This post was about the uneven edge. I have identified about 4 deficiencies with the ergonomics that I would address if I had designed the knife, but what is the point in subjecting a knife that I am trying to enjoy to undue scrutiny? If you can open the knife with both hands with or without gloves, blindfolded, etc. Good for you, although you should be able to open all knives - if you have one that you can't open, that is really the knife we should be ripping on.
My thoughts on the knife are pretty much identical to what Revdevil just said - I noticed the same positives, and think it's a great ergonomic knife, but "I won't say it's the most comfortable in the ergonomics". I know a lot of people like the ergonomics, that's the only reason I even mentioned it - because someone looking for the knife might take everyone's word for it, and end up liking the ergos even less than me.
If you want a list of knives with impressive ergonomics, PM me and I will send a couple suggestions. I get the opportunity to handle several hundred knives every year, and there are a few production knives that pass through that I am impressed by. I don't know if I would score any folder 10/10 for ergonomics though, and I don't think there has ever been one that I would say couldn't be improved on.
I like the knife, you like the knife; Knifemaking is always a compromise - the whole idea with a knife like the Military is to find the perfect compromise between strengths, features, materials, and weaknesses - the marketing jargon I found on the knife was that it was meant for Sal Glesser's hypothetical military recruit son. You can make the knife better for all people with bare hands, and you can make the knife perfect for soldiers with a specific type of glove - but making it good for both is a compromise. However that's a discussion for another thread.
