Why Spyderco?

SCWillson said:
+1.

Any blade can be bent/broken if enough force is applied against it, especially in a manner for which it is not designed. It only stands to reason (barring a material defect) that it will fail at the point with the least steel; i.e. a hole. That is not to imply that that same blade wouldn't have failed at some other point on the blade if that same amount of force were to be applied. Makes me wonder how many tactical knives would most often fail at the point where the thumbstud hole is drilled?

Spydercos as a rule are slicers, and I cannot imagine any human being can apply enough force to break one if used correctly. I suspect the lock or pivot would fail first.
Click to expand...

Beat me to it. :p
 
J_Curd said:
So you guys don't like my opinion but you agree with my points.

Works for me.
Click to expand...

I think it's more about your presentation. Haha. The width thing, I was trying to explain that it is more important to me that a knife is flat in my pocket, as it already lies along the line of the pocket anyway. Someone in slacks might have a worse time with the larger Spyderco's, but then they wouldn't be carrying anything of that size. A Dragonfly 2 or Centofante disappears in the pocket.

I personally do not agree with the Spyderhole thing. I find it more likely that a Spyderco or other brand will break at the pivot before that opening hole breaks. I would welcome proof to the contrary, however.
 
Anyway, here's my more relevant post.

Spyderco loves trying out new steels. They love trying out new locks, and have many different lock types under their belt. I can think of liner locks, back locks, frame locks, compression, caged ball, power lock, slip joint...I'm sure there are others. Combined with the steel choices, it makes for an impressive variety that allows one to find THE perfect steel and style they're looking for.

Sprint runs. Not only does Spyderco experiment with different steels, they also make limited runs of their most popular knives in many, many versions with different premium steels and handles.

Focus on cutting ability and ergonomics. By far, Spyderco is the company most concerned with making sure all their knives cut efficiently and are comfortable in the hand in a variety of grips. As some people think, this comes at the cost of focusing less on aesthetics and more on how the knife works and feels.

Full flat grinds. Enough said.

From my personal experience, a Spyderco will convince someone to make the jump into the upper level production knives better than a ZT or Benchmade. Why? Because they hit the sweet spot of performance in the $50-120 range. They start hitting the more robust steels as designs at a lower price point than the competitors, minus say the S30v versions of the Kershaw Blur and Skyline. They also appeal to someone who is unsure about spending the money, but can relate to a hard working knife simply because if feels good and looks like it is meant for work. Again, personal experience with convincing people to buy Spyderco.
 
J_Curd said:
So you guys don't like my opinion but you agree with my points.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure. At what point did your opinion diverge from your points? :confused:

It's pretty much moot, though. I like Spyderco knives, and have yet to have one fail on me in any fashion. They are good solid knives with a lot of thought in their designs and for the most part they are reasonably priced. As you said, works for me.

(Are they perfect knives? Hardly. That would require Spyderco to pay me to use them. Then they'd be perfect.)
 
Some may think the fancy sprint runs look like polished turds, but if you like the Spyderco look they're a great addition. My one and only sprint run is an Endura.

image.jpg
[/url] image url[/IMG]

I have to admit Spydercos perform way better than they look. I'd rather that than a knife that looks cool but doesn't perform. I need to add a Milli to the drawer.

image.jpg
[/url] picture upload sites[/IMG]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top