Single Blade slippy?

J

jackknife

Joined
Oct 2, 2004
Messages
17,564
Something got me to thinking, always a dangerous thing in itself.

Why the single blade slip joint?

No, I'm not talking about the hard working sodbuster or hawkbill. I was wondering about the pocket sized little slip joint pocket knife from 3 1/4 to about 4 inches. Don't get me wrong, I do love some single blade knives, like the soddie, but the sodbuster is almost in a class by itself. Born in Eastern Europe, it's the cousin of knives like Opinel's, Douk-Douk's, Mercator K55's. The kind of low cost but hard working peasant's knife that was just expected to be used up and replaced as needed, so it was a no frills knife meant to be cheap and expendable.

To me, the whole idea of a slip joint, is a choice of blades. Two blades like on the dogleg, serpentine, teardrop, or Texas jacks that everyone carried when I was growing up, always gave you a second blade. It's a pattern that has been around forever, and is a very useful pattern. In fact, I don't recall any single blade pocket knives when I was a kid. Oh, I'm sure they were there, but all I recall is scouts, jack's, TL-29's, and the once in a while swichblade.

What got me to wondering about this, is the new Buck knife they have come out with. It's for all practical intent, a 301 stockman with the two smaller blades removed. In the name of progress I can imagine. This give you a single blade slip joint pocket knife 3 7/8ths in size, with no second blade. It seems too slim and light to take on the sodbuster role of hard working knife, yet to big for the little pen knife role. Sort of a no man's land of knife. I would think that if one was going to have a single blade moderate size of knife, why not just get something like a Buck 55, or the Buck Squire or such?

I guess the bottom line I want to know is, do most people who appreciate the slip joint pocket knife think the multible blades and having a choice of what blade to use is the big draw?

As much as I love the peanut, I just don't think it would'nt be the same with only a single blade. And as much as I love the peanut, I keep coming back to my old Buck cadet. I love having the three blade set up of the stockman to pick from.

So, opinions gentlemen?

One blade or more?

Carl.
 
Definitely a two blade man here, although I carry a whittler most days with three - just haven't figured out what to do with the coping blade as yet. I use the smaller blade for opening boxes, etc. and the larger one as a food blade.
Bob
 
More often than not a single blade slipjoint is all I need. It's true that a stockman is more versatile than a Laguiole, but for everyday tasks the Laguiole is perfectly usable. Don't forget that many people don't even carry a knife, and they seem to get along just fine. And this group here seems to be big fans of redundancy, single blade slipjoint or not. Most of us carry more than one knife, so single blade slippy or not, we still have other blades to use.

- Christian
 
Multi-blade for me. I have wondered why the one-blade slipjoint has become popular. Maybe it has because the current generation has been raised with locking knives, which usually had one blade only, so you see this trend bleed over into traditionals.
 
Tom, I think your point has merit while at the same time I think a lot has to do with how slim, light and unobtrusive a single blade slipjoint can be in the pocket.

I especially appreciate them when I'm wearing lighter clothing.
 
I agree.

My CS Half-moon trapper is one of my favorite knives for carry (even though its backspring is weaker than I would prefer). Queen's #11 "utility knife" is also a nice pattern...as well as the GEK #12 small toothpick. All are great sub-4" single blade pocketknives.

*I also just thought of the aluminim-handled "Big Chief" knife w/ steel bail & a single clip-point blade I have clipped to my paleo-bucket.

Good stuff.
 
I bought one of the Buck 301's and really like it. Nice size blade but not at thick and heavy in my pocket as a full size Stockman.

Yes, it's a compromise but in this case it works well for me.
 
Growing up, I never carried anything other than a 3-1/4 to 3-1/2 inch clip blade LB until I was at least in my 40s. Now I prefer two-blade jacks for the versatility, but in all honesty, a slender clip blade of 2-1/4 to 2-3/4 inches does at least 95% of everything I do with a knife outside of deer season. The other 5% is covered nicely by a secondary coping or sheepfoot blade.
 
I prefer multi blades, but rarely use anything other than the main blade. Stockman, trappers, scout knives etc. I have developed a great appreciation for the utility in my Mountain Man slippy.

