Benjamin Schwartz

Spyderco Delica 4 Wharncliffe Review

I’ve been vocal in my dislike of the Delica. I’ve been critical of its ergonomics, its steel, its price point. I was convinced that it was overrated, past its prime. I implied that it only continued to sell because of the years’ worth of mythology that surrounds it. In short, I said it was a bad knife, and I was wrong.

As I have slowly learned in recent times, the Delica was and is a truly great knife. It’s still a benchmark for quality and utility in the mid-price bracket. So when Spyderco revealed the Delica 4 Wharncliffe I snapped one up to review. It was an opportunity to approach the Delica from a critical perspective and formalize a lot of the good things I have come to think about it.

–Well, assuming that the Wharncliffe blade wasn’t a total catastrophe, of course. Does the new blade shape make the classic EDC option better, worse, or just different? Let’s take a look.

General Dimensions and Blade Details

The D4W has a cutting edge that is 2.5” long and a total blade length of 3”. Its handle is 4 1/8” and it has an overall length of 7”. It weighs 2.4 oz. and is made in Seki City, Japan. Like the standard Delica it is designed for EDC, and all of its dimensions are well-suited for that role except one, which I’ll discuss later on.

The Wharncliffe provides an interesting shift in cutting attributes. It’s less a matter of performance than of control. A synergy between the angle of your grip in relation to the point means that it always goes exactly where you want it to, opening packages and boxes with surgical precision. It feels as responsive as if I were aiming with a laser pointer. In that same “normal” grip the straight main edge is angled upwards too, pre-situated for an aggressive cutting approach.

There’s a bonus grip that the Wharncliffe shape especially excels at. Because the blade itself is so wide, you can move up it in a modified pinch grip that gives you supreme control. You can use this grip on the standard Delica too, but it feels better here with the extra steel in hand. And there’s something very people-friendly about it (probably because you’re palming most of the knife), so if you’re opening something around others this may become your grip of choice.

I’ve been dismissive of VG-10 in the past but I’ve come to appreciate it. It emphasizes ease of maintenance and in an EDC blade that’s great. Rust resistance is superb, edge retention is reasonable, and sharpening isn’t too much of a chore. Be forewarned: it does take more time than AUS-8 or 8Cr13MoV. It might not feel like you’re improving the edge at all, at first. But stick with it and all of a sudden you’ll notice it getting very sharp. I also find that straight edges are easier to sharpen than curved ones on a rod-based system, so if you have a Sharpmaker or similar setup you’re in luck.

Handle, Ergonomics, and Pocket Clip

We’re all familiar with the Delica handle shape: a simple curve with three separate finger grooves sculpted into the FRN scales. Bi-directional texturing, nested and milled stainless steel liners: a familiar construction, but a stable, durable, and proven one.

It took me a long time to appreciate the Delica’s ergonomics. The three grooves seemed restrictive; there was basically only one way to hold the knife. But that one way is comfortable and effective.

I’ve already talked about how on this Wharncliffe model it helps align the cutting edge, but in general Spyderco has done a lot with a relatively narrow handle. Once you get the hang of it, it feels roomy and right. I used to have trouble getting my fingers to align with those grooves, but now that rarely happens; I guess I developed some kind of muscle memory or something. It’s also worth noting that the grooves aren’t sharp enough to be uncomfortable even if your hand isn’t perfectly aligned on them. This design could be improved with a true finger choil. As it is, with the D4W in particular the modified pinch grip on the blade makes up for this somewhat, and you can put your index finger underneath the kick in a rough approximation of a choil if you want.

The classic spoon clip is still the best clip Spyderco makes. I like the increase in durability over the wire clip, and I don’t think the lack of deep carry is much of a loss – I like having a little bit of knife exposed to grab onto. It’s a perfect fit for the Delica, too, with the pinch point being near the center of the knife to keep it from swinging around in your pocket.

There is one issue of note with the D4W and that is its width. It’s as wide as a Paramilitary 2 in the pocket. That’s a significant deviation from slimness of the standard Delica 4 and worth being aware of before you make the purchase. I like being able to reach into my pocket and not have my knife blocking up the passage, and while the D4W is by no means terribly wide it is definitely noticeable, and definitely worse when compared to the vanilla model.

Spyderco could have changed the blade profile, making it less bulbous, but it was kept this way by design. The D4W came to be after a Spyderco forumite drew it up to meet his specific needs during the workday. One of his requirements was to have a wide enough blade so that it could be easily opened with two hands if need be, and the extra material helps with that. It also helps with the modified pinch grip. Taken in context, the wide blade is actually a “feature,” albeit one that comes with a serious drawback, so be aware.

Deployment and Lockup

The Round Hole works as good here as it has on every other Spyderco knife since the dawn of time. Comfortable and ambidextrous, it doesn’t really get any better than this. As a lockback, the Delica 4 Wharncliffe isn’t going to have the fastest deployment in the world, but it is certainly adequate, and over time as the parts wear against each other it will get smoother and smoother. My five year old Delica is nice and buttery. This is a knife that will age gracefully.

Durability and reliability will be high with the D4W’s lock. In my example there is no side to side or up and down play, and no lock flex except in the heaviest cuts. Lockbacks are also naturally ambidextrous – a nice synergy with the Round Hole and symmetrical handle design on the Delica. I also appreciate that disengagement is not overly stiff – some lockbacks are real thumb bruisers, but this one is nice and easy, without being dangerously loose or anything.

Delica 4 Wharncliffe Review – Final Thoughts

The Delica 4 Wharncliffe is a great addition to the Delica corral. A new blade shape is a meaningful change and one that will, I think, work for certain types of users better than the normal drop point. The additional width in the pocket is a bummer and is the biggest flaw I can see in what is otherwise a pretty spectacular EDC.

Truth is, a lot of users won’t care about the additional pocket space required. They’ll relish the extreme control and precision of the Wharncliffe blade shape, qualities that are enhanced by the time-tested Delica handle design.

So I’m glad of the opportunity to talk some sugar about the Delica in general, and also happy to report that this new version is entirely worthy of your attention on its own. It doesn’t make a great design any better, but it’s a different, valid interpretation of one of the best EDC knives in the world.

