The third blade from Toor Knives that ended up in my collection was a Field 2.0. More specifically, it was the Field 2.0 Ebony. This acquisition was far more practical compared to the tactical pair of Toor Knives Serpents that preceded it. To date, it is the Toor that has seen the most use with the exception of Field 3.0 that Toor Knives provided me with to review about in the latter half of 2023 which was a year and a half later after I acquired the 2.0. I prefer the 2.0 for most tasks over the 3.0, but the 2.0 gets babied more for reasons we will cover soon enough in this post. For now, let’s just say that the blade shape and size make the Field 2.0 a well suited utilitarian workhorse especially for outdoor activities.

For transparency, I purchased the Field 2.0 personally over a year prior to establishing an affiliate relationship with Toor Knives.

I don’t recall in full detail what drove me to make the $325 purchase at the time. From what I can remember, I had been outfitting “get home” and “bug out” kits with Esee knives. One of those Esee knives always ended up in the hunting pack as well (more often than not it was an Esee 4), but this was supplemented with a Buck Knives 537 for processing harvested game animals. Field dressing and quartering medium sized game, while doable, was far easier with the Buck than with the Esee. However, the Buck was great for much else, which is where the Esee came in. But I digress. I recall wanting to reduce the hunting pack bulk and the Field 2.0 seemed like a good candidate to handle both animal processing and common outdoor camp tasks. Finally, the Ebony variant caught my eye with its fancy wood handle scales and copper liners. And as they say, the rest is history.

You may be wondering why I thought the Field 2.0 knife was a good candidate? You might also be wondering how it fared? Well, in the words of Thomas Sowell, “there are no solutions, only trade-offs.” I suppose the best way to explain this is by looking at the design and specs in detail.

Now, where shall we begin?

The Field 2.0 is a drop point style knife which is easily the most common shape found in modern knives. The shape gets its name from the gradual downward slope of the spine that slightly “drops” the point of the knife below the otherwise straight spine. That drop makes for a strong robust tip that is easy to control while providing a long 4.5″ continuous edge that begins with a 2.75″ long straight edge near the handle and ends with a 1.75″ long wide belly near the tip. This combination makes for a very versatile blade edge that can handle precise cutting and slicing with the belly while taking on harder traditional tasks, such as processing wood and starting a fire, with the straight portion of the blade edge.

The 4.5″ blade edge length is what I consider to be the Goldilocks length. It’s not so long that one can’t manage finer tasks, but not so short that one is forced to shy away from tougher tasks. That is a trade-off though since it doesn’t excel at either of those tasks like a shorter or longer knife would respectively. However, that’s often a trade-off worth making when attempting to minimize the number of tools one takes with them.

Those familiar with the Esee 4 might have noticed that the shape and size of the Field 2.0 are strikingly similar, if not identical, so far. The truth is the two knives share a lot of similarities including their thickness which comes in at 3/16″ (0.1875″). However, there are subtle and major differences in the remaining characteristics whose sum notably differentiate these two knives. While this post, which is not intended to be a comparison, will leave it up to the reader to infer additional differences other than the ones used to finish telling the story of the Field 2.0. At the same time, I won’t rule out a comparison post in the future given sufficient interest. But I digress once again.

Circling back the 3/16″ thickness which I find to be, like the blade length, a Goldilocks thickness. It’s not so thick that one can’t do fine grained tasks, like skinning an animal or slicing vegetables while preparing food, well. Yet it’s not so thin that one would hesitate to baton wood or pry something with it. But it is another trade-off. One that was obvious to me with the fine grained tasks mentioned where I prefer a thinner blade, but can make a 3/16″ work.

Before I forget, and the steel nerds throw a fit, lets have a quick chat about the CPM-154 steel the Field 2.0 is crafted from. I like this steel a lot for outdoor knives because it’s a very well balanced steel. I really want to avoid making another Goldilocks reference, but you know what they say about the shoe fitting. When looking at a steel, folks often talk about how it performs in terms of edge retention, toughness, ease of sharpening, and corrosion resistance. Generally speaking, a steel has to give up performance in one characteristic to excel in another. This is less evident, but still holds true, when speaking about cutting edge premium super steels which CPM-154 is not. At any rate, CPM-154 offers middle of the road performance across the board with an ever so slight bias towards corrosion resistance which isn’t a bad thing for a blade that is going to be exposed to the elements often.

