3/32” blade stock????????

allen456

allen456

Moderator
Joined
Nov 13, 2012
Messages
2,145
Been thinking about this for a long while. Why is there such a high demand for 3/32” stock? Personally, I can see the high demand if it is small knife, sub 2 3/4” blade, dedicated food prep or kitchen knife, and for folders. Realistically, 3/32” is a bit “light” for general purpose use. To me it leaves me wanting something a bit stouter for an all around blade. For the light use, I have a folder in my pocket and my belt or pack knife needs a little meat. Sure there is the “cool” factor with it being slim and sexy. Don’t get me wrong, I make several knives in 3/32”, but primarily out of trying to make the Knives y’all want. For me, 1/8” or 5/32” is my favorite, especially on a 3”+ blade combined with a tapered tang. With that being said, I also feel a tapered tang on a 3/32” blade is simply a waste. Not much material is removed to aide in weight reduction. Super thin tapered tangs are basically “oops”, however most makers will never state that.

Not saying anyone is wrong in their desire of 3/32” stock, just curious on everyone’s thoughts. I don’t claim to know everything and just wanted to share my thoughts.
 
6EF4CAF8-DBE7-4D7C-B4E8-60C410BDFAFA.jpeg I really like a tapered tang 5/32 3.5” blade. Just has a great balance and feel. One of my favorites is your Huntsman in 1/8 tapered, it feels like a Jaguar....perfect!
 
I broadly agree with this. Just a few quick thoughts (I’m at work...)
For me, <3” is generally folder territory.
>3” is where I begin to prefer a fixed blade and appreciate a bit of “strength” in the tool.
However, the choice between folder/fixed isn’t only one about ease of carry or overall robustness. There are two more factors that come into play for me.
One is esthetics/ergonomics . I love the look of a fixed blade and I feel the maker has more options to configure the handle etc in a fixed blade.
The other is maintenance. A fixed blade is much easier to clean (and keep clean) than a folder. No “gunking” up.
So, I do appreciate fixed blades in 3/32 in the 3” - 3.5” blade range where I want a capable “slicer” that is also easy to maintain.

ETA: blade height is also a factor. In a knife with an overall slimmer profile, 3/32 can be nice because there is less room for the blade to taper down to a thin edge. As the blade gets taller this becomes less of a concern, of course.

ETA: I think it’s also fair to consider that modern steels and modern heat treat allow for thinner stock because they actually do take quite a bit of hard use.
 
Last edited:
For anything over 3.5” I prefer 1/8” and really don’t care if it’s TT or not. Yes, TT is aesthetically pleasing but I’m not backpacking the AT where fractions of ounces add up so the tiny bit of weight it saves is negligible to me. On some knives it may help the balance but in most ways I use a knife I would never notice.
 
I’ve noticed the turn towards 3/32 here on the forums. Personally I prefer a stout blade, 1/8 to 5/32 for anything outdoors. Out of all my “outdoor fixed blades I think I might have two or three 3/32, one being a Gaucho, which is handy in an outdoor camp kitchen environment. I wonder if the requests for more 3/32 is because a lot of us use our outdoor fixed blades in the kitchen. I mean , just look at the food posts! Of course now that I’m working in a Restaurant kitchen three to four days a week a thinner blade is an absolute necessity.
And 3/32 is way too thick. That Skiva of mine gets a daily workout btw. At home but particularly at work. Hey Allen maybe you’ll consider making a longer version of that one in something less than 3/32!;)
 
Last edited:
It depends on use. My primary use is food stuff and the thinner stuff just generally works better. But it depends on blade height and the grind because I'm perfectly happy with a 1/8 or a 5/32 as long as it slices well. A differentiating test would be cutting an apple and having it slice vs having it split it apart as if it were a wedge.

If I'm going to be doing heavier work with a thumb on the spine pushing down, the 3/32 is going to become uncomfortable sooner.

My target stock is 3/32 because that's the bulk of my use but a good answer if you can afford it is: Get a model in a couple different steel thicknesses. :) Then depending on your task, you can grab a thin stock or a heavier stock knife.

I made this comment over in the Fiddleback Forum but what I don't like is handing a 1/8 or larger stock knife to the wife and she gets the blade stuck between the fork tines. Whereas, if I'm cutting with a 1/8 knife, I'll move the knife along the side of the fork and not between the tines.

Beyond that I'm kind of a snob when it comes to knife balance and I just plain like a real thin taper on the back end so the balance is more forward. So any knives you're making for me Allen, go ahead and screw them up and do a really thin thin taper. LOL


Anyhoo those are my 3 cents.
 