Spyderco C11FPWCBK Delica 4 Black FRN Plain Wharncliffe Folding Knife

List Price: $81.14

Current Price: $81.14

Price Disclaimer

If you are thinking of buying a Spyderco Delica Wharncliffe, please consider purchasing it at Amazon. By purchasing things through any of the links on this website you support BladeReviews.com, keep the website free of annoying banner ads, and help produce future reviews. Thank you very much.

Kizer Cutlery Guru Review

by Benjamin Schwartz 6 Comments

It’s been interesting to watch Kizer’s evolution over the years. They had an ambitious, albeit amorphous, beginning, with somewhat forgettable designs rendered in high-quality materials at head-turning prices; I still get a little jolt when I see the Sliver going for $70 with S35VN steel.

Then Kizer knives had the brilliant idea of bringing in talented knife designers to take full advantage of their manufacturing capabilities and great prices. It wasn’t their first collaboration knife, but the Ray Laconico-designed Gemini was the a big hit for Kizer, and the amount of collaborations rolling out of their doors hasn’t slowed down since. The company realizes a stunning amount of models, from makers at all stages of their career: well-known names like Ray Laconico and Matt Diskin appear alongside promising up and comers like Justin Lundquist and Elija Isham.

Matt Degnan is a maker whose work has been brought to wider recognition with several Kizer collabs. Degnan is behind the Roach, the Kane, and most recently the Guru. The first two models didn’t move the needle, but the Guru seemed much more my speed.

As with their competitor Zero Tolerance, I haven’t really found “my Kizer” yet. I reviewed the 3404, which was just fine but ultimately forgettable. I had some enthusiasm for the Vanguard Gemini but that has waned some since my review (which in itself wasn’t unqualified in its praise). The Guru stood out in Kizer’s recent offerings as a model that might just be able to go the distance. Let’s take a closer look.

Full Disclosure: Kizer provided me with a Guru free of charge for the purposes of the review. This in no way affected my reviewing process nor did it alter my opinions or verdict.

Blade Dimensions and General Details

The Guru has a blade length of 2 7/8”, with a cutting edge of 2 11/16”, a handle length of 4 15/16”, and an overall length of 7 15/16”. It weighs 3.96 oz. and is made in China.

The Guru has a “Sheepsfoot Looking Up” kind of blade shape that is attractive and unusual. Functionally, it is all gently-curved belly, and that’s fine. With a whopping .14” thick blade stock and a relatively short sabre grind the Guru isn’t much of a slicer. It’s thicker behind the edge than my Strider PT. But while it isn’t my thing, a hard use grind isn’t immediately grounds for failure. The problem is, the Guru might be less “ground for durability” and more just “poorly ground,” with confusing peaks and valleys in wildly different types of cutting tasks.

I don’t usually cut food with my knives, but I did a little food prep with the Guru and can confirm you’re going to leave behind a David Cronenberg-esque crime scene cutting fruit and other foodstuffs with this thing – it ain’t pretty. In cardboard and wood it can function decently, but only if you “aim” the edge at a specific angle; otherwise it bunches up. Strangely, the one area in which the Guru performs well is wharncliffe/sheepsfoot-style tasks, where the point is in play more than the full edge: cutting tape when opening a box, for instance; surprisingly delicate tasks for such a burly blade to excel in.

S35VN is becoming so prevalent in high-end knives that we reviewers are quickly approaching 8Cr13MoV levels of redundancy when it comes to writing about it. It’s great, Kizer’s iteration is great, you’ll love it. Editor’s note: And as always you can find a deeper dive into knife steel here.

One thing to note: this is the third Kizer I’ve had (the second with S35VN) and while overall fit and finish is great, they don’t get their knives real sharp before boxing them up. In the case of knives with super steels I think it’s fair for the user to expect a good edge out of the box: not everyone has the means or the knowledge to immediately sharpen these more difficult-to-work-with steels. This will be an even bigger problem as they transition into less amenable high-end steels like M390.

Handle, Ergonomics, and Pocket Clip

The Guru’s handle is so close to being great. A forward finger choil is almost always a guarantor of decent if not mind-blowing ergos, but here it’s more of a stumbling block. Kizer chose to begin the blade right at the end of the choil, with nothing between the end of the choil and the beginning of the sharpened edge. This is a common choice among manufacturers and not peculiar to Kizer, but it does mean you need to be careful when you’re choking up on the Guru: it would be very easy for your finger to slide forward onto the edge.

Back off the choil and the Guru accommodates three fingers in the middle portion of the handle and one on the other side of the beak. This isn’t always a successful setup but here, mainly because the post-beak butt end of the knife is large and flat, it works okay. The problem is, when you’re not using the forward choil you’re more than an inch away from the start of the cutting edge – not really acceptable for a knife of this size, and it squanders the fine control that makes a sheepsfoot blade shine in use.

There may be issues with the ergonomics but the Guru’s pocket clip is great. This is the way a sculpted clip should work. It’s durable, secure, with plenty of spring tension, and looks really nice. The rounded edges eliminate hotspots and even though the Guru is kind of portly it keeps it in place in your pocket. Other than the non-reversability I have no complaints. This is such an improvement over the nightmare clips on early Kizer models.

Deployment and Lockup

In my review of the Spyderco Mantra 1 I noted that the ball bearing pivot seemed to work better with the thumb hole than the flipper, and while I’ll never opt for ball bearings over standard washers I have been curious to further explore how they played with non-flipper deployment methods.

My Guru is the thumb stud variant and the ball bearing deployment is very good. Once the thick blade gets over the stiff detent it flies open. Kizer deserves particular praise for that detent. I’ve handled many Kizers and none of them had those detent issues that we see on other frame locks. You can put all the pressure you want on the Guru’s lock bar and it will still deploy reliably.

Lockup is similarly well-done. The stainless steel insert makes contact against about 30% of the tang. There is no blade play, and disengagement is stick-free and smooth. The only issue I have is that, in closing, the blade wants to fall shut quite quickly – a little dangerous in my opinion. The detent is so aggressive that it functions as a kind of half-stop, catching the knife again as you’re closing it, so that helps a little bit, but it’s still something to be aware of.

