Blade width - maker's & users perspectives

kgd

kgd

Joined
Feb 28, 2007
Messages
9,786
Okay - I already posted about long bladed knives. The other, but rarely talked about feature of knives is blade width. I'm not talking about thickness, I'm talking about the height of the blade.

I have noticed that knives seem to have gotten wider recently for some of the survival-type manufacturers. It seems that most traditional leuko's are about 1.25" in width. Some knives are as wide as 1.5 and 1.75" and others, even long ones, stay around 1".

I've noticed that an in thinner stock steels, a wider blade does lend some rigidity to the blade. It seems there can be an optimum of characteristics when looking at lets say a 5" to 6" knife where cutting efficiency can be optimized by using thinner stock steels while preserving blade rigidity and strength by increasing the width.

Christoff, I wouldn't mind your thoughts on this as it pertains to your 5" bushcrafter style knives as well as some of your longer knives.

Everybody else - what is your ideal. Lately, I find myself gravitating to 1.25" wide blades, even in some of the smaller ones.
 
Interesting...

I think I generally prefer a wider blade, but it probably depends on the application. For example, a wider blade for a Leuku-type knife, a thinner blade for a Bird and Trout. I think Moras are a bit on the thin side. My Fehrman Last Chance is probably wider (and thicker) than it needs to be, but the width likely adds some strength.

A wider blade allows for a more a gradual taper or grind to the edge. That seems to help with cutting efficiency and straight tracking. In the 4-5" range 1.25-1.5" sounds about right.

 
I think width is the most neglected knife dimension. Think about it: how often do you see a maker or manufacturer list the blade width on a website?

Anyway, I am staunchly in the "wider is better" camp. I've had two custom-designed folders over the years with blades that were in the 3 1/2" blade range, and each was 1 1/4" wide. I found them both to be very functional.

Now that I am in a state that allows fixed-blade carry, I am kicking around some designs. I'm probably going to shoot for at least 2" wide on a 4"-5" blade or so, at 3/16" maximum thickness.

As to why, I think Rotte nailed it with:

Rotte said:

A wider blade allows for a more a gradual taper or grind to the edge. That seems to help with cutting efficiency and straight tracking.
Click to expand...
 
Rotte said:
A wider blade allows for a more a gradual taper or grind to the edge. That seems to help with cutting efficiency and straight tracking. In the 4-5" range 1.25-1.5" sounds about right.
Click to expand...

Yeah I agree especially when applied to full flat designs. Very good point!
When I first bought my mora#1 I was really disappointed with the short width of the blade. The knife works well, it is sharp, I like the scandi. But it just didn't look right to me. For some reason, I just can't generate any respect for the mora #1, despite all the accolades it receives. I even modded the handle to fit me better and varnished it so that it looks nice. Except for that silly short width blade!
 
I use the word 'breadth' (or broad) for this measurement.

I do most of the leuku pattern bushcrafters in 1.25 to 1.5 and like that width very well for the steel and grind I'm using. I do think it's very usable for a lot of things, and helps with the think blade chopping, tracking, and scraping. It is also one of the things that seems to be different in my BC designs from the more traditional less broad, thicker, clip point style of 'woodslore' pattern bushcrafters.

(I'm not the only one at this point, breeden is noteably making some fine looking broad blades)

Some of the shorter ones, like the recent lacewood shorty leuku pattern, with a 3.5 to 4.25 inch blade, I'll do in 1" and the folding BC that STR is making is 7/8, but nice and broad for the length. I'm doing a few blades for him so that he can mount the .095 15N20 convex grind.

My profiled bird and trout knives are all 3/4-7/8, but sometimes with a long taper in the breadth. So you may find that it's .5 inches halfway or two thirds of the way up.

And I'm hearing my only reservation about moras echoed here :D The mora #1, to me, is a very good knife for the price, but somewhere in between a bird and trout or a whittling knife and a bushcrafter.

the full flat or slab sided blades work out welll in this configuration, and it's pretty key to the way the sierra machetes (aka camp chopper, big mike knife, barberphobic zombie machete) are made. They are great for splitting, with good tracking, the breadth on the thin spined blade makes for enough mass to chop, and not having that 1/4 inch spine or more means they don't bind from wedge pressure a lot.
 
Recluse said:
Now that I am in a state that allows fixed-blade carry, I am kicking around some designs. I'm probably going to shoot for at least 2" wide on a 4"-5" blade or so, at 3/16" maximum thickness.
Click to expand...

Honestly, 3/16 might be overshooting a bit. with 2 inches broad you'll be wanting a spearpoint if it's got self defense aspects, yes? Even with a full centered convex from 3/16 that's going to be a bit heavy and bulky, but not long enough for the weight to really give you a long reach slasher. (IIRC, TX has a 5 inch limit) Not that 3/16 won't work and can't be sharp, but it's going to have a big wedge effect. using the .095 I've done a few knives for SD carry, one in Germany (where the lockblade is illegal, but the 4.5 inch fixed broad blade isn't!!!!), two to Texas, and one on the AZ border. Oh, and the prototype I have here at home.

In a blade that short I'm more concerned with fine cutting and speed/control than mass, so I'd got as thin as I could and still have it work. I have some .120 stock coming in and I'm going to try that out, but the .095 hasn't ever been to delicate to stab maple logs with in testing!

