Flippin' Recurves...

[Eight Trigrams]

Double tap.

 

[allenC]

In my experience, a nice subtle recurve blade makes pull cuts smoother and deeper, with less effort, than non-recurve blades.
The knife seems to have a more fluid performance when slicing (if that makes any sense....it's hard to explain).

Some really fantastic recurve designs that I've personally used, all of which are great slicers:

Boker M-Type
Camillus CUDA EDC
Benchmade 710
Kershaw Boa
Kershaw Scallion
Kershaw Blur
Kershaw Chive

 

[GregS]

Recurves = slasher power = more cutting surface (for the same price) = nice blade = :thumbup:

This is a very good argument in favor of recurves. Thanks for the comments and votes fellars, anymore?

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

If more cutting surface was the main goal you might as well carry a fully-serrated blade. Yuck.

I personally think that the main point is to provide a variety of cutting surfaces and angles, combining the general utility of a standard bellied blade with the pull-cutting properties of a hawkbill. I still don't like 'em, though.

 

[zerowolf]

I have an Emerson Commander and it is not very good for general cutting tasks or stabbing but for dismantling an attacker in a grappling situation it would br great. Assuming you had the opportunity to open it before contact.

 

[GregS]

I have an Emerson Commander and it is not very good for general cutting tasks or stabbing but for dismantling and deanimating an attacker in a grappling situation it would br great. Assuming you had the opportunity to open it before contact.

Fixed that for you.

 

[UpChUcK]

I actually like recurves. I like it for the looks (like a woman's curves ) and, as already mentioned, for its functionality (increased cutting length and pull cut performance).

What I do not like is sharpening it.

 

[Josh K]

I actually like recurves. I like it for the looks (like a woman's curves ) and, as already mentioned, for its functionality (increased cutting length and pull cut performance).

What I do not like is sharpening it.

When I had my ZT302 I sharpened the full length with the corners of my sharpmaker (brown then white) and then I sharpened the front of the recurve with the flats. Best compromise I found. Got a sharp edge in front and a slightly rougher edge in back.

 

[knivesandguns]

When I had my ZT302 I sharpened the full length with the corners of my sharpmaker (brown then white) and then I sharpened the front of the recurve with the flats. Best compromise I found. Got a sharp edge in front and a slightly rougher edge in back.

This is what I do with my ZT 0300 as well.

I actually like the recurves for the sheer cutting power they afford. I also have a sharpmaker, so no problemo with sharpening. :thumbup:

 

[crom]

My favorite recurve is a flippin recurve. It's the kershaw Lahar and they don't get much better than that.

 

[GregS]

And the no's take the lead!

 

[mmmotorcycle]

I love a little bit of curves........I though all knife knuts loved their curves!

 

[Tonie Nichols]

Just like the American Tanto point I feel that the recurve blade is little more than a faddish style introduced by a knife maker who wanted to draw attention to his knives.I've had several recurve blades down through the years and other than the serrated Vaquero Grande I quickly became unimpressed with them.

That is not to say that a knife maker can't use them to good advantage. Look at Jerry Hossom's work, utterly amazing.

The only two design functions that separate the recurve from a standard blade is that it allows for a belly forward design using less material and therefore the blade could possibly be a few fractions of an ounce lighter. The other is that the recurve of the blade acts as a modified hook blade and material being cut is forced into the apex of the curve. The problems I've found there is that if you continue the cut past the recurve you can be forced to change the angle of the knife to get that last little bit of front edge to do any cutting at all. From what I've experienced, once the outside curve of the edge is reached the knife slips out of the cut and the cut is finished. Of course this can vary depending on the degree of recurve. The second major disadvantage is the difficulty presented in trying to sharpen the recurve. Since this style of edge concentrates the cutting force in the inside curve it gets duller there more quickly and is much more difficult to sharpen. Obviously, with experience, one can learn to sharpen it more effectively, but I don't see the advantage to the style that would justify this difficulty.

I guess I'm really old fashioned, but if I want more cutting edge and a belly I want a blade that widens from the hilt to the belly. This design gives even a small knife ax like qualities for performing snap cuts that can make use of the extra fractions of an ounce. And because it presents a relatively straight edge they are much more easily sharpened.

 

[Lock1454]

In my experience, a nice subtle recurve blade makes pull cuts smoother and deeper, with less effort, than non-recurve blades.
The knife seems to have a more fluid performance when slicing (if that makes any sense....it's hard to explain).

This. A very slight, subtle recurve seems to make a slice a wee bit easier. It also provides more possible angles for the knife to cut on without you having to change your slicing motion. Also, some people just plain dig the look of it

 

[felix7]

I like more convex style edge (like es. Spyderco Manix, Lava, Delica...), but I also like recurves (like ZT 0301).
I voted: Yes

PRO
-as said previously, they are excellent for slicing cuts & you will have more cutting surface in relation to the length of the blade.
-concave part is excellent for carving *
-convex part is excellent for chopping *
-I like diversity & originality, damm I can't buy only Spydercos with convex edges, I love them (favourite manufacture & favourite blade shape), but I have to prove also other things
-i like the sharpening challenge that recurves represent, I also build myself a home made sharpener for them:

*I have used my ZT 0301 to repair a wood chair, I have used the convex part of the edge to break some hard glue big crust (with light chopping) & then removed the smaller pieces with the concave part (with carving action).

CONS
-specific sharpening hardware
-less accuracy while cutting, when you need it

 

[tjsulli790]

Just like the American Tanto point I feel that the recurve blade is little more than a faddish style introduced by a knife maker who wanted to draw attention to his knives.

I read a thread just like this one on another forum where Mike Stewart chimed in.