I prefer a 1/8” with a tapered tang. The 3/32” causes some more thumb soreness when whittling on wood or pushing hard into something when slicing. I use my knives for everything (including some meal-prep) and haven’t had any issues with the 1/8”. Tapered tang just looks cool and makes a more balanced feel and design, especially on 3-4” blades.
 
On a recent Fiddleback Friday sale, I noticed that the first four knives to be purchased were the ones in 3/32". That seems rather relevant to me.
IMO, thin is in. I'm a casual user, and I like to use my EDC in the kitchen. I have found that 1/8" stock just doesn't slice an apple; it wedges and snaps the apple apart. One knife that I use is the large 1/8" Sebbie, which slices MUCH better than any of the flat grinds of similar thickness. Of course, the Sebbie has a hollow-ground blade...which makes ALL of the difference.
Yeah, I like thin.
P.S. I am a casual user; I don't "go to the woods" any more.
 
My main preference is 1/8 as an all around knife, with a slight tapered tang for aesthetic appeal. However, I too have been wondering if 3/32 would be good in a slicing knife and kitchen knife, as long as the blade is 3 to 4.5 inches. I think light and thin is the current cool thing. I have two of Big Chris Hunters in 01 in 1/16 and 3/32 just to experiment which I like better. I keep going back to the 1/16, just because it is light and thin. So I see the attraction of 3/32.
 
Last edited:
Blade thickness doesn't matter much to me unless it is a dedicated kitchen knife or has a blade length > 4" - though I would be more critical of any knives over 5/32" in the under 4" blade category. I do like higher grinds on thicker stuff.

Tapered tangs? Ultimately I don't care, but I do prefer a nicely thinned taper visually. As long as choppers are blade biased, chef style knives balanced towards the heel, and everything else a neutral/forefinger balance I can go either way in however you achieve that. I'd probably have little to no interest on a tapered tang in anything over 5/32"

Efficiency in the kitchen I'll grab an actual kitchen knife; Cutting tape, cardboard, stripping insulation, cutting tubing etc etc etc 3/32 or 5/32 doesn't really make a difference. Someone can't find their own apple, I'll just bite a chunk off and spit it at them.
 
FeralGentleman said:
Blade thickness doesn't matter much to me unless it is a dedicated kitchen knife or has a blade length > 4" - though I would be more critical of any knives over 5/32" in the under 4" blade category. I do like higher grinds on thicker stuff.

Tapered tangs? Ultimately I don't care, but I do prefer a nicely thinned taper visually. As long as choppers are blade biased, chef style knives balanced towards the heel, and everything else a neutral/forefinger balance I can go either way in however you achieve that. I'd probably have little to no interest on a tapered tang in anything over 5/32"

Efficiency in the kitchen I'll grab an actual kitchen knife; Cutting tape, cardboard, stripping insulation, cutting tubing etc etc etc 3/32 or 5/32 doesn't really make a difference. Someone can't find their own apple, I'll just bite a chunk off and spit it at them.
Click to expand...
:eek:Applesauce! :D
 
I'd agree with you that I don't understand the premium demand for 3/32. Blade thickness should vary with knife profile, in my opinion, and there's room for all shapes and sizes of steel- no fat shaming here. One of my favorite small knives is a FBF EDK with a high-grind 5/32, it serves my needs perfectly and I'd have limited interest in that model in thinner steel. But I waited for a Bushraptor, and am still waiting for a Handyman, in 3/32 because of their profiles and intended uses. I'd say that high grind 5/32 TT on mid-size models doesn't get the attention it deserves, considering its infrequency.

If you're putting your finger forward on the spine while pinching a knife, 3/32 or thinner can cut into your finger after prolonged use. And for a lot of knives, that forward pinch grip is the main way you end up wanting to use it. Profiles with a lot of belly get limited benefit from the moderately thinners steel compared to 1/8 or 5/32. Wider blades allowing for high grinds generally slice at 1/8 quite nearly as well as 3/32.

The tang issue is a separate thing in my mind. Tapers just look cool, regardless of steel stock thickness. Anything shorter than 7 OAL I personally don't think there is a significant balance benefit either way. Beyond that, tapers generally are preferred until blade length exceeds 6 or 7 inches depending on width. But if the knife maker is paying attention to balance a taper or lack of taper will be fine in any length. Functionally, an extreme taper on a narrow steel if full length is still going to be stronger than a rat tang, so if a knife maker can pull it off well and wants to, good for him/her.
 
I love hearing all of this feedback. You see little bits here and there for various wants/desires/and reasonings, but it is cool to see it all laid out here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top