BIG or small .... which will it be?

For carry, mostly small folders- Victorinox rambler, Schrade junior, Spyderco navigator- I like to carry more than one (gives me more to play with).
biggrin.gif

For the collection, largest folder is a 13" Italian model, fixed blade is a military knife by Ka-Bar, about a 7" blade, ~12" oal. Smaller ones also take up less space, and tend to cost less, whichis a god thing.
Frank

------------------
Ephesians 1:7- "In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace..." The Bible Gateway
 
My collection tends to be split between the two extremes. My most recent purchase was a Sean Perkins Gryfen, for my key-chain, but before that I bought a Criswell short sword with a 16" blade. I also have an Emerson La Griffe I carry pretty regularly, along with a Spyderco Military. I like the big blades for fun -- I enjoy large chunks of sharp steel, but for convenience and everyday use I'm really growing to enjoy smaller blades. I currently have two customs on order, a Hornet from Matt Lamey, and a fighter from Bob Hankins. Both have blades in the less-than-or-equal-to four inch range.
 
For me, I only buy what I would carry around and use. This limits me to 4" for fixed blades. Folders give me the ability to carry longer blades so I have a Tops Magnum, a Sifu and a 5" blade CS Voyager. All of my other folders are 4" or under.

I am an old time biker and always carry 1 or 2 knives with me. However, the idea of having a fixed blade with more than a 4" blade hanging from my belt really looks foolish. I won't walk in to McDonalds, during a ride, with a 9" bowie knife hanging from my belt.

If I was just collecting knives for investment or decoration, I guess any length of blade, that I want, I would get.
 
A big knife can do almost the same work as a small knife, but a small knife can't do the same work as a big knife!!
 
Your concept of big or small is highly influenced by your application and experience. My primary applications are casual utility around town and hunting. For casual utility 3" is about optimum. These are easy to carry and use--you cut just what you want, neat and clean. For hunting my range is in the 3" (with a narrow point for small game) to 5" for elk. Extra length in a hunting knife greatly increases the chance that I'll accidently cut open part of an animals gut while I work. Too short makes it difficult to do boning on larger animals.

For the majority of utilitarian tasks shorter is better. The only exception to this is chopping wood or brush. These work best with blades over 9" long. I don't see much practical use for blades between 5" and 9". They are too long for fine work and too short for chopping and defense.

Of course I own lots of knives in that blade length range as collectors items (I collect a lot of old "combat knives".


[This message has been edited by Jeff Clark (edited 01-11-2001).]
 
I sometimes get caught up thinking I need A 9"blade for camp outdoor use. But in reality it seems that my puukkos with the 4" blade pretty much do it all. For folder carry I was very happy with the approx. 3" blade of the Spyderco native. Now I am very happy with the MT LCC. Just depends I guess.

------------------
Brian
What is this existential quandry all about anyway?
 
Para,
I think my knives generally run about this size....
eek.gif


0p19.JPG



[This message has been edited by not2sharp (edited 01-13-2001).]
 
I'm on the small team too. While I have been known to carry a Schrade LB7 (3.75" blade), most of my knives are for pocket-carry (all 3" or under blades). If I need to "go big" I can use my 17.5" machete.
 
I agree with JClark (last post) I have all kinds of knives old and new,large and small (almost all production to include a number of "why did they stop making that model" types. Big older folders are what turns me on but for everday carry here it is: Pocket knives are one bladed lockbacks to three bladed stockman types, nothing over 3 1/2" to 3 3/8" folded. Hunting (fixed or folding) carried in a belt sheath or pouch I like 3 1/2" to 3 3/4" blades (for deer sized game) beyond that it gets in the way and I lose control in cutting.In camp knives I find that a 9" blade gives you something to hack or chop with but you can still cut and control the blade. But I never carry these on my belt. Also in a machete 18" gives enough heft to chop with and over that your arm will get tired and you lose control. Big large bowie types are just to heavy to carry and hard to control in cutting for me. Fillet knives should not be over 6"-7 1/2" as again it's hard to make precise cuts when needed and I lose control. To me being able to control the blade in use is everything and knives that are to big either just pull my pants down or get in the way on my belt. Even my hi-tech clip on knives like Spydies and BM's are usually the "Jr." or smaller version. Just my thoughts on the matter. Weldonk
 
Small, under 4 inches, all of the time.
Medium, 7 inches, if in the fied in uniform and carrying weight.
Large, machette size, for venturing into the woods in my own time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top