7 inch blade is about right for everything.

[Houlahound]

If anything, 7" is a lost size unless you plan on hand to hand combat. They're usually too light and short to be a heavy camp knife, etc...., and too long to be a general purpose knife. 5-6" is a nice range for a general outdoor knife, I've always thought.

Wrong, go back and read the steps in the logic.

 

[22-rimfire]

If this were the 1800's or earlier in frontier or rural America, I would say you're 100% correct. I could probably be talked into a 7" blade in Alaska away from the cities in 2020. But in 2020, I think a 7" blade is a bit big for me. If you want a chopper, go bigger. If you want something more nimble, go 4" or less. The old "get a 6" blade" for your all a rounder makes sense for many and more often than not, either a 6 or 4 inch blade is the first entry into the world of fixed blades in the outdoors. I've done that and sometimes feel 6" may be a bit long. I very much like the Becker Kephart as an all around knife for the outdoors at 5.5".

Keep thinking your logic makes sense H Houlahound .

 

[E.D.C.]

This is another one the mods will probably stop by and close down.

General discussion is a cesspool at times.

 

[SALTY]

If anything, 7" is a lost size unless you plan on hand to hand combat. They're usually too light and short to be a heavy camp knife, etc...., and too long to be a general purpose knife. 5-6" is a nice range for a general outdoor knife, I've always thought.

I agree.
I also agree that a large(r) knife can sort of do what a small knife can do - though perhaps not as well but a small knife would be hard pressed to do what a large knife can do. I also like a 6" blade for general tasks I call upon a fixed portable blade for, but gvbe me a BK-9 or similar when there's wood to process and heavier work to be done. 7" is a compromise - excelling at neither smaller knife tasks nor larger knife tasks. Mind you, there's nothing wrong with a 7" fixed blade is you are only going to carry one fixed blade. However, I bring a bunch of knives when truck camping and at least two the rest of the time (motorcycle camping, etc.) and almost always those two are something around 5-6" and a BK-9. In full disclosure, I have done much with my Busse Basic #7 and still do!

YMMV; just my two cents.

 

[afishhunter]

I find 3.75 to 5 inch much better for my uses: field dressing and peeling critters, general camp chores, whittling, cleaning freshwater fish ...
For some, but not all, butchering tasks (includes big game) a 6 or7 inch blade can be handy for a couple cuts ... or so I've been told.
Also, If you don't have a dangler sheath, you're less likely to find your knife under you when you get in a vehicle or sit.

I can honestly say I've never wished I had more than a 3.75 to 5 inch blade when afield.

In town? Thanks, but No thanks. I don't carry a fixed blade in town.
"People" look at me askance enough as it is. (that ugly thing in my avatar really is me) If I had a 7 inch or longer blade on me, they'd probably feel threatened and shoot me, (Constitutional Carry state. Concealed and open carry without a permit is legal) or call the cops, even though I wasn't acting in a threatening manner, didn't have the knife in my hand, or have my hand anywhere near the knife.
In town a Buck 110/Old Timer 7OT or two blade slipjoint folding hunter on my belt, and the scout/demo knife and stockman in my pocket is plenty. Come to that, they are plenty when afield, too.

I think the last non-folding knife I carried afield was either a Schrade Old Timer (USA) "Sharp Finger" or a Western L66, on a Missouri deer hunt, round about 1994.

 

[dirc]

that's odd... you'd think with people used to other people having a weapon with them, they'd be more likely to shrug off a large fixed blade

it's funny tho, an old guy like you with a large fixed blade wouldn't even make me look twice or have any concern... if you were a teenager, then I'd be more wary

...
as for the size, it's good for all around camp use, but I still love & use my ontario machete for actual big blade tasks... 7" just isn't going to cut it when you're pathclearing ; )

 

[DangerZone98]

I’m not sure if this is a serious post, but I’ll bite anyway.

In the ideal situation, I like to have an 11” chopping blade, a 4” fine work blade, and a folder riding on my pocket. A 7” won’t particularly excel at any one area, but it gets the job done anyway. If for some reason you can only have one knife for the day or for the trip, a 7” blade isn’t a bad choice.

As 91bravo said however, the 7”-er won’t be optimized for bush clearing or other big knife tasks.

 

[not2sharp]

I’m not sure if this is a serious post, but I’ll bite anyway.

In the ideal situation, I like to have an 11” chopping blade, a 4” fine work blade, and a folder riding on my pocket. A 7” won’t particularly excel at any one area, but it gets the job done anyway. If for some reason you can only have one knife for the day or for the trip, a 7” blade isn’t a bad choice.

