Some Thoughts on the Matriarch 2
Posted: Mon May 27, 2013 3:19 am
Well, I've finally pulled the trigger and bought the Matriarch 2. The following are some thoughts on the knife. Again, I want to emphasize that this is not a review, as I am not competent or expert enough to critique any knife design. These are just my subjective opinions.
I would like to compare it to the only other knife of similar form that I own. This is the Blackhawk Garra II. I do this as a sort of comparison, that helps to highlight some interesting features of the Matriarch 2.
Now, it is probably true that this is unfair to the Garra II, which after all have a shorter blade. But before I am accused of comparing apples to oranges, I found something interesting about the two knives:
[ATTACH]22061[/ATTACH]
Oriented at a certain angle, the cutting edges of the two knives appear to be very similar in lengths indeed! Well, not the actual cutting length, of course. The Matriarch 2 seems to squeeze in more inches of cutting surface, due to its re-curve shape and lack of a full choil, but I was surprised how similar they were if I just focus on the forward portion of the blades.
However, the inches do add up, of course. Here's a picture of them, one on top of the other:
[ATTACH]22060[/ATTACH]
What is immediately noticeable is how the Matriarch 2 is longer. In fact, much longer. Not surprising, given that the Garra II has a blade that is only 3" in length, while the Matriarch 2 is 3.625" long.
But even this comparison does not tell the full story. The Matriarch 2 also has a longer handle. This extra length, combined with the extra length of the blade, gives this knife a longer reach, about an inch longer, in my estimation, measuring from the butt.
The Garra II has a slightly more rounded grip, but both the Garra II and Matriarch 2 allow me to grip pretty close to the hilt of the knives. Interestingly for me, I find that the Matriarch 2 gives me almost 5" of reach beyond my index finger, while the Garra II gave me almost 4", longer than what the blade lengths might otherwise indicate.
Here, the way the Matriarch 2's grip is shaped - similar to the Endura, of course - really pushes out the blade beyond the hand, giving it very good reach indeed. In my opinion, this will be good for self-defense situations, to keep an attacker further out. A couple of extra inches may not sound like much, but I can't help but wonder if it will help shape the dynamics of a confrontation.
If my fooling around with Delica and Endura trainers are any indications, even an inch of longer blade may create a larger zone around you which an opponent is loathe to step into. I can't explain why, and the true experts of this forum might be able to refute or explain this better. If this is true, however, a woman, for example, might find the Matriarch 2 to be exactly the right size to keep an attacker well back.
On the other hand, a shorter blade might have its advantages. I liked the Garra II because the full finger choil really allowed me to grip the knife tightly with a hammer fist, leaving only 2.5" of cutting surface beyond my finger. It sounds like very little, but it is probably enough if things got really personal. In a scuffle or wrestling match, this would really allow me to retain a very good grip on the knife. And, gripping the knife in the middle in this way allows me to have a bit of the hilt sticking out beyond my hammer fist. This allows the hilt to be used as an impact weapon as well.
This is where I appreciate the use of an Endura grip. This allows me to move my grip up closer to the hinge, assuming a grip that is quite close to that of the Garra II with the index finger on the choil. It drastically reduces the reach, but compensates by giving almost a full inch of protruding hilt to use as an impact weapon.
The most interesting aspect of the Matriarch 2, of course, is the geometry of the cutting edge. The Garra II has a straightforward karambit type concave curve. The Matriarch 2 has the recurve.
The Matriarch 2's blade seemed to go forward in a fairly conventional manner, before the tip comes down rather abruptly like a sting. The angle seems to be about 45 degrees to my eye. The Garra II had a more gentle and sweeping curve, with the final edge about 30 degrees down from the horizontal.
I have no idea what this means in terms of cutting up an attacker, but it does seem to me that, in a slashing motion, the Matriarch 2 will penetrate first with the tip, before ripping the flesh apart, whereas the Garra II will slice more conventionally. The difference might be rather academic, though, as both would be quite formidable in terms of creating big wounds!
The belly of the Matriarch 2 does seem to allow the knife to slash with this portion of the knife, though, while the Garra II's conventional karambit blade seems to let the tip do most of the work. This might be made more significant by the longer length of the Matriarch 2's blade, which creates more opportunity for more of the knife to engage flesh. I can well imagine how, when the blade meets a forearm, it will first create one wound with the belly, and as the knife continue to be drawn through the arm, create a deeper cut or another wound with the tip. That would be nasty!
I can also imagine the belly slicing through fabric covering an arm, before the tip engages flesh underneath, but this may be imagining too much!
Overall, in comparing the two knives, I gain a better understanding of how the Matriarch 2 might be used. If I need reach, I can hold the knife closer to the hilt, and let the tip do the work. In closer engagement, I should grip it as close to the hinge as possible, and use every part of the blade to create cuts.