"The area of the blade you describe on a recurve is called the Sweet Spot and if you engage that part in a slash or a chop you get to see how efficient the Blade can be.As I said above.Recurves are not anything new and gave the weak edged bronze age swords a bit of slashing and chopping help in both weapon use and use as a tool."

"Recurves excel at Slashing--Hacking and Chopping.That is what they are for.
There is Nothing new about them--they date back to about the Bronze age."

I guess I'm really old fashioned

Pre-Bronze age fashioned. I guess my point is, Recurves are no fad and they have been around for a very long time. A blade shape doesn't last that long without bringing some significant function to the table.

You criticize the pronounced front belly of a recurve because it make continuing the cut difficult, that assumption is that in one cut you are trying to use the entire length of the blade. I use my ZT302 for many of my tasks and rarely do I find myself using the whole blade, or needing to use the whole blade. I find the front belly handy for game cleaning and as many people have mentioned already it is great for slashing. I use the recurve portion for other tasks, such as cutting rope and more finesse cutting.

My use of a recurve is opposite of what you said, the recurve portion stays less dull than belly, but this is an advantage to me. The belly is more of a hard use part of the blade and having sharper recurve section lets the user switch to more finesse work. Note: This is the opposite of what most experience in a recurve, in which the recurve portion is used more and thus dulls faster. Then again I've never had a knife that dulled completely evenly so I don't see how you find this as a disadvantage. Also sharpening recurves is not difficult if you have the proper setup and if you are willing to learn something new. Then again I guess you can't teach an old dog new tricks.

 

[Tonie Nichols]

TJ- There was an example of a bronze age sword with a recurve so that proves the value of recurve knives? There's a twisted bit of logic. A recurve sword and a recurve knife have totally different functions. And just because you've found a way to use the characteristics of a recurve doesn't show that it offers any practical advantage or that it isn't faddish; the Zoot Suit, Nehru Jacket and Platform Shoes all prove that.

I don't care if you like recurve blades, but nothing you've said proves that they offer any practical advantage over a regular blade. As a matter of fact, what you said about using different sections of the blades really disproves the contention that you have a longer continuous cutting edge. If you use the bellied front of the blade for one thing and the recurve section for other slicing then you're not using the "continuous" cutting edge, you're only using half your blade at a time.

Beyond it being a fad with no real practical advantage I have always felt that the hoped for result of using a recurve was to give the straight blade some of the cutting characteristics of the khukri. However I feel it is much simpler and more effective to change the angle of the blade in relation to the handle much like the Spyderco Military or for a more extreme example the Szabo UUK. This change in angle has it's apex in the joint of folder at the base of the blade and slicing actions drives the material being cut throughout the length of the edge making full use of the knife.

If you really want to see practical knife usage, look at the blade designs of the Scandinavian companies. These designs are the result of hard practical use in some of the most demanding environments of the world and you won't find a recurve amongst them.

As many people posting, including yourself, have confirmed, maintaining the edge requires a whole different style of sharpening skills. And since there is no practical advantage to the design, why bother?

Nah, recurve blades are just typical American faddishness driven by knife makers who needed some way to bring attention to themselves.

 

[tjsulli790]

TJ- There was an example of a bronze age sword with a recurve so that proves the value of recurve knives?

It was my response to your absurd assertion that the recurve blade shape was designed by these darn American knifemakers as a fad, instead you got nitpicky about it.

I don't care if you like recurve blades, but nothing you've said proves that they offer any practical advantage over a regular blade. As a matter of fact, what you said about using different sections of the blades really disproves the contention that you have a longer continuous cutting edge. If you use the bellied front of the blade for one thing and the recurve section for other slicing then you're not using the "continuous" cutting edge, you're only using half your blade at a time.

There are advantages in using a recurve in a sword and some of those advantages do transfer over to a knife, I don't see how that logic is so hard to follow. A recurve blade in a knife makes for great slashing, an aspect makes it more of a tactical blade shape. But it also has it's utility uses. The recurve part of the blade SIGNIFICANTLY pulls the material into the blade and does make a SIGNIFICANT difference over using a conventional blade shape. I do find enough of a difference to warrant having a recurve blade, I'm sorry that you do not, but different people deploy their knives in different uses. Just because in your uses recurves are not advantageous doesn't automatically make them useless.

Look if you want to argue that the increased blade length is not a significant advantage, fine, I'm not going to argue with you. But the fact is the recurve geometry does give a cutting advantage and you can't get around that.

If you really want to see practical knife usage, look at the blade designs of the Scandinavian companies. These designs are the result of hard practical use in some of the most demanding environments of the world and you won't find a recurve amongst them.

The only thing this proves is that you have on obvious bias towards Scandinavian designs and a disdain for anything that has gained popularity in America.

As many people posting, including yourself, have confirmed, maintaining the edge requires a whole different style of sharpening skills. And since there is no practical advantage to the design, why bother?

It's different but not any harder. The tools I use are the same tools I have anyway to sharpen knives. I don't put my pants on the same way I put shirt on, but that doesn't stop me from using pants.

 

[Kaizen1]

Recurves always remind of one big wavy serration. A little strange, but I wouldn't hold that against a nice design. I can do without the recurve generally speaking.

 

[Fargus]

I can't see how a recurve on a folder sized knife increases slashing ability. If anything, I would imagine it decreases the effectiveness of a slash cut. It would be harder for the recurve section to make and maintain contact over a straighter edge or full bellied blade style. On a typical slash, the edge on a recurve wouldn't engage until near the farthest section of the curve, wasting the majority of the blade length. I can see where they would excel at cutting, but not slashing.