jimmd wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 3:51 pm
Wartstein wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 1:25 pm
jimmd wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 12:44 pm
Hi! I get what you're saying. I was trying to be succinct, but I didn't really explain what I meant. The Para 3 has a blade stock thickness of 0.15 inches and comes to a thickness of 0.024 inches behind the edge. The Sage blade is 0.12 inches thick and probably 0.018-0.019 inches behind the edge. A thinner stock and thinner edge with two flat-ground blades of roughly the same height and sharpness means that the thinner blade will slice through thick materials more easily.
Generally a thicker blade may be stronger, in the sense that it may withstand forces placed on it without chipping or bending, more than a thinner blade of similar steel. So these are the reasons I made the oversimplification regarding hard use and slicing ability. You can find a lot more on this subject here:
https://agrussell.com/knife-articles/blade-edge
One way in which the Para 3 design may not conform so well to hard use is that the tip seems a little fragile in design. I've never owned a Para 3, but the PM2 I had definitely displayed a fragile tip in use. The Para 3 is available in a variety of steels, and the Sage now comes in S30V and Maxamet — two very different steels. For my hand, I find the Sage to be a good fit for a small knife, and I generally prefer Spydercos that avoid the big hump in the rear of the blade spine like the Para 3 and PM2 have. That's why the Sage 5 LW (with those nice custom scales) is one of my favorite Spydercos, along with the Chaparral and SpydieChef. One big advantage of the LW over the regular Sage 5 is the pivot bushing, which makes it easy to dial in the pivot to have good action without blade play.
Thanks for your detailled reply and the link (which I don´t have the time to read right now, but certainly will later! :) )
Good points.
You are right that a thicker-behind-the-edge blade certainly is less likely to chip! But I personally think that with Spydercos quality steels 0.019 tbe is still more than strong enough and only has advantages (though tbh: I don´t know if this is also true for the very hard but perhaps more brittle (?) Maxamet. No experience with it).
On blade stock: As said: I personally think the difference between 0.12 and 0.15 on a small and folding knife is nothing one has to consider at all concerning strength! Both are more than strong enough, both actually on the really sturdy or even overbuilt side.
Like I said in another thread: It is a bit like: If you want to be protected from a pistol bullet it makes no difference if you hide behind a 3" or 3.5" hardened steel plate...
Plus, as we both said: If one of the two blades would give in in some stupid hard use task, it almost certainly might be on the tip,which would snap. And THIS is where the Sage perhaps is even a bit stronger due to the leaf shape and so a bit less pointy tip if you look at the blade on the flat side (though I don´t know how it is on the spine, perhaps there the Para 3 tip is "thicker" than the Sage 5 tip)
Actually, the combination of thick blade stock and fine tips in some models is one of the few things I am not too fond of in Spyderco designs. The smaller the knife, the more so (Para 3, but also PM2)
I even started a thread about this once:
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=87156
I think IF thick blade stock: Go all the way and give the knife a sturdy tip too, so one can really carelessly beat on it (like on the Shaman!)
Otherwise: Why 3.7 mm stock and then the tip of a fine slicer? :confused: Look at the 3mm stock, large Endura: Who has ever really broken an Endura blade? Its more than strong enough for any even remotely sensible folder task, and still a good slicer.
Only advantages I can see in thicker bladestock, when the tip is fine anyway: Perhaps more comfortable to put the finger on the spine, perhaps stronger lockup for comp. - and linerlocks.
