So, Just How Good Does a Knife Have to Be and What Is Attainable?

Ergonomics matter as much as anything else. I don't care how nice a steel is or how good the blade geometry is; if the handle is uncomfortable I'm not going to want to use it. I have enough decent budget knives handy for every room, Moraknivs in sheds and gardening work stations, a couple blades in my haversack for yardening, and other knives in staging areas beyond storage for the collection that there's always something good enough at hand. Everything else is just having the right knife for the right job. As much as there are still a lot more knives I'd like to own, the Spyderco Native Chief is probably as much knife (for a folder) as I'll ever realistically need. I have knives with better steel or that are much more expensive, but I like this knife more for actual use and carry.

53376622576_5e14866359_b.jpg
 
(1) How "good" does a knife have to be? Disregarding fit, finish and cost for the moment, just how tough, just how sharp, just how much of any performance characteristic do we need in a working belt knife or pocket EDC? Sure, a meat cutter's knife dedicated to portioning a $100,000 Tuna carcass might be optimized for sharpness and edge retention (I don't know this), but what do we, the work-a-day knife guy or gal really need in a good to great knife . . .and what makes that difference, good or great?

Marriage of characteristics. Geometry, cutting longevity, sharpenability, ergonomics, ease of carry and deployment, aesthetic appeal, all according to the user's tolerances and preferences.

(2) What is attainable? [...] what would it take to move the whole triangle of performance characteristics up and to the right on the chart? Can it be done?

Of course it can. And some day, it may. Whether it will be steel, titanium, or some amazingly tough glass composite, there are too many elements in nature, and we've had too few centuries of materials science for us to think we have reached anything like an apex.
 
I like it. A lot of down to earth answers here. Lots of good modern day, reasonably priced knives out there. I like Buck, Victorinox, and Syderco. Maybe add some Case in there.

Have always used Buck for hunting knives. Victorinox for EDC. Spyderco and Case thrown in from time to time for Utility and/or nostalgia.
 
The best knife to have is one that is quality enough to pass down, but is also common and Inexpensive enough to replace if needed. Thinking victorinox, mora or ka bar dozier folders.
 
I’m on the waiting list for the Spyderco PM2 Salt with the new Gen 2 coating (that is supposed to be superior to DLC). Virtually corrosion proof, with a thinly ground Magnacut blade, a long-lasting compression lock, and an ergonomic handle with 3D machined G-10. This combination of features should equate to a knife that is both a high performance and heavy duty cutting tool that can be used underwater without concern.

Attainable and pretty amazing imho.

Very happy to be living in a golden age of knives AND cars. 🍀

FED3B61D-31A1-4B5E-AB8E-BC95DFBA447A.jpeg
 
I’m on the waiting list for the Spyderco PM2 Salt with the new Gen 2 coating (that is supposed to be superior to DLC). Virtually corrosion proof, with a thinly ground Magnacut blade, a long-lasting compression lock, and an ergonomic handle with 3D machined G-10. This combination of features should equate to a knife that is both a high performance and heavy duty cutting tool that can be used underwater without concern.

Attainable and pretty amazing imho.

Very happy to be living in a golden age of knives AND cars. 🍀

View attachment 2662706
I'm perfectly happy with my gen 1 salt PM2, but I do think it's neat that they are trying to achieve even further corrosion resistance.
 
For a slip joint Case quality is quite serviceable. So their equals or better. Locking folders start with Kabar Dozier design folders. And go on and up from there. Fixed blade starts with Mora and again the sky is the limit. Materials are still evolving so what is attainable isn't known.
 
Need vs. want. A Honda will get you there, a Porsche will get you there in style.
Right!

And the point is that none of the high end, premium, high price point knife makers have put out anything that is that much better.

An example would be my flip-flops vs my Nikie jogging shoes. The one is obviously better foot ware, even at the beach in my opinion. . . .and can cost many times more than the rubber drug store sandals.
 
Lots of good kn ves out there today. A lot of really great ones too.

It is my opinion that one can find a knife made today that is the equal of or better than the best knives ever made in the past, recent past or distant. . . .by anybody.

And with my neck stuck way out there I now digress to the heart of the matter and the thread topic:

(1) How "good" does a knife have to be? Disregarding fit, finish and cost for the moment, just how tough, just how sharp, just how much f any performance characteristic do we need in a working belt knife or pocket EDC? Sure, a meat cutter's knife dedicated to portioning a $100,000 Tuna carcass might be optimized for sharpness and edge retention (I don't know this), but what do we, the work-a-day knife guy or gal really need in a good to great knife . . .and what makes that difference, good or great?

