Knife myths you should not accept as true a priori (meant to be a POSITIVE thread!)

[vivi]

here is one of my myths that i am getting tired of hearing. that it is hard or impossible to use a blade smaller than 3.5" to 4".
absolute and complete rubbish. if you are not able to use a normal size knife 3" or anything smaller you obviously started the myth.
will it work better for some applications yes, BUT NOT EVERYTHING. you can use a normal sized knife and do most things with it.

Where have you heard that?

I've been one of the more vocal proponents of large knives but I can't recall me or anyone else saying small knives are impossible to use. 4" works better for my uses though.

Though I would say calling a 3" knife "normal sized" is a myth :p :D

[PStone]

Myth: You have to spend $100+ to get a quality, hard use knife.
Truth: Resilience

Myth:8cr13mov is garbage.
Truth: 8cr13mov is really easy to sharpen, and can aide novices in their learning process.

Myth: Sebenza is the benchmark for pocket knives.
Truth: Spyderco sets the bar for innovation, CQI, available blade steels, quality, and customer service.

[Wartstein]

here is one of my myths that i am getting tired of hearing. that it is hard or impossible to use a blade smaller than 3.5" to 4".
absolute and complete rubbish. if you are not able to use a normal size knife 3" or anything smaller you obviously started the myth.
will it work better for some applications yes, BUT NOT EVERYTHING. you can use a normal sized knife and do most things with it.

Especially since I said in the title already that I want to keep this thread positive:

If I would have ever heard of the "myth" you are describing, (quote) "that it is hard or impossible to use a blade smaller than 3.5" to 4" ", I would have been one of the first to stand up against it, despite I am really a larger folder guy. So you are right, that would be a strong, negative (and untrue) myth!

But, at least on this forum, I can´t remember ever reading of that "myth"?? Since you get "tired"of hearing it", you certainly WILL have, but I am quite sure probably not here?

Again, as a larger folder guy, let me say: I think a longer blade is more universal and more usefull overall, no doubt. I also think that there is a lot of truth in the saying "a larger knife can do everything a smaller can´t, but not the other way round".

That being said (and being honest): MOST EDC-tasks one CAN indeed do with a smaller (3") blade as good as with a longer one! Plus in carry a shorter folder might be more comfortable, no doubt!
It´s just when I carry only one folder and I don´t know what the day will bring, a larger folder is the better choice for me.

I even LIKE to do cutting stuff with a very small folder, IF that folder is well designed and constructed. Not too long ago I even stated in another thread, that for fire making and bushcraft tasks I sometimes like to bring a larger fixed blade and my quite tiny Chaparral FRN. And that I find myself using the Chap MORE than the fixed blade then, cause I enjoy that little knife and its capabilities so much. Still, it could not be my ONLY knife for EVERY task in that scenario,b ut it is FAR from being (again quote) "hard or impossible to use..."

[aesmith]

This is one of the oldest ones ever.
"Sharp knives are more dangerous than dull ones"

Absolutely. In fact it would be interesting to hear if anyone can actually justify that oft-quoted claim from their direct experience. I've seen plenty to contradict it.

[Evil D]

In my time here I think the biggest misconception has got to be with serrations. Far too many people have opinions about them without the experience to support them. I happily admit that I was one of those people and I'm super glad I kept an open mind and gave them a chance.

[James Y]

here is one of my myths that i am getting tired of hearing. that it is hard or impossible to use a blade smaller than 3.5" to 4".
absolute and complete rubbish. if you are not able to use a normal size knife 3" or anything smaller you obviously started the myth.
will it work better for some applications yes, BUT NOT EVERYTHING. you can use a normal sized knife and do most things with it.

Very true. Many people forget that, until fairly recent history, the typical pocketknife had a blade or blades shorter than 3". Most pocketknife blades were considerably shorter. A pocketknife with a 3" main blade would have been considered large. Yet countless working people used the heck out of their knives, back in an era where almost everyone carried some type of pocketknife. I

Today, the most common type of work knife you'll find people in many professions carrying and using is the retractable blade utility/razor/box cutter-type knives. And in most of those, the maximum blade length is about 1".

