1/8" vs 3/16" - your thoughts?

Magnaminous_G

Magnaminous_G

Joined
Jul 13, 2011
Messages
2,090
I have never owned a knife in 3/16. 1/8 has never had any problems for me in my favorite steels, and is pretty thick already. I know that some knife makers like to use 3/16", which logic dictates would make for a stronger knife. Anyway, here are my specific questions. Hopefully I can get a few answers from folks with personal experience, too.

1. Do you find that the benefit of the extra strength outweighs the extra thickness and weight?
2. Does the extra thickness noticeably degrade the cutting performance in bushcrafting tasks (whittling, etc.) when compared to 1/8", or is it not noticeable?
3. Why would you choose 3/16" over 1/8"?
4. Do you think that 1/8" is plenty thick enough and 3/16" is just unnecessary?

Looking for some perspective here, thanks for your responses.

- Mag
 
I have both, as well as thicker and thinner knives.

It really depends upon what you want to do. I think the primary grind has more influence than the overall thickness. Mora's are thin, but their primary grind is too thick, IMO. I have other 3/16 knives that are FFG, and they cut much better due to the thin primary. So it really depends on your personal preference, and the tasks that you want to accomplish. I'm happy either way.
 
It depends on my needs. I have fixed blades that run from 1/16" to 1/2" with most falling in the 1/8" - 1/4" territory and they all have their uses. For most light bushcrafting tasks, I prefer a short, 3.0 - 3.5" long 1/8" thick knife. In most of those cases, absolute strength isn't an issue and a lighter, more nimble knife is easier to use.

If when you move up to more robust wood processing, a 3/16" (or thicker) can be an asset. And if you're someone who batons with their knives (and I'm not...), a big, thick spine can come in handy. My primary work knives here on the ranch are 7" - 9" long and 3/16" thick. I don't often need the extra strength, but when I'm out walking fence line, I'd rather "have it and not need it, than need it and not have it."
 
I don't find it makes much difference. The biggest factor in the entire equation is your skill with the tool you happen to have that day. Any knife is useless in an unskilled hand.
 
Very generally speaking a thin blade is going to whittle and slice better. I like to whittle with something thin and simple like a carbon steel stockman. If I only had one knife to take on a longer camping/outdoors excursion it would be my esee4 which is 3/16. The extra beef makes me feel better when batoning. Plenty of bushcrafters far better than me, get by just fine with a 1/8 blade. Unless you plan on chopping or batoning I would take a thinner blade.
 
It all depends on the overall geometry/cross section. I have large (12" blade) choppers that are 3/32" thick with a 3.5 degree per side primary bevel, but it's saber ground. If the knife is used for just cutting, try pushing it into something and see if the blade starts to twist or flex. If so, you need it thicker or lower the height of the primary grind. I'm now the proud owner of an old Cold Steel Scalper from many years ago. It is their Carbon V steel, 1.375 inches wide, with a 1/8 inch thick spine and a full flat grind. Even at the end of the handle with both hands, I doubt I could press it into something while cutting hard enough to deform/flex the blade. It doesn't really have the mass to chop well. The only way I could exceed the strength of the blade is to pry with it sideways or baton into something pretty hard. 1/8" is too thin for effective prying anyway. If batoning is in your scope of work for the knife, then perhaps look at a full flat ground 3/16" or even 1/4" blade, or go with saber ground blades. I plan to do some batoning with this knife just to see what will happen, but even then I doubt I'd be able to damage it with norman hits, like up to say 4" rounds striking with a wooden mallet. Old Hickory knives are only 1/16" thick or so, and I doubt you'll damage the blade batoning them. You might turn/ripple the edge, but that would happen regardless of the thickness of the spine, assuming the same primary grind geometry.
 
Cutting performance is dependent on edge geometry.

A 3/16" blade with great edge geometry will cut better than a 1/8" blade with poor edge geometry.

I personally prefer 3/32" or 1/8" blades.
 
All I can tell you is that my Esee 3 at 1/8 cuts and slices a whole lot better than my Esee 4 at 3/16. The 3 is plenty thick enough for most tasks.
 
Given the same edge, the thinner the knife the better it will cut. Steel is tough, and 1/8 can handle most anything.

Only you can decide if you want/need to give up cutting performance. If it's a larger knife you will use for camping, chopping etc..., I would go with the 3/16.
 
