yeah, if I can get another one I'll try it. I wish I ordered 2 or 3. I've been trying to be a little more reasonable in my aquisitions lately. I really really like this one though

I'd still rather have both. I always have at least 2 blades on me anyway.

Definitely, but if only one, I would go with the thicker one.

Me too, Vance.

Nick, you really got that silly little knife. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

simple geometry is right; the thicker the blade the less efficient it is at cutting, so what is the correct thickness? The task determines it. .25" blades have uses as do .05" blades.

Most of my everyday carry blades have very thin edges, because they cut paper, cardboard, tomatoes, and things like that, and they cut these things very well. As whats being cut changes, so does the edge. My choppers have thicker edges, and my general users have medium edges.

As jbombelli said, a thicker knife is a good idea because the performance gains in durability far outweight the slight loss of cutting performance. Again the major benifit of a thick chopper is that the added weight. Simple physics tells us you will hit the wood harder, and thus have to hit the wood less times.

The actual edge is a far bigger factor when determining knife performance then the thickness of the blade. You could put a 10 degree edge on a dogfather, and it would cut far better then a thinner knife with a thicker edge.

I feel an ideal bushcraft blade should be around .2" thick. I think every blade that is more then about .23" and is not a big chopper is overkill. a .2" thick blade is thick enough to handle pretty much everything but light enough and thin enough to be easy to carry and "slide" through materials.

I'm happy with my ~0.285 DMCG. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

I like variety and I'm glad everyone doesn't agree on the same thing, it keeps things interesting. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

I think that a lot of knives now are to thick. The YKCG is the best small S7 knife because it has a blade that is strong enough to pry with but is not so thick it interferes with the geometry. It also helps that it has a FULL HEIGHT flat grind.
I dod not like the MuttCG though because the stock was so thick and the grind was so short it made for a very obtuse blade. The flat grind MuttLE has all the strength but a much better cutting performance although it is still compromised.


The geometry of the whole knife not just the edge angle is important.

You want the longest shallowest triangle of steel possible for the best slicing and cutting.

A knife like the MuttCG even with a really sharp HornDog edge is only going to be a good cutter on things about 5mm's thick. Once you get into the wide part of the triangle it stops cutting.


The best Busse knives are capable of 2 things 99% of other knives can't do(be throwing knives and entry tools) AND cut as well as other knives.


2 of my favourite Scrappers are the YKCG and the DFLE. It is no accident that on both these knives the angle is very thin for a long ways.
These knives can cut!

For EDC I like my knives even thinner and the edges harder so you can get the most wicked thin razor edge imaginable. The Spyderco Mule is ideal. It has a nice wide blade with a full flat grind. It is much thinner than even the YKCG
or HairyCarry. It is excellent 52100 which has a nice hard stable edge perfect for sharp knives. It is a freakin lazer! You can't pry with it but so what it is a fantasticly sharp knife and is also nice and light.

When you have to have both a wicked sharp edge and be able to pry with it the only choice is INFI. It can be run thin enough to get a razor edge and still be quite tough. My SS4 has a thinner convex edge and is a very sharp knife almost as sharp as the Mule but has 10 times the strength.

The guy who wrote the article is a dork though.

Sure some people use knives that are more durable than sharp but for a lot of things especially bushcraft they can work fine. They also have a place as entry tools and throwers. I do think some knives are to thick because that is what the market wants though. Rosarms is just starting out in north America and their knives are thinner Russian/skandi style and are quite strong but they still got tons of request to make the blades thicker for the kind of looks Americans expect.

The Busse boys get a lot of heat for starting the thick knives trend but they are extremely good at using blade geometry to minimize the problems the thick stock causes. The S7 and S9 that were at Blade are going to be fantastic.
Hopefully they are only as thick as the YKCG but even if they are thicker the full height flat grind on a wide blade will make for great slicers. The S9 in particular looks amazing!

I'm not so sure that I disagree with him. Face it, what advantages does a thick blade really bring to the table? Comfort and reassurance when it comes to chopping and batonning. In reality the best tool for chopping or batonning isn't a knife, it's a hatchet or axe (or a chainsaw). The knife is really a "just in case" option for us while we go play in the woods.

While edge and and goemetry are pretty big factors when it comes to cutting ability; there's only so much you can do with those because of the thickness of the blade. Case in point the original Dumpster Mutt vs. the RatManDu. The original Dumpster Mutt is a tank of a knife. However, in my opinion it simply is too thick. Along comes the RatManDu and it's a night and day improvement that can do everything the DM can do and then some. Subsequent DM versions have improved by thinning the stock somewhat and giving them a full height grind.

Remember the main purpose behing a knife is cutting and slicing, not chopping, batonning, hacking, or prying. Those are just additional attributes that we like to have. So in that respect thinner is better.

I'm a middle ground kind of guy. While I appreciate the simplicity and utility of a mora style knife I want it to be more thicker for peace of mind. However, I do not want something so thick that its only endearing quality is its ability to chop. For me that means around .185 thickness. I can go thicker but it depends on the grind of the blade.

I think that the main reason that some traditional knives were thin was the scarcity and cost of steel. Praise Shiva that Nepal now has access to old Mercedez-Benz truck leaf springs and Scrap Yard Knives has Jerry's horde of fine cutlery steels! I prefer thinner in a machete simply because it works better that way. My favorite Busses (not exactly cheap knives) are 3/16" thick.And, like unsub, I like the YK better than the YKLE. I prefer the 3/16" thick Ratmandu to the original DM, too, but I am not prying open doors or ammo crates all day, either. While I liked the original Dog Father, I much prefer the slightly thinner flat ground DFLE. I say, don't make the blade any thicker than it needs to be to do the intended tasks of the knife. Unless all you have is some thick stock that you scrounged from Jerry's pile. In that case, make it!

As usual, Busse is ahead of the curve on the latest trend away from unnecessary extra steel. Look at the Skinny ASH-1 and Sarsquatch. With the higher cost of energy, it costs much more to make and transport steel. I think economics will cause other manufacturers to consider thinner stock where appropriate. Thank God I already have my FFBM, an excercise in excess if there ever was one!

I like that new Nuclear EDC.

He has left a few things out but in essence he is correct a thin blade is better for some tasks however like I said he has left a few things out. A machete is a poor tool to choose for building a log cabin. You would not choose a Mora to build a canoe. The cultures around the world that used these “thin” knives also had another tool.......The axe.

A sharp axe will cut a 14" tree down nicely however a chainsaw will do it faster. Which brings to point we have to realistically look at what we are going to need. Are we going to build a log cabin...if not then we can probably leave both the felling axe and the chainsaw at home.

The argument for thick heavy knives is a simple one, there is a saying “ a big knife can do the job of a small knife and an axe can't do either job well”. In the past you carried a rifle a thin knife and a light axe. That’s mainly because that’s all that was available in most mercantile’s and they were inexpensive.

Today manufacturers are making high performance reasonably priced heavy thick knives. We now have a choice other than a light axe. These knives will perform every bit as well as a light axe and if you happen to misplace or loose your small knife they can fill in quite nicely.

A good kit should have (among other things) A small and medium knife, heavy knife or light axe. This will pretty much cover all the bases.

In a survival situation it’s not the tool or it’s size that really matters. What matters is the persons ability to use it.