The most popular and best-selling pocketknife in the world is the Victorinox Classic SAK, whose cutting blade is only slightly over 1" long.

There are some tasks in which a smaller blade is safer, more practical, and gives the user better control and precision than a larger blade. There are so many uses for smaller blades in day to day tasks that anyone who says otherwise simply doesn't understand how to use them.

Jim

[Wartstein]

here is one of my myths that i am getting tired of hearing. that it is hard or impossible to use a blade smaller than 3.5" to 4".
absolute and complete rubbish. if you are not able to use a normal size knife 3" or anything smaller you obviously started the myth.
will it work better for some applications yes, BUT NOT EVERYTHING. you can use a normal sized knife and do most things with it.

Very true. Many people forget that, until fairly recent history, the typical pocketknife had a blade or blades shorter than 3". Most pocketknife blades were considerably shorter. A pocketknife with a 3" main blade would have been considered large. Yet countless working people used the heck out of their knives, back in an era where almost everyone carried some type of pocketknife. I

Today, the most common type of work knife you'll find people in many professions carrying and using is the retractable blade utility/razor/box cutter-type knives. And in most of those, the maximum blade length is about 1".

The most popular and best-selling pocketknife in the world is the Victorinox Classic SAK, whose cutting blade is only slightly over 1" long.

There are some tasks in which a smaller blade is safer, more practical, and gives the user better control and precision than a larger blade. There are so many uses for smaller blades in day to day tasks that anyone who says otherwise simply doesn't understand how to use them.

Jim

Sure.
But I still can´t remember ever hearing the claimed "myth" that, quote, " it is hard or impossible to use a blade smaller than 3.5" to 4" , especially not on this forum, but frankly not anywhere...?!
I am one of those who prefers longer folders (in my case ideally Endura size), but still I know that most EDC tasks CAN very WELL be done with shorter blades (on this also see my previous post) - as good as with longer ones
It´s just: If you´d make a list of any EDC task (including for example food prep) that might possibly occur, a longer blade will be more universal usable than a shorter one. And, after a lot of cutting, will more likely still have really sharp sections on the edge.
BUT, that beeing said: Most of times it will not matter if it is 3" or 4" inches long.

[Evil D]

Most of my youth the "big folder" option was a Buck 110 with 3.75 inch blade, so in my mind that is the size that I start considering a knife large or small if it's less. While most Case knives SAK's I had were smaller I never felt the 110 was too big or cumbersome to use.

[Wartstein]

Most of my youth the "big folder" option was a Buck 110 with 3.75 inch blade, so in my mind that is the size that I start considering a knife large or small if it's less. While most Case knives SAK's I had were smaller I never felt the 110 was too big or cumbersome to use.

Right. I think IF there is a "myth" at all concerning small vs large folders (but I think there IS NO real myth in wether direction) it would be: "Longer folders are hard to use in tasks that can easily be done with shorter ones". My personal "quality knife journey" started out with a Delica and a Minigrip, and I pretty soon found out, that while especially the Delica does great in MANY jobs, it´s just a bit short for SOME: Got an Endura, could still do all the "Delica-jobs" equally well, but SOME even better..

To be clear: rabbitanarchy and James Y. are totally right, when they say that a smaller folder is sufficient and a great choice for MOST EDC -tasks and of course NOT "impossible to use" in those! I am just of the opinion, that is what almost all experienced knife users think too anyway (so there is no real myth saying otherwise).

[Bill1170]

This is one of the oldest ones ever.
"Sharp knives are more dangerous than dull ones"

Absolutely. In fact it would be interesting to hear if anyone can actually justify that oft-quoted claim from their direct experience. I've seen plenty to contradict it.

My father taught me at a very young age that dull knives are, in fact, more dangerous than sharp ones because you need to press so hard to make them cut that your control goes out the window.

[Bill1170]

One myth I have seen on the forums (but less so on this one) is that a G-10 or CF folder handle is always “better” than a molded FRN handle.

