Why are people making knives so Thick?

jacobconroy75 said:
Drop point? My Inkosi Tanto is .20 and .22 at the angle. That’s interesting if they differ between grinds.

I’ll have to measure my DP. Just assumed they would all be the same.
Click to expand...
I have the sm tanto. According to CRK the inkosi is .13 for the small and .14 for the large. I am certain CRK is very precise in their measurements so I'd be very surprised if yours is that much of a variance at .20
 
HexY3co said:
I have the sm tanto. According to CRK the inkosi is .13 for the small and .14 for the large. I am certain CRK is very precise in their measurements so I'd be very surprised if yours is that much of a variance at .20
Click to expand...
I collected some measurements with a quality caliper a few minutes ago.

My 2023 large Inkosi Tanto is .021 at the choil/.025 at the transition. However, it has been sharpened with a Wicked Edge at 20 DPS. Maybe that makes it change? If so, it didn't change much.

FWIW, my brand-new large Inkosi Insingo with a factory edge measure measures a consistent .025 BTE from stem to stern.

Another brand-new Sebenza 31 with factory edge measures .025 at the choil and .030 at the tip.

I looked at CRKs site. Where are you finding BTE measurements? I didn't have any luck.

You may be correct about CRK's precision measurements, but if this is the case, they aren't shipping the same blades they are measuring.

Edit: Never mind. I see that you must have been talking about the thickness of the blade, and I am talking about thickness-behing-the-edge.

My bad. Knew there had to be a disconnect somewhere. :)
 
Last edited:
Crag the Brewer said:
Yes, I agree with this statment as to what people may think......

But...... With the advent of "Super Steels" you get the same toughness (Better) with less needed blade size.

*So why are there .1875" - .25" 3V knives? (and there are LOTS of them)

That might be equivalent to a 7/16" thick Becker!!!


Do we really need That?


*I know That is a silly question.
Click to expand...
Your reliance on super steels may be overstated. 19th century steel was often very good. With industrialization steel production went to high volume production with a focus on railway tracks and structural steel. It is only recently that we see a return to cutlery steel. But, some of those earlier knives were made from excellent purpose made steel.

n2s
 
I have a lot of thick knives. Many of my khuks are in the 3/8+" thickness ;)
They have their place, but I will say that most knives for actually knifey purpose that don't revolve around processing wood are often times overly thick for what they need to be. It's not a big issue at all. It's not a deal breaker. I can make a 1.75lb khuk behave in such a way that it can do any survival task I need it to do, it'll just take a bit more creativity.

I have often done the mental game of asking myself what I would want if I were dropped into the wilds with nothing but one blade on me. Often times, my answer would be a stout 4" fixed blade like a ZT0180 or something. However, I think I would get more performance out of the much thinner Fiddleback Monarch that is on my belt today. Hell, I might even opt for an Old Hickory butcher knife, honestly.
 
I agree for the most part, I prefer a generally thinner blade.
However I also want stability in the knife that it doesn’t flex while doing harder chores.
There’s a balance for sure.
 
jacobconroy75 said:
Is that how it works?
Click to expand...

Yes, if you are referring to thickness behind the edge.

  • ".2 inches" means two-tenths of an inch, which is larger than ".020 inches", and thicker than the steel stock that most knives are ground from.
  • ".020 inches" means twenty-thousandths of an inch, which is much smaller than ".2 inches", and a common behind the edge thickness for production knives.

jacobconroy75 said:
Thanks for the tip.
Click to expand...

You're welcome.
 
jacobconroy75 jacobconroy75 I just noticed, the strike through text in your post above. Clearly you already knew it and the previous post must have just been an oversight. My apologies.
 
It doesn't seem to me that people are making any more "thick knives" now than they did historically. And we have more options today than ever before, for knives of every thickness to choose from. Not sure what the OP's question is really getting at.
 
not2sharp said:
Your reliance on super steels may be overstated. 19th century steel was often very good. With industrialization steel production went to high volume production with a focus on railway tracks and structural steel. It is only recently that we see a return to cutlery steel. But, some of those earlier knives were made from excellent purpose made steel.

n2s
Click to expand...
Yes, I fully agree with you.....

and, That actually prove the whole argument better..... Knives were really good back then.
a thick knife, back then was a Hudson Bay.
It was thinner than what we commonly find today with bushcraft knives.

Steels (can) be better today.
We don't NEED to make them so thick.......... We do it because we Want to, for whatever reason, not because we Need to.
 
Crag the Brewer said:
Yes, I fully agree with you.....

and, That actually prove the whole argument better..... Knives were really good back then.
a thick knife, back then was a Hudson Bay.
It was thinner than what we commonly find today with bushcraft knives.

Steels (can) be better today.
We don't NEED to make them so thick.......... We do it because we Want to, for whatever reason, not because we Need to.
Click to expand...

There has always been plenty of tough steels and in fact, I would go as far to say that some of the toughest steels have become rare in favor of more edge holding. Take S5, S7 and L6. Been around forever and unquestionably some of the toughest steels for any use. But steel toughness doesn't automatically give you lateral stiffness and strength. Blade width, thickness and profile does.

The issue with thin vs thick is all about the use. If you are someone who does not believe that a knife should be used for chopping wood or heavy batoning, then you will never need a thicker knife. And thats fine. I chose to cover all options with the thicker blade. No ghurka wants a machete thin khukuri and neither do the nepalese people that use the khukuri for everything from cooking to shelter building. The thinnest khkuris are prybars by western standards.

The other fallacy is that a thin knife has better edge geometry. That is not spine thickness issue, its a thickness at/behind the edge issue. I have moras of all types and I also have a few spyderco morans. The moran is 0.125" thick at the spine and my moras are around 0.1" Yet, the moran has a full flat grind that gives it an incredible thin cutting profile. The mora(scandi grind) is flat sided all the way to the bevel which is about 1/4 inch to the edge, so in essence a low saber grind. Both knives are equally stiff, maybe the moran slightly more so, but the moran outslices the mora by magnitudes. The blade profile and edge geometry are more important than spine thickness. Spine thickness just gives more rigidity or more flexibility, depending what you want. You want a filet knife to be thin and flexible.

There is no right or wrong here. Just different use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top