Thick Blades?

B

BRASMAN

Joined
Mar 5, 2007
Messages
358
Besides Chopping and using a knife as a crowbar why would I want a knife with a thick blade say over a medium blade.

Example: I was looking at the Cold Steel bowie the other day and the blade looks fairly thick. Why would I want a knife with a blade that thick?

Thanks for any input.
 
You wouldn't want anything bigger than needed for camp tasks like foos prep, battoning and occasional chopping which I do with an axe. Although if the blade is real wide (2 inches) thickness with a full flat/convex grind shouldn't be an issue.
 
Thick blades are the coolest. Some people like blades that have a bit more heft to them. A thinner blade is more efficient for slicing, but the trade-off of having a thick blade isn't big enough to bother me. Thick blades are kind of a macho thing I think. It's fun to have a knife that is basically indestructible. Thicker is better as far as I'm concerned, for fixed blades especially.
Busse is making crazy thick knives these days. The fat wardens look like railroad spikes when viewed from the spine! I want one! I want an active duty with a gonzo 1/2" thick blade, that weighs as much as a can of beer.
 
A.G.Russell has an intelligent analysis of blade thickness in the description of his Deer Hunter.

The Deer Hunter and the Bird & Trout were an entirely new concept including blade, handle and sheath. The blades are just thick enough to be stiff rather than flexible and are ground very thin all the way to the edge, creating a marvelous cutting tool. This is the way the world's finest kitchen knives are made, and is the wave of the future for top of the line hunting knives.
Click to expand...
 
mmmotorcycle said:
Although if the blade is real wide (2 inches) thickness with a full flat/convex grind shouldn't be an issue.
Click to expand...

If the blade is that wide, it provides some of the same strength for light chopping and batoning that a thicker blade might.

The Finnish/Sami leuku is much thinner than most big American knives and was developed as a camp and butcher and survival knife in one of the harshest environments in the world, the Scandinavian Arctic.

My Iisakki Jarvenpaa leuku is 7.25" long, 1.25" wide, and .125" thick -- 1/8".
 
A knife blade needs to be proportioned as far as width & thickness. As much as I love Bark River Knives. They are a leader in overkill as far as thickness. They make a 2.75" blade with the same stock as a 5.5" blade? Some of their knives are more like wedges and not blades.
 
I personaly preffer thiner blades,even in fixed blades 1/4'' thick blade is pushing it for me.But I don't put my knives through much abuse,just use.

If I need to chop I'll use a axe or a machete,if I need to carve or slice I'll take a finely ground blade.But everthing has it's uses and everthing has it's advantages.
 
Except for my khukuris, I like thinner blades. No thicker than 1/8" for folders, no thicker than 3/16 for fixed.

Frank
 
fedaykincmndr said:
Since you obviously don't want that bowie, what with it being so thick, you should just send it to me! :D
Click to expand...

LOL I do not have it yet.





Other than the "It's Macho" and chopping I just do not see the point. I am not saying it was bad or anything but thought I wanted to know if any one has ever ran into an instance where they needed the thick blade. I kind of like the wide blades because it gives the weight and would not have to be as thick for chopping. If I had to bring two knives I would rather bring a Hawk and a knife but if you wanted the two knives instead I can certainly see the point of the super thick bowies.
 
If you have an inclination to abuse a knife, then by all means, select a blade of 1/4 inch stock and knock yourself out. There are pros and cons. Most serious outdoorsmen don't carry blades thicker than 3/16, many favor 1/8 inch as an easy to sharpen blade. Then again, the hunter isn't smashing concrete blocks or attacking car doors.

Esav speaks of the Leuku, and I can concur here: such a thin blade is still plenty tough to handle most jobs. Scandinavians know how to construct a proper knife. Their survival blades are a must have for the hunter.

Although I collect knives of 5/16 stock and larger, I usually grab my 18 inch Ontario if I require a serious chopper for medium jobs. A bulky blade may also cause fatigue. The kuk's are nice, but still on the heavy side.

The axe is the ticket if you need to do some heavy chopping on thick woods.
 
Esav Benyamin said:
My Iisakki Jarvenpaa leuku is 7.25" long, 1.25" wide, and .125" thick -- 1/8".
Click to expand...

My SHBM blade is 10 inches long, 2 inches wide and 0.25 inches thick, but because it is wider than your blade the blade geometry is the same, hence it has the same cutting ability in a much stronger stouter knife that can take much more use and abuse.

But for me 1/2 inch is too thick. I think 5/16 is about my limmit in big knives.
 
Cobalt said:
... it has the same cutting ability in a much stronger stouter knife that can take much more use and abuse.
Click to expand...

How much more abuse and for what? If we are participating in extreme activities like war ... well, maybe. Otherwise, how much more abuse do you plan on covering than an Arctic winter?

How much more weight do you need to carry?

Will all that mass interfere with lighter tasks that a leuku can handle?
 
My abuse consists of lots of chopping, and also chopping into stumps and prying them apart. I love my thicker blades for that tasks. Also, when done correctly, the thickness can put a lot more mass where it needs to be for chopping.

I'm not smashing concrete blocks in the woods, but I **am** smashing rocks when I miss the stump. You don't even want to know what I've hit by accident around the house. It's nice to know that the blade can take it.
 
OK so still it seems like unless you are doing a lot of chopping the thicker blade is not needed.
 
I've always been a fan of the thicker blades. 5/16 inch is my favourite thickness.

Infact, I started making knives myself largely because I couldn't find enough knives I liked in that thickness out of the steel I wanted. Actually, Busse was the only one and it's a bit out of my price range.

I like the extreme over-the-top durability, the heftness, the sheer strength, the feeling of having a very substantial and tough tool in your hands. I like the knowledge I can use my knife for just about whatever I want to use it for, even for things no knife should be punished with. I just don't have the same confidence with a thin blade.

At the end of the day, choose what you feel comfortable with. Thick blades work for me.

If thin blades work for you that's great!
 
Esav Benyamin said:
How much more abuse and for what? If we are participating in extreme activities like war ... well, maybe. Otherwise, how much more abuse do you plan on covering than an Arctic winter??
Click to expand...

Sorry, but arctic winter is not the end all be all of use. Yes, I have had to use my one and only thicker blade for tasks that I normally would not want to use them for and yes prying is a big one. Cutting metal bands off of crates is another. A stiff blade makes short work of it. Prying doors is another. Batonning wood is another, lopping off tree limbs quickly is another. A Stout blade can act like a short machette since it has the same mass as a linger machette without the length. Jungle is a big one for stout blades.

Esav Benyamin said:
How much more weight do you need to carry??
Click to expand...

For the extra durability it's worth it.

Esav Benyamin said:
Will all that mass interfere with lighter tasks that a leuku can handle?
Click to expand...

Nope, not unless your a 90 pound weakling.

Now, I will admit to wanting a small blade for small tasks, but if it only one I will carry off on a trek, it will be a big one.
 
I use to carry around 1/4" thick blades all the time during my wilderness treks, I have since switched to thinner ones for better cutting abitity, I'm very glad I did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top