[vivi]

Yeah, that's confusing me too. Again I'm probably the biggest fan of larger folders that posts here, but I can quote a post of mine I made this summer where I said "Pretty much any EDC task can be accomplished with a 3" blade" Preferences are just that.

I've owned a Spin since the month they released so I'm no stranger to small knives. Vic Classic was my first knife, in fact.

[lonerider1013]

here is one of my myths that i am getting tired of hearing. that it is hard or impossible to use a blade smaller than 3.5" to 4".
absolute and complete rubbish. if you are not able to use a normal size knife 3" or anything smaller you obviously started the myth.
will it work better for some applications yes, BUT NOT EVERYTHING. you can use a normal sized knife and do most things with it.

Very true. Many people forget that, until fairly recent history, the typical pocketknife had a blade or blades shorter than 3". Most pocketknife blades were considerably shorter. A pocketknife with a 3" main blade would have been considered large. Yet countless working people used the heck out of their knives, back in an era where almost everyone carried some type of pocketknife. I

Today, the most common type of work knife you'll find people in many professions carrying and using is the retractable blade utility/razor/box cutter-type knives. And in most of those, the maximum blade length is about 1".

The most popular and best-selling pocketknife in the world is the Victorinox Classic SAK, whose cutting blade is only slightly over 1" long.

There are some tasks in which a smaller blade is safer, more practical, and gives the user better control and precision than a larger blade. There are so many uses for smaller blades in day to day tasks that anyone who says otherwise simply doesn't understand how to use them.

Jim

Sure.
But I still can´t remember ever hearing the claimed "myth" that, quote, " it is hard or impossible to use a blade smaller than 3.5" to 4" , especially not on this forum, but frankly not anywhere...?!
I am one of those who prefers longer folders (in my case ideally Endura size), but still I know that most EDC tasks CAN very WELL be done with shorter blades (on this also see my previous post) - as good as with longer ones
It´s just: If you´d make a list of any EDC task (including for example food prep) that might possibly occur, a longer blade will be more universal usable than a shorter one. And, after a lot of cutting, will more likely still have really sharp sections on the edge.
BUT, that beeing said: Most of times it will not matter if it is 3" or 4" inches long.

OOOPS! My bad, I said that at least twice here. It was in regards to food prep, I pointed out that my para2, which for some people is on the larger side, had a cutting edge less than the diameter of the food i was slicing and therefore bottomed out on the handle. (I've since learned to roll what I'm cutting now I can cut even monster peaches or tomatoes or huge taylor ham with a 3" native).
To be fair tho my point wasn't so much about the knife being unusable as that it was harder to use than a longer blade for that type of task (I generally prefer a shorter blade such as 3" or thereabouts for all around use/carry) and I was trying to make the point that people who are scaredy about larger knives should get over themselves as that "scary large" knife is barely able to slay a tomato...

Lonerider

[vivi]

Here's one that came to mind:

Cutting ability is all about the sharpness of the apex and has nothing to do with the geometry behind the edge.

-
-
-

Shaving sharp edges don't necessarily cut well. Geometry plays a huge, huge role.

[James Y]

Sure.
But I still can´t remember ever hearing the claimed "myth" that, quote, " it is hard or impossible to use a blade smaller than 3.5" to 4" , especially not on this forum, but frankly not anywhere...?!
I am one of those who prefers longer folders (in my case ideally Endura size), but still I know that most EDC tasks CAN very WELL be done with shorter blades (on this also see my previous post) - as good as with longer ones
It´s just: If you´d make a list of any EDC task (including for example food prep) that might possibly occur, a longer blade will be more universal usable than a shorter one. And, after a lot of cutting, will more likely still have really sharp sections on the edge.
BUT, that beeing said: Most of times it will not matter if it is 3" or 4" inches long.

I've read posts saying that, not here, but on BF before. Not all the time, but I have seen posts like that.

