderco.
 
Right now one of the best values out there is the Kershaw Bump. It is an incredible knife for the price. It is somewhat more towards the higher end though. Framelock, anodized handle, S30V, Assisted opening. And being a Ken Onion Design, it has incredible ergonomics. There will also be a new version of this knife out sometime soon, using CF handles and a Stud lock instead of the framelock.
 
mschwoeb said:
Right now one of the best values out there is the Kershaw Bump. It is an incredible knife for the price. It is somewhat more towards the higher end though. Framelock, anodized handle, S30V, Assisted opening. And being a Ken Onion Design, it has incredible ergonomics. There will also be a new version of this knife out sometime soon, using CF handles and a Stud lock instead of the framelock.
Click to expand...

The Bump is listed as 55-57RC. I wouldn't pay $150-200 for that.
 
Carl64 said:
The Bump is listed as 55-57RC. I wouldn't pay $150-200 for that.
Click to expand...

I never understand the whole thing of harder is better with steels. I really doubt you'd notice the difference
 
Andy_L said:
I never understand the whole thing of harder is better with steels. I really doubt you'd notice the difference
Click to expand...

Harder, using the rockwell scale, means the steel squished in less when a probe was slammed into it. For a blade to remain sharp, it has to resist changing shape. Softer steels get burred edges faster when used. A burred edge reduces cutting ability. Whether the edge squishes down, folds over, or wears out, you still lose cutting ability.

Within close numbers you may not be able to tell, especially if comparing different steels. But 55-57 is very low, unless the application is mainly heavy duty chopping. Most good knives are 58-60 or higher.

Buck makes even their 420hc, a very basic low-cost steel, 58rc:
http://www.buckknives.com/technical_steel.php
The lowest hardness they use is for a steel suited for saltwater resistance at the cost of edge retention.

Notice they say 59.5-61 is their choice for s30v. Experienced users can definitely tell the difference between 55rc and 61. Actually, an inexperienced user would probably notice fairly fast too. It's a huge difference.
 
I love Kershaw knives. They may not use the super steels, but they're good, solid knives.

My Endura gets all the heavy work of late, but on days where I don't really need a big hard use knife, I throw my Hawk (G-10 handle, ATS-55 steel) in my pocket and don't regret not having the Endura.

In fact, I felt a little like I was cheating on Kershaw when I bought my Endura because I've been treated so wonderfully by Kershaw's customer service department in the past.

Kershaw has some beautiful designs with WONDERFUL ergonomics, and don't let the "lower quality" materials put you off. They're quality knives.

And quality is what it all comes down to in the end. Every company will make a bad knife every now and then. Overlook that 1 in a 10,000 and there's still 9,999 good knives out there... far too few people realize that and bash a company for one mistake.

Both Kershaw and Spyderco (along with Buck) are at the top of my list of favorite production makers.
 
Planterz said:
Of course, the Spyderco looks like Rosie O'Donnel compared to the Kate Moss Leek...
Click to expand...

Hey, man, I'll take a young, "Exit to Eden"-era Rosie O'Donnell over the human toothpick any day of the week. A real woman has curves. :D
 
Don't feel bad about wanting a Kershaw. I like all kinds of blades. I have a Spyderco Native combo edge, which I like a lot - but the clip design leaves a little to be desired. I have a Kershaw Whirlwind which had an awesome sharp blade, and a couple of Buck/Strider Military folders which are made like main battle tanks. I have a couple of traditional Buck lockbacks with polished bolsters and pretty wood. Different knives, which are great for different reasons.

SP
 
Carl64 said:
Harder, using the rockwell scale, means the steel squished in less when a probe was slammed into it. For a blade to remain sharp, it has to resist changing shape. Softer steels get burred edges faster when used. A burred edge reduces cutting ability. Whether the edge squishes down, folds over, or wears out, you still lose cutting ability.

Within close numbers you may not be able to tell, especially if comparing different steels. But 55-57 is very low, unless the application is mainly heavy duty chopping. Most good knives are 58-60 or higher.
Click to expand...
How do you explain Talonite's edge holding? It RC's in the mid 40's.