My father got along fine with a small Schrade pen knife, single blade. Cleaned his fingernails, opened mail, cut up sandwiches. After that went through the dryer and into the great beyond, I got him a Buck single blade slipjoint, which followed the Schrade after some years. His latest is a Winchester USA made single spey blade trapper. He gets along fine with a single blade knife. However, he is not a knife nut, so maybe it's just us ;).
 
jackknife said:
What got me to wondering about this, is the new Buck knife they have come out with. It's for all practical intent, a 301 stockman with the two smaller blades removed. In the name of progress I can imagine. This give you a single blade slip joint pocket knife 3 7/8ths in size, with no second blade. It seems too slim and light to take on the sodbuster role of hard working knife ...
Click to expand...

Seems is a dangerous word. ;) The single-blade 301 seems pretty stout to me. I think it could hang with a soddie jr. just fine. It might make a good alternative for someone who wants a single-blader of that size, but with a more narrow profile, not the stubby, wide blade of a stock soddie jr.
 
I generally prefer the option of more than one blade which is why I like the cellidor SAKs over the alox ones. But I could get by with just one blade.
Regarding traditionals, and especially customs, I think that the single blade models are more affordable and allow those who don't want to spend a ton get into the custom market. And then that spills over into the production world with knives like the Tribal Spear. Which I still really want ;)
adam
 
Blues said:
Tom, I think your point has merit while at the same time I think a lot has to do with how slim, light and unobtrusive a single blade slipjoint can be in the pocket.

I especially appreciate them when I'm wearing lighter clothing.
Click to expand...

I agree. I love multi-blades, but unless I'm carrying a knife for a specific purpose I prefer the single blade because of the weight. Not having the extra couple of ounces makes a difference.
 
I have always loved single blade slipjoints the most , and I recall many times where I had a three blade Stockman or something along those lines and would never use more than the main clippoint blade.

So yea , I'm quite comfortable with a single blade configuration :)

Tostig
 
I like that a single bladed trapper (for example) because its lighter and slimmer in my pocket. I don't really need 2 blades that are between 3 and 4 inches. I am looking at a GEC #89 for a slim profiled knife with a secondary blade though.
 
Absolutely multi-blades. Or better yet, a bottle opener in the mix.
 
Multi-blade for me too.

The absolute worst slipjoint I ever had the displeasure of using was a single blade slim trapper from Colonial. It was just too long to be a single blade folder with thin scales. The blade play was terrible. It was a cheapie deluxe with thin liners and synthetic scales so I shouldn't have expected too much out of it to begin with.

I figure, if you are going to have a spring and no lock, you might as well put another blade at the opposite end, right? ;)
 
2 Blades for me, one a clean blade (if I wouldn't put it in my mouth then I don't use this blade) and one dirty.

I've been carring my Schrade 77ot lately and I think having 2 long clip blades is perfect for my use.

Paul
 
Blues said:
Tom, I think your point has merit while at the same time I think a lot has to do with how slim, light and unobtrusive a single blade slipjoint can be in the pocket.

I especially appreciate them when I'm wearing lighter clothing.
Click to expand...

SAKsRCool said:
Regarding traditionals, and especially customs, I think that the single blade models are more affordable and allow those who don't want to spend a ton get into the custom market. And then that spills over into the production world with knives like the Tribal Spear. Which I still really want ;)
adam
Click to expand...

I agree with both of these gentlemen. Also, from an aesthetics standpoint, I think certain patterns, such as the swayback and the toothpick, work better one-bladed.

Also, I think with life being more complicated nowadays, we're running out of pocket space. When I head out for work on a typical morning and not going to a construction site (which would afford me the luxury of watch pocket-equipped jeans) I'm likely lugging around at least three sets of keys, my overstuffed wallet (funny how big and heavy it can get even though there's no money in there), and two blackberries in/on/around my khakis. Slim/thin/light are the operative words on those days.

But I do love multi-bladed knives. Except the muskrat. I understand why it was developed, but I don't see a modern purpose in that knife.
 
Single blade for me all the way:thumbup:

Maybe it´s an European thing or something, being grown up with mainly Sodbusters.

I like the looks of a Congress, but I guess I would end up using only one blade.

I like the Peanut as well but it would even better for me with just the clip point.

Besides a SAK I have never seen anybody around me using a multi bladed knife.

So whenever I´ve saved enough money to get another traditional over here I think it´s gonna be a medium Texas Toothpick or my absolute dream traditional, a carbon steel single bladed clippoint Barlow( if such a thing exists after all)

In the mean time I'll just stick with my Alox Solo or modified clippoint cv yellow Sodbuster;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top