Kizer Guru – Final Thoughts

The Guru is well-made as all Kizers are, but I would have liked to see more time spent honing this one for great performance in addition to its mechanical competence. It looks cool, and there’s nothing wrong with picking up a sub-optimal knife because you like the way it looks, but for me, the wedgey edge and incorrect finger choil are a fatal combination and overwhelm any other charms this design has.

Kizer reset the bar for what we could expect for our dollar, but now that the rest of the industry has caught up their designs have to pull their weight in an increasingly crowded market segment, and I can’t think of any objective reason to recommend the Guru. It doesn’t quite manage to bridge the gap between “interesting design” and “great tool.”

Kizer Matt Degnan Guru, Titanium Handles with Holes, 3504A

List Price: $179.00

Current Price: $179.00

Price Disclaimer

If you are thinking of buying a Kizer Guru, please consider purchasing it at Amazon or BladeHQ. By purchasing things through any of the links on this website you support BladeReviews.com, keep the website free of annoying banner ads, and help produce future reviews. Thank you very much.

Zero Tolerance ZT 0450 Review

by Benjamin Schwartz 3 Comments

Despite positioning itself as a maker of hard use tools for hardcore individuals, Zero Tolerance has always had more universal appeal than its marketing would suggest – and I don’t think the company’s appeal has ever been wider than it is today.

Unlike sister brand Kershaw, there isn’t any internal division between ZT products: there aren’t ‘cheap’ and ‘expensive’ ZTs in the sense that there are cheap and expensive Kershaws; everything they make falls within the same general bracket of impressive machining and high-end materials; the price differences just indicate which high materials you’re getting and how much impressive machining you see.

And while ZTs may have been considered pretty pricey back in the day, as the market has shifted upwards their prices have remained relatively consistent, so that they seem more reasonable now than they did five years ago. So as the knife world has shifted into its current strata of price brackets, Zero Tolerance has found itself in a sweet spot between accessibility and quality.

All of this combines to put ZT pretty much at the center of current knife enthusiast culture. I’m sure there are soldiers, cops, and first responders who carry and use Zero Tolerence knives, but I would bet there are a lot more ZTs in the pockets of enthusiasts and on the shelves of collectors. That being said there has never been a ZT knife that really spoke to me.

I couldn’t find one that was ‘just right;’ this knife had a great design but is assisted, that one was the right size but inordinately heavy. It is this way for me with every knife ZT releases. Eventually, waiting for the Perfect Zero Tolerance became a kind of mania. Perfect design, perfect size, perfect price: I figured if I waited long enough such a ZT would come out.

But it never did, and eventually I got tired of waiting and picked up the knife that came closest to that ephemeral, unrealized Perfect ZT I have in my mind: the Dmitry Sinkevich-designed ZT 0450. It can’t possibly be perfect, but is it any good? Let’s take a look.

General Dimensions and Blade Details

The 0450 has a blade length of 3 3/16”, a handle length of 4 1/8”, and an overall length of 7 3/8”. It weighs 3.04 oz. and is made in the USA. I want to mention here that this is a damn good looking knife. It comes up later and I don’t want to keep repeating myself in the interim, so just keep in mind that almost every inch of this knife is nice to look at.

The ZT 0450’s racy drop point is a good EDC cutter. It has much more straight edge than belly, which I don’t necessarily mind, and a very sharp tip. A chunky grind means two things: 1) both the tip and cutting edge are hardy enough to beat on, however 2) it isn’t as good of a slicer as you would hope for. Given the fast, futuristic, aggressive styling I was hoping for equally aggressive cutting performance but that isn’t what you get here.

However, trading some sliciness for durability isn’t exactly Faustian as long as cutting performance is still the favored attribute to some degree, and the 0450 meets this criterion. It’s best-suited for medium-duty tasks like cutting through cardboard or plastic, but you aren’t going to hate slicing food with it either. It works.

When Zero Tolerance began using Elmax a few years ago accusations of improper heat treating and burnt edges were leveled at them from the enthusiast quarter. The 0450 is made from S35VN, not Elmax, but there is a small portion near the tip of my 0450’s blade that looks burned:

From what I understand, this occurs during the edge grinding portion of manufacturing, and is localized to the burned area – in other words, if it is burned, it shouldn’t affect the performance of the edge in general – and my experience bears this out.

S35VN is great. I would almost say it’s boring, because it doesn’t have the epic abilities and tragic flaws of a steel like M4, but for the average user (and most enthusiasts are average users AT BEST) that is a good thing. I’m convinced that you could sharpen S35VN with even a rudimentary setup and some patience. The S35VN here performed just as well as I expected it to, and if there were any problems in the burned portion I didn’t notice.

Handle, Ergonomics, and Pocket Clip

One of my biggest ergonomic pet peeves is when a knife has a beak or a scoop at the butt end of its handle that either doesn’t accommodate all four fingers ahead of it, or that makes my fingers feel crammed because it ushers them too close together. I really want this issue to become the Too Many Finger Grooves of 2017, because it nearly ruined the Para 3 for me and designers need to stop doing it.

By all accounts it looked like the 0450 would have this problem, and even now I’m not sure that it doesn’t. I can get all my fingers between the finger groove and the beginning of the beak, but not easily, comfortably, or without premeditation; my fingers would never fall across the handle this way naturally.

But the way I think you’re supposed to hold the knife is how I ended up holding the Para 3: with my index finger in the groove, my middle and ring in the “valley,” and my pinky landing on the far side of the beak. This feels natural, but, again, it isn’t the natural way my hand wants to hold the knife.

If I just grab the knife without thinking, my pinky lands right on the tip of the beak. This doesn’t sound like it would be comfortable, but thanks to the big chamfer around the scales, the tip of the beak isn’t too pointy and it works. And even during hard cuts this wasn’t that uncomfortable because most of the pressure is focused on the portion of the knife between your thumb and forefinger.

So I don’t know where I come down on this. The way it appears the knife is designed to be held isn’t natural, and the way it seems natural to hold it doesn’t feel right, even if it isn’t intolerable. At the end of the day I guess I’m okay with this handle, because it allows for a very slim and stylish profile, and going into it you know the 0450 isn’t going to be an ergonomic masterpiece.

