Which is tougher? ZT 200 vs. ZT 301

Both are build like tanks, but I'm guessing the 301 series will win on sheer toughness. In fact I recall someone on youtube testing both of those and the ZT0100 to the point of destruction. The 300 series fared better than the 200, the 100 obviously beat them both.
 
arjung said:
Both are build like tanks, but I'm guessing the 301 series will win on sheer toughness. In fact I recall someone on youtube testing both of those and the ZT0100 to the point of destruction. The 300 series fared better than the 200, the 100 obviously beat them both.
Click to expand...

Thanks.
 
I've had both and in my opinion, the 0200 is much tougher. That said, I like the 0300 series more to actually use.

The 0200 is substantially bigger than the 0300 too.
 
0200 is tougher. There was a abuse test done on Youtube and the 0200 was tougher. The 0301 s30v blade snapped off much sooner than the 154cm 0200.
 
samhain73 said:
You must mean the 0350, not the 0300. The 0300 is much thicker than the 0200.
Click to expand...

I've had all three, an 0200, 0301 and 0302 and it's a massive difference in real life. It makes the 0300 look like a children's toy.

ZT-Closed.jpg


And the 0200 is wayyyyyyyy thicker too. Actually, the 0300s are surprisingly thin for their bulk. That's one of the things that makes me like them a lot actually.

ZT-Top.jpg
 
Artfully Martial said:
When you see them side by side, there can be basically no doubt. The 0200 is substantially larger and bulkier...
Click to expand...

I have an 0200 and an 0301 sitting in front of me. The 0301 is heavier by almost an ounce (8.5oz -vs- 7.7oz) and wider by almost 4mm. Thickness is a wash since the 0200 has a palm swell that makes it thicker than the 0301 at the middle and thinner than the 0300 at the ends. The only dimension in which the 0200 is bigger is overall length due to the 1/4" longer (but almost 1/4" narrower) blade. Blade thickness is the same at .156"

In my eyes and hands, the 0301 is a much more substantial and bulky knife.
 
SpookyDriver said:
I have an 0200 and an 0301 sitting in front of me. The 0301 is heavier by almost an ounce (8.5oz -vs- 7.7oz) and wider by almost 4mm. Thickness is a wash since the 0200 has a palm swell that makes it thicker than the 0301 at the middle and thinner than the 0300 at the ends. The only dimension in which the 0200 is bigger is overall length due to the 1/4" longer (but almost 1/4" narrower) blade. Blade thickness is the same at .156"

In my eyes and hands, the 0301 is a much more substantial and bulky knife.
Click to expand...

The 0200 is bigger in virtually every way. It has a much longer blade, a much longer handle and a much thicker handle. I don't have any of those knives anymore, but in my recollection, the blades seemed equally thick. According to the stats I'm reading on the web, the blades are rated to be equally thick.

As per the weight, I couldn't tell the difference between them, and I don't really think about it anyway since I find weight to be irrelevant (for me).

I think the photos say it all. There's just no comparison in size. I EDCed two different 0300s and I couldn't even EDC the 0200 one whole day because it was like hard to even sit down with it in my pocket.

Now, Kershaw might be wrong about their own knives, but this is what Kershaw lists as the official specs:
0300: Blade: 3.75 in. (9.5cm) Closed: 5.125 in. (13 cm)
Overall: 8.625 in. (21.9 cm) Weight: 8 oz.

0200:Blade: 4 in. (10.2 cm) Closed: 5.25 in. (13.3 cm)
Overall: 8.75 in. (22.2 cm) Weight: 7.8 oz.

So, according to Kershaw, the knife is bigger in every way, although it is 0.2 oz. lighter, so if you often weigh your knife in a chemistry lab or something, I guess that could be an issue, but myself, as a meager human being, can't tell the difference in weight.

For me, it was the handle thickness and handle length that made it infeasible. It was as long as my pocket is deep and gouged my leg when I sat down. And the 0300 is a very thin knife for its overall dimensions, much thinner than my ti tyrade, which is of a comparable overall size.

That said, the fit and finish was beautiful, it came crazy sharp, and the thing just felt far more solid than both my 0300s. I'd say if you added the solid-feeling of two 0300s together, you'd get one 0200. I thought the MUDD was going to be as solid as anyone was ever going to make in a real, carryable folder, but man, the 0200 even blows that out of the water. I have no trouble recommending the 0200 for anyone wants a no-compromise hard-use folder and often do. But I'm not a hard user, I just liked how it looked, so it wasn't a good fit for me.
 
Last edited:
Artfully Martial said:
The 0200 is bigger in virtually every way.

So, according to Kershaw, the knife is bigger in every way...
Click to expand...

Actually, the only larger dimension you've listed is +3mm open/closed length, which is due to the 0200 having a 4" blade, compared to the 3.75" blade on the 0300 series. But the blade on the 0300 is almost 1/4" wider than the 0200 which makes the 0300 ~4mm wider when closed. For me, the width is much more evident than the length. And the overall thickness of the 0200 varies from middle to ends, while the 0300 is constant. As I mentioned above, the 0200 is thicker in the middle, but thinner at the ends.

And Kershaw is off quite a bit on the listed weights. On my calibrated scales, the difference is 8.5oz - 7.7oz and is very noticeable in the hand and the pocket for me...and my wife, since she carries an 0301 in her tool pouch and commented on how much heavier it felt -vs- the 0200. I'm about 6'6" tall and 240lbs, for reference. She's about 6'2", 190lbs, so neither of us are lightweights by any measure.

Of course, none of this means anything regarding overall toughness. I seriously doubt I could break either one of them without seriously abusing them and pushing them beyond what's expected for a folding knife. However, I trust the 0300 series to handle any abuse more than I'd trust the 0200. I doubt I'll ever encounter a situation in which I'd find out I was wrong, so I suppose it really doesn't matter.
 
Last edited:
It's an interesting point about the average thickness when closed (as opposed to comparing at the thickest point).

In my opinion, however, it's the thickest point that matters, not the overall thickness. And the difference of each at their thickest is pretty substantial.

I guess everyone's sensitivity to weight would be different. Personally, as long as the weight is mounted right, it doesn't matter to me, within reasonable limits. I could carry a 5 lb knife in my pocket, so long as its size was ordinary, and I probably wouldn't notice or care unless it was pulling my pants down or something.

I'm 5'10 and weigh 180 for comparison. So I would imagine the weight would seem more significant to me...but, I don't know, I box with 10 ounce gloves for an hour at a time, so perhaps I'm unusual being used to all that weight on my hands.
 
I highly doubt you'll break either of them under normal use. I wouldn't worry about which is stronger.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top