I need a response to a friend about knife shapes

[Jonathan_Kaplan]

I was talking to a friend who claimed that a modern "tactical" knife is a knife of a more useful shape for close combat than other knives of similar length that have shapes that one would find used earlier in history. What should I say to what he says? Is there any truth to his comments? What competent sources can I find that talk about this one way or another? Thanks!

[CalebChow]

Hm, a "tactical" knife is very, very vague to define. Could you give us an example of what your friend was talking about?

And, It also depends on what he means by "historical" knife. Historical knives had many different shapes and sizes as well--some of which probably would have the same shape as some "modern tactical knives."

[david welch]

The "modern tactical knife" folder got popular because a bunch of us were carrying Bowies in the first Gulf war and it made some of the more prissy officers twitchy. They told us we couldn't carry big fixed blade knives anymore and that we had to carry folders so we wouldn't scare the reporters and locals (as if) and women. So we all started buying the biggest, most heavy-duty folders we could find. While some of the enemy wound up getting shanked by them... really they were used more for hacking, prying, digging and popping the bands on MRE boxes, so thick spined tantos got pretty popular.

Looking back on it? I would have bought a smaller one hand opening folding stiletto (also known as a "switchblade") and a small camp hatchet, and did all my digging with my e-tool.

Hardly in depth scientific research for the most effective CQB design, was it?

[Jaron Bernstein]

I was talking to a friend who claimed that a modern "tactical" knife is a knife of a more useful shape for close combat than other knives of similar length that have shapes that one would find used earlier in history. What should I say to what he says? Is there any truth to his comments? What competent sources can I find that talk about this one way or another? Thanks!

If you are going to fight with a knife (and not the more common mundane uses), who will you opponent be? Rondels were used in an era of heavy clothing and armor. It had to function as a can opener against gambesons and mail armor. The small folding "tactical" that most folks carry today wouldn't get far in that world. If you live in modern colder climates where layers of heavy clothes are the norm, once again, you need to puncture through the thermal shirt, the sweatshirt and the overcoat. If you are living in a place where shorts, t-shirts and flip-flops are the norm a smaller cutting blade might work just fine.

Also, consider that some of the techniques for the rondel don't adapt as well to shorter blades, while others do.

[Jonathan_Kaplan]

By modern knife, I mean any sort of Bowie Knife with sawtooth edges on it. And as for historical fighting knives, well, you all know more about that than I do! Though I think those tend to be more symmetrical?

And I don't know what sorts of armors each knife would be good or bad against. That's part of why I came here, to get educated on that sort of thing. Maybe you can help me describe scenarios in which each would be better, assuming some sort of melee combat?

I guess the Bowie knife was to be a compromise in the tool/combat thing?

[Brent Lambell]

I think Jason hit the nail on the head. With most combat arts, in my opinion, effectiveness is contextual. Many social factors will apply, clothing being one of the more important ones.

Another factor is conflict environment. In our study group, one of us attended a knife defense seminar and the instructor had done research showing that many knife attacks happen in crowded night club type situations. In these environments a small knife makes an obvious weapon of choice. In medieval and renaissance Europe, pretty much everyone carried a knife. It was a tool of daily necessity so mostly everyone was armed at any given time. In this environment, larger knives (notably designed to combat the armor of the day) were the best choice as there was little to no need to surprise an opponent with a blade.

Just something else to consider.

[Ken Dietiker]

Picking up on what Brent says regarding context, one of the reasons I believe we see a lot of tactical type knives these days has to do with the fact that in most states and the military, daggers (dual edged blades) are illegal. As far as a historical weapon goes, daggers were quite the fashion, and obviously meant for what they were designed for, as a weapon rather than a daily bread and meat cutting tool. Since having a dagger in most places would be a bad idea, the next best thing is a big Bowie type tactical knife, or a smaller version, or even one like it that folds (even easier to hide).

Now we can debate for quite a bit on whether or not any knife is a weapon, or even if a dagger is nothing more than a weapon, but reality is just that. Basically the dagger has been designated by a lot of people as being nothing more than a weapon meant for killing living things and is not a tool and therefore is not acceptable. But don't tell these same folks that any knife, even a folding tactical knife, is also a weapon. At least we have something.

Now why a dagger is not allowed in the military, I don't know. Seems sort of hypocritical to me.

"Lock Bayonets!!"

[Will Adamson]

But you can buy daggers at the PX/BX!

[Ken Dietiker]

Yeah, but that's a store. You can get them at clothing sales, too. both run by AAFES, not part of the military. But you're not suppose to take them with you in the field. Regs say I had to confiscate them during certain room inspections.