(2) What is attainable? I know the typical performance parameters of corrosion resistance, edge detention and toughness. I understand that in terms of materials science, optimizing one characteristic often degrades one or both of the others. The Magnicut fformulation of steel is said to have a balanced performance. But what would it take to move the whole triangle of performance characteristics up and to the right on the chart? Can it be done?

Would that be a blade as corrosion resistant as gold pr platinum, with the sharpness of monomolecular obsidian edge, the edge retention of Tungsten Carbide and the flexibility and toughness of the leaf springs on my 1950s (you pick a year) era pick up?
#1. "Good" for what , exactly ?

Casual carry , controlled conditions , easy jobs , failure not critical . Bling , photogenic , fidgety smooth , aesthetically pleasing .

Versus : Critical carry , uncontrollable conditions , hard use , failure injurious / possibly fatal . Hard use , emergency , survival .

What is the task at hand ? The environment and condition of the user . User's knowledge and skill level . Etc .

Playing with a sexy new knife in your cubical , for a social media post ; or trying to survive, injured and alone in the wilderness ?

#2 . "Attainable" . How much money do you have to explore the limits ?
 

Yes, a set of outlier conditions, but how much time do You want to spend sharpening your knife???
On a mountain, near dark, with starved bears, and a snow storm?
Back when the most popular hunting knives were inexpensive Soligen imports, the knives were already sharpened and restoring a functional edge on a typical hunting knife required little more than a few swipes over a small pocket stone. Most hunters did it faster than the time it takes to read this sentence.

I can enjoy modern technology and blade steels, but the impact on hunting likely ranges from negligible to counter productive.

N2s
 
Marriage of characteristics. Geometry, cutting longevity, sharpenability, ergonomics, ease of carry and deployment, aesthetic appeal, all according to the user's tolerances and preferences.



Of course it can. And some day, it may. Whether it will be steel, titanium, or some amazingly tough glass composite, there are too many elements in nature, and we've had too few centuries of materials science for us to think we have reached anything like an apex.
dude! Dude! DUDE!

You are 💯 right.

[I would advocate changing your name to Dude Mary. However, (insert reasons not to.) 🙃]
 
At some point humans must ditch these archaic “mechanical” cutters and move on to handheld, energy efficient laser or plasma cutters.

All current knives are junk compared to my pocket sized plasma blade that I have imagined in my mind.

my knife will be on the blockchain
 
Back when the most popular hunting knives were inexpensive Soligen imports, the knives were already sharpened and restoring a functional edge on a typical hunting knife required little more than a few swipes over a small pocket stone. Most hunters did it faster than the time it takes to read this sentence.

I can enjoy modern technology and blade steels, but the impact on hunting likely ranges from negligible to counter productive.

N2s

Honest question for "Most hunters"........? (Asked today)
1940's steel or CPM Cruwear?
 
Back when the most popular hunting knives were inexpensive Soligen imports, the knives were already sharpened and restoring a functional edge on a typical hunting knife required little more than a few swipes over a small pocket stone. Most hunters did it faster than the time it takes to read this sentence.

I can enjoy modern technology and blade steels, but the impact on hunting likely ranges from negligible to counter productive.

N2s
Yes and, that city was set up to be competitive to the point of making the best knives for the cheapest price, something we don't have anymore. But also, I've met a lot of those sorts of guys, and their version of sharp would just leave you feeling pity for how they live their lives, some guys do everything the hard way. But that was then, and largely, you are not wrong since a consistent billet 1095 or even 440c goes a long way to getting a good edge instead of a craftsman needing to select the "good" bars from the stock pile for a given task. (anyway, to the topic at hand)

A knife is more than the sum of it's parts, and it's enough when it meets its design goals, and is still cheap enough to be replaceable, and retain enough of a market to remain available. For example, I've got a couple Spyderco salt knives, love them. I would have gotten a Benchmade H20, mostly due to the bull-nose blade, something I wanted, but what I couldn't do was a knife without a good lanyard connection, and not grippy scales. I could have modded, but by the time I had cash to get one, they were off the market. They might have been good, but not enough for my needs on the day. You can often see design choices not meeting marketing and the complaints, (BM Bailout) but often those are keyboard warrior problems, the guy who made the design choice usually did the "right" thing, but the market and reality do not often agree.

