4 Inches an Adequate Woods Knife?

WILLIAM.M said:
Most of my hiking trips are also combined with Knife testing--and I usually bring several Knives of different sizes to test.

(Most of them larger than 6" blades)

I use my 3-4" blades I have more often than the choppers-but there is something more enjoyable about chopping.

I do not NEED to bring the larger knives--but the joy I get out of using them offsets the weight of carrying them.
Click to expand...

I do almost the same :)
 
While no knife can do everything, I've never had a 4 or 5 inch blade let me down. They have always done everything I have asked of them. If I need to cut something large I would op for a saw or axe.
 
i think you can make 4" work. usually i only find myself needing big size when it comes to batoning through fire wood, but you can pick smaller wood and get away with it just fine.
 
I like a 4'' knife for finer tasks,6''-7'' knife for general work and a larger tool for processing wood ;)
 
im a hunting/fishing type outdoorsman so a big,heavy chopping blade does me no good. what i normally carry is a small folding saw,sak and a 4" fixed. with those i can do anything i need or might need to do.
 
It seems to me that most of the really famous mountaineers carried very large knives with them for building shelters, fighting off bears and such. I have read that "Grizzly" Adams, Daniel Boone, and Davey Crockett all carried very large knives, some with 11" blades. The early Native Americans also seemed to be in favor of the large knives such as the 10" Dag Knife and the Hudson Bay Camp knives. However, I do think they also carried with them smaller knives for carving, eating and small chores. I suppose for many of today such a large knife would seem heavy and burdensome, but for them back then, it was probably not a big deal. Thems were some tough dudes back then... I think 4" knives are a great size for carrying around, going hunting, or whatever, but if I were actually stuck out in the wilderness somewhere for some time, I would want a knife that was a little more substantial. Something I could knock a bears teeth out with.:D

Oh yeah...those Vikings also and their large knives like the Scramasax.
Basically, if I were to live off the land and fend for myself food and shelter, I would rather look to history and what they used for extreme bush living/survival/camp knives back then as my reference. I would not base my knife selection on what some modern day "survival experts" think is a good knife. I think big knives were used and favored back then for good reason. If Daniel Boone were alive today, he would probably take one of those small 4 inch "bushcraft" knives and use it for a toothpick.

I think there is a difference between extreme outdoor survival and the more leisurely and perhaps modern "hunting/fishing/camping" scenario. It is like the difference between fighting off Grizzlies and chasing squirrels.
 
Last edited:
:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup: this in combination with the drastic variety in the level of outdoor sports nowadays...

R.C.Reichert said:
It seems to me that most of the really famous mountaineers carried very large knives with them for building shelters, fighting off bears and such. I have read that "Grizzly" Adams, Daniel Boone, and Davey Crockett all carried very large knives, some with 11" blades. The early Native Americans also seemed to be in favor of the large knives such as the 10" Dag Knife and the Hudson Bay Camp knives. However, I do think they also carried with them smaller knives for carving, eating and small chores. I suppose for many of today such a large knife would seem heavy and burdensome, but for them back then, it was probably not a big deal. Thems were some tough dudes back then... I think 4" knives are a great size for carrying around, going hunting, or whatever, but if I were actually stuck out in the wilderness somewhere for some time, I would want a knife that was a little more substantial. Something I could knock a bears teeth out with.:D

Oh yeah...those Vikings also and their large knives like the Scramasax.
Basically, if I were to live off the land and fend for myself food and shelter, I would rather look to history and what they used for extreme bush living/survival/camp knives back then as my reference. I would not base my knife selection on what some modern day "survival experts" think is a good knife. I think big knives were used and favored back then for good reason. If Daniel Boone were alive today, he would probably take one of those small 4 inch "bushcraft" knives and use it for a toothpick.

I think there is a difference between extreme outdoor survival and the more leisurely and perhaps modern "hunting/fishing/camping" scenario. It is like the difference between fighting off Grizzlies and chasing squirrels.
Click to expand...
 
Does anyone know what impact (if any), improvements in the accuracy, reliability and rate of fire of firearms had on the size of knife carried by outdoorsmen in the 1800's?



