Zero Tolerance 350 VS Kershaw Blur

[Guest lostpass]

Today I got a Zero Tolerance 350. The ZT set me back $112, a hefty price for a knife but it was something I wanted and, I dunno, maybe it was my birthday. Or possibly I was a little drunk when I ordered it. No matter, it is here now.

It’s nice and it is almost impossible to feel ripped off when you hold it. Hence, I am not sending it back. They can have my ZT when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers or offer a ZT 300 for in trade.

Turns out I also have a Kershaw Blur. The blur runs 30 bucks. So the question is: was the ZT worth the extra eighty bucks? Got to say that the answer is, for me, a resounding: No friggin’ way!

The blur has the ZT beat all the way. Where the ZT has G10 scales the blur has roughed up aluminum scales coated in grippy rubber. You can hold on to either knife with ease and I suppose that the ZT might be slightly better when gripping it while covered in blood I was unable to test this hypothesis.

The blur snaps open a little faster than the ZT, likely owing the less substantial (but still beefy) blade. The Blur is a thumb stud only deal while the ZT has both thumb studs and a flipper. I couldn’t really get the thumb studs on the ZT to work but the flipper part was fine.

The ZT has one of those Tungsten DLC coated blades while the Blur has a simple stonewashed blade. DLC coatings, from what I can tell, are nice to prevent corrosion, wear and add slickness for machine tools but I can’t tell that they are that useful with a knife. I say this because if it worked for machine tools the cutting part of the blade would be coated as well as the rest of the blade. The cutting part of the blade lacks the coating so, from what I can tell, the coating is mostly there to look tacticool.

That said, If the entire blade was coated in a couple angstroms of DLC tungsten it probably would stay sharp longer while you’re stabbing a million zombies or opening 10,000 fed ex packages. From the manufacturing I really can’t tell that the coating is there for a good reason. I could be wrong.

Both knives come plenty sharp put of the box (same company after all) but sharpness as an indicator of knife utility is misleading. A really sharp knife is impressive but cutting tools need to be sharpened to the intended use. If you’re doing eye surgery you need a very sharp, precise instrument. If you are quartering a chicken with a cleaver you want something less sharp, to sharp and you’ll be pulling it out of the cutting board too often. The knives are probably oversharp for a utility knife but to each their own.

Eighty bucks is a lot right? Kershaw all the way? Hold on there for a second. The ZT is a much stouter beast. The liner lock is much thicker and the quality seems much better on the ZT. Eighty bucks better? Doubt it.

But this has been an unfair competition. You can get a plainish blade for 30 bucks with a Kershaw blur but you can’t get a plainish blade from ZT. With ZT you’re getting a S30V blade.

Here’s the thing: If you’re buying the equivalent blade, an S30V blur (they make those) you are into it for at least eighty bucks. Compared to the cost of the ZT you’d be crazy not to spring for the ZT.

If you’re going for the best knife for the ducats, for the knife you’re going abuse and probably lose the cheapest Kershaw blur is probably your friend. If you’re going for a multiyear knife the difference between the Kershaw and ZT is substantial.

Yes, a ZT 300 is on my buy list, I hope I can find one without the coating.

[willis68]

Today I got a Zero Tolerance 350. The ZT set me back $112, a hefty price for a knife but it was something I wanted and, I dunno, maybe it was my birthday. Or possibly I was a little drunk when I ordered it. No matter, it is here now.

It’s nice and it is almost impossible to feel ripped off when you hold it. Hence, I am not sending it back. They can have my ZT when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers or offer a ZT 300 for in trade.

Turns out I also have a Kershaw Blur. The blur runs 30 bucks. So the question is: was the ZT worth the extra eighty bucks? Got to say that the answer is, for me, a resounding: No friggin’ way!

you seem to be contradicting yourself with these statements, if you are trying to say that it is not worth the extra money to you why on Earth would anyone have to pry it from your cold dead fingers?

The blur has the ZT beat all the way. Where the ZT has G10 scales the blur has roughed up aluminum scales coated in grippy rubber. You can hold on to either knife with ease and I suppose that the ZT might be slightly better when gripping it while covered in blood I was unable to test this hypothesis.

I strongly disagree with that opinion, but everyone is entitled to their own

The blur snaps open a little faster than the ZT, likely owing the less substantial (but still beefy) blade. The Blur is a thumb stud only deal while the ZT has both thumb studs and a flipper. I couldn’t really get the thumb studs on the ZT to work but the flipper part was fine.