None of my knives are show pieces, and have to be tools that fit in the budget of the job at the time. I've spent a days wage on a leatherman, knowing it will pay off long term. I've spent a days wage on a rescue knife because I know I'll willing spend a days wage to save someone if I need to. And I spent a bit more than that on my last knife so I have a nice and light hiking knife for the next time I'm out in the bush, I have a fixed that I can really rely on. (where I live as I've mentioned the trees have an RC rating) but past that, I really don't care. I can get by with less, but sometimes I want to spend a bit of money so I don't have to spend time later. In the case of the last two camping knives I've bought, I picked steels that need less sharpening because I know they will catch hell on the wood I'll put them to, and I'd rather spend an hour bringing an edge back at home on the diamonds, than ten minutes every three cuts on a little ceramic that my 1095 knives do well on.
 
#1. "Good" for what , exactly ?

Casual carry , controlled conditions , easy jobs , failure not critical . Bling , photogenic , fidgety smooth , aesthetically pleasing .

Versus : Critical carry , uncontrollable conditions , hard use , failure injurious / possibly fatal . Hard use , emergency , survival .

What is the task at hand ? The environment and condition of the user . User's knowledge and skill level . Etc .

Playing with a sexy new knife in your cubical , for a social media post ; or trying to survive, injured and alone in the wilderness ?

#2 . "Attainable" . How much money do you have to explore the limits ?
All good points for #1 . . .not that you need validation from me.

Re #2 though: I recognize that price can be an indictor of some increased level of performance. Premium knifemakers tend to make a better performing knife. Yet, I am not convinced that spending more money above that level the premium makers charge will get a "better" blade. At this point, I think that it is a matter of metalogical research and materials science and I don't know what is possible.

So, Magni cut is a pretty good steel formulation; "balanced" thy say. There are other steels that out perform Magnicut in one performance parameter or another while giving lower performance in other areas (so, not "balanced"). And my question is: Is there any induction that a better performing, balanced steel is possible using any proportion of the known elements in the periodic table . . .at any price?

" How much money . . .", say the settlers on Mars need something extra special and NASA is convinced that such a blade is mission critical . . .that much money. NASA once bought a large high purity natural Diamond and had it cut to make a window for some exotic sensor on a probe . . .and launched irretrievably into space,. That much money. Today of course, they would have it grown to spec in a lab at 1/10th the cost, but not in the 1970s.

Disclaimer: It is not my intention to promote or disparage Magni cut or any other steel formulation. I use Magnicut as an example of a modern, engineered steel.
 
Last edited:
Honest question for "Most hunters"........? (Asked today)
1940's steel or CPM Cruwear?

Sample size of 1 hunter, started with Case Tru-Sharp in a medium stockman as a kid... I would 100% take the CruWear.

Something more stainless, even if a little less tough, would be better. A little animal blood and my pocket sweat will rust most non-stainless. M390 is great.

Even my family who aren't that into modern knives - like the ones who gave me that stockman - I see using the Alaskan Guide Bucks with S30V when deer hunting these days.


"How good does a knife have to be?" At least VG-10 level for me if the question is hunting-specific.
 
Until maybe five years ago I thought of most knives I'd use as mostly disposable since I'd never had anything that after minimal use went dull and ended up being sharpened to death. This made me not want to use favored knives as much knowing they were destined for the trash can. I still have a barely used Spyderco Endura in VG10 from my younger days back when VG10 was what I thought was top shelf stuff. Now that's one of Spyderco's basic steels. But a lot of the more basic models of Gerber and Buck have been sent over the rainbow bridge. So I'd say they "worked" but didn't work for all that long if they were really users. Now one of my most carried and used to cut anything within reason is a little Delica in K390 and that thing is undying. The K390 blade just stays sharp. The most I've done is a few swipes on a ceramic rod. At this rate I may have this knife the rest of my life. So it's only in this last few years now that what I think of as just how good a knife has to be vs. what is attainable has very much changed. I get that many guys feel Buck's 420HC is "good enough" and high fives all around from them. But knowing that for not terribly much more I can potentially have some Conan level steel, I don't know if I ever want to buy production basic steel knives ever again.
 
Back
Top