The 0450 itself is so very narrow that it would be a pretty decent carry regardless of what kind of clip it had. This is one of very few flipper knives whose flipper tab doesn’t annoy me in the pocket, and I think that’s a function of the knife’s extreme narrowness. The 0450 would be a great carry even with a bad pocket clip, but hey: the clip here is anguish free. The same clip seen on the Kershaw Dividend, and in that review I expressed a little anxiety about its stability over time, but I’ve had no issues here.

Deployment and Lockup

I’m going to grouse a lot in this section so I’ll say this up front: The ZT 0450’s action is fast, sure, very snappy, addicting, and fun. The flipper tab is well designed. It is a great example of why flippers are so hot right now. Okay, grousing starts now.

I was prepared for the lock bar issue, and it is definitely present: if your fingers are on anywhere on the lock bar, the detent is such that the knife will not open – it feels almost like you have a secondary safety feature engaged. When I first got the knife I had a couple attempted deployments where the blade refused to budge.

However, if you align your fingers with the clip it keeps them off the bar; now that’s where my fingers naturally goes when I flip open this knife. Still, not cool, and from what I’ve seen it’s present on newer models as well. I’d like to see ZT put this issue to bed.

I think ball bearing pivots are bad. I hope the recent issues with the Advocate will precipate a move back to traditional washers, which are more durable, have no moving parts, are easier to maintain, and don’t cause as much unnecessary wear. Ball bearings against naked titanium (as we have on the 0450) is probably asking for trouble in the long term – albeit in the long, long term that most of us won’t see, as we trade and swap knives and carry different ones on different days. But still.

I also think that the ZT 0450’s fall shut action is dangerous and not to be desired. I’ve cut myself more times on the ZT 0450 than any other knife I’ve owned, either because it rolled shut so fast I didn’t have time to get my knuckles out of the way, or I pushed it a little bit and it gained enough momentum to keep rolling when I didn’t want or expect it to. Not necessary.

Lockup via titanium frame lock with a steel insert, is good however. If you look at the knife from the side, it doesn’t seem that a lot of the blade tang actually makes contact with the lock face, and disengagement has no feedback or friction whatsoever, but there is no blade play and the lock has never been other than stable and reliable. The double over-travel stop provided by the insert and by the clip is a nice touch as well.

Zero Tolerance 0450 Review – Final Thoughts

There is no meaningful area in which the Zero Tolerance 0450 excels other than carry. It isn’t a great cutter. Ergonomically, it’s kind of a mess. The deployment is problematic. But I still like it.

As much as I hate to say it it comes down to the look. Sinkevich has one of the strongest aesthetics around and the 0450 benefits greatly from that. It isn’t my style necessarily, but we don’t see a lot of knives that are this visually confident, and I think I responded to that. If you showed me a less interesting design that had all of these quirks and problems, I would never even think of buying it.

Not exactly the resounding praise, but praise nonetheless. I can’t not like this knife, even if there are so many things about it that I don’t like. It stops just short of brilliance but looks stunning doing it.

Zero Tolerance Sinkevich Titanium Folding Knife, Small

List Price: $160.00

Current Price: $160.00

Price Disclaimer

I recommend purchasing the Zero Tolerance 0450 at Amazon and BladeHQ. Please consider that purchasing anything through any of the links on this website helps support BladeReviews.com, and keeps the site going. As always, any and all support is greatly appreciated. Thank you very much.

Kershaw Dividend Review

by Benjamin Schwartz 14 Comments

Kershaw’s slew of new releases is always some of the biggest news out of SHOT Show. Each year the company unveils more than a dozen designs, including high-profile collaborations as well as compelling offerings from the talented in-house crew. Everything they make is accessible, with even the most lavish releases rarely going over $100. There’s bound to be something that appeals to your taste and budget in Kershaw’s yearly SHOT barrage.

For me, that something this year was the Dividend. In fact, it stuck in my mind as one of the most exciting knives of SHOT, full stop. Ostensibly a shorter and slimmer version of the Link, to me the Dividend seemed much more closely related to the Leek: a slim, small, lightweight, US-made SpeedSafe EDC knife with an accessible price point. Before I even had one of my own I was sure I loved it.

But then I got my own Dividend in hand and – well, I didn’t hate it, but it did, strangely, seem like a different knife than the one I handled earlier this year. Not a terrible knife, just a much less inspiring one.

The news isn’t bad so much as complicated. There’s a lot to think about with the Dividend if you’re considering picking one up, so let’s take a look.

General Dimensions and Blade Details

The Dividend has a cutting edge of 3” and a blade length of 3-3/16”-ish depending on where you measure from. It has a handle length of 4 3/16”, an overall length of 7 ¼”, and weighs 2.94 oz. It is made in the USA.

We say a blade shape is “modified” when it deviates so much from one of the standards that we’re not really sure what to call it. So the Dividend’s hollow-ground blade is a modified wharncliffe or drop point, depending on how you look at it. It’s a good blade, basically one continuous, gently curved edge. I generally like a mix of straight edge and belly, but the curve here is so gradual in places that, functionally, it’s straight. Cutting threads, breaking down boxes, slicing up an apple – these are the kind of things you’re going to want to use the Dividend for, and in these tasks it will do just fine.

Blade steel is 420HC – bad stuff. This isn’t an entry-level steel, it’s an outdated one. The blade geometry makes for an effective cutter, but after working through just a little cardboard the edge was drastically reduced. Not impressive. It doesn’t even have the good grace to maintain a clean edge; after that initial cut test it became really toothy. The more I use knives the more I like accessible, easy sharpen steels. 420HC is definitely easy to sharpen, but there’s a baseline for edge retention that it failed to clear as implemented on the Dividend.

The obvious response to this criticism is the price: the Dividend is designed as an affordable knife, and costs needs to be kept down with affordable steel. But the Dividend isn’t that cheap. I paid north of $40 for mine. Everyone’s value scale is calibrated differently, but a $40 purchase is not one I personally make lightly. At the consumer’s end of the equation, it’s hard to say for sure why a certain decision was made on a knife. But whatever the reason, it’s unfortunate that Kershaw chose to go with 420HC steel on the Divdend.

