Too Much Focus on Blade Length?

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 totally agree. I never understood what the big deal is. As a matter of fact, having large hands, I much prefer larger handles, even if the blade is shorter.
 
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...

It matters if you are looking for a size efficient carry.

For an extreme example looking at thickness.... why would anyone choose the carry the douk douk over the opinel.... I wonder. :D

douk_opinel_encombrement_t.800.jpg
 
Last edited:
I'm still trying to find my preference, but I can say that "large blades/handles" are definitely not for me. I just got a Boker Urban Trapper, and it's like carrying a steak knife around. It seems that right now, 2-3" blades with 3-3.5" handle lengths are what I'm most comfortable with. I have a Ka-Bar Dog's Head Stockman (4" handle) that fits my hand well enough, but my Case Sodbuster (4 5/8" handle length) is just comically large in my mind.
 
I don't like small knives, some of them are simply not meant to keep up with a lot of the work that I do. They can be fine in certain off work hour scenarios, but 3.75"-4.25" blade is where. I like to be most of the time. A smaller knife for those lookie loos in the office is fine, but that is about where it ends for me.
 
Blade length is important to me. I found my blade preference to increase over time. Right now I prefer acquiring them in the 3.75-4" range or more. My current shopping is for something in the 4.5-5" range in an auto. Can't find any Brends easily....

I've recently sold three or four of my better folders with blade lengths of 3.5 and under as I wasn't carrying them as much anymore.

Another CQC-7 booster here.
 
I can't wrap my head around how so many people claim to need a blade length > 3.5" when the conscripts in my country (myself included) and many other countries can successfully complete their service with the standard-issue Victorinox SAK that has a blade length just slighly over 2 inches...
 
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...

So you think this looks good?

9JF1aeP.png


I actually do like the blade shape of this, and the handle looks pretty futuristic. But the ratio...
 
For dimensions, handle length and width (comfort really) are most important. On a blade, it isn't steel or size that I care about, it's the shape, both blade style and geometry. Granted, the lack of care about steel is because I'm talking about manufacturers I trust and more tried and true steel selections. Nonetheless, a 5" fruit tester will never ever be as useful to me as a 1" wharncliffe would, for example.

Connor
 
Any blade under 4" seems tiny. And they better pack as much blade in the handle as they can or its wasted space.
 
Cutlover said:
So you think this looks good?

9JF1aeP.png


I actually do like the blade shape of this, and the handle looks pretty futuristic. But the ratio...
Click to expand...

Not that it's my favorite, but if I wanted a smaller auto blade that handle wouldn't turn me off.

You'd probably be surprised how handy a knife like that could be. Like a surgeons scalpel :)
 
kniferbro said:
Not that it's my favorite, but if I wanted a smaller auto blade that handle wouldn't turn me off.

You'd probably be surprised how handy a knife like that could be. Like a surgeons scalpel :)
Click to expand...

Agreed, and not only that, but if I wanted a Cali legal auto, I'd pick that far, far before something with a tiny, vestigial handle.
 
For many years I have preferred larger knives with 3.5-4" blades. Recently I've been leaning toward shorter blades. I need a larger knife less and less as my daily activities are more and more sedentary in nature. I have large hands but I can usually manipulate smaller knives okay. The Dragonfly has been a favorite of mine for some time and still is the top of the heap in the small knife category. But the best balance I've found (this is for me and, as always, YMMV) is the Emerson CQC7. Especially the Mini 7. Quirky as the Emerson happens to be, that full grip handle with a sub-3" blade just works perfectly for me.
 
Lee48 said:
For many years I have preferred larger knives with 3.5-4" blades. Recently I've been leaning toward shorter blades. I need a larger knife less and less as my daily activities are more and more sedentary in nature. I have large hands but I can usually manipulate smaller knives okay. The Dragonfly has been a favorite of mine for some time and still is the top of the heap in the small knife category. But the best balance I've found (this is for me and, as always, YMMV) is the Emerson CQC7. Especially the Mini 7. Quirky as the Emerson happens to be, that full grip handle with a sub-3" blade just works perfectly for me.
Click to expand...

Honestly, the one Emerson that tempts me is the CQC-14 for exactly that reason. Small blade, but with a full sized handle attached.
 
Handles vary in size slightly so if you hold many knives with 3.5 inch blades their handles are different sizes so it's easier to want a 3.5 inch blade because the smallest the handle could be is fine for you rather than attempting to measure how big each handle is
 
I'd rather have a blade to handle as close to 1:1 as possible. I prefer 3.5" and up in folders. I really don't want a 5.5" handle and a 3.25 blade. This is what turns me off to most Spydercos. Luckily just picked up a Caly 3.5 yesterday.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top