A word of warning though: karambit and recurve blades are dangerous to the unwary. I cut myself more times with both than conventional knives.
I would like to compare it to the only other knife of similar form that I own. This is the Blackhawk Garra II. I do this as a sort of comparison, that helps to highlight some interesting features of the Matriarch 2.
Now, it is probably true that this is unfair to the Garra II, which after all have a shorter blade. But before I am accused of comparing apples to oranges, I found something interesting about the two knives:
[ATTACH]22061[/ATTACH]
Oriented at a certain angle, the cutting edges of the two knives appear to be very similar in lengths indeed! Well, not the actual cutting length, of course. The Matriarch 2 seems to squeeze in more inches of cutting surface, due to its re-curve shape and lack of a full choil, but I was surprised how similar they were if I just focus on the forward portion of the blades.
However, the inches do add up, of course. Here's a picture of them, one on top of the other:
[ATTACH]22060[/ATTACH]
What is immediately noticeable is how the Matriarch 2 is longer. In fact, much longer. Not surprising, given that the Garra II has a blade that is only 3" in length, while the Matriarch 2 is 3.625" long.
But even this comparison does not tell the full story. The Matriarch 2 also has a longer handle. This extra length, combined with the extra length of the blade, gives this knife a longer reach, about an inch longer, in my estimation, measuring from the butt.
The Garra II has a slightly more rounded grip, but both the Garra II and Matriarch 2 allow me to grip pretty close to the hilt of the knives. Interestingly for me, I find that the Matriarch 2 gives me almost 5" of reach beyond my index finger, while the Garra II gave me almost 4", longer than what the blade lengths might otherwise indicate.
Here, the way the Matriarch 2's grip is shaped - similar to the Endura, of course - really pushes out the blade beyond the hand, giving it very good reach indeed. In my opinion, this will be good for self-defense situations, to keep an attacker further out. A couple of extra inches may not sound like much, but I can't help but wonder if it will help shape the dynamics of a confrontation.
If my fooling around with Delica and Endura trainers are any indications, even an inch of longer blade may create a larger zone around you which an opponent is loathe to step into. I can't explain why, and the true experts of this forum might be able to refute or explain this better. If this is true, however, a woman, for example, might find the Matriarch 2 to be exactly the right size to keep an attacker well back.
On the other hand, a shorter blade might have its advantages. I liked the Garra II because the full finger choil really allowed me to grip the knife tightly with a hammer fist, leaving only 2.5" of cutting surface beyond my finger. It sounds like very little, but it is probably enough if things got really personal. In a scuffle or wrestling match, this would really allow me to retain a very good grip on the knife. And, gripping the knife in the middle in this way allows me to have a bit of the hilt sticking out beyond my hammer fist. This allows the hilt to be used as an impact weapon as well.
This is where I appreciate the use of an Endura grip. This allows me to move my grip up closer to the hinge, assuming a grip that is quite close to that of the Garra II with the index finger on the choil. It drastically reduces the reach, but compensates by giving almost a full inch of protruding hilt to use as an impact weapon.
The most interesting aspect of the Matriarch 2, of course, is the geometry of the cutting edge. The Garra II has a straightforward karambit type concave curve. The Matriarch 2 has the recurve.
The Matriarch 2's blade seemed to go forward in a fairly conventional manner, before the tip comes down rather abruptly like a sting. The angle seems to be about 45 degrees to my eye. The Garra II had a more gentle and sweeping curve, with the final edge about 30 degrees down from the horizontal.
I have no idea what this means in terms of cutting up an attacker, but it does seem to me that, in a slashing motion, the Matriarch 2 will penetrate first with the tip, before ripping the flesh apart, whereas the Garra II will slice more conventionally. The difference might be rather academic, though, as both would be quite formidable in terms of creating big wounds!
The belly of the Matriarch 2 does seem to allow the knife to slash with this portion of the knife, though, while the Garra II's conventional karambit blade seems to let the tip do most of the work. This might be made more significant by the longer length of the Matriarch 2's blade, which creates more opportunity for more of the knife to engage flesh. I can well imagine how, when the blade meets a forearm, it will first create one wound with the belly, and as the knife continue to be drawn through the arm, create a deeper cut or another wound with the tip. That would be nasty!
I can also imagine the belly slicing through fabric covering an arm, before the tip engages flesh underneath, but this may be imagining too much!
Overall, in comparing the two knives, I gain a better understanding of how the Matriarch 2 might be used. If I need reach, I can hold the knife closer to the hilt, and let the tip do the work. In closer engagement, I should grip it as close to the hinge as possible, and use every part of the blade to create cuts.
A word of warning though: karambit and recurve blades are dangerous to the unwary. I cut myself more times with both than conventional knives.