Oh, I know, people do take them anyway. Command sort of turns a blind eye when it's for "that" reason, if it's not too long (3.5" to 4") and you keep it on the down-low, and it doesn't replace the regulation bayonet.

I used to really love the old bayonets that went with the M16A1 (the original). Dagger shaped with a nice, wicked point, but only sharpened half way down the false edge.

[Will Adamson]

Military regulations not make sense! I can't imagine!

I seem to remember something about the Geneva Conventions prohibiting the sharpening of bayonets , even though they had sharpening stones in the sheaths. Personally, I'd rather be bayonetted with...well, a bayonet...rather than a spoon. At least it'd be quicker. Of course you're principally using the thrust with a bayonet as Jay has stated in regards to most knife fighting, so as long as you had a good point the edge sharpness would be rather immaterial. The edge would most likely be used in it's capacity as a survival tool.

[Ken Dietiker]

Yeah, military regulations. Makes one wonder sometimes, doesn't it? Here's the excerpt;

"Knives will be carried in a sheath or scabbard worn in a clearly visible manner. Commanders may authorize the carrying of a privately-owned, knife with a blade over 3 inches to field duty. The provost marshal may authorize the carrying of a privately-owned, sheathed, lock blade knife on military and DoD police officers’ pistol belts." DoD Reg. 552.128

But that's US DoD regulation. The Geneva Convention has many more little oddities within it besides what you mention, such as how it's illegal to use a .50 cal. machine gun against against anything not considered military equipment (i.e. not humans). Makes it more of a challenge to find ways around it, like, "But officer. I was shooting at his equipment belt!". It's all in the interpretation.

Of course, some commanders see that DoD reg as a way to do the opposite of what you and I would consider "reasonable", and getting a Provost to authorize anything on your request alone? Good luck on that one. And to think at one time I switched over to Military Intelligence. A contradiction in terms if there ever was one. I know the quote doesn't include mention of a dagger, but that's because the norm is to go with local unit State regs as a local guide, I think. At least this was so here in the State of Washington.

Yes, you are right I believe. The point of a knife in combat (if you'll pardon the pun) was, and still is, primarily to be used in thrusting. Which I believe goes back to Johnathan's initial question regarding the shape of knives historically. As far as a modern tactical knife being a more "useful shape" for close combat, look to the use of the point as the primary issue on that shape as its function. Though a survival tool seems to be it's secondary purpose, it is in the field its primary. Go figure...

Which would make the spoon an awful tool as a modern bayonet, and it would hurt a lot more, (making it, of course, against Geneva Convention).

[Jay Vail]

I was talking to a friend who claimed that a modern "tactical" knife is a knife of a more useful shape for close combat than other knives of similar length that have shapes that one would find used earlier in history. What should I say to what he says? Is there any truth to his comments? What competent sources can I find that talk about this one way or another? Thanks!

What makes the perfect fighting knife is a topic that seems to obsess many people for some reason. I doubt there is any real answer to that question. However, if you look at the entire span of history, one thing is clear: the classic dagger design (think M-3 or the Arkansas toothpick) is the oldest and most enduring. Perhaps there's a reason for that. It's pretty arrogant for us to think that we can invent a hand weapon or some close combat martial arts technique that hasn't been thought of before.

[Ken Dietiker]

So right you are, Jay. For those who don't know what all of these knives and such we've been discussing look like, well here you go....

Arkansas Toothpick


M3 "Trench" Knife, U.S. Army


M-4 Bayonet (Also; M-5, M-6, M-7)


... and just to show how things change, here's the current US Army bayonet based on the Bowie knife (M-7 was phased out), what some today call a "Tactical" or "survival" type knife.

Modern M-9 Bayonet

[Jonathan_Kaplan]

Okay, assuming equal length, what is a bowie knife *worse at* compared to a rondel-type knife?

[Ken Dietiker]

Okay, assuming equal length, what is a bowie knife *worse at* compared to a rondel-type knife?

Well, Jay and some others can probably answer that better that I can, but I'd say the Bowie has a thinner blade along the flat. This makes it much better for cutting as it gives a sharper edge, but also weaker compared to the otherwise hefty central thickness of the Rondel or the Toothpick. The Bowie is also wider across than a all than the others, but that is a plus if you want to swing it as it makes it heavier like a meat cleaver, but there also may be an issue with ease of penetration because of this width. Remember, the killing stroke is not always a cut, but most often a thrust. Some modern tacticals also have saw teeth on the back which I have heard can hang up on bone and gristle and so make it difficult to retrieve, but I have never experimented with that. If true, the saw makes a good branch cutting tool (for the survival side of things), but to me seems like a negative for a thrusting weapon.

My .02 cents.