Para 3 - anyone else wish the blade stock was thinner?

[hobbyist]

Am I the only one who wishes the blade stock on my para 3 lightweight had stock as thin as the delica?

[TkoK83Spy]

Many many many threads already with this topic. The answer is overwhelmingly "yes"

[Coastal]

I would rather have thinner blade stock on almost any production folder I can think of, so yes. There are uses where greater than 2.5 mm is necessary, but they aren't my uses. 2 mm is even better.

[Sharp Guy]

Nope! Mine are all plenty sharp and slice through cardboard etc just fine. Not once have I ever wished they would slice through something better than they already do. Same with my PM2s or any other Spyderco models that have similar blade stock

What are you guys cutting that require knives with thinner blade stock than the Para 3s or PM2s?

[Coastal]

Nope! Mine are all plenty sharp and slice through cardboard etc just fine. Not once have I ever wished they would slice through something better than they already do. Same with my PM2s or any other Spyderco models that have similar blade stock

What are you guys cutting that require knives with thinner blade stock than the Para 3s or PM2s?

For me, it's not that I require it, it's just that I would rather have it. My thicker blades cut just fine. My thinner ones cut even better. As for what I cut, it's mostly light-duty stuff: cardboard, paper, light plastic, food, garden stuff...

[James Y]

I own a couple of G10 Para 3's, and have never wished the blade stock was thinner. I do like knives with thinner blade stock. But since the Para 3 is a part of the Military family, I've never had a problem with the Para 3's blade thickness. It cuts just fine for me.

Not to mention, its blade is essentially the same edge to spine width as the PM2 and the Military, so its cutting geometry is no more obtuse than the blades of those two models. The only big difference is its length, so obviously, the tip doesn't taper down as thinly on the Para 3 like the Military and PM 2's tips.

IMO, the Para 3 was intended to provide the blade thickness and cutting geometry of its bigger brothers, but in a length that can be legally carried in places with stricter blade length restrictions. Also, a thinner blade stock would probably be too thin/narrow for the compression lock's mating surface.

TBH, if I want a thinner 3" blade stock, Spyderco already has many other options in that range.

Jim

[Tristan_david2001]

I think the blade stock well reflects the type of knife it’s trying to be/where the military series of knives is specialized for.

[Sharp Guy]

It's not that I don't like knives with thinner blade stock. I do. I have several Delicas and Chaps etc. One thing I use my knives for often is breaking down all the boxes and cardboard that we've accumulated for the week. Tomorrow's garbage and recycling collection day. So I just did it for this week. As mentioned, I could grab any number of Delicas etc. Sometimes I do and they work just fine. But the models that get chosen the most are PM2, Manix 2, or Para 3.

I would think the blade stock thickness is something that Sal and Eric consider when they're designing a new model. If they wanted a model to have thinner blade stock I'm pretty sure they'd design it that way.

[WilliamMunny]

Not really, it’s a tough little knife. If I want something that slices better I have my Native 5, great blade shape on that one.

[Coastal]

I would think the blade stock thickness is something that Sal and Eric consider when they're designing a new model. If they wanted a model to have thinner blade stock I'm pretty sure they'd design it that way.

I agree. They have their reasons. I'm just saying that I would like the knives better if the blades were thinner. I still buy them, though.

[akapennypincher]

Maybe I am wrong but THICK can take more punishment.

[Flash]

I would like to see more designs with blade thickness and geometry akin to that of the Chaparral or Watu, but I think the para 3 stands as a model that can take a certain degree of hard use*.
If the edge has a low geometry it is more easily damaged but also if the blade stock is thinner the interaction between the tang and the locking mechanism will be less forgiving too and possibly less robust too, requiring finer engineering tolerances to be implemented to help compensate for it.

*relative for a folding knife

[nerdlock]

Nope. Never wished it to be thinner.

Same with the Lil Native, don't want it to be thinner, these knives slice cardboard, paper, plastic wraps, and other materials just fine.

There's the Sage if you want a similar sized knife with a thinner blade thickness.

[Spyderwebs]

It's too thick. 3mm should be an upper limit for almost every pocket knife

[Bolster]

I never bought into the military family, so I'm no expert, but I thought the idea behind the military line was a nearly indestructible series of knives that could be used under extreme conditions and even take some abuse. That seems to indicate some heftiness to the knife. If I were going to war, I'd want a thicker knife than I use in civvie life. Examining war knives, the ones I've seen tend to be thick. If slicyness is the goal, I think other lines are designed for that.

[Wartstein]

I don´t actually wish it personally, cause though the Para 3 is a nice knife, it is not the best choice for me anyway,regardless of blade stock in Spydercos small knife line up for several other reasons.

And since many folks love it as it is and thinner choices exist: Just fine

If I (still) had a Para 3 though: I´d definitely want it to have thinner stock. Since I bring this up from time to time, let me explain why (for the OP)

- "Robustness":

Sure thick stock can make a blade sturdier.
But for one I did never come across a small folder task (and I do use mine "hard") where the 2.5 mm of a Delica would have been to fragile.
And: The Para 3 could not really make use of its fat and "more robust" stock anyway imo, cause it has a rather fine and fragile tip. In my view if at all a folder blade snaps, it does so at the tip (first), not somewhere in the blade, and so the combo of thick stock but rather fragile tip does not make much sense to me (IF thick, less slicey stock in the first place: Imho better to go all the way and make the tip robust too, so that one could merciless beat on the blade).

