Our grandparents carried folders, usually slip joints. The knives were small, very few over three inches in blade length, and ALL of them were ground thin. Even those with thick stock, like the Buck 110, were very thin behind the edge. Knives, it appears, were for cutting and slicing. Then, somewhere along the line, folks went tactical and tactical brought a lot of design changes—folders got clips and locks (yay!) and, in some instances, thick blades ground thick (boo!).

The tactical trend has been going strong for twenty or thirty years now, as people obsess with knives as overbuilt hand tool equivalents of Humvees. But like the Humvee, knives have undergone a change. In the past few years, in part to shift the trend and in part due to higher edge retention steels, knives have gotten thin again. Sure there are still folding bricks out there, but they are fewer and farther between. ZT makes a sub 2” knife. Benchmade’s best seller, the Bugout, is a 2.0 ounce blade. Even Medford makes knives that can pass for slicey.

Is this trend away from bulky pocket “knives” here to stay? I hope so. For so many reasons, thinner sliceier folders are just better. Even I can appreciate a good thick folder, see below, but the availability of alternatives like the TRM Neutron 2 above, is a good thing. Things that were not possible years ago when the tactical trend started are now easy. Furthermore, the trend results in thinner, smaller knives, i.e. knives more likely to actually be carried. Finally, thinner knives help keep production costs down.

Hither Unto Impossible

When the tactical trend started there were no powder steels. 154CM was the “best” steel that was regularly used. AUS-8 and 440C were still pretty high end. As a result, we had nothing like the high toughness, high edge retention steels we have now. While M4 was developed in the 60s it was not regularly used in knives until many years after the tactical trend started.

Steel chemistry really doesn’t matter that much in the grand scheme of things as both heat treat, and to a larger degree, blade geometry determine cutting performance, but the quantum leap that powder steel represented allowed makers to change blade geometry with little to no impact on toughness or edge retention.

Take, for example, one of my most beloved blades—the Bark River Bravo 1. They have made this knife in a bajillion steels, but the “base” model was an A2 knife. A2 is excellent for a jack of all trades fixed blade steel, especially with a delicious full convex grind. The standard stock thickness was .25” That is a lot of steel. They then released the steel in 3V, keeping it at .25”. Eventually Mike Stewart and company realized that they could thin the edge significantly thanks to 3V superior toughness compared to A2 and retain sufficient resistance to damage. They released the Bravo 1 LT and it was, in my opinion, a hugh leap forward. I think the stock thickness on the LT was .18, but the results were large and noticeable.

I bring this example up because it is a perfect case study in using modern steels appropriately. Seeing massively thick blades made of 3V is kind of like making a car with with 1,000 HP but increasing its curb weight proportionally. If you are using 3V, what’s the point? Thin it out. The new steels can handle it. And given that geometry beats chemistry in knife design, thin is in, even for hard use blades.

The One That’s On You

So often I see these pocket dumps on IG and I am stunned as they include a thick bulky knife, a tactical pen the size of a novelty baseball bat, a fidget toy, a hand gun, a 18650 flashlight, and a lighter. This stuff is complemented with normal carry—phone, keys, and wallet. How in the name of belts everywhere do folks carry all this stuff? The knife is always one of the heaviest and largest items in your carry and making it a folding brick is never a good idea.

One assumption I have with gear is that people carry it to use it. Of course, lots of people carry stuff so they can have their collection with them. Others carry so they can have stuff for IG photos. If those are your use cases, then carry whatever you want. But if you carry your knife to open stuff, to do food prep, or general utility tasks, your more likely to use it if you carry it and your more likely to carry it if it is lighter and more compact. This is why I have always advocated smaller knives. The tactical trend has pushed us into crazy territory with knives and made carrying them an active penalty in terms of use. How many of us encounter a tactical situation daily? So why have tactical knives in your EDC?

One common rebuttal is “just in case.” I have never really laid out why I think this is a terrible justification for choosing a specific knife, so here goes. First, I accept that there is a remote possibility that having a knife on you could save a life, but the question is how remote. Is a knife more likely to save a life than an epipen? I think the answer is no. Do people regularly carry epipens (outside the scenario of knowing someone highly allergic)? No.

Here is the issue. This use case (self-defense) is REALLY rare, especially in a country like the USA, where I am, where many people regularly carry firearms (knife always loses versus gun). Tactical or EDC, if you think your knife will save you in a gun fight, you are mistaken. Additionally, relying on a large tactical folder “just in case” without extensive training is a bad idea. Having seen the results in many situations firsthand, knife fights don’t have winners, they have survivors, especially among the untrained. I would guess that very few people that carry large tactical folders train in the use of those folders as weapons. So what value do tactical folders have in the hands of the untrained over something like a Sage 5 LW? The answer: functionally none. Neither are good options and the features that make the tactical knife “tactical” have no real advantage. Think of it this way:

What are the odds you will need a knife for self-defense? Very low.
What are the odds that in this scenario the knife will be effective (i.e. not opposed by a firearm)? Low.
What are the odds that in this scenario the person has training? Very low.
What the odds that this untrained person’s tactical knife will make a difference in the outcome compared to a non-tactical design? Very low.

But here is the real kicker—when calculating odds, you multiple. When you take all of these extremely rare occurences and multiple them, the odds are staggeringly low that a tactical knife makes a difference in a self-defense scenario compared to a slim EDC folder. If you want to carry a life saving defense and don’t mind the weight you are better off carrying an Epipen than a tactical folder, going by the odds.

Given the extremely unlikely self defense use case and the much more likley general use case, you should carry something that fits what’s likely to happen and that is a slim, EDC folder. Again, you buy tools to use, you are more likely to use the tool on you, and you are more likely to have a tool on you if it is easy to carry.

Paying for Every Screw

Knives aren’t free. Making them is not free. In doing an interview with Seth from Gerber about the Fastball, I was struck by just how carefully companies budget knives. Its not uncommon to try and save costs by changing how screws are picked or made. Every penny counts.

Here is an example. The Kershaw Leek is one of the best selling knives of the past twenty years. Its basic shapes and materials have remained the same and the price has remained the same. Over time, though, it is likely that Kershaw has made slight changes to production to decrease costs or increase efficiency, such that a Leek today costs less to make than the first Leek did. This, coupled with the amortization of set up costs means that a 2022 Leek is substantially a better money maker for Kershaw than the knife was initially on per unit basis. Not only do big companies count every penny, they count every screw, AND they do work to make every screw cost less this year than it did last year.

In this climate of increase cost efficiency, thinner stock is cheaper. If you have 1095, say on the Kabar BK16, at 1/4” or 3/16” the 3/16” is going to be cheaper. Furthermore, because the stock is thinner, it will take less time and fewer belts to grind. Over and over again, the use of thin stock reduces costs and reducing costs is the name of the production knife game.

Of course materials are NEVER the most expensive part of a knife—whether it is a production or a custom. But every little bit helps. And unlike with cutting corners on blade steel or handle materials, thinner stock makes for a better folder. This is one of the rare places where the cheaper option performs better.

Conclusion

In many ways, thin stock is to knives what a lighter chassis is to auto racing—the cheaper and easier way to boost performance. There are still tons of huge thick knives out there, but there are a bunch of slim blades too. This is a positive thing. I am not necessarily advocating the elimination of thick tactical folders (heck, I LOVE my Emerson Mini A100), but I am happy to see different options. If the thick tactical folders go away, I wouldn’t be sad, but it does seem that hegemony of design tropes is falling and that is a boon to knife users everywhere.

Amazon Links