We must have very different knives, my 0350 is faster than the Blurs that I have used

The ZT has one of those Tungsten DLC coated blades while the Blur has a simple stonewashed blade. DLC coatings, from what I can tell, are nice to prevent corrosion, wear and add slickness for machine tools but I can’t tell that they are that useful with a knife. I say this because if it worked for machine tools the cutting part of the blade would be coated as well as the rest of the blade. The cutting part of the blade lacks the coating so, from what I can tell, the coating is mostly there to look tacticool.

That said, If the entire blade was coated in a couple angstroms of DLC tungsten it probably would stay sharp longer

this would never work, if you ever properly sharpen the knife, any coating will be sacrificed that is one of the several reasons companies do not apply DLC over a finished Edge

while you’re stabbing a million zombies or opening 10,000 fed ex packages. From the manufacturing I really can’t tell that the coating is there for a good reason. I could be wrong.

Both knives come plenty sharp put of the box (same company after all) but sharpness as an indicator of knife utility is misleading. A really sharp knife is impressive but cutting tools need to be sharpened to the intended use. If you’re doing eye surgery you need a very sharp, precise instrument. If you are quartering a chicken with a cleaver you want something less sharp, to sharp and you’ll be pulling it out of the cutting board too often. The knives are probably oversharp for a utility knife but to each their own.

Eighty bucks is a lot right? Kershaw all the way? Hold on there for a second. The ZT is a much stouter beast. The liner lock is much thicker and the quality seems much better on the ZT. Eighty bucks better? Doubt it.

But this has been an unfair competition. You can get a plainish blade for 30 bucks with a Kershaw blur but you can’t get a plainish blade from ZT. With ZT you’re getting a S30V blade.

Here’s the thing: If you’re buying the equivalent blade, an S30V blur (they make those) you are into it for at least eighty bucks. Compared to the cost of the ZT you’d be crazy not to spring for the ZT.

If you’re going for the best knife for the ducats, for the knife you’re going abuse and probably lose the cheapest Kershaw blur is probably your friend. If you’re going for a multiyear knife the difference between the Kershaw and ZT is substantial.

Yes, a ZT 300 is on my buy list, I hope I can find one without the coating.

The closest that you will get is the 0303, it has Tiger Stripes like the 301 and 302 but has Black G-10 scales Here is a picture of mine

I had an S30V Blur and last week gave it to my stepson, they are very nice knives but I feel that the Zero Tolerance models are a notch above

Edited August 27, 2011 by willis68

[Guest lostpass]

I may sound contradictory. For thirty bucks a plain blur is, in my opinion, a better value. For 80 bucks, when both knives use the same grade of steel, there really is no comparison. The ZT has the kershaw beat all the way. But for something to possibly lose, or just for day to day use and not worrying about the knife the 30 buck blur is hard to beat. Plus, for thirty bucks I can use the blur as a pry bar. For eighty bucks? Screw the blur, I think the ZT is a much better value.

I suppose you could say that the $30 blur is a really great value. You don't have to worry much about that knife. But if you go up a notch the value disappears. At eighty bucks the ZT is a much better value for the additional money. It is clearly better built, more thought and tougher than the comparable blur.

Weird about the DLC thing. I mean they put it on drill bits and end mills and those things get sharpened. Perhaps the DLC coating is reapplied after sharpening. In industry the use DLC stuff on cutting edges all the time. I suppose it wouldn't hold to a sharpening but it will stay sharper longer. I suspect the DLC thing is mostly for corrosion resistance (and marketing bennies) when it comes to knives.

Eh, whatever.

Anyone know the deal with the tiger stripe pattern on the ZTs?

[willis68]

The tiger stripe on the blades comes from Mick Strider and company, the 0300 series of knives is a collaboration of Strider, Ken Onion and Kershaw the blades are striped with DLC coating

[Guest lostpass]

The tiger stripe on the blades comes from Mick Strider and company, the 0300 series of knives is a collaboration of Strider, Ken Onion and Kershaw the blades are striped with DLC coating

Thanks for the info. I don't care for the look myself but that is a personal thing I guess. I'd prefer a solid color (at least). On the other hand I don't worry about what color the hammer is when I use it! But ZTs are (ahem) knice! I'd like to show off a 300 when I get one.

I've been reading up on this DLC stuff and can't see where it is any better than a can of krylon when it comes to knives so I guess I could make a ZT 300 about any color I wished without adverse performance.

[Guest lostpass]

One more thing I should mention.... The ergonomics aren't even close. The ZT is much, much better than the blur. I'm not sure which scale is grippier but that doesn't really matter. The ZT could be coated in teflon, covered in butter and dipped in liquid ball bearings and it wouldn't matter. The shape of the knife is much, much better than the kershaw.