What is a small and large folder to you?

Joined
Sep 12, 2008
Messages
80
I've always considered 3" the point at the which a small folder becomes a larger folder. What do you think?
 
This a very interesting question. I find the comparison to be more based on the entire structure of the knife than the blade length. For example, i would say that the ZT 0300 is a bigger knife than the 0200 because it is thicker and beefier, while, in reality, the 0200 is longer. I would call my blur a small knife, but it is only about 1/2 inch smaller than my 0200, which i would consider a large knife. To answer your question, i consider it to be where i can no longer comfortably fit my entire hand on the handle. i would not call a kershaw chive a large knife because i would expect it to be too small for my hand.

when i look at a knife, then i tend to look more at knives that i consider useful than actual blade length. I prefer larger handles, and usually the bigger the blade is, the larger the handle is. i like about a 5 inch handle. bigger hurts the carryability, smaller hurts the number of ways i can grip the knife. this issue is totally a preference thing.
 
For me.

<3" Small
3-4 Medium
4+" Large

Handle length and blade thickness also matter, but the above is my rule of thumb.
 
I consider the Spyderco Military the perfect medium, anything less than 3.5" seems small. Logically then you'd have to go longer than 4.5" for me to consider a knife large.
 
Kershaw chive is my smallest. (less than 4 7/8" total open length)

Spyderco Military is the largest folder I own. (9 1/2" total open length) ...Any larger would be both illegal, and rather cumbersome.

Most of my folderrs fall inbetween those two.
 
Last edited:
This is totally a personal preference, but for me:

3" blade or less is a small folder
3"-3.5" is a mid-size
3.5"-4" is a large
Over 4" XL
 
To me, a sub 2.5" blade is a small, 2.5-3.5" is a medium, and 3.5" or greater is a large. Blade width and overall weight also play a factor.
 
small: < 3.5" closed
medium: 3.5-4.5" closed
large: >4.5" closed
 
I wouldn't call a knife full sized until the blade length is 3.4 inches generally.
 
For me...

Rajah 1 or 2 is a large folder
710 is a medium folder
Kulgera is a small folder.

I classified my recently sold Onslaught as medium/large, mainly because of the bulk/width. Same reasoning makes the 710 a medium. It is a slim knife.
 
I would say:

Mini Grip is Small (3" or less)
Full sized Grip is Medium (3" - 3.5")
710 & 805 are Large (3.5"+)

Although there are variations to the above those are my guidelines :D. Depending on handle length and weight.
 
<3" = tiny
3"-4" = med
4"-5" = large
>5" = ridiculous

i have two in the ridiculous range.
 
Small folder... SOG Twitch2 and Large folder Benchmade 760LFTI. I can carry both in front pocket, but usually go with just the LFTI or for medium size I like the Benchmade AFCKs.. sweet old folder :D

lengthwise, small under 2", medium, 2.5", and large I'd say over 3.5".
 
I have also classified folders into only 2 groups. Large and small. And I agree that 3" is the spot where the transition is made. For me its more about how the handle ergonomics work with the blade. Using the Griptilian for instance, I think the large model has a perfect profile for a user knife. The small version to me is too small, even thought the blade is adequate. Again may just be a hand-eye thing with me, but I am partial to a bigger folder.
 
This is totally a personal preference, but for me:

3" blade or less is a small folder
3"-3.5" is a mid-size
3.5"-4" is a large
Over 4" XL

+1, I agree.


I will add handle sizes:

3.5" or less is a small handle
3.75"-4.5" is a medium handle
4.5"-5.5" is a large handle
Over 5.5" is extra large
 
I don't go by blade size but by handle length. Under 3.5" is small, 3.5 to 4.5 is medium, and over 4.5 is large. 4.5" to 5" is about perfect for me. The Spyderco Military is 5.5" I think and just way too big for me. A small amount can feel like a lot on some designs.
 
Back
Top