Kind regards
Mick
 
R.C.Reichert said:
It seems to me that most of the really famous mountaineers carried very large knives with them for building shelters, fighting off bears and such. I have read that "Grizzly" Adams, Daniel Boone, and Davey Crockett all carried very large knives, some with 11" blades. The early Native Americans also seemed to be in favor of the large knives such as the 10" Dag Knife and the Hudson Bay Camp knives. However, I do think they also carried with them smaller knives for carving, eating and small chores. I suppose for many of today such a large knife would seem heavy and burdensome, but for them back then, it was probably not a big deal. Thems were some tough dudes back then... I think 4" knives are a great size for carrying around, going hunting, or whatever, but if I were actually stuck out in the wilderness somewhere for some time, I would want a knife that was a little more substantial. Something I could knock a bears teeth out with.:D

Oh yeah...those Vikings also and their large knives like the Scramasax.
Basically, if I were to live off the land and fend for myself food and shelter, I would rather look to history and what they used for extreme bush living/survival/camp knives back then as my reference. I would not base my knife selection on what some modern day "survival experts" think is a good knife. I think big knives were used and favored back then for good reason. If Daniel Boone were alive today, he would probably take one of those small 4 inch "bushcraft" knives and use it for a toothpick.

I think there is a difference between extreme outdoor survival and the more leisurely and perhaps modern "hunting/fishing/camping" scenario. It is like the difference between fighting off Grizzlies and chasing squirrels.
Click to expand...
I have to agree and disagree with this. Although I prefer the Nessmuk trinity for my bad weather/winter kit, I don't think looking back on the tools these guys use and duplicating them because "That's how they did it" is a good idea. You CAN do that if your into experimental anthropology but materials and gear have come a loooong way from that time. Hell I would take a plastic tarp, a SAK, and shotgun over all of there "long knives."

To the OP, length of knife depends on the work to be done and the knowledge of the user. If you have a hawk, hatchet or machete than a 2 1/2 inch Izula is more than adequate. If you don't have a hatchet, hawk or machete and want to use your primary knife for such wood processing tasks, then the length and thickness will come into play. How small and thin you can get away with will depend on your skills. Mors Kochansky can fell trees with his 4 inch knife but he has mad skillz.;)
 
In a real dire survival situation, I may not even have a knife, let alone a plastic tarp, an axe, or a shotgun...That to me sounds more like bushcrafting than survival to have all those extras. However, if I were thrown bare-arsed into a bush wilderness survival situation....with nothing else save for a knife and a heartbeat, I would want it to be a big knife...even if it was just a machete.... Something that I can do some substantial work in a very short period of time.

A 4" knife can be a great survival tool no doubt about that, but a large knife can be just as effective in the hands of someone who really knows how to wield it.
 
Last edited:
Space Plumber said:
Some people say for general outdoors/survival use, a 4 inch knife is all you need and anything larger is just extra weight. Does anyone think a 4 inch knife can generally do everything a larger knife could do reasonably well?
Click to expand...

It has been said already over and over, the effectiveness of a 4" blade compared to a large blade largely depends on the tasks you use it for and what your preference is. However, there are some advantages to larger knives. Consider kitchen knives. You can use a 5" paring knife to chop vegetables adequately, and it works quite well for many tasks, but take on serious food prep you're going to want an 8 or 10 Chef's knife. The Chef's knife is the kitchen workhorse largely because it has broader range. If you're comfortable working with a big knife it's easier to adapt it for small knife tasks, while going the other direction isn't always possible.
 
JCavSD said:
It has been said already over and over, the effectiveness of a 4" blade compared to a large blade largely depends on the tasks you use it for and what your preference is. However, there are some advantages to larger knives. Consider kitchen knives. You can use a 5" paring knife to chop vegetables adequately, and it works quite well for many tasks, but take on serious food prep you're going to want an 8 or 10 Chef's knife. The Chef's knife is the kitchen workhorse largely because it has broader range. If you're comfortable working with a big knife it's easier to adapt it for small knife tasks, while going the other direction isn't always possible.
Click to expand...

I agree with what you said.

You know I was actually thinking about this just recently... So many people use these really large 10-12" chefs knives in the kitchen for chopping parsley, dicing onions, slicing meat for the table, etc...., but are seemingly afraid to take a similar big knife out in the bush. The Hudson Bay Camp knife was designed to take on all these tasks...and more, even replace a small axe.
 
Good point, Reichert! We seem to have no qualms about using an 8" or 10" blade in the kitchen, but somehow think that it's a "greenhorn" thing to carry a knife with that size blade into the woods or deserts. I happen to like 4" knives....and 8" knives and sometimes 10" knives as well! Depends on what I'm doing at the time. I know during my military career, when out in the big jungles or deserts, I seemed always to have a "larger knife" (i.e., 7" or longer blade) along with me...and they ALWAYS were quite handy to have along.

I remember one stay of a couple of weeks in the high desert of Nevada (Pahranagat Mountains and the Delamar Valley, February, 1987). I had a modified Ka-bar with a micarta handle and a SAK. My buddy had his SAK and a Philippine Bolo knife. Our SAKs and the bolo got the most use, but the Ka-bar came in quite handy for "chipping" ice out the the hollows in the rocks to melt for drinking.