The 2 inch width might be really nice. I don't like trying to work effective guards onto low profile SD knives, and that extra half inch gives me a lot of room to work the handle shape for a secure stabbing grip. And that's a wicked leaf shape you can get with a balanced spearpoint coming down all 5 inches.
 
koyote said:
Honestly, 3/16 might be overshooting a bit. with 2 inches broad you'll be wanting a spearpoint if it's got self defense aspects, yes? Even with a full centered convex from 3/16 that's going to be a bit heavy and bulky, but not long enough for the weight to really give you a long reach slasher. (IIRC, TX has a 5 inch limit) Not that 3/16 won't work and can't be sharp, but it's going to have a big wedge effect.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with you. I don't think I explained myself very well, though. :p I meant that 3/16" stock was the thickest I'd ever consider going, pretty much for ANY knife. And if a maker could do it thinner and still maintain the full width, I'd be all over it. The less weight I have to carry the better. :)

koyote said:
In a blade that short I'm more concerned with fine cutting and speed/control than mass, so I'd got as thin as I could and still have it work. I have some .120 stock coming in and I'm going to try that out, but the .095 hasn't ever been to delicate to stab maple logs with in testing!
Click to expand...

VERY impressive! Then, sounds good to me. :)

koyote said:
using the .095 I've done a few knives for SD carry, one in Germany (where the lockblade is illegal, but the 4.5 inch fixed broad blade isn't!!!!), two to Texas, and one on the AZ border. Oh, and the prototype I have here at home.
Click to expand...

Well, if that isn't a law just for the sake of politics, I don't know what is. Sounds good for the users though...I'd rather carry a fixed blade than any folder.

koyote said:
The 2 inch width might be really nice. I don't like trying to work effective guards onto low profile SD knives, and that extra half inch gives me a lot of room to work the handle shape for a secure stabbing grip. And that's a wicked leaf shape you can get with a balanced spearpoint coming down all 5 inches.
Click to expand...

It's like you read my mind. :D I love leaf-shaped blades, and most of the stuff I've been sketching has revolved around that kind of style. I'm starting to think that a shape like a mini-barong would be the most all-around useful.....

Thank you for your lengthy response. :)
 
Well, my next order of .095 15N20 is due in this week, I actually put a couple orders on hold over the weekend insted of starting the profile phase - for the new .120 15N20 stock (choppers).

I've got a few of the 1/3 double edge knives to do up, one is in progress already, and I'm just going to HAVE to make one of these broader leaf shaped blades. I am not sure about a full recurve yet, but we'll see.

Does TX recognize a difference between single and double edge fixed blades for carry?
 
Well, now that I've got some new steel in, I can get going on a few of the projects. That leaf shaped blade, the tactical sgian dubh, some refinements of the model 2 wilderness (a very broad bladed design).

The sgian budh is going to be right in there with these. a nice spearpoint to 1.25 wide, 4 inch blade, with a slightly narrowed low profile handle. Once the first one (an order) is done I may try to push it out in quantity.

Another one we've not discussed is the two finger necker pattern:

bullnose01.jpg


bullnose02.jpg


http://koyoteknives.com/knives/wharn1.jpg[/IMG}

and sorry about the size of this one but:

[IMG]http://koyoteknives.com/knives/man-necker2.jpg[IMG]

I've had some really positive and some lukewarm responses to this design. For some people it seems too small. It's a very solid 2 finger grip, and the blade is very broad for the size. It has to be to get the ergonomics in for the fingers and the thumb. With an OAL of 4.25 to 4.75 inches, it's a very compact little blade with a lot of oomph. But as a utility knife, I can't see it being narrower than 1 inch.

This style has field dressed deer, cut boxes, pried paint can lids- it's my favorite necker to wear (the top 3 photos are my personal ones, the wharnie is a 'dress' knife) and does a lot of work.
 
yah, I'm just working out the handle shape. I want to fit the broad 1.25 base of the blade going into a fairly balanced spearpoint. That could be single or doulbe edged, or partial. i'm prone to a partial because I do a lot of work with different grips.

For the handle, take it down to 7/8, giving a bit or stop at the front of the handle. But it needs to be a low profile handle, and I have a general resistance to the flat rectangle style. The best answers I have are to give it some swell at the butt, which requires using some thicker micarta and a lot of thinning out, or give it a bit of a specific bird's head drop like I do on many of my bushcrafters, designed to socket into the palm for push cutting or stabbing. I may be making a mountain out of a molehill, but everyone knows how I am about my rounded no-hot-spot thick handles.
 

The handle is crucial and would seem to be a big challenge with this type of 'low profile knife.' The swell concept sounds intriguing. An asymmetric handle, while somewhat less traditional, may be practical for both comfort and indexing. The pommel ending up in the palm to prevent slipping. Hmmm.

Partial or single over double for just the reasons you mentioned. Jimping may be useful for a thumb rest as well as being traditional.

BTW, the neckers look super-useful
 
Oh, filework is pratically mandatory :D I have no problem at all with asym scale thickness. I've held some more traditional sgian dubhs that had the crowned stage with the crown at about a 45 to 60 degree angle from a flat butt, just for this, reason I imagine.
 
I really like the dimesnions of the sgian dubh now, and I'm working on some more of the modern seax style knives- I did try one thinner and the breadth makes a huge difference not just in rigidity and tracking, but actual comfort of use.

A lot of the historical blades I ruminate on for inspiration are pretty broad, some exceptionally so by today's standards. I wonder if there's a trend at work here- I see a lot of heavy duty survival/military/outdoors knives using stock that's 1 or 1.25 x 3/16 or 1/4 as a base for the 6-8 inch blades. I'd really prefer not to go under 1.5 (or 1.4) on a blade that length. I imagine the thickness is due to the prybar aspect, but I'm wondering if the narrow breadth is a result material savings with hollow grinds making it possible to get a decent edge. (decent unless you want to slice through thicker things. cutting onions with a SOG Government is painful)
 
The Sgian Dubh is a great little knife. I think you're right that the broader base make it more stable. It surprisingly useful given it's dark past. (I haven't been able to take pics recently, but I'll try to post some.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top