Usefulness of Sub-3 Inch Blades?

[Waco]

Every sub-3" knife I've owned has been sold or given away. If I want to use a blade that short, I've usually got my Leatherman Rebar on my belt. I like something long enough to slice bell peppers and onions for my salad. Sure, I've got plenty of kitchen knives, but my Enduras fits my hand better. :)

[Ryno]

I'll take my DF2 over my Endura any day, except in a knife fight, which I've never been in and probably never will.

I do see the advantages of a 3+ inch bladesign for food prep, but I'm a health inspector so the thought of a folder used to process foods sets off my spidey sense for not being "smooth, sealed, and easily cleanable"

[baldanthony]

I usually solely carried Delicas and larger until I held my first Lava. I now prefer smaller blades with larger handles (such as my Dodo!) They give me the perfect grip with optimal amount of control. The biggest downside from my personal experiences with smaller knives have mostly been kitchen prep-work where acidic materials may get into the pivot, or with my Dodo, the spring locking mechanism. In those cases, I opt to use my kitchen knives, or if travelling, I pull a larger knife out of my back pocket, or a fixed neck knife out from under my shirt. I like... options :p

[Waco]

I'll take my DF2 over my Endura any day, except in a knife fight, which I've never been in and probably never will.

I do see the advantages of a 3+ inch bladesign for food prep, but I'm a health inspector so the thought of a folder used to process foods sets off my spidey sense for not being "smooth, sealed, and easily cleanable"

Yeah, well, my silverware drawer probably wouldn't pass inspection for restaurant-level sanitation either.

[Surfingringo]

I'll take my DF2 over my Endura any day, except in a knife fight, which I've never been in and probably never will.

I do see the advantages of a 3+ inch bladesign for food prep, but I'm a health inspector so the thought of a folder used to process foods sets off my spidey sense for not being "smooth, sealed, and easily cleanable"

Yeah, well, my silverware drawer probably wouldn't pass inspection for restaurant-level sanitation either.

George Carlin and I have very similar viewpoints on this matter. :cool: It's pretty raw so I won't post it here but if you want a good laugh google Carlin's bit on the immune system. :D

[Knifewing]

I'm not a hunter and no longer work in an office. So I find myself using my SE Cricket and keychain Jester more than any other knives I have; although I tend to carry one of my Dragonflys as well. Also, when it comes to food prep, I avoid folders because of the "gunk" factor and much prefer to use small EDC-sized fixed blades in the 3-4 inch blade range.

[can't freehand]

A discussion I had: It was asked to me: "What use does a knife, specifically Spyderco knives, with a blade shorter than three inches at the minimum length, have?" The person's point seems to be that one needs a blade length at least 3 inches or larger, such as 3.5, and that blades that are 2 and a half inches or shorter are too short to be of practical use. I disagree, from experience and from seeing the experiences of people on the forum. One guy told me he is comfortable with a knife with a blade two inches long. However, I can see it from the "Three inch and greater" point of view. How do you all respond to this idea that in order for a knife to be practical the blade must be at least three inches in length?

What would the main limitations of a shorter than three inch blade be? Someone mentioned that in order to properly butcher meat animals you need at least a 3 to 3 and a half inch blade to do it properly. Is that true?

Example: "Why get a Manbug or Ladybug when you can get a Delica or Endura or Stretch or Pacific Salt?" Was the original asker's main issue.

There's a ton of BS in this industry, so take everything skeptically.

Definitely hold knives before you buy them.

Handle length is more important for me. I like having all fingers controlling a knife and so I hate 3 finger knives like the Native, which is the worst because so much of that knife is forward that the choil grip ends up being primary, which consumes a lot of the blade and isn't useful for me.

[arty]

All folders are small knives, and 4" folders are the size of larger paring knives. They won't carve a turkey, so does that mean they are not useful?
I have a Chaparral in my pocket right now. It disappears and is comfortable to carry. It isn't a gladius, but it will defend me against the rogue plastic wrap that covers a furnace filter.
I don't hunt, and a 2 3/4" blade will do most of what I need. If I wanted a pocket knife to defend against a dog attack, I would rather carry something like a walking stick.
For me, pocket comfort is more important than overall size. If at the surf, I would prefer a larger folder in my pocket. In my home, I don't need anything larger than a Chaparral.

[Featherblade]

The shorter blades are very useful for most tasks but not the shorter handles.
May be Delica Kahr Arms is a good decision.

As Surfingringo said: "...the biggest limitation of smaller blades is food prep...".
That's why I usually carry 3.3-4.3" blade in a shoulder bag when I'm in urban environment.

[SpyderEdgeForever]

The person seemed to have the attitude that a larger knife (3 and a half inches or larger, preferably in the four inch and above range) can do all tasks that a smaller knife (three inch and below) can do, and, things that the smaller blades cannot do. What are some actions that would refute this, tasks a smaller knife can do that a larger knife cannot do? One thing I could see right off: The smaller (1-3 inch and 2 and a half inch blades) blades can reach into areas where a larger blade could not. Like reaching into the body cavity of a game animal, or something.

