Thick or Thin Blades: Reasons you prefer either or a mix of both?

[SpyderEdgeForever]

When it comes to your everyday carry as well as non-every day carry, such as special-use Spyderco knives, do you tend to lean more towards preferring thicker blades or thinner blades?

I guess it really depends on your uses: For slicing I know thinner blades seem to function better but a thicker blade can be stronger.

I lean towards thicker blades for edc because I want one that is stronger. Sharpness is ofcourse important.

What would you say is the ideal blade thickness for you? The 3.0 millimeter range? Or do you like a knife that attempts to combine thinner edge profile with thicker steel in the rear of the blade?

And to top it off: When it comes to damage from use, not abuse, in general, with Spyderco folders as well as fixed blades, where do you think the weakest point would be, that would most likely break faster than other sections of the knife?

[The Deacon]

Don't use my pocket knives to pry, so as much as I love the Stretch, I'd love it even more if the blade was half as thick. I'd settle for 2mm, like the Chaparral, but given the abuse my K05's have withstood over the years I'm quite certain 1.5mm would slice and dice even better without incident. Only time I need, or want, a thick blade is in a machete.

As for damage from use, unless you're talking about normal wear and tear, the only kind I'd expect to see on a Spyderco would be clip breakage.

[Evil D]

I like both for different reasons. I do enjoy the overbuilt sharpened pry bar knives but mostly just as a novelty. I don't think I would EDC a knife over 4mm and that's really only because most 4mm blades have a generous amount of distal taper, so they can get away with thicker blade stock when the blade has a high flat grind and distal taper because only the tang/spine is truly 4mm. I suppose you could do the same with thicker stock but at some point you can only get so thin behind the edge and that's where performance starts to take a hit. Even with FFG and distal taper there comes a point where any blade is going to wedge into what you're cutting if the material is rigid enough.

I grew up with Case folders and Buck 110's, all of which I think we're under 2mm. I have broke blades but I was always doing something stupid with them. I think I could live with a 2mm blade and be just fine. Aesthetically I think thicker blades look better, and even in a small way thicker blades improve ergonomics when it comes to thumb placement.

Strength wise, obviously thicker is stronger. In a folder it becomes more challenging because of the pivot. Thinner stock means a weaker pivot. It would be interesting to see a folder made from 4-5mm stock that has a blade ground down to 2mm (ala regrinds). That would help maintain a solid pivot and lock action while giving you max slicing ability. With fixed blades it's much less risky and you aren't as limited to stock thickness, so then you start seeing tapered tangs and blades that are thicker in the middle to handle abuse.

In the end you can't defeat physics. Thicker blades are going to mean lesser performance every time. So you have to consider the use of the knife and only make it as thick as necessary for the intended use.

[SG89]

Both. Prefer FFG overall. The chap blade really is a marvel and so is the pm2. Different thicknesses but same grind. Slicing for days with ffg.

[ZrowsN1s]

Early in my collecting I preferred thicker heavy blades, but as time has gone on I have gravitated towards thinner and lighter weight. The thicker blades can take more abuse, but in terms of actual cutting, I find thinner blades penetrate better and cut with less "drag".

[tripscheck'em]

When it comes to your everyday carry as well as non-every day carry, such as special-use Spyderco knives, do you tend to lean more towards preferring thicker blades or thinner blades?

I guess it really depends on your uses: For slicing I know thinner blades seem to function better but a thicker blade can be stronger.

I lean towards thicker blades for edc because I want one that is stronger. Sharpness is ofcourse important.

What would you say is the ideal blade thickness for you? The 3.0 millimeter range? Or do you like a knife that attempts to combine thinner edge profile with thicker steel in the rear of the blade?

And to top it off: When it comes to damage from use, not abuse, in general, with Spyderco folders as well as fixed blades, where do you think the weakest point would be, that would most likely break faster than other sections of the knife?

I now prefer a hollow-ground blade, a true hollow-grind, not the "saber." It gives you both lateral strength and a very thin/low edge. I am very curious as to why Spyderco killed off the hollow-ground Manix.

[Igi964]

Prefer thiner blades. I use my knives for cutting and I like when it slice easily through materials. With high end steels, I don't have to worry about edge damage.
I must admit I like some thicker blade knives too, but only for looks. I've sold them all, because they don't cut very good:(

[Mora2013]

The thinner the better for me. I'd say less than 2mm, ffg. I want a knife that slices well.

Perhaps it's because I usually carry some form of leatherman or Swiss Army knife with me as a companion to the knife, to do those other non cutting tasks.

I allow my knife to be a knife. An edc knife for me is small, lightweight, folding, and pocketable. I'm not edc-ing my camping knives, or my dive knife. I'll let my saws deal with the trees, and I'll leave it up to an angle grinder to cut through steel.

[Bloke]

I like small, flexible, thin fixed bladed knives best!