I am thinking about a 3-4" blade for a utility/bushcraft knife, and bushcraft tasks will be a major use of this knife. That's why I'm wondering about the 3/16". I'm not really sure why anybody would choose that over 1/8". Even for batonning, 1/8" 1095, 52100, 5160, O1, A2, etc. will be just fine if they were made well and good heat treats. Specifically, I'm looking at a few knife makers who offer both 1/8" and 3/16", and I'm trying to understand why anyone would choose the 3/16".
 
I agree with these guys, it's the grind, and to some extent the height of the particular knife. It may make a difference as to the length of a blade, but more so to the tasks at hand.
Even an 18" Ontario heavy machete is only 1/8" thick, then again, the primary grind is less than an inch. At that length the blade will flex, where the same 12" Ontario hardly flexes, if at all.
I understand you're going talking about a much shorter knife. Maybe if batoning through a knot, the 1/8" could snap where the 3/16" would not?

I had a Bark River STS-3, it was 3/16" thick, but the blade was taller than the ESEE4. It was ground pretty thin, due to it's height, and cut and carved very well. In fact, I felt like it wasn't really up to hard use, even though it felt heavy in hand. So, again it's back to the geometry and primary grind of each knife. That knife was so much thinner than a 1/8" thick scandi ground knife, there's a huge difference in geometry and their uses. You could slice tomatoes with the STS-3 better than the thinner scandi.
 
The only reason I'd choose 3/16" over 1/8" for the OP's stated uses would be simply for insurance if was the only knife I had with me at the time. Occasionally, you'll run into issues that may require you to use your tools in ways for which they weren't designed and the extra strength afforded by the thicker blade could mean the difference between success and failure.

Otherwise, I see no need.
 
I guess I am the odd man out. I love thick spine knives. All of my custom knives are from 3/16 to 5/16 thick.I live in an area that the woods and swamps I hunt in are very remote.The weather up here can change very quickly. I feel the thicker blades will help me get to inner wood for quick fire prep. I also trust all of my customs with my life! I have custom knives from Bruce Culberson Edmund Davidson,Daniel Fairly,Scott Gossman,Todd Orr,Trace Rinaldi and Bill Siegle.They are all hard use knives. I have used an 8 inch 1/4 thick knife to gut,skin and quarter deer with. These knives fill all of my needs in a knife.I do have a Knives of Alaska Wolverine hunter in D2 that is 1/8 thick and I can get scarey sharp that is always in my day pack.
 
Pick up a Boker haddock, at close to .2 (1/5) inch thick, its blade grind may allow for surprising slicing capabilities... Thickness is a factore... But grind is a bigger one...maybe.
 
I entertain the idea that stainless steels are more brittle than high carbon/tool steels. I figure that my ESEE-3 at 1/8" is as or more sturdy than my Strider SmF which is considerably thicker. All in all though, my Sebenzas are
probably the best knives I own. I am one of the few who appreciates CRK's softer heat treat for this reason... It's gonna be more durable!

Honestly I'm in the love/hate group with this topic. I LOVE the idea of having a sturdier tool. I HATE a design that caps usefulness off at sturdiness. My CRK Nyala and my Strider MFS are both 3/16"...one S30V, the other S35VN. The MFS runs circles around the Nyala all due to the FULL Flat Grind vs. a 3/4 Hollow Grind.
 
1. Do you find that the benefit of the extra strength outweighs the extra thickness and weight? Sometimes.
2. Does the extra thickness noticeably degrade the cutting performance in bushcrafting tasks (whittling, etc.) when compared to 1/8", or is it not noticeable? Somewhat.
3. Why would you choose 3/16" over 1/8"? For extra strength, weight, or width.
4. Do you think that 1/8" is plenty thick enough and 3/16" is just unnecessary? Usually.
 
sodak said:
Sounds to me like you've already got your mind made up. Get what you want.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm always open to understanding other people's perspectives, especially if there's something I don't understand. I could change my mind if I learn something new. But based on what I've already researched and read--as well as the responses to this thread--I'm leaning towards thinking that there's no compelling reason for me to go with 3/16" over 1/8" in a 3-4" sheath knife for woods chores in typical steels (O1, 5160, etc.). There would be a gain in strength, but at that length of blade, it probably wouldn't offset the unnecessary increase in weight and thickness.
 
Last edited:
It's all personal preference. One mans knife USE is another mans knife ABUSE. For a hard use, camping-outdoor type of knife, 3/16" would be the minimum for me. MANY of mine are 1/4" thick 1095. They do everything i need & then some, with NO FEAR of breaking them, even when prying with them. To me, a knife is a tool----use it-----just as you would a wrench or any other tool.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top