Blur versus Zero Tolerance update

[Guest lostpass]

A while back I posted a thread wherein I compared the ZT 350 to a Kershaw Blur. I came to the conclusion that while the ZT was an excellent knife it wasn't 80 dollars more excellent than the Kershaw blur I got for thirty bucks.

At the time I wrote it my logic seemed sound. After having the ZT for a little longer I'd like to say I was wrong. If you get the knives together and look at the features it is hard to say that the ZT is 80 bucks better. If you use the ZT for a week you'll learn that it is at least eighty bucks better.

Sure, they both have speed safe, both lock up tight and both are comfortable. In fact the BLur is a really nice knife. But when you start using the ZT day to day you start forgetting the similar specs and seeing the differences. Once the differences become apparent it's really hard to look at the knives the same way. The ZT has a much more positive grip, not because of the scales but because of the the shape of the handle and the jumping. The blur is mostly straightish whereas the ZT has aggressive jumping and a natural stop for your leading finger.

Yeah, it doesn't sound like a big deal but try it for week and you'll start thinking that is alone is worth the eighty extra bucks.

But there is also the flipper. Sure the thumb studs on the Blur are adequate but the flipper is better especially once you get used to it.

The goodness doesn't end there. When you have the two knives together you'll notice that the ZT is much wider than the blur. I thought that the added bulk would be a problem. It wasn't and i wondered why. It turns out that the thickness of the knives is almost identical. The thickness is the problem for most pockets not the width. So while I was worried about the ZT being bulkier than the Blur that worry was unfounded. If both knives are equally easy to carry then the higher quality one wins out.

In this case, both knives are not equally easy to carry. The blur is grippier, it has aluminum scales coated with some kind of rubber. I've done actual tests on which knife was grippier and the blur wins easily. Except maybe winning the "grippiest" knife contest isn't always a good thing.

It seems counter intuitive, more grip is always better, right? The thing is that while the blur is grippier that is all it it is. The ergonomics aren't nearly as good so even though the scales have more grip you are more likely to accidentally slide your hand forward. The positive tactile experience (getting tired of grippy) of the blur also comes with a downside, it gets stuck much more easily in your pocket. I generally don't use the clip and just carry my knives loose. The high friction surface of the blur mean my wallet or keys might come out with the blur. With the ZT it is all knife all the time.

I was wrong about the ZT and wrong about the blur. The blur is a fantastic knife value (at thirty bones), a great EDC knife and probably one of the best knives I have used. Compared to a lot of knives I prefer it strongly (looking at you spyderco delica). But the ZT is just so much better.

I have spent too much money looking for a really good knife. 40 for this thing, thirty for that thing, here's a sixty dollar blade.... I now realize that it would've been cheaper and quicker to pony up for the ZT a year or two ago.

Why didn't I listen to Major Kong sooner?

[Major Kong]

Glad you like the ZT. In my opinion it's definitely one of the best "bang for the buck" knives out there. For what it's worth, I carried a Blur every day until I got the 350.