Same goes for the wider lock interface:
For one: Who had ever fail a Sage (3 mm stock) cause potentially it offers less lock interface than a Para 3 (3.7 mm)?
And then: As said, one could not push this blade to the extreme limits anyway in many tasks due to the fine tip.

- "Sliciness":

Sure, the Para 3 does not slice too bad.
But since the thick stock in my view does not serve a real purpose (other than perhaps making it more comfortable to put the finger on the spine) anyway - WHY on a CUTTING tool not choose a thinner blade stock thickness that would even enhance cutting performance?
People do all kinds of things, play with making edge angles more and more acute and thinning out blades behind the edge, so why not start with thinner stock and better geometry in the first place, which would have no detriment I could see ( I mean the 3mm of Sage and Native are still plenty thick enough, right?)

Also the Para 3 imo does not offer the cutting performance of a PM2, cause due to the shorter blade less tapering and thinning out towards the tip is going on.
I personally think if one makes a smaller version of an existing knife the "Endura to Delica approach" is preferable (so not basically only shrink the model length wise, but in other aspects, including blade stock, too).

- Weight:

Just a minor point, but my Para 3 LW was pretty "heavy" for a linerless lightweight (actually a tad heavier than the very robustly built WITH liners Delica and a lot heavier than the "linerless Delica" Salt 2) - the thick blade will contribute to that (though I can´t tell if/how much).

Just my 2c as actually an admirer of Sals and Erics designs - exactly why I really contemplate those in detail, and find some even better than others in certain aspects

[aicolainen]

When the rumors of the P3 first appeared I was hoping for a more pocket friendly PM2, i.e. shorter, thinner and lighter.
I was so sure this is what we would get, I actually sold my PM2 in anticipation before the P3 was even revealed.

From reviews and comments around the internet I realized long before I got my first P3 that this wasn't what I had imagined it to be and I postponed my acquisition until Maxamet got the better of my curiosity.

Though disappointed at first, I no longer have very strong opinions of it. Well, if we look past the lanyard tube vs clip placement issue - that's just ridiculous. But the knife as a whole? I still think it would be interesting to see what a more EDC optimized and less military optimized P3 would look like, but it would probably end up being very similar to a Sage, and with my preferences having continued towards even smaller, lighter and thinner EDC knives since then - such version would probably still be too much for me to pocket on a regular basis today.

As for the P3 we've already got, it finally found its niche after a good few years in the sock drawer.
For all its shortcomings as an EDC knife (for me) the ergonomics are near perfect for my rather narrow grip, so it's been my go-to as a work knife for projects and chores around the house. The combination of great ergos (again, for my hand), bomb proof construction, precise tip and a robust blade towards the heel make it a great choice for those harder tasks that still requires some finesse and precision from time to time. As Wartstein touches on, 3mm stock would probably be tough enough, but in this role I use it now, where weight and bulk is less important, the added blade stock doesn't bother me.

[elena86]

Yes !!! 3 mm would be perfect but most important is the thickness behind the edge. Para3 is thicker bte that it needs to be but most spydercos are, hellas.

[Cl1ff]

I think the current blade stock is fine, given the significant distal taper of its flat grind.

If the grind was like the Shaman (delayed and mellow distal taper), I would rather it be much thinner stock, or prefer the thickness behind the edge significantly reduced to at or below ~0.010-0.015 of an inch. Could be a convex, flat grind, chisel ground, deep hollow, or some variation of those.
Zero or near zero scandi or puukko style grinds I just don’t personally think fit the design of the Spyderco Military knife family.


For most of my cutting, thick stocks or spines don’t hinder cutting too much or I can adapt.
The edge and tip thickness are much more important to me, and actually the robustness of a thicker spine can help support that, which is functionally significant. It can help with balance, give you more options for the kind of distal taper you want, maintain a rigid blade (particularly with thinner geometry), and more that I’m sure actual knife makers are better aware of than myself.

Other than that, there are a couple reasons I can think of that result in the Military and PM3 both using the same stock thickness.
One is consistency in design functionality. This is pretty self explanatory.
The point that, on the smaller/shorter model, functionality can be maintained with thinner stock is true. However, we know that Spyderco prefers to manufacture compression locks with thicker stock because Sal said it works better that way.
If that is not a good enough reason to justify the PM3’s dimensions, then consider that we also know that shorter bladed folding knives are safer than longer ones at the lock (given similar dimensions otherwise). The loads they experience are closer to the pivot and exerting less force on it. At least, that’s how I understand it.

Like the Lil’Temperance, the PM3 is meant to handle the tactical and martial arts side of knife use, even if that’s just an inherited trait for the former.

While the knife is not really for me, I’ve been thinking about gifting one to a family member.
I’m more comfortable giving them a PM3 than my UKPK because of the lock and stock.

I do really like the blade shape. It is mostly the handle profile that I’m pretty sure is not for me.

I often say how much I like larger knives, but that is because there are fewer of them. I can enjoy smaller knives too.

If the the PM3 had a handle more like either the Persistence and LT3 with no choil, or of Efficient if a choil is a must, I would be much more interested. As it is, I’m concerned the pinky hook is just going to bother me.

It’s funny how relatively minor characteristics mean so much to enthusiasts. For some it’s a couple mm of blade stock, for others it’s small changes to handle design.

[standy99]

No, Always grab a Para 3 if I’m going to go full boar on a cutting task.

If I am trimming up a drywall cut out it’s a para 3

I have several Spyderco knives in several thicknesses so the choice is good.

Not any Spyderco’s I really want to change as there is another knife that suits what difference I want.