An extreme version of this was someone I spoke with years ago who insisted to me that a machete is all any "serious outdoorsman" needs, and when I asked "What about cutting into areas where the machete blade is plainly too large?", his response was," Then said person needs to chop the meat up into pieces with the machete and not care too much about the smaller stuff." Kindof an odd answer because hunters have told me (And I'm sure some of you on here can attest to it) that a smaller blade can prevent like piercing guts that can spill toxins into the meat.

Would this be a good "Universal Duo"? Spyderco Endura or Stretch coupled with Dragon Fly or Manbug?

[El Gato]

The person seemed to have the attitude that a larger knife (3 and a half inches or larger, preferably in the four inch and above range) can do all tasks that a smaller knife (three inch and below) can do, and, things that the smaller blades cannot do. What are some actions that would refute this, tasks a smaller knife can do that a larger knife cannot do? One thing I could see right off: The smaller (1-3 inch and 2 and a half inch blades) blades can reach into areas where a larger blade could not. Like reaching into the body cavity of a game animal, or something.

An extreme version of this was someone I spoke with years ago who insisted to me that a machete is all any "serious outdoorsman" needs, and when I asked "What about cutting into areas where the machete blade is plainly too large?", his response was," Then said person needs to chop the meat up into pieces with the machete and not care too much about the smaller stuff." Kindof an odd answer because hunters have told me (And I'm sure some of you on here can attest to it) that a smaller blade can prevent like piercing guts that can spill toxins into the meat.

Would this be a good "Universal Duo"? Spyderco Endura or Stretch coupled with Dragon Fly or Manbug?

I think I recall reading about this "serious outdoorsman" wielding his machete.
If I remember correctly his name was Walter Mitty.......... :D
Wouldn't catch Walter carrying no sub-3" knife.

[Jazz]

As long as it can cut up an apple it's big enough - if it can slice a tomato, it's sharp enough. I do carry a large blade in my back pocket "just in case".

[demoncase]

The person seemed to have the attitude that a larger knife (3 and a half inches or larger, preferably in the four inch and above range) can do all tasks that a smaller knife (three inch and below) can do, and, things that the smaller blades cannot do. What are some actions that would refute this, tasks a smaller knife can do that a larger knife cannot do? One thing I could see right off: The smaller (1-3 inch and 2 and a half inch blades) blades can reach into areas where a larger blade could not. Like reaching into the body cavity of a game animal, or something.

An extreme version of this was someone I spoke with years ago who insisted to me that a machete is all any "serious outdoorsman" needs, and when I asked "What about cutting into areas where the machete blade is plainly too large?", his response was," Then said person needs to chop the meat up into pieces with the machete and not care too much about the smaller stuff." Kindof an odd answer because hunters have told me (And I'm sure some of you on here can attest to it) that a smaller blade can prevent like piercing guts that can spill toxins into the meat.

Would this be a good "Universal Duo"? Spyderco Endura or Stretch coupled with Dragon Fly or Manbug?

I think I recall reading about this "serious outdoorsman" wielding his machete.
If I remember correctly his name was Walter Mitty.......... :D
Wouldn't catch Walter carrying no sub-3" knife.

Gotta support El Gato here-
I think of all the 'serious outdoorsmen' on the TV of various qualities- Ray Mears, Bear Grylls, Les Stroud, many many others:
All of them- to a man- carry a smaller 3ish" blade on their belt to go with the big tree-beater....and definitely don't use the big chopper for the fine skinning and caping work.

[Slone]

[...more a question of thickness then length.]

Any comments on the cheap but efficient CAT ?!

[hoimin]

I used to only give time to <3" blades because those would be the ones I could carry daily (office).
Now I've come to appreciate what a marginally larger knife can do (3.5ish") and find there are situations were one can excel over the other.

Handle comfort for the type of use, carryability, and context of use are my primary influences on what blade size to pursue.

[SpyderNut]

For what I do, 2" to 2.5" bladed folders are my preference for daily carry. Anything longer than that seems too bulky and uncomfortable. Because of this, I lean towards smaller folders for EDC (Manbug, Ladybug, Dogtag, Leafstorm, Lava, Dyad Jr., Squeak, Bradley Air, Firefly to name a few). To me, a 3" bladed knife is a "large" folder, although there are many who feel very comfortable carrying a Military for EDC.
In all fairness, I work in an office setting and have precious little stuff to cut and slice on a daily basis.

[Ryno]

I'll take my DF2 over my Endura any day, except in a knife fight, which I've never been in and probably never will.

I do see the advantages of a 3+ inch bladesign for food prep, but I'm a health inspector so the thought of a folder used to process foods sets off my spidey sense for not being "smooth, sealed, and easily cleanable"

Yeah, well, my silverware drawer probably wouldn't pass inspection for restaurant-level sanitation either.

There are certain things that you see in Restaurants that you can't unsee...