I'm not averse to big folders. I still carry my Military and SS Police SE now and then. I also carry my FFG Endura a lot, and my large CRK Insingo. I started carrying my PM2 more lately, but I don't really consider that a 'large' knife. So I have no issues with carrying and using bigger knives. But I also EDC two SAKs, and those smaller blades also get a lot of use. For me, it's about the right tool for the job. When I lived in Taiwan for a decade from the mid-'80/ into the '90s, my only knife was a Vic Spartan SAK, and that literally handled all my knife chores during that period. Now, I wasn't cooking myself during those years, but out and about that little knife handled everything I needed it for with zero problems.

Jim

[Doeswhateveraspidercan]

Can’t use a wharncliffee on a cutting board just got my first Delica serrated wharnie and it works better than many, this little sucker can sure cut the cheese :)

[Pelagic]

Here's one that came to mind:

Cutting ability is all about the sharpness of the apex and has nothing to do with the geometry behind the edge.

-
-
-

Shaving sharp edges don't necessarily cut well. Geometry plays a huge, huge role.

Absolutely. As well as grit finish. I touched up my Resilience quickly on a 3 micron strop to show a coworker that whittling hairs was actually possible, then later tried to cut some rope. Big fail, edge didn't bite into the rope for s***. And it's about 25 inclusive. First chance I got I went back to the 325 grit CBN and deburred on ceramic. Slicing machine, but no longer hair whittling.

The definition of sharpness will never be agreed upon. To me it has always been a simple physical measurement of the width of the apex. I was surprised to see Larrin leans more toward the ”least pressure required to complete a cut = sharpest" definition. I'm one of the ones that calls that cutting ability.

[Bill1170]

Here's one that came to mind:

Cutting ability is all about the sharpness of the apex and has nothing to do with the geometry behind the edge.

-
-
-

Shaving sharp edges don't necessarily cut well. Geometry plays a huge, huge role.

Absolutely. As well as grit finish. I touched up my Resilience quickly on a 3 micron strop to show a coworker that whittling hairs was actually possible, then later tried to cut some rope. Big fail, edge didn't bite into the rope for s***. And it's about 25 inclusive. First chance I got I went back to the 325 grit CBN and deburred on ceramic. Slicing machine, but no longer hair whittling.

The definition of sharpness will never be agreed upon. To me it has always been a simple physical measurement of the width of the apex. I was surprised to see Larrin leans more toward the ”least pressure required to complete a cut = sharpest" definition. I'm one of the ones that calls that cutting ability.

I agree, Pelagic, with your terms. Sharpness is about apex radius, while cutting ability is a performance metric defined by accomplishing specific tasks under specific conditions. For a push cut with zero slicing motion, sharpness pretty much equals cutting ability, but real life tasks are far more complex than antiseptic push cuts.

[aesmith]

My father taught me at a very young age that dull knives are, in fact, more dangerous than sharp ones because you need to press so hard to make them cut that your control goes out the window.

But on the other hand a blunt knife won't cut your leg if you're careless cutting a sandwich on your lap (not me), nor if you brush your hand against it at the workbench (that was me).

[vivi]

Here's one that came to mind:

Cutting ability is all about the sharpness of the apex and has nothing to do with the geometry behind the edge.

-
-
-

Shaving sharp edges don't necessarily cut well. Geometry plays a huge, huge role.

Absolutely. As well as grit finish. I touched up my Resilience quickly on a 3 micron strop to show a coworker that whittling hairs was actually possible, then later tried to cut some rope. Big fail, edge didn't bite into the rope for s***. And it's about 25 inclusive. First chance I got I went back to the 325 grit CBN and deburred on ceramic. Slicing machine, but no longer hair whittling.

The definition of sharpness will never be agreed upon. To me it has always been a simple physical measurement of the width of the apex. I was surprised to see Larrin leans more toward the ”least pressure required to complete a cut = sharpest" definition. I'm one of the ones that calls that cutting ability.

I'm with you on both counts. I always viewed sharpness as measuring the refinement of the apex, while cutting ability takes into account push cutting, slicing, geometry and edge holding.