Handle, Ergonomics, and Pocket Clip

There’s this one handle shape that KAI’s in-house designers return to over and over again. We’ve seen it on the Link, the Rove, the ZT 0095BW, 0770, and of course the Tilt and 0777. It’s a good shape: simple, slightly hump-backed, grip neutral. It’s back again on the Dividend, available in two different material choices: a GRN configuration that is slightly cheaper but makes the knife more rotund, or the slim, sleek, Leek-like aluminum that I opted for. There is a decorative GRN backspacer as well – not really a pro or a con, I guess, unless the idea of lint getting caught in there really gets to you.

I’ve already posited that the Dividend is a secret sequel to the Leek (a Leekquel, if you will) and that really comes through in the aluminum model. The Leek managed to be very thin without feeling overly narrow, and Kershaw pulled off the same trick with the Dividend. It is a rare flipper knife that doesn’t butt your knuckle right up against the tab, too, so that’s all to the good.

Remember when Kershaw had some of the worst clips in the biz? Go look at the nightmare clown clip on the Zing or the Tyrade. Those days seem to be behind us. The clips they’ve been using in recent years are so much better. On the Dividend we see that same standard, almost nondescript clip that has appeared on the Link and some ZTs. I like it. My one worry is that the vertical screw orientation will be prone to wiggle over time. That being said I’ve had no problems with it so far with the Dividend. It has remained secure, doesn’t interfere with any grip, and is adequately deep.

Deployment and Lockup

Ah, SpeedSafe: the 8Cr13MoV of deployment methods: on so many knives, what is there left to say about it? The Dividend debuted alongside a few manual knives and I would have liked that setup here as well, but there is no denying the SpeedSafe deployment works great. Also, there’s a definite synergy between flippers and SpeedSafe, because they eliminate the possibility of misfires. The Dividend will deploy safely and surely every single time (unless the spring breaks or wears out, at least).

Worth noting is that, compared to the Link as well as other SpeedSafe knives I’ve owned, the Dividend seems less snappy. There’s a kind of softness to its deployment. It might be imperceptibly slower than other SpeedSafe knives but it also circumvents that problem of too much kick: you won’t have any problem holding on to the Dividend when you open it.

The liner lock on the Dividend is so squared away and familiar I have qualms about wasting more than a sentence or two discussing it. Rock solid, and exceedingly strong for all reasonable use of this EDC knife. Kershaw left just enough of it exposed to make sure you get good purchase on it for disengagement. Good stuff.

Dividend or Link (or Leek?)

The Dividend is positioned by Kershaw as the smaller follow-up to the Link. The relationship is certainly valid: the knives have material, mechanics, and that KAI handle shape in common. But they feel very different in use: the Link is much thicker, it fills the hand and feels like it’s meant to be used hard. The Dividend, while undeniably durable, is slender and elegant, keyed into a more EDC centric philosophy.

I bounced off the Link. I wasn’t interested in it when it was announced and have never been tempted to pick one up since. Dan sent me his to compare in this review, and some hands-on time confirmed what I already suspected: I prefer the Dividend in every way. The Dividend is much slimmer, with a better blade shape, and weighs nearly two ounces less. The size difference isn’t so pronounced that there are tasks the Link can do that the Dividend can’t. It is just a better knife.

The real competition in the Kershaw catalog, of course, comes from the Leek. And how does the Dividend compare to the Kershaw’s most iconic knife? Pretty favorably. I like the Dividend’s larger handle and less doofy pocket clip much better. Its blade shape has some of the sinuous character of the Leek without the fragility. It would be a straight upgrade were it not for the steel. 420HC is bad, there’s no two ways around it. Ultimately, I’d probably still give the nod to the Dividend, but until we see one with better steel (and I suspect we will) this matchup isn’t cut and dry as it otherwise would be.

Kershaw Dividend – Final Thoughts

In the intro I alluded to my disenchantment with the Dividend. There’s a lot of good to be found here: I like the slim profile, blade shape, weight, and pocket clip very much. I can even get behind the SpeedSafe mechanism. But I keep stopping just short of enthusiasm. Why is that?

The overall design is deeply competent, but also fails to stand out compared to classic in-house Kershaws like the Skyline and Knockout, as well as their more characterful collaborations and competition outside the Kershaw family. And over time the price thing really got to me. The aluminum version of the Dividend will probably cost you just under $50 – not what I consider a value knife, and not offering much compared to other knives you can get for the same price or less.

But although my initial enthusiasm eroded away, the Dividend isn’t bad. Carrying it was never a chore, even if it was boring and the steel was not so good. Sometimes you get a knife in your head and you just want that knife, even if it’s not mathematically the best choice. If the Dividend is such a knife for you, I say go for it. Otherwise, grab a Skyline or a save up for a Delica instead.

Kershaw Dividend Lightweight Utility Pocket Knife with SpeedSafe Assisted Opening, Grey

List Price: $47.28

Current Price: $41.64

Price Disclaimer

I recommend purchasing the Kershaw Dividend at Amazon. Please consider that purchasing anything through any of the links on this website helps support BladeReviews.com, and keeps the site going. As always, any and all support is greatly appreciated. Thank you very much.

Spyderco Para 3 C223GP Review

by Benjamin Schwartz 9 Comments

The Para 3 started as a fantasy: “Wouldn’t it be great if there were a smaller version of one of the most storied modern production knives of all time?” Then, this fantasy became a rumor, and that rumor became a confirmed project. Then there was a year-long lull. Then all of a sudden, in a whirlwind three months, the Para 3 was unveiled and released.

Expectations were not just high, they were at that particular airless altitude where it’s hard to say that people were even aware of just what it was they were asking for. Companies like SOG, Cold Steel, and CRKT habitually release their knives in different sizes – why were we getting so excited about the Para 3?

Well certainly the Paramilitary 2 has a reputation few production knives can match. The knife community is almost unanimous in its praise for the PM2. Most of the criticism comes in the form of wishing for a smaller version. So if the Para 3 address this one issue, wouldn’t it be a perfecter version of a nearly-perfect knife?