There is more to edge holding that high rockwell numbers. Learning this is where the fun begins. ;)
 
David Boyes dendritic steel is Rc in the 40s but the carbides that do the cutting are harder than that by far. Of all the knives I own I would say that Davids little boat knife is the most reliable cutter in my entire collection. Each time I pull out this little knife the thing just cuts and cuts well, plain and simple.

After having two of these little 'soft' folders by Boye I would have to think that anyone that says they don't cut hasn't really used them. I would add that some of my high carbon carving knives that are Rc56 at the max out cut many of the so called super steels being produced today with Rc hardnesses into the 60s. They hold their edge longer and are easier to sharpen when they dull also. Go figure.
 
How do you explain Talonite's edge holding? It RC's in the mid 40's.
Click to expand...

Talonite's hardness is not that simple:
http://www.carbideprocessors.com/alloys.htm

The material may be soft, but set into that material are carbides much harder than usual. This sounds similar in mechanics, if not formula, to Boye's steel. It is definitely not a good example of a generally soft blade.

I am also not sure how good Talonite is at edge holding. Cliff's tests show the same things I have heard from word of mouth:

http://www.physics.mun.ca/~sstamp/knives/MEUK_talonite.html
http://www.physics.mun.ca/~sstamp/knives/talonite_10V.html
http://www.physics.mun.ca/~sstamp/knives/talonite_D2.html

Talonite seems to have trouble keeping up with well hardened D2 and fails miserably behind CPM10v. It seems to be comparable to VG10 in at least one test:
http://www.physics.mun.ca/~sstamp/knives/talonite_vg_10.html

But VG10 is considerable less wear resistant compared to Talonite, which will mean it will be much easier to sharpen (sharpening is nothing but wearing down the steel). Equal edge retention with easier sharpening would be my choice.

Note that Talonite was also not made to be a knife steel (or whatever the name for it is). Even when overhyped for knives, the backstory is always that it was made for drilling through rocks and sawing when other materials would not last long enough or might overheat. If someone says it was tested to last longer than other materials, they might be referring to a test not entirely relevant to pocket knives.

There is more to edge holding that high rockwell numbers. Learning this is where the fun begins. ;)
Click to expand...
True, but hardness is a major requirement and 55-57 is not very high. It sounds close to 60 in total numbers, but the whole range of most cutting knives is only between about 54 and 62 (only a few are available harder, usually less common steels or custom knives). A few points makes a big difference.

You could harden a cheap steel to 65 rc and it might crumble when you try to cut with it. You could also add chromium and carbon (or maybe Molybdenum carbides?) to silly putty (well, let's pretend) to increase wear resistance and have a knife that squishes flat on the first attempt to cut something.
 
Carl64 said:
Talonite's hardness is not that simple
Click to expand...
Exactly! I'm glad you understand this.

Talonite was developed for use in turbines. The edges of the turbine blades are sharp and they have to stay sharp for a long time. The operating conditions are, sometimes corrosive salt water spray, sometimes abrasive media and most of the time high heat. These same conditions exist in lumber mills. Talonite is used as the teeth on lumber saw mills. Talonite is also used in the food industry for cutting. It outlasts steel cutters 5 to 1. These are real world examples of where Talonite is used. It is great for some cutting applications and poor at others.

The key to Talonite and S30V cutting ability is the carbides within the material holding them.
Carl64 said:
You could harden a cheap steel to 65 rc and it might crumble when you try to cut with it. You could also add chromium and carbon (or maybe Molybdenum carbides?) to silly putty (well, let's pretend) to increase wear resistance and have a knife that squishes flat on the first attempt to cut something.
Click to expand...
Your example is very good. Now think of the chromium, molybdenum and vanadium carbides in a steel blade. The carbides are much harder than the steel. The steel is primarily a matrix that holds the carbides. The carbides do the majority of cutting. As the steel and carbides wear away, more carbides are exposed. Does one or two points of hardness in the steel holding the carbides make that big a difference on cutting ability?

Carl64 said:
The Bump is listed as 55-57RC.
Click to expand...
Numbers give you an indication of what to expect, but they don't tell the whole story. ;)

I have a framelock Bump. It cuts like crazy. I want to get a Spyker and compare them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top