Utility Tool Knives company?

Attached are pictures of a Utility Tool UTK0097 3.8” Spear Point blade being assembled with a Number 5 handle set.

The handle surrounds the tang once the handle is attached, as it is fitted into the handle channel. The handles are machined on multi-axis CNC milling machines to provide a contoured external profile unique to each handle style. Three barrel nut fasteners provide clamping force to sandwich the handle set on the tang keeping the steel from coming into contact the hand. As you can see, the tang is solid from the blade/tang transition to the first fastener hole. There are two lightening slots incorporated in the tang along with the fastener holes and the lanyard hole at the pommel. The tang is exposed at the pommel and contoured to the handle to avoid and unnecessary contact with the hand or exposed edges when in use.

Much time has been devoted to ensure the profiles of each handle style are carefully designed and then crafted to support the user/tool interface. The genesis of Utility Tool was a box full of tools made by great blade smiths that all have handles that leave much to be desired. Rough external surfaces, pointy and/or sharp edges, exposed metal, short handhold lengths… you name the pain point on the handle and an example can be found.

Fundamentally, our philosophy is that a great blade design with modern materials and heat treat is a wasted effort if the interface between the human user and the tool is compromised due to a marginal handle design. To us it seems that while blade styles and types can be standardized, handles require extra effort to improve the feel and ease of use while in the users hand, and as a result, improve the utility and usefulness of the tool.

Always welcome observations and insights so feel free to share your thoughts.

Thanks

Jim

See attached pdf View attachment 16015 Utility Tool Wilderness Knife Tang and Handle Detail.pdf
 
Last edited:
I like the look of them. I wish they offered one with a thinner blade profile. I have no use for a 4" knife with a 5mm+ thick blade. Something in the 2.5 to 3mm range would be great.
 
Understood, there are many applications where a thinner blade is useful. My EDC folder has a 3.25" (80 mm) blade that is about at the 3 mm (~0.120) thick and it proves itself as a great tool almost every day.

There are some smaller fixed blade Utility Tools in the works made from Crucible D2 Tool Steel with blades in the 90 mm (3.6") range that are about 3.8 mm (0.155") thick. This is an experiment in D2, thinner material and a design that is closer to a 'full tang'.

As they get further along will post pictures if there is interest in them.
 
collim1 said:
I like the look of them. I wish they offered one with a thinner blade profile. I have no use for a 4" knife with a 5mm+ thick blade. Something in the 2.5 to 3mm range would be great.
Click to expand...

Is that preference because of weight or 'maneuverability' by chance? If so, you might find yourself somewhat surprised by how light these knives are. My UTK0151 has a 6" blade made from 5mm stock, but with the FFG it's not the least bit unwieldy.

A few weeks back a nasty storm blew through the NW corner of NJ where I live, and as a result I lost a few branches from trees in my yard. The next Saturday I grabbed four of my knives and headed into the backyard to do a little 'field' testing. My 0151 was the second smallest of the bunch (the others were a Fletcher Hatchulla III, Fiddleback Forge Camp Knife and a 3 River Blades Bushman). I used each of them to batton - cross cut and with the grain - as well as feather stick and general carving tasks. Due to the number of knives I only got about 30 minutes non-stop with each blade, so my test is certainly not exhaustive, but the UT knife didn't feel cumbersome or fatiguing. Quite the opposite actually; even with a 6" blade and a good size handle I never had the urge to stop due to hand fatigue.
 
I love it :thumbup: really like the hidden-tang. I am interested in one of those UTK0097s, if you decide to sell your products on this site, please drop a link here?

I have a few questions, hope you don't mind me magnifying your image here:

Utility%252520Tool%252520Project%252520Handle.png


1) You seem focused on offering a very straight handle as opposed to one that curves naturally to fit the hand - is this because of the tang-design or is it deliberate? The #5 handle comes closest, but as such the straight tang sort of cuts across it rather than matching it. Are you limited to such a straight tang rather than one that curves to allow a more natural handle-shape to fit evenly around it?

2) Why the large gap of ricasso and choil from handle/guard to blade heel? With your fitted design, it seem you could bring the edge closer to the handle without issue...

3) Do the "lightening slots" do much to lighten the tang? They seem unnecessary, you have so little tang-material as it is... Balance is affected greatly by not cutting them out?

4) There are many makers proffering hidden-tang designs that do not require fastener-holes so close to the guard - why did you choose to go this route (nested tang between scales) as opposed to a slotted piece of micarta or wood into which the tang is inserted and bolted nearer the pommel?

Thank you for sharing your work here with us :thumbup:
 
chiral.grolim said:
1) You seem focused on offering a very straight handle as opposed to one that curves naturally to fit the hand - is this because of the tang-design or is it deliberate? The #5 handle comes closest, but as such the straight tang sort of cuts across it rather than matching it. Are you limited to such a straight tang rather than one that curves to allow a more natural handle-shape to fit evenly around it?
Click to expand...

I can't speak for the other handle designs - because mine is the #5 - but this one fits my hand very well. It's quite comfortable and thus far I haven't found anything about it I don't like. If my experience is anything to go by the looks could be considered deceiving.
 
This is great! I hope what follows answers the questions adequately.

1) “You seem focused on offering a very straight handle as opposed to one that curves naturally to fit the hand - is this because of the tang-design or is it deliberate? The #5 handle comes closest, but as such the straight tang sort of cuts across it rather than matching it. Are you limited to such a straight tang rather than one that curves to allow a more natural handle-shape to fit evenly around it?”