No doubt about it, there’s a lot to talk about here. So let’s get into it.

General Dimensions and Blade Details

The Para 3 has a blade length of just about 3”, with a cutting edge of 2 5/8”, an overall length of 7 1/8”, and a weight of 3.37 oz. It is made in Golden, CO, and is the first Spyderco I’ve handled that was produced in their new facility. Although the Golden, CO knives are fundamentally different in overall ethos than the Taichung stuff, if this Para 3 is a fair representative of the new plant’s capabilities, they are every bit their equal in terms of fit and finish. Unlike some of those fine knives, however, the Para 3 doesn’t feel like a collectible in any sense. This is an immaculately finished EDC blade that you’re meant to use.

What do we call this particular Spyderco blade shape? To me it’s always been their most iconic, appearing on the PM2, the FFG Delica/Endura, and the full-size Military. It’s a great shape for everyday cutting, with all the cutting surfaces you want: straight edge, belly, and a pointy tip. Little performance is lost in the transition to a sub-3” cutting edge, either. It might be a little less efficient in long cuts (as through cardboard), but it gains a little more maneuverability, and that seems like a fair trade.

Spyderco is thought of as an ergonomics-oriented company, but they also always emphasize cutting performance. The Para 3 embodies a lot of Spyderco philosophies, but perhaps this one most of all. The blade stock is thicker than even the saber ground Delica, and yet the flat grind is such that the Para 3 remains a top-tier slicer. It’s tough and aggressive when it needs to be, but graceful and delicate when the situation calls for it. The satin finish is perfectly done to reduce friction as well – definitely a better finish than Taichung.

Some would have it that Spyderco’s S30V is sub-par, but others praise it to the skies. After using it on my Zulu, PM2, and now Para 3, I’m comfortable saying it’s very good. It doesn’t stay hyper keen after a day or two of frequent use, but it retains a clean, usable edge for a very long time. As for sharpening – well, I’m beginning to learn that any steel requires time and attention to sharpen properly. Be patient and maintain a steady hand, and it’s possible to get S30V very sharp, even with rudimentary skills and entry-level equipment.

Handle, Ergonomics, and Pocket Clip

The Para 3’s handle is very similar, but not identical to, the PM2’s. In addition to the obvious reductions in length, it has a more curved spine than its bigger brother. The edges of the G-10 have also been hit with a mild chamfer. Material choices are the expected (but excellent nevertheless) G-10 with nested stainless steel liners.

I think it’s safe to say that the ergonomics are what makes the PM2 so popular. Rarely is a knife so agreeable in the hand, and when it is, it allows all the other excellent elements to shine even brighter. The Para 3’s ergonomics is a story in three parts, starting with the forward finger choil and ending, surprisingly, with the clip.

Utilizing the forward choil, the Para 3’s ergos are excellent. Control over the smaller blade is exemplary, and you’ll have no problem with most cutting tasks. Even smaller details contribute: the curved butt end keeps things comfortable when you’re holding the knife hard or pressing down during a cut. Also, thanks to Spyderco for keeping the finger choil the same size as on the PM2. Nothing more disappointing (nor weirdly prevalent) than a too-small finger choil.

Moving down toward the main part of the handle, the news is less good. If I’m not using the choil, I can’t quite fit all four of my fingers in the main portion of the handle. My pinky usually lands right on the beak at the back, or falls back behind it. The beak isn’t so pointy that it would create a hot spot during most use, but the PM2 was so accommodating in both grip styles that it’s a bummer the smaller Para 3 can’t quite pull it off.

The clip also presents issues. The Spyderco spoon clip is utterly solid in and of itself. I have no complaints with the way it works as a pocket clip. Early reviews/opinions of the Para 3 have lamented the fact that it doesn’t carry deeply due to the large lanyard hole, which has to go above the clip instead of beside it as on the PM2. This means that a good bit of knife is sticking out of your pocket. I didn’t mind this, but I did mind the way the clip interferes with the grip in both positions. The problem is that it goes across so much of the usable handle it’s bound to press uncomfortably somewhere at some point. Not a constant hotspot, but it is noticeable enough to meaningfully detract from the in-hand experience.

As you can see from my pictures, I found a solution to this particular problem. Casey Lynch of Lynch Northwest is well-known for his aftermarket Spyderco pocket clips, and his short clip works perfectly on the Para 3 – and I mean perfectly: it feels like it was made specifically for this knife, and it fixes every issue the stock clip presents. The deep carry is just a bonus for me. Do I think you need the clip to enjoy the Para 3? No. Even stock, ergonomics are well above average. They just aren’t quite as good as the PM2 and the clip helps close that gap.

Deployment and Lockup

If you do a deep-dive on their forums, you’ll find that Spyderco’s bushing/stepped pivot system has been the subject of much discussion over the years. Nobody questions the fast deployment and free-swinging blade, just the variance in terms of lockup from knife to knife. You can get a PM2 that deploys with lightning speed, but you’ll rarely find one that you can dial all the blade play out of, no matter how slight. That was the case with my PM2, although it never bothered me.

My Para 3 appears to have the same pivot, but is even faster than my PM2 to deploy. It flips open with any sort of positive pressure at all – truly thoughtless deployment. It also stands firm once locked up, with nary a hint of play in any direction. On the PM2 I’ve found the Compression Lock to be a somewhat finicky one to maintain, but I’ll chalk that up to my inexperience rather than some mechanical failing. In terms of the Specialty Locks I think I like the Compression Lock best, despite my personal hang-ups. It offers serious strength while still keeping deployment smooth and fluid.

Para 3 Vs. Sage 5

The Para 3’s strongest competition comes from within Spyderco’s catalogue – and it’s NOT the PM2. I know a lot of people will get both, but to me the size difference is enough to put them in separate knife categories. The Sage 5, however, was released just months ahead of the Para 3, and is in the same product class of the PM3: EDC Compression Lock folder with a circa 3” blade.

The Sage 5 doesn’t have the mystique of the Para 3, but it is quite competitive in an objective sense. It’s lighter and it is better in the hand. The little beak and ill-placed clip that cause so much ergonomic drama on the Para 3 are gone on the Sage 5.