Ron
 
R.C.Reichert said:
It seems to me that most of the really famous mountaineers carried very large knives with them for building shelters, fighting off bears and such. I have read that "Grizzly" Adams, Daniel Boone, and Davey Crockett all carried very large knives, some with 11" blades. The early Native Americans also seemed to be in favor of the large knives such as the 10" Dag Knife and the Hudson Bay Camp knives. However, I do think they also carried with them smaller knives for carving, eating and small chores. I suppose for many of today such a large knife would seem heavy and burdensome, but for them back then, it was probably not a big deal. Thems were some tough dudes back then... I think 4" knives are a great size for carrying around, going hunting, or whatever, but if I were actually stuck out in the wilderness somewhere for some time, I would want a knife that was a little more substantial. Something I could knock a bears teeth out with.:D

Oh yeah...those Vikings also and their large knives like the Scramasax.
Basically, if I were to live off the land and fend for myself food and shelter, I would rather look to history and what they used for extreme bush living/survival/camp knives back then as my reference. I would not base my knife selection on what some modern day "survival experts" think is a good knife. I think big knives were used and favored back then for good reason. If Daniel Boone were alive today, he would probably take one of those small 4 inch "bushcraft" knives and use it for a toothpick.

I think there is a difference between extreme outdoor survival and the more leisurely and perhaps modern "hunting/fishing/camping" scenario. It is like the difference between fighting off Grizzlies and chasing squirrels.
Click to expand...

Do ya think there's just a wee bit of possability, that having a single shot flintlock rifle that may not even fire on a damp day, had anything to do with their choice of cutlery?

Anyways, that was then, this is now. Do you want to fly in a canvas covered biplane just because they did it that way once upon a time?
 
jackknife said:
Do ya think there's just a wee bit of possability, that having a single shot flintlock rifle that may not even fire on a damp day, had anything to do with their choice of cutlery?

Anyways, that was then, this is now. Do you want to fly in a canvas covered biplane just because they did it that way once upon a time?
Click to expand...


I think you are correct though, they carried those large knives because when the time came and they did not have a gun or their gun failed them, they could do just that... survive...with just the use of their knife. And they likely chose to take the large knife because it was the easiest to survive with. That's why I would prefer a large knife as a survival knife...that's what they used them for, as a last resort type of thing.

Thanks for bringing up a good point. There was an incident not too long ago actually where a hunter was attacked by a large grizzly with cubs. I'm not sure on all the details, but apparently he did not have time to get his gun and all he had was his 8" knife. He ended up actually being able to defend himself and kill the bear with just his knife. If the blade mas much shorter, the knife may not even have pierced the bear's heart and the guy would have been dead. Good thing he had a large knife on him.

I do think though that "general outdoors use" and "survival" are two different things though. For general outdoors use a 4" knife would probably be just fine, but if I were wanting a knife strictly as a survival knife (which may also mean having to use it as a form of self defence, or as a small axe if the need ever arised), I would want a large knife, not a short skinner or bushcraft knife. But that's just my opinion. It is apparent though that most people probably will not take a large knife into the field, therefore they make due with a smaller one and learn to use it quite effectively.
 
Last edited:
SouthernCross said:
Does anyone know what impact (if any), improvements in the accuracy, reliability and rate of fire of firearms had on the size of knife carried by outdoorsmen in the 1800's?



Kind regards
Mick
Click to expand...

jackknife said:
Do ya think there's just a wee bit of possability, that having a single shot flintlock rifle that may not even fire on a damp day, had anything to do with their choice of cutlery?

Anyways, that was then, this is now. Do you want to fly in a canvas covered biplane just because they did it that way once upon a time?
Click to expand...

:thumbup:
 
I'm with R.C. a little on this one.All he's saying is,for bushcraft and such a 4" blade is sufficient to accomplish most tasks handily.But,for survival in a BOHICA scenario,that big 8" to 10" blade might come in mighty handy.You never know when shit will hit the fan.
 
Im also with RC, a few years back i did a wilderness survival course i had with me a 4" knife which worked. But there was a survival instuctor there from the royal air force who had with him a large meat cleaver type tool, he processed wood and constucted a shelter in no time at all. Since then i,ve always gone along with a larger knife for these type of tasks, much better...
 
It's a bit like motorcycling. You start out with a smaller bike and it handles most of your needs. Then you get passed in the twisties by a larger, more powerful, more comfortable bike. Then you get one of those. Sure, you give up a little flickability, but if your skill level increase to match the size of your bike, and you learn to be comfortable with more power, then you have much broader range. Then you get old and get some big old snarly cruiser or goldwing and ruin my analogy. Damn you people!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top