The blade is flat ground. Technically it is a flat saber grind since the flat tapering starts about a half inch below the spine, unlike a full flat grind that begins tapering at the spine. The delayed tapering increases the overall strength of the blade which is great for hard use tasks commonly associated with outdoor survival. However, that added strength comes at the cost of reduced slicing efficiency. However, I wasn’t aware of these nuanced trade offs at the time that I acquired the Field 2.0. To be fair, it’s not a trade-off that I’ve noticed in practical application, but I suspect it would have influenced my decision had I been aware of it and not had practical field experience with this grind. While I can’t speak for every one, I can’t imagine a situation in which this trade off makes enough difference to matter on a hunt, but I also can’t imagine anyone wishing they had less toughness when using a knife for survival.

The spine, with the exception of the section from the front of the handle to the front of jimping, maintains an unsharpened 90º spine which can be used to strike sparks from a ferrocerium rod. Sharpening the spine forward of the jimping would make it a more efficient spark thrower and would make it better for scraping while still leaving plenty of space for comfortable and secure thumb placement.

There is a small choil, a curved notch, at the end of the blade edge and in front of the plunge line. It’s a nice decorative touch, but I don’t find much utility in it since it’s too small to place a finger into and the bevel makes any form of scraping a fool’s errand. The choil is followed by a front quillion (or guard) that helps prevent fingers from slipping onto the blade when pushing forward. That’s followed by a single large finger groove which is immediately followed by subtle swell along the underside of the tang.

I found the underside contouring of the 4.25″ full tang handle to sufficiently support a secure grip. The Crelicam Ebony scales, which were produced in collaboration with Taylor Guitars, that adorn the handle of this Field 2.0 are beautiful and functional. The fluted texturing of the wood helps to maintain a secure grip while also improving the aesthetics. The thin copper liners between the scales and the tang are a classy accent and complete the look.

Unfortunately for some, the copper liners are not an option on the currently available Field 2.0 variants which currently retail for $295 as of writing. The current variants, which still feature Cerlicam Ebony scales (although it is unclear if they are still produced in collaboration with Taylor Guitars), are lined with colored G10 liners. The G10 liner material is arguably more functional and still aesthetically pleasing in my opinion.

My only complaint about the handle on the Field 2.0 is that I find the handle to be too thin. I wish the scales were thicker. Don’t get me wrong, there is enough material to get a full purchase and grip the knife securely. However, the thickness of the handle results in a few edges along the top and bottom that are sharp enough to create hot spots during prolonged and extended use. This can be avoided by putting on some gloves, but I think it could be prevented with thicker handle scales.

The exposed tang at the butt of the knife also features a rectangular cut out that functions as a lanyard hole.

One final thing that, unless I am mistaken, is unique to this discontinued Field 2.0 variant is the well crafted Hermann Oak saddle leather sheath. Personally, I prefer a leather sheath for my outdoor knives. While leather isn’t as tactical (and arguably durable) as the Kydex sheaths that come with the current variants, the aesthetics from the leather pair exceptionally well with the aesthetics of the Field 2.0 Ebony. All preferences aside, neither sheath includes a mount option by default, but as is typical of Toor Knives’, the sheaths are compatible with a number of different mounting attachments that are optionally available directly from Toor and other vendors.

The main reason I baby the Field 2.0 more than the Field 3.0 is to keep the copper liners clean which preserves the aesthetics. That said, both blades only see occasional use. When they do see use, it is predominantly light use. That’s a result of the hot spots I’ve developed which I attribute to be a side effect of the handle thickness. I suspect that has to do more with how my hands interface with the knives rather than the handle design. At least that is what I suspect given how other owners talk up their Field knives.

I have zero compunction over the purchase. The Field 2.0 is a well crafted premium production knife with a price tag to match. It’s a knife I recommend for outdoor use assuming it fits the user well and doesn’t create hot spots for them like it does for me. To that end, it’s always a good idea to get one in your hands first and ensure that it fits well before making a purchase if at all possible. If that isn’t possible, then knowing they tend to hold their value fairly well in the secondary market might make rolling the dice on one easier. Chances are you’ll be happy with it as finding previous owners who were unhappy with it is anything but common.