Guards were traditionally designed to keep an oponents blade off your hand, not to prevent your hand from sliding up onto the edge. There are many examples of smaller knives from around the world that do not have them. The Roman Gladius and the smaller Japanese daggers being two that I can think of off the top of my head. In more recent martial history the Finnish made short work of many Nazis in WWII with their guardless Puukos.
Only reason for a blade to have a guard, in a modern-day tactical/sexy type blade manifestation, is to stop the hand from riding forward onto the blade and self-inflicting.
VDMSR.com
Chief Developer for V Development Group
Everything I post I do so as a private individual who is not representing any company or organization.
FIFY. Finns were enemies of the Russians in WWII, ergo, more-or-less allies of the Nazis. /HistoryGeekDigressionOriginally Posted by secondstoryguy
Recovering Gun Store Commando. My Blog: The Clue Meter
“It doesn’t matter what the problem is, the solution is always for us to give the government more money and power, while we eat less meat.”
Glenn Reynolds
Many of the replies revolve around how constructing a knife with a guard is hard to do. No one offered a convincing case that they aren't really needed anymore to protect your own little digits. Assuming a largish belt knife (which I should have better specified, as opposed to art pieces, EDC or compacts) difficulty alone is not a good reason to leave them off.
So, a lot of the tacti-cool and often expensive "fighters" are indeed posers. Bummer.
I thought it was because blade on blade combat has lost it popularity.
Generally theres an evolution that closely follows the form follows function thought process.
I dont plan to duel with anyone so I dont choose a blade with a large guard.
Just enough of to separate my fingers from the edge is my preference.
Grinder Monkey, CEO and Janitor at FLC Knives.
Follow us on Facebook and Instagram!
I'm a big fan of proper guards. Quillions, not so much.
However, and as others have pointed out, it really depends on what compromises the knife is built around. All knives have compromises, so pick what matters to you and drive on. For a full size belt knife, I really like Cold Steel trailmaster bowies. For more specific dueling purposes, I like the Bagwell's, though I currently only have the commercial versions. For CCW, a Clinch Pick or Pikal gets the nod. For field use, a Puuko style is more often what i'll pick. All can be used as fighters. Some are designed for it, others are not. Some are designed for CCW, others are for open combat. An open combat knife without a proper guard is pretty stupid. A CCW knife that you can't conceal is also pretty stupid.
Good summary.
Yup, my initial definitions sucked and SLG said it best.
I really appreciate that you guys got what I was saying, cause that has to be to be of the worst paragraphs I've ever penned. Reads very awkwardly to me, and doesnt convey everything I wanted it to. One of thethings I wanted to convey was that while smaller knives with less substantial guards are almost always "inferior" in use to a bigger, more full featured knife, how you use the knife matters, and the techniques we might use with a Bagwell or Mad Dog, are not going to be the same as with an Emerson folder, let alone a pikal or CP. By choosing the correct employment for the blade, you can mitigate many of the shortcomings and , maximize its strengths.
Reply With Quote