Starter GSO 2.7 and 3.5 handle width

[RUNIT]

So, I have been hesitant to purchase any starter blades but the 2.7 is lookin like the something I would be into. I tend to fixate on smaller knives as I tend to actually use them more.

I went to the starter page and compared the 2.7 to the 3.5 and the handles are way different.

Now I get that the 2.7 has a shorter handle but it looks so fat, kinda like a coke bottle with a blade.
The 3.5 has a nice swell but is still slim. To me the width kinda negates the them of a smaller knife.

I guess it is the same handle just more compact.

I will post pics, please tell me what y'all think.

GSO 2.7 starter



GSO 3.5 starter

 

[Silver Needle]

Haha! Coke bottle with a handle... I never would have thought of that, but now it is all I see.

Guy had said that he designs each knife with intended purposes and the 2.7 probably doesn't need a big swell towards the blade because there isn't the need for a lot of retention for stabbing or prying. Having it slimmer toward the blade could help with close up grips for skinning.

The biggest thing to keep in mind is the illusion of size with these two pictures. I don't think the actual size is relative to each other, see below. Maybe you could sweet talk ni1s into making a comparison from the spine view of each knife. I'd think the coke bottle wouldn't be so fat when you think how small the knife is.

 

[Armalite Native]

Yeah good points. The 2.7 does look to have a wider handle in the pictures imo. I guess unless one of them steps in to correct us we will not be able to say for sure until a demo vid comes out. Perhaps in testing the wider handle helps with blade control? For me I see the 2.7 as an oversized neck knife (no offence intended). I would always choose a slimer more comfortable handle over a stout one in small fixed category. I will add that I have a 2.7 starter on order for personal transparency in regards to this thread.

 

[ni1s]

This is quite interesting, I had my mind set on the 3.5 since it seemed like a perfect upgrade for me. One of them being that I thought the handle was too skinny for my hands, but now that you mention it it seems like the handle on the new version is actually thinner. But wider. Hmm... but I think the length and jumping still does it for me.

Here's a comparison pick I just did, but it's a little misleading since I've beefed up my 3.5 handle. (And I need my morning coffee before I disassemble it again... )

Edit: I hacked up a quick overlay of the new 3.5 over the old 3.5. It's just an approximation, but it looks like a pretty good improvement to me.

 

[Silver Needle]

ni1s to the rescue!

Thanks for your efforts on this stuff. I'm a visual dude and this helps immensely.

 

[RUNIT]

Dannnnngggg! ni1s is the man! Thanks for bringing it all together!

I also noticed that the steel is going to be thicker on the new 3.5, it is going from .125 to .140
Not the biggest deal but now that it will not be skeletonized it will be quite the little knife.
I am still digging the 2.7, just gonna sand down the handles a bit.

 

[Fancier]

The current production 3.5 has the smallest handle that my mitts will fit on with size 10 hands. The 2.7 is going to be just enough smaller to drop my pinkie off the end when I put my thumb on the spine.
The starter 3.5 is enough bigger in the handle that I wouldn't need a 4.1, especially with the jimping.
I just thought of something... If the 4.1 doesn't have a large choil, why isn't it called the 4? In the other knives the .1 seems to indicate a "choking up choil".

 

[B34NS]

I've always been a fan of "contoured" handles, aka coke bottle handles. Offers more than one hand position from the standard saber grip. I'm sure it offers those with larger hands a chance to enjoy a small blade too. Those of us with medium/smaller hands won't lose any dexterity. Although I see what you mean about compactability. Although being as small a knife as it is, will probably be a fair trade for the exteneded functionality.

 

[Ruudr]

Great comparison! Now I'm even happier with my 2.7 order. Although I think not so agressive jimping would be practical in the 2.7... Anybody know what the approximate weight would be?

 

[chiral.grolim]

I just thought of something... If the 4.1 doesn't have a large choil, why isn't it called the 4? In the other knives the .1 seems to indicate a "choking up choil".

I'd guess that the "4.1" is indicative of the generational shift from the EDC-4 and original GSO-4. I would have advocated that the new version be titled "4.2" and similar adjustments to the GSO-5/5.1 seeing as the original 5 had a large choil, but the numbers now seem to refer closer to the edge-length (similar to the ScrapMax models 340, 375, 460). Guy's product continues to evolve...

Here is an older thread with some of Guy's early prototypes, with schematics of the EDC-4 and GSO-10 towards the end of the thread.

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/s...eries-of-Knives-by-SURVIVE!-Photos-and-Videos!

 

[Silver Needle]

If the 4.1 doesn't have a large choil, why isn't it called the 4? In the other knives the .1 seems to indicate a "choking up choil".

Ha! Good question. Chiral had a super informative response as always.

And Chiral, thanks for the link to that thread. I need some time to take a closet look, but the little I saw is like a history lesson on SURVIVE!