9" for survival

hit the wrong button.
I want to know if a 9" blade is usefull as a one knife survival tool.
I just ordered a #14 Randall and i'm wondering if i should have gone to a 9" blade knife instead.
Contrary to what some may say(see my Chris Reeve Project thread post), big knives are great survival tools. Knives are NOT heavy. This idea is an outgrowth of the "tactical" fad that I hate. I use a Project 1 as my primary, and sometimes only, survival tool. Big to some, small to others. Workable for me. If you like the Randal, and you think it will work for you, it probably will.

There is more than one answer to many situations.
I have found a 7 inch to be the best all rounder. My Randall 14 is 7 inch and any longer, it becomes a pain in active movement.

9 is good for chopping but unless you intend to chop as lot, the 7 is better overall general use.

My 2 cents


[This message has been edited by Aubrey (edited 29 May 1999).]
Just a quick comment.

When people start looking at knives over 7", they are generally looking for something that will take down trees in my experience. A lot of "camp" knives are 9" to 10" for this sort of use. I have been surprised to a certain extent at how popular the Tactical OPS USA "Steel Eagle 111" is. With its 11" of cutting edge and blade weight, I get the impression that people really use them as a short axe that can also cut as a knife.

For normal knife uses, a 5" to 7" seems best with an AXE or KHUKRI to back you up with downing trees. But, that would mean carrying extra gear so, everything is compromise in some way - one large knife or a smaller knife and an axe? Which is best depends on you and what you expect to use it for.