The Para 3, however, is an unquestionably better rendition of the Compression Lock: faster deployment and non-existent blade play where the Sage 5 is sluggish and has a little wobble. It is also better balanced; both knives offer phenomenal blade control but the Para 3 is more graceful and responsive.

How about cost? Well, the Sage 5 is about $15 more – not enough to give most of us pause, but tangible. And I’ll say that I think the Para 3 is perfectly priced. It is worth exactly $120 to me, and pretty much sets the limit for what I consider sensible spending on a pocket knife.

Ultimately, you can’t go wrong with either, and a full-fledged showdown between the two might be worth doing, but off the cuff I’m giving the nod to the Para 3: ergonomics are important, and the Sage 5 edges out the Para 3 in this category, but I like the blade shape and mechanics better on the Para 3, and it is certainly not a disaster in hand. And hey, you can use the $15 you save to buy a Casey Lynch clip and solve half of that problem anyway.

Spyderco Para 3 – Final Thoughts

The Para 3 has been so long in the coming that in some ways it’s just a relief to be able to say a bunch of nice things about it. I was a little skeptical that scaling down the PM2 would be redundant, but Spyderco managed to make it feel like a different knife, and a great one at that.

That being said I’m also not totally blown away. Some things to consider: If you can legally own the PM2, I still think it edges the Para 3 out in terms of design. Technically they aren’t in the same use category, but they do share design fundamentals and I’d rather have more variety amongst my tools than two very similar albeit excellent knives. The Delica 4 is a great EDC knife for half the price. There is also the Sage 5 to consider, as well as knives like the Native 5 and Caly 3.

So I guess the worst thing I can say about the Para 3 is that it’s just another great Spyderco design. This is an excellent follow-up to what is arguably their best knife. Is it a must buy world beater? No. But Spyderco managed to bring something long wished-for to life without losing the magic, and in and of itself that’s an accomplishment.

Spyderco C223GP Plain Edge black Folding Blade Knives

List Price: $121.96

Current Price: Too low to display

Price Disclaimer

I recommend purchasing the Paramilitary 3 at Amazon or BladeHQ. Purchasing anything through any of the links on this site helps support BladeReviews, and keep this review train running. As always, any and all support is greatly appreciated.

Chris Reeve Knives Small Sebenza 21 vs. Strider PT CC – Knife Showdown

by Benjamin Schwartz 13 Comments

Five years ago the $300+ production knife market was a frontier town, with just a few big names able to operate successfully at these empyrean price points. Two of the biggest were Chris Reeve Knives and Strider. For a long time the line between production and custom knives was drawn by these two companies.

But you already know all that. They may just be two products in a now-crowded space, but years of archived forum texts and reviews will show that the Sebenza and the Strider SnG and their variants are among the most talked-about production knives ever made. Denigrate them, worship them, collect them, avoid them – it’s practically a rite of passage to have some kind of strong opinion about these knives.

They’re legends. But legendary is one thing and utility is another. Mythical statuses don’t really befit something we throw in our pocket and use to break down boxes. So I’ve procured, carried, and tested the Small Sebenza 21 and the Strider PT CC to see which knife will stand triumphant in the BladeReviews Showdown Arena. Let’s treat these hallowed blades with a certain familiar contempt, see how they work as knives, and discover which comes out on top.

General Dimensions

The specs for the knives are:

	Small Sebenza 21	Strider PT CC
Overall Length	6.875”	6.5”
Blade Length	3”	2.75” (2.1” cutting edge)
Weight	3 oz.	2.3 oz.
Blade Thickness	.13”	.13”
Handle Thickness	.43”	.40”
Blade Material	S35VN	S35VN
Handle Material	Titanium	Titanium/G-10
Country of Origin	USA	USA

These are both canonical choices for a high-end, smaller-sized EDC blade.

Blade Geometry and Cutting Performance

The Sebenza has a nuanced hollow grind that removes enough material to make it a capable slicer, but leaves meat behind the edge to dispel any concerns of frailty. It just gets out of the way while you work with the blade – just like a good grind should.

Starting with an equally thick stock, Strider decided to lean into toughness with a gradual flat grind. In extreme situations it might be able to soak up more abuse than the Sebenza, but when it comes to cutting tasks – even heavy duty cutting tasks – it is worse. Not terrible, but you’ll definitely have intimations of wedgeiness as you cut with it.

So unless you value durability over all else in a small EDC knife, the Sebenza has the clear advantage here.

Winner: Sebenza

Blade Steel

Made in 2016, my Sebenza has S35VN blade steel. The sequel to S30V, S35VN brings additional positive characteristics to the standard-setting original. There’s a tendency in high-end steels to get too esoteric too quickly. ZDP-189, S90V, M4 – these kind of steels trade in extremes. They appeal to enthusiasts and lose the everyman. S35VN is my favorite super steel because it offers high levels of performance while remaining accessible, easy to sharpen and maintain. On my Sebenza it is superb.

The steel on my PT is…also S35VN, also superb. There may be a difference in heat treat or Rockwell, but in use I’ve noticed no difference, so this category can only shake out one way: a draw.

Winner: Draw

Handle Construction

The phrase “beautifully machined” is a tired one, but it assuredly applies to the Sebenza: its titanium scales have been meticulously attended to, inside and out. The media blast is consistent, the chamfers precise, the construction rigid, reliable, and handsome.

The PT’s contoured G-10 show side scale, integrated backspacer, and titanium locking side make for rock-solid build quality and surprisingly light weight – you wouldn’t think this knife would be lighter than the Sebenza, but it is. Nothing about the PT immaculate, but everything feels right, and it’s a pleasure just to hold. Despite its “Duty Tool” attitude, the PT CC feels like a handcrafted luxury item – which, of course, it is.

Really, this is a difference is between cold and warm finishes: the precision of the Sebenza vs . the inviting luxury of the PT. in the end, I think I’m going to give this one to the PT. It may not show the same attention to detail as the CRK knife, but its handle is smartly designed and well put-together.