I near did everything in the field with a Gerber Pixie till I lost it several years ago. I used it to slaughter and dress sheep, it dressed out many goats and a few small deer, dressed hundreds of rabbits, many ducks, took fox tails and I couldn't count how many fish it bled, gutted and filleted or how much bait it cut in 20 odd years.

I was gifted any original in a presentation case a while back but can't bring myself to use it.

The only other knife, though very much different I've found to take it's place is the mighty Sprig.

In my world a Sprig of 1/16" stock ZDP-189 or similar would be a dream come true! :)

[Brock O Lee]

I like slicers. A lack of thickness behind the edge is more important to me than blade stock thickness, but then I talk about FFG blades with a distal taper, like the Military, PM2, Nilakka for instance.

To give an example, I have a few thin convexed Miltaries and PM2 that cut like a dream with their 3.5 - 3.7 mm blade stock, but my Cruwear Manix with its 3mm blade stock is stupid thick behind the edge and is quite a pry bar in comparison.

[Nate]

I like both, but generally in different roles. I mostly gravitate toward Spyderco for thin folders and Busse's for "beating on."

I've found that most Spydies with ffg and a distal taper are "thin enough" to make me happy for edc and light use cutting, but it's definitely a bonus when they're extra thin behind the edge. ~0.01" or so seems to be about the limit for most production knives. To me, the way something like that cuts vs. a blade at 0.025" is pretty significant, though thinner stock can surely make a difference as well.

I've done a fair amount of regrinding and reprofiling work myself at this point. While I don't want everything to be this extreme, I think I took my Chaparral pretty much to the limit. Here's a spine shot next to my Native lw:

[bearfacedkiller]

I don't believe a knife should ever be thicker than it needs to be for the task at hand. This is tough for folders because they are meant to be used for such a wide variety of chores and such a wide variety of people and companies have to take their warranty into account when they grind these down. One of the reasons I like Spydercos is their thin grinds and thin edges. That said, almost every folder I own could be thinner than it came but that is because they were made for the masses and not made for me and the masses like to use a knife for non-knife tasks.

My go to pocket knife for my childhood was an Old Timer carbon steel stockman which I still have one of and I bet all the blades are under 2mm. I damaged them at times but I was a kid and was really hard on them. Those knives were also ground with thin edges too but alas, generations past knew that thinner was better and that you weren't supposed to use a tool for a job it wasn't designed for. Many ranchers and cowboys found these old stockman perfectly adequate and they were used for work that most people will never see.

It is interesting to note that knives were thin for a very long time and thick knives are a newer trend. If you study the trade knives of colonial America and of the frontier you will find that many of them were 2mm or less and had blades over 5 inches long. These were the most common field knives around and they were being imported in large numbers by the English and French for trading purposes. Men (and women) who lived far rougher lives than any modern American were surviving with what we're basically carving knives from a kitchen block. They knew the limits of their tools and used a knife as a knife. These were the knives carried by fur trappers and Native Americans. Until the Bowie knife became the ubiquitous knife it was these thin trade knives were what everyone used. I have a hard time believing that a cubicle dweller needs a knife over twice the thickness of the knives carried by rough men like trappers, cattle rustlers, explorers and pioneers. These people bet their lives on thin knives.

I am with Paul. Bring on the 2mm Stretch! I would buy a 2mm Military too. That would be awesome.

[thombrogan]

The thinner the better. Full flat grinds or deep hollow grinds make cutting more fun.

[kbuzbee]

Under 2mm for me. I don't use a folder for anything that wouldn't handle

Ken

[TheChunk91]

I like 'em thin. I don't have a specific threshold for thin, but I can look at a blade and tell if it's thin enough or not. Thick blades are too clunky for me and with a thick blade sometimes means a fatter knife in pocket and more binding on cuts. No thanks on that.

[Bill1170]

Thin wins for cutting, no argument there. I like the lateral stability of my PM2 for control purposes when sculpting wood, but I'd hate that blade if it didn't have excellent distal taper. Thinness behind the edge is really important. I have a large Randall skinner ground from 1/4" stock IIRC, and it is ~0.01" behind the edge. Great distal taper, too.

[Doc Dan]

Both, as they have different things they are useful for. I like thin blades like a fillet knife, and I like tanks like a Becker. But for most uses, a little thinner is better, but not as thin as a fillet knife. It depends. I am happy, for instance, that the new Manix Back Lock will have a thicker blade, but I am also excited that the new Police 4 is about like an Endura in thickness, taking advantage of the steel.

[demoncase]

As my old shop foreman used to say:
"Long and thin gets it in but short and thick does the trick"....

Which to me has always meant there's a time and a place for both thick blades and thin blades....Then again I was 18 at the time and wasn't brave enough to ask :D

I like EDCing my UKPK with it's slim slicer
I like EDCing my Techno with its stout cutter

They're all beautiful, baby.

[DutchBlades]

Love Spydies from my Chap's to my Techno and everything in between :)
Different tasks require different thicknesses, so it's hard to choose when I don't have to!

[Bodog]

Thin behind the edge and thick enough at the spine to resist flexing.