Too Much Focus on Blade Length?

Insipid Moniker

Insipid Moniker

Joined
Feb 28, 2011
Messages
27,531
It seems like blade length is just the automatic default way of discussing the size of a knife here. Now, sometimes, blade length is of paramount importance, as you can't fillet a tuna with a 2" blade and in many places a blade over X" can spell confiscation, a fine or even jail time, but I think we tend to overlook other specs that can be much more important.

I'm honestly a good example of this kind of mistake. I frequently tell people I really only look at folders with a 4" or so blade, but I'll then follow it up with the justification that I have XXL hands and I need a large handle. Somewhat obviously, I'm making a category error. What I really want is at least a 5" handle, not a 4" blade, but it's so common to discuss knives exclusively in terms of blade length that it took a long time for that to actually dawn on me.

Anyone else have this issue? For folders, in particular, a small blade will do almost everything I want to do with it, but small handles definitely stop me from certain tasks. Makes sense for me to pay more attention to handle length, but I somehow never do.
 
Anything bigger than a 7" blade is too much for me. My sweet spot is 5" but the Brend midtech I carry is about as big as I want to go.
 
I have pretty medium hands, so for me handle length isn't too big of a restriction. I can use small handled knives, like the mnandi and spyderco bradley air, well enough. Small knives with big handles (dragonfly 2, mini tuff-lite, srm 605) work great also. If anything, knives start to feel weird if they get too large. I love the feel of my large sebenzas, umnumzaan, and large a100. The pm2 is right on this side of the edge for me, I think it feels larger than it is probably because the choil extends the handle (like the dragonfly 2). I have a resilience that I bought as a sort of travel kitchen utility knife, and that has a handle that is large enough to feel sort of ridiculous in my hand.

My opinions on knife size these days have much more to do with living in a city with a 2.5" blade limit. Even though I don't think it would ever be an issue, unless I got in trouble with the police, I generally try to keep to it when going out, which is a shame, since it relegates all the larger knives I have and love to being fondle-fodder at home.
 
Insipid Moniker, your thinking fits mine. Since my hands are not as large as yours apparently, I tend to like folders in the 3-3.5" blade length range. I also look at carry convenience and what I actually use knives for. This includes fixed blades. I love big (>7") fixed blades but seldom really have any practical use for one.

I like traditional slip joints. I also prefer ones that have two blades. My focus has generally been on what most would consider to be larger or pocket bricks (4.0-4.25" closed length). Essentially I am looking at blade length and comfort in my hand when using; especially with some force. Of late, I am starting to consider stuff in the 3.5" closed length size.
 
I have smallish hands but still prefer larger handles. I like the room. Before I buy any knife, I take ergonomics into serious consideration.
 
I don't discriminate. I like all knives, large and small. Preferable one (or two..) of each:

24748941730_8afb055cac_b.jpg


24685661941_044f500627_b.jpg
 
I like, and will buy, any knife with a design that appeals to me. That being said, I prefer 3.5 - 3.75 inches, because that's what I like. I do tend to like Handles in the 4.5 - 5 inch range.
 
With a folder I found that I only carried my knives that were at least 3.5" in blade length so now that is what I know I should look at for purchase. EDC Fixed blade I like at least a 3" blade. My hands are medium so handle length isn't really a concern.
 
i like designs where the max blade length is used to fill the handle on folders. i don't like big handles or scales with a smaller blade. i don't need the extra handle room. plus i just like bigger folders......they can do everything s amaller one can and more. too each their own though.
 
ebidis said:
I like, and will buy, any knife with a design that appeals to me. That being said, I prefer 3.5 - 3.75 inches, because that's what I like. I do tend to like Handles in the 4.5 - 5 inch range.
Click to expand...

Why type more than I have to. +1 Though I do tend to drift towards a little larger knife, both handle and blade.
 
It all falls under ergononics in my book.

If you are working with a knife for a long time it makes sense to have a "filling" handle. Length, width and 3d palm swell make for a good handle with a solid grip and fewer hotspots. That's why there isn't much variation in "bushcraft" type knives.
 
Officer's Match said:
Right now I'm digging the hell out of this one:





And this one:



Click to expand...

I do not like that second knife for a couple of reasons: 1. I like my knives balance in blade length and handle length; equal lengths. 2. It doesn't appeals to aesthetically at all. I like the first knife. :thumbup:
 
Blade length, and all specs for that matter, depend on the user and the usage. Sometimes I feel if I have a large blade, it's cool 'cause I don't have to use it all (that's what she said). However angle and cutting room often dictate the best blade length.

I'm another CQC7 fan who feels the dimensions are pretty near perfect for almost everything I do.
 
I would agree that often blade length gets the focus over other more important factors in use, like blade depth, or overall shape. There is a bit difference in using a 3 inch wharny over a three inch, but very deep big bellied blade. So someone who wants as much cutting surface as possible in their short blade is going to be looking for something very different to someone who wants the lightest possible blade for a given size.
 
I think there is a strange focus on handle size with folders. I almost never grab a folding knife in my fist the way I would with a fixed blade when I'm energetically carving. Usually I'm holding it more with my fingers to do something more precise. So these really large, sculpted handles on folders just doesn't make sense to me.

This smallish knife feels fantastic in my hands (fingers):

DSC_8186_zpse3ce5797.jpg
 
RX-79G said:
I think there is a strange focus on handle size with folders. I almost never grab a folding knife in my fist the way I would with a fixed blade when I'm energetically carving. Usually I'm holding it more with my fingers to do something more precise. So these really large, sculpted handles on folders just doesn't make sense to me.

This smallish knife feels fantastic in my hands (fingers):

DSC_8186_zpse3ce5797.jpg
Click to expand...

Before my recent illness I did quite a lot of relatively extended cutting with my primary folder, occasionally in fairly tough media. For those tasks I don't just want a hand-filling handle, but one that offers multiple grip positions to apply leverage in different ways. However, if I'm in an environment where I'm not going to do any extended cutting, I tend to agree with you. Then a Chaparral or Urban Trapper can fill in very nicely, despite being a bit lacking for me on the ergonomic side.
 
I think blade to handle ratio is even less important. If you like the blade and like the handle what does it matter what their ratio is?
 
kniferbro said:
I think blade to handle ratio is even less important. If you like the blade and like the handle what does it matter what their ratio is?
Click to expand...

I agree, but I also think it should generally be listed. I always support more info, even though some of my favorite knives have very 'bad' blade-to-handle ratios.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top