Winner: Strider PT CC

Ergonomics

Neutral ergonomics are always good, even when they aren’t inspiring. The Sebenza is serviceable in all relevant grips. Each angle and cut in the handle serves a purpose. The edge chamfering lends dimensionality. The clip rests just between the middle and forefinger. Even sub-ergonomic details like the cut in the lock bar release are finely-tuned. The Sebenza design has been fussed over and it shows.

With a double finger choil the PT isn’t ergonomically neutral. You’re expected to hold it a certain way, but that way works so well. And credit to Strider for making the forward choil roomy enough: many knife makers shrink it down and ruin the point. After several years and many knives in between the PT’s ergonomics still remain at or near the top in my collection.

This was a tough category: the neutral, versatile, but never extraordinary ergos of the Sebenza, or the more restricted, more refined design of the PT. It came down to this: which knife do I holding and using more? The answer is the PT CC.

Winner: Strider PT CC

Pocket Clips and Carry

CRK’s double dip clip gets a lot of love. For the most part, it’s deserved. It did lose a little tension over time, but nothing catastrophic. Retrieving and stowing the knife is painless. Retention is strong and sure, and the knife itself so trim and thin that carry is totally effortless.

The clipless PT CC comes into this category at a disadvantage. It is, however, quite good carried loose in the pocket. It can be hard to feel comfortable with a $300 knife banging around alongside coins, keys, and other jagged pocket paraphernalia, but I think the PT is beefy enough to take it.

Both knives are in the top tier in their respective carry categories. However, the PT is fighting a losing battle due to its lack of a clip. Given the choice, I’m always going to choose pocket carry. The Strider is great in the pocket, but the Sebenza wins here.

Winner: Sebenza

Deployment

A strong detent and custom washers make opening the Sebenza a different affair than its more conventional cutlery brethren. I enjoy its unique calibration. It’s smooth, but provides plenty of feedback throughout opening. You can also flick it open once the knife is broken in a bit.

The PT CC is more conventional: nice and poppy and well-tuned. You can flick it out with minimal effort, or slow roll it without having to climb a mountainous detent. The oval is intuitive and the blade stops work okay as thumb studs. I tend to run this knife with little lubrication and there is no discernible decline in its action.

It is tempting to give the Sebenza the nod here, because it is more enjoyable to open and close. However from a practical point of view I have to give it to the PT. It is just as reliable, but faster and without the learning curve.

Winner: Strider PT CC

Lockup

Like the deployment, the Sebenza’s frame lock is different than the industry standard – and in this case I think better. You can’t trick it into locking up less, and there is absolute, positive rigidity once it’s open – not even a hint of play in any direction. Whether it’s the tolerances, the lock geometry, the lock bar tension, or the alchemy between all three, this is as good as folding knife locks get.

The frame lock on the PT is less exalted, but still very good. It may not have the world-beating tolerances of the Sebenza frame lock, but there is nothing to complain about in a practical sense.

It isn’t always the case that the original remains the best, but the Sebenza’s frame lock is still a marvel.

Winner: Sebenza

Price

These are both expensive knives. The Sebenza costs $350. The PT CC cost $300 when I bought it but appears to have gone up to $320 since then. At that price there’s about a 10% difference between it and the Sebenza. I love both of these knives but let’s be real here: you don’t need a $300+ knife. You buy a Sebenza or a Strider because you love knives and you want to see what can be achieved when price is not a concern.

Small Sebenza 21 vs. PT CC – Some Objective(ish) Final Thoughts
This is an iconic matchup, so it’s disappointing that it ends in a tie. Kind of like an action movie ending with good guys and bad guys both out of ammo and walking away shrugging their shoulders.

But in a way that’s fitting, particularly when you take into account the high price tags of both knives. As landmark products of the high-end folding knife market, the Sebenza and the PT should hold their own against the other, and they do. The Sebenza is the better cutter and the PT is better ergonomically, but both are pretty competent even in their respective weak areas. Prices are within spitting distances of each other, so it’s going to come down to what you value more as a buyer. However…

My Subjective Final Thoughts

When I first came up with this showdown but before I began writing it, I thought the Sebenza would blow the PT out of the water. I had just got my Small 21 and was still cross-eyed as we all get when we acquire a grail. As time and testing went on, however, I came to appreciate my long-neglected PT CC again. What I thought would be a blowout became a very close race.

That being said, for me the Small Sebenza 21 does still win. I like the blade better, I like having a pocket clip, and the incredible tolerances make for something that is 100% reliable compared to the solid but idiosyncratic PT. Ergonomics are very important, and the PT is great in this area, but the Sebenza offers a more rounded package. But having completed a leg of the knife buyer’s journey by acquiring a Sebenza and a Strider, I can tell those still on their way to these landmark blades that no matter which you pick, you’ll be satisfied.

If you are considering buying a Strider PT or a Chris Reeve Knives Small Sebenza 21, I recommend purchasing them at BladeHQ or KnifeArt. By purchasing things through any of the links on this website you support BladeReviews.com, keep the website free of annoying banner ads, and help produce future reviews. Thank you very much.

Strider PT – $300.00
From:BladeHQ KnifeArt

Chris Reeve Knives Small Sebenza 21 – $350
From: BladeHQ KnifeArt

Main navigation

Benjamin Schwartz

General Dimensions and Blade Details

Handle, Ergonomics, and Pocket Clip

Deployment and Lockup

Delica 4 Wharncliffe Review – Final Thoughts

Blade Dimensions and General Details

Handle, Ergonomics, and Pocket Clip

Deployment and Lockup

Kizer Guru – Final Thoughts

General Dimensions and Blade Details

Handle, Ergonomics, and Pocket Clip

Deployment and Lockup

Zero Tolerance 0450 Review – Final Thoughts

General Dimensions and Blade Details

Handle, Ergonomics, and Pocket Clip

Deployment and Lockup

Dividend or Link (or Leek?)

Kershaw Dividend – Final Thoughts

General Dimensions and Blade Details

Handle, Ergonomics, and Pocket Clip

Deployment and Lockup

Para 3 Vs. Sage 5

Spyderco Para 3 – Final Thoughts

General Dimensions

Blade Geometry and Cutting Performance

Blade Steel

Handle Construction

Ergonomics

Pocket Clips and Carry

Deployment

Lockup

Price

My Subjective Final Thoughts