Thin blade stock

3D Anvil

3D Anvil

Joined
Oct 4, 2021
Messages
2,540
Thinner stock generally makes for better slicers, and the few makers that employ it seem to do very well. Three Rivers Manufacturing (Atom, Neutron, etc.) and Waypoint come to mind, although admittedly they both have limited production. Benchmade's Bugout is another very popular knife with a thin blade. Is it harder to make a production knife out of sub-0.1" blade stock? I ask because it seems relatively rare in EDC folders, while many reviewers routinely praise thin-stock knives and bemoan the fact that more makers don't offer thin bladed folders.

What other folders come in blade stock of 0.09" or less?
 
3D Anvil said:
Thinner stock generally makes for better slicers, and the few makers that employ it seem to do very well. Three Rivers Manufacturing (Atom, Neutron, etc.) and Waypoint come to mind, although admittedly they both have limited production. Benchmade's Bugout is another very popular knife with a thin blade. Is it harder to make a production knife out of sub-0.1" blade stock? I ask because it seems relatively rare in EDC folders, while many reviewers routinely praise thin-stock knives and bemoan the fact that more makers don't offer thin bladed folders.

What other folders come in blade stock of 0.09" or less?
Click to expand...
most of the civivis use very thin stock.....
 
Sonnydaze said:
If you're a casual user, thin is in... and try for a bte measurement of less than 0.015".
Click to expand...
.015" behind the edge would be rare, in my experience. Most of the knives in my modest collection come in closer to 0.03". Granted, that's mostly after a few sharpenings.
 
jbmonkey said:
most of the civivis use very thin stock.....
Click to expand...

Most of the Civivi knives are 0.12". (My calipers often come in just under that at the base of the blade.) It's amazing how 0.12" can feel thin by contrast. I think it was Nick Shabazz who described our current situation as "just getting over" a long, bad trend of over-built EDC knives with overly thick blades. He also tied that to the similarly dumb trend of overbuilt "tactical folders". (Sorry to anyone who likes these but reality check: folding knives are relatively horrible choices for either self-defense or serious tactical operations by actual professionals.)

Getting even just a little thinner can feel good. For instance, the regular Elementum is 0.12". The BladeHQ exclusive in S35VN drops down to 0.11" and manages to feel noticeably thinner in use.

Notably thinner Civivis include the Pintail, Crit, McKenna, and Rustic Gent at 0.10"; the Bo and Baby Banter at 0.09"; and the Lumi at 0.08". I'd love to see more modern EDC folders in this range.
 
Good discussion. I thought it had a lot to do with what was economically viable in metal stock, how the thickness of sheets of steel could be obtained. I heard one maker state that it was harder to get the thinner steel stock steel. I guess if it was more expensive, could the extra cost be made up in sales? I am mostly thinking of fixed blades, but would this apply to folders?
 
It can be harder to get thin blade stock, frequently its both a warranty and marketing decision however. Thicker knives are going to be, on average, more durable than the equivalent thin stock variation, which is an advantage when selling to people who will do non-knife tasks with it, cuts down on warranty claims and such. There is also a large subset of people who equate weight with quality, if its too light then it feels cheap to them. Thicker blade stock helps that aspect as well, giving a little more weight and heft, both visually and on the scale.
 
Jordan@DLT said:
It can be harder to get thin blade stock, frequently its both a warranty and marketing decision however. Thicker knives are going to be, on average, more durable than the equivalent thin stock variation, which is an advantage when selling to people who will do non-knife tasks with it, cuts down on warranty claims and such. There is also a large subset of people who equate weight with quality, if its too light then it feels cheap to them. Thicker blade stock helps that aspect as well, giving a little more weight and heft, both visually and on the scale.
Click to expand...
You beat me to it, sir. This is exactly what I came in to say. A lot of people think knives are for prying and no amount of correction will change their mind.

Just because a blade is thin, that doesn't necessarily mean it's fragile. A thin blade has some flex, so they can still be resilient even if they aren't as rigid.
 
It's funny because I took a 8 year leave of absence from Bladeforums. Right here on this very same forum we were having the exact same conversation. Except reversed.

Everyone was talking about how these new 'tactical folders' were kind of a facade because the blade stocks were hardly ever thick enough for them. I think the idea of a knife back then was kind of as a general tool that can do a little bit of everything. I listened and got all types of heavy duty knives. Zt 300's, Burke Pro Rockstar, Striders, a Tops Tracker etc. Then I started to notice that, being a knife guy, I never ever felt the need to pry anything. Not only that but I could baton with a thinner knife. And even battoning was a made up chore for me as I'd been an outdoorsman my whole life and never even heard about it till I got here.

Now the ideology is flipping quickly. I think this school of thought is a lot more practical for most our folder uses. When it comes down to it the knife is really a tool to do one thing, cut (In most cases). And the more efficiently it cuts the better.
Edit:Typo
 
Last edited:
Jordan@DLT said:
... There is also a large subset of people who equate weight with quality, if its too light then it feels cheap to them. Thicker blade stock helps that aspect as well, giving a little more weight and heft, both visually and on the scale.
Click to expand...

Another place we see this is with lighters. When a lighter is lightweight, some reviewers will say it "feels cheap". When it has some heft, that heft is praised as being indicative of quality. In reality, that weight doesn't seem to matter for either quality or function. I'm guessing there might be some overlap with jewelry in the perception here.

For instance, I recently examined a new Xikar Forte. It's a $65 single-jet metal lighter with CF scales and built-in punch. A few reviews had praised the weight as an indicator of quality. Well, the carbon fiber scales were nice but the lighter was not. The finish was terrible, with scratches and pits right out of the box. The punch looked like it had the same not-quite-even chrome-like coating as the bottom of some matchbox cars I've seen. The adjustment was a little wonky too. I checked around and those are apparently common issues. I think the weight comes from superfluous pot metal in the construction and might be intentional...

Meanwhile, I have a $10 ultra-light and mostly-aluminum jet lighter that looks, carries, and works better.
 
Absolutely, light weight does not equal low quality, but some people do prefer the feeling of something more substantial. I've moved a little in that direction. Used to love the ultra-light weight of the Bugout, but now I find it a bit too light for my tastes.

I'd also say that, just because a knife has a thin blade, it doesn't mean that it has to be a thin knife. I'd like to see that little bit of space saving used for more contoured scales, for example.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top