As 91bravo said however, the 7”-er won’t be optimized for bush clearing or other big knife tasks.

But, they look good and carry well.

n2s

above:
Kabar MKII
Busse Team Gemini
Tops Operator
Siegle Camp knife

 

[DangerZone98]

But, they look good and carry well.

n2s

above:
Kabar MKII
Busse Team Gemini
Tops Operator
Siegle Camp knife

That too. Beautiful scales on the Operator there.

Not quite on the level of your knives, but the CS Leatherneck is one of my favorites to this day. I don’t really put her through hard use, but she’s just fun to play with. Crazy sharp and the balance is amazing.

 

[Cursum Perficio]

There's a vital component of the equation missing.
Not everyone has massive hands and monster powerful thumbs to comfortably and effectively wield a 7 incher for extended cutting tasks.

 

[tiguy7]

I am all over 7" blades. The one in the middle is Stellite 6-K. The Gold one has a an S-90-V blade, and the blue one has an S-30-V blade.

 

[K.O.D.]

b) anything smaller than 7 inches is too small.

That's what she said.

 

[DangerZone98]

There's a vital component of the equation missing.
Not everyone has massive hands and monster powerful thumbs to comfortably and effectively wield a 7 incher for extended cutting tasks.

I think ergonomics and handle material are important to consider as well. While hard wood scales may get uncomfy after a time, softer synthetic scales may just do the trick. Even if the knife is pleasing to the eye but not great in the hand, I probably won't use it a lot.

 

[JParanee]

I’ve found 7 inch to be the most useless

to large to edc and to small to generate any power

I like 3 1/2 iNch edc’s and for a fixed blade they come alive at over 9 1/2

 

[stevekolt]

Just as an aside, for a soldier, a 7" blade was the length considered to be effective in piercing the enemies clothing and reaching vital organs.

 

[jackknife]

A few times in my life I've found myself in places where people actually used their blades for a living. Like Eco tours in Costa Rica rain forest. The wife and I took one of those tours for the nature seeing, and for the 5 days we were camping and hiking in the Costa Rica jungle, the guides all carried two blades for all their cutting jobs; a SAK in a belt pouch with a Bic lighter, and a 10 to 12 inch small machete. They used the small machetes for literally everything up to and including food prep for dinner. On our last night in the jungle, they did a pig roast and the machetes worked great for slicing and serving up good roast pork.

It was a great lesson in how useless a 7 or 8 inch blade is. Its too small for any effective chopping, but too big for detail work. Its been 20 years since that rain forest trip, but for those 20 years I've used a combo of a small pocket knife and 12 inch Ontario machete and very little in between. My Buck 102 woodsman makes a fine small game and fish knife, and I use the ever lovin dog poo out of it as a retired old fart that does a lot of fishing.

I think if a 3 or 4 inch blade isn't enough, then don't waist time with a 6 or 7 inch blade. Just go with an even foot.

 

[jlauffer]

That's what she said.

View attachment 1438600

 

[22-rimfire]

My experience where people use their machetes for most tasks is that 18" is the norm. That is a good all around chopping size and can be used for many routine cooking tasks. I however am not that handy with an 18" machete for normal knife tasks and although I love the size for wacking, I don't carry one unless I have a definite need. I keep a 16" machete in pickup. I also keep a Condor Kumunga (10.5" blade as I recall) in my pickup. Don't use either much but if I am going to take an unplanned hike and feel that I may need a bigger blade but not to the point of a 16 or 18" machete, I slip the Kumunga onto my belt and it does the trick for some light wacking.

I have an off-trail hike planned and will probably carry the Kumunga for that day. I sense I will be cutting some small under brush as I push through the woods.

In the woods where I run onto people, I generally feel like an idiot wearing some beastly knife on my belt because I know my SAK can do almost every task I need doing in the woods if I am not camping. So, other than I like to carry a fixed blade, the Becker Kephart or a handmade one gets the nod if I feel like a larger knife. More commonly I carry whatever my EDC (typically a SAK) is along with about a 3 inch fixed blade for potential emergencies.

My 7 inch fixed blades get left at home more often than not.

 

[The Zieg]

X

 

[The Zieg]

Ok I'll play along.

Your logic is correct but incomplete. You have outlined the proof. If you proved statements a) and b) it would indeed prove your claim, but you have not proved those statements.

Fortunately there is an easy fix for this. All you need to do is add a line at the bottom saying "the proofs for a) and b) are trivial and left as an exercise for the reader." Boom. Done.

Good point! His argument was deductively valid, but his conclusion was not necessarily true!

Zieg