what makes 1/4 inch so appealing?

I do like a thick blade, but I normally back it up with a smaller, thinner blade.

Last few outings, I've been packing my RC-5 and an AG Russell woodswalker.

If I'm only going to be packing one knife, it'll be a medium thickness, like the RC-4. In my mind, a thicker than needed knife can handle whatever you might throw at it.

My RC-5 can slice, not that great, but it can do it. A thinner knife can slice much better but can't really pry much at all.

Overkill can be a good thing.:D
 
Knives have gotten slimmer in recent years. A few years ago, every so called survival or combat knife was 1/4" thick. Now closer to 3/16ths seems to be much more common.
 
In a large knife its nice to have the thicker spine. It creates more weight and chopping power. I don't think its neccessary in a smaller knife under 4"

When it comes to cutting abbility, it all comes down to edge geometry.

I have this large camp knife made by NWA. It's a 1/4" at the spine, but tapers down to a beautifuly thinned edge. I have had 1/8th inch knives that wouldn't cut as well as this knife.




The RC-5 is built to be a tank of a survival knife, that will take all kinds of abuse. So it has a pretty thick edge for handling that. It cuts ok, but once you knock the shoulders off that thing and put wicked sharp convex edge on it; it becomes a mean slicer and still retains its tuffness!
trat07.jpg


trat08.jpg


So in summary, with the right edge geometry, a thick knife can handle all kinds of tasks.

That said, I still prefer a a thinner 4" knife for most outdoor tasks......
 
I honestly have never been a huge fan of thick blades, unless it's intended to also double for prying duty. I'd rather have a wide blade to add mass, rather than increasing the thickness. A thin blade penetrates better, and can still slice.
 
I love thick blades. I am not real sure why, I just find them more appealing. However, when slicing is what must be done, I love my thin blades. The biggest reason thicker is better, in my opinion, is added chopping power. This only applies to blades long enough to be able to chop.
 
Again, I reiterate that I prefer my additional mass to be behind the cutting edge, not to either side of it. :D
 
byrd687 said:
As I look through the posts here and elsewhere there seems to be an unusual if almost irrational preference for 1/4 inch blade thickness from everything from short knives to choppers. By irrational I mean that one could design and/or produce an infinite number of blade thicknesses. why not 3/16? or 5/16? or 5/32? or 7/32?

So, what's the case for 1/4? and if 1/4 is better than 1/5, does it stand to reason that 1/3, 1/2, or 3/4 if better yet. where is the line drawn and why, at least in your mind?

I can't get my mind around why, unless you need lateral strengh or torsional strength a thicker blade holds much advantage. Seems to me it'd only add weight which would only be a benefit for chopping. If that is the case, wouldn't one be better off from a leverage standpoint having a longer, thinner blade rather than a short fat one?

I would think there'd be more discussion on primary blade bevel since you can apply one bevel angle to any number of thicknesses (assuming a saber rather than a non-full flat grind is applied).

Just curious.

Thanks,

B
Click to expand...

The vast majority of people do not understand the physics involved in cutting with a knife.

The best hunting knife in the World will have a blade of 1.10th or 1 8th inch but the same design in 3/16 will outsell the thinner ones by a factor of 8-10.

40 years ago 1/4" would have been a strong contender as well, maybe better than 3/16" following that time, Bob Loveless, Bob Dozier, a few other makers and I have pretty well settled that greater than about .200 in a hunting knife is more than is needed

I would make 1/8" fighters but they would not sell. Cheap is the perception and I expect that 1/4" fighters will outsell the same design in 3/16".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top