Why was original CQC8 only 4"?

[taiChiFighter]

Does anyone have any insight as to why the original CQC8 was only 4" long. I would have thought that, as a "close quarters combat" knife, longer would have been better (like the newer Super version). Is it possible that longer isn't actually better for combat or were there other factors that dictated the size?

 

[czechinthepipes]

I'll be honest, I don't know that much about Emersons nor have I bought one yet but a 4 inch (3.9' to be exact) blade is quite a big blade and could do the job. But in your example: if a soldier needed a knife in a close quarters combat situation he will want his fixed blade combat knife or a fixed blade Karambit (or some other fighting knife). A folding knife really shouldn't be your first choice for any combat situation; if you did want a folding knife in that situation (or as a backup) you most likely would want a Karambit or some other type of fighting knife.

Really in any self defense situation (especially with civilians) that size folding knife would definitely do the job, maybe even a little overkill.
I will say the CQC-8 blade shape and handle is definitely big enough and in that situation would do pretty well.


Just my 2cents.

 

[taiChiFighter]

What I'm really getting at is a question about the Super CQC8 (which came out later). If longer is actually better surely the original CQC8 (used by the SAS) would have been optimized at that length to begin with. Maybe the extra length of the Super is actually a drawback in some way that isn't readily obvious.

 

[arjung]

Generally speaking folders over 4 inches tend to be impractical for carry.

Military folks don't use their knives to shank people on a frequent basis. odds are the blade will be used for utility more often. By keeping it at a reasonable size people are more likely to carry them. Bulky stuff isn't usually fun to carry