The focus is on making the interface between tool users hand and the tool as comfortable, practical and secure as possible within existing design constraints. After all the work with focus groups, random discussions at knife shows and feedback from users is taken into account the bottom line is each person has a different ‘feel’ and comfort level when it comes to tool handles. Interestingly, some folks with big hands like small handles, others with small hands like the larger handle profiles, and all in between. The design choice is to make ‘one size fit all’ (one handle design per blade) or to work towards a common solution that works best in a majority of applications (flexibility in the blade and handle as a package). Unlike the typical ‘full tang’ designs, where the design options are handle cross section (really width) and the associated radius top and bottom along with materials, Utility Tool is relatively unconstrained in creating external profiles to fit the needs of users. When you mention a “very straight handle” it is clear what you are thinking. That is a great observation and brought to mind a proposed design from almost a year ago when there was an inquiry about making a compact ‘chopper’ in the Wilderness Knife line. The UTK0117 (see attached line drawing pdf) is a departure from the past efforts for two reasons, (a) is NOT a drop or spear point but a modified sheepsfoot, and (b) it has a 3 degree adjustment to the tang with top profile of the Handle 4 having a more pronounced arc. As you can see by this example there is no inherent limit in the design, just the opposite – lots of flexibility to accommodate user needs. As an aside, there are two things most folks do when they pick up a Utility Tool – first is to comment on the feel in the hand and the balance, the second thing is that they keep holding on to it when talking and do not set it down! I should not be surprised by this but continue to be every time it happens.

2) “Why the large gap of ricasso and choil from handle/guard to blade heel? With your fitted design, it seem you could bring the edge closer to the handle without issue...”

Had never thought of there being a large gap but now that you bring it up it could be understood in that light. This is in the area of personal preference. From a design perspective the relationship between the ricasso, blade origin, choil and handle guard is one where a multitude of stresses converge. Because of that fact, the retention of a rectangular cross section creates an important starting point in the transition from the tang to the blade profile. The flat at the bottom of the ricasso in between the choil and the guard on the UTK0097, 0100 and 0110 provides a small working surface not unlike the flat on the pommel. This is one of those areas of design where form follows function. I have used that area to flatten and bend wire in the field with a pressing force as opposed to using the pommel flat, which would afford less safety and control. I am sure there are other applications but in this case the ability to have a flat that close to the guard is an advantage, with very little blade edge given up in return. Again, this feature can be attributed to designer, and user, preference in terms of what the tool was meant to do.

3) “Do the "lightening slots" do much to lighten the tang? They seem unnecessary, you have so little tang-material as it is... Balance is affected greatly by not cutting them out?”

The slots (or ellipses) remove weight. With a tang thickness of 0.210” on the Wilderness Knife line the reduction in weight is over 0.5 ounces with no appreciable decrease in rigidity. This is a substantial weight savings in a tool with a final weight of between 8 and 8.6 ounces. The result is to move the point of balance forward towards the blade and away from the pommel. In terms of material, a review of the typical full tang production or semi-production knife made from thinner blade stock shows less material cross section than the Utility Tool design. If compared to the skeletonized tangs common these days there is substantially more material available in the Utility Tool design to accommodate the stresses of tool use.

4) “There are many makers proffering hidden-tang designs that do not require fastener-holes so close to the guard - why did you choose to go this route (nested tang between scales) as opposed to a slotted piece of micarta or wood into which the tang is inserted and bolted nearer the pommel?”

A through slot handle design as suggested introduces many design and manufacturing constraints and costs without any appreciable benefit in terms of functionality to the user. If appraised strictly from a manufacturability perspective the through slot design, while novel, adds substantially more costs to an already expensive process without any tangible benefit. The handle sets as currently executed balance the design requirements to isolate the hand from contact with metal, allow flexibility in the creation of hand conforming external profiles and lend themselves to a multitude of options when it comes to selecting current and future handle materials. The fasteners and fastener holes do not degrade the functionality or strength of the tang, in fact there is substantial blade/tang material behind the ricasso under the handle set. In this design, the fasteners provide clamping forces for the handle set. In the more conventional full tang designs the fasteners (pins, rivets, bolts, flared tubes, etc) are what retains the handles (or scales) onto the tang unless there is also an adhesive used. In the Utility Tool, where the handle encapsulates the tang, is a design based upon simple mechanics in an attempt to leverage the inherent strength of the materials to provide rigidity without adding undue weight or complication.

Hope this answered your questions adequately. It is great to have folks ask questions about Utility Tool design choices. Appreciate you taking the time to review the pictures and inquire about why certain attributes were incorporated in creating these tools.

Thanks,

Jim
 

Attachments

Last edited:
Attachment isn't working for me either, but very much looking forward to seeing it :thumbup:

Thank you for taking the time to explain your design process, and please please do let us know if you will be offering these knives on BF, I am very interested to try one of these.
 
The attachment showing the UTK0117 line drawing is available now, sorry about that.

Only sell Utility Tool products through dealers or at shows.

Please let me know if I can help you connect.

Jim
 
Anyone have any additional feedback on these bad boys?

They keep popping up on my radar, and the more I look the more interested I get.
 
LostViking said:
Anyone have any additional feedback on these bad boys?

They keep popping up on my radar, and the more I look the more interested I get.
Click to expand...

Mine has proven to be quite capable, so I don't regret purchasing it one bit. Odd thing is, I'm not an FFG fan - I tend more toward scandi and saber grinds - yet I really like this knife. Go figure...
 
Another thread resurrection...What's the latest word on these? I heard about them for the first time today and would love to read some field reports. Nutnfancy reviewed one about two weeks ago and it seemed to perform well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top