Bk2 or Bk16?

W

wendysman8888

Joined
Oct 18, 2013
Messages
45
I know there have been some threads on this subject before but I know things change from time to time and I was wondering which knife you would choose out of these 2 if you already had an izula II....

I really like to backpack a lot and hunt as well. Saying all of that which of these 2 would you choose or would you choose an entirely different Becker all together?
 
I prefer the 16.
Seems like it'd be suited for your backpacking/hunting purposes a little better, IMO.
 
Don't have the 16, but my BK2 is a beautiful, heavy and multi-use blade that has served well!! Can't go wrong with this little beast....
 
It really comes down to personal preference. Some people don't like the weight of the BK2 for packing. Some, don't mind it at all.
I would go with the 16 since you are using it for hunting and packing.
Good luck buddy!
 
I'm a two-knife guy whenever possible... one real big and one fairly small and thin. So if you already have an Izula I'd say go for the 2 to go with it, for heavier work.

If I can only have one of those Beckers for a wide variety of tasks, I'd choose the BK2. If I can have another one as well, or don't foresee any real "hard use", definitely the BK16.
 
I'd say that the 16 is the perfect knife for hunting. It's also a very nice all around, edc, that I wouldn't want to miss. The 2 to me is more a special purpose knife. Buy both and the 16 first ;)
 
Got 'em both, the bk2 is a fun knife to own but the bk16 is definitely sees more action, it's more versatile imo. I've said it before, I know there is no such thing as a perfect knife but for me at least the bk16 is as close as perfect gets. It has all the features I want on a knife. I don't see myself getting read of the bk2 either.
 
I typically carry both the 14 and 16, which would be similar to the Izula II and 16. I think it's a great combination. However, you're looking for something for hiking and probably significantly different than what the II offers. I'd go with the BK9, or BK12/Ritter MK2 if the 9 is too big. I like the BK2, but I get more use out of the thinner-stock blades.
 
wendysman8888 said:
I know there have been some threads on this subject before but I know things change from time to time and I was wondering which knife you would choose out of these 2 if you already had an izula II....

I really like to backpack a lot and hunt as well. Saying all of that which of these 2 would you choose or would you choose an entirely different Becker all together?
Click to expand...

I have all of these knives and more. I have a warm spot for the Izulas and the BK-16. If weight is less of an issue I pack my ESEE 4. I actually modified the sheath on my BK-16 to be a neck carry. I could never do that (comfortably) with the E-4.
 
Izula 2 & BK16 -- with a 9 tucked in your boot top....
the izzy 2 fits so well in a front pocket, the 16 so well in a tool or cargo pocket....
 
Buy them ALL. Take them ALL to the field. ALL bases covered.


Leave the Izula II in Wendy's purse. You know, because its soooo cute. Like really.
 
It doesn't really matter, once you get one you will almost immediately know that you want/need the other. The 2 is a male version of the 16, a hefty brute capable of performing almost any task with authority. The 16 a female version of the 2, smaller, slimmer and more refined. Each has their own place yet compliments the other.
 
Mojo^ said:
It doesn't really matter, once you get one you will almost immediately know that you want/need the other. The 2 is a male version of the 16, a hefty brute capable of performing almost any task with authority. The 16 a female version of the 2, smaller, slimmer and more refined. Each has their own place yet compliments the other.
Click to expand...

I'm going to disagree with your male/female analogy. Other than that, what you have said has merit.
 
I honestly don't see much of a reason to carry either if you have the Izzy. I would opt for something that's better at processing wood. If you like Beckers the 7, 9, or the machax would be a better pairing IMO.
 
I think the Izula II can cover the hunting use. I think the BK-16 does it better however. The BK-16 is certainly lighter than the BK-2 and short of having to cut trees down or cut your way out of a vehicle, I don't see a practical fit for it. How many trees (>1" diameter) do you normally cut down when you are hiking or hunting? For me... zero. Hence the BK-16 fits better.

If you are thinking you want a "big" knife to go along with the Izula, then consider something actually bigger like the BK-7 or BK-9. Everyone has a different comfort level with larger knifes. My comfort level is primarily in the 4-6" blades and anything larger is "big" and somewhat unyieldy except for chopping. But like most things, using a large knife for tasks that you would normally use a smaller knife for is an acquired taste.

I have a BK-2. It was my first Becker. Too heavy for me, for the most part. The BK-16 was my second and I really like this blade. BK-7 was next and I am working on getting comfortable with it. Carrying a larger knife hiking other than casual hikes goes beyond weight. The length gets in the way on your belt as well. If length was not an issue, I would carry a short machete in the woods all the time. But you can strap your knife to your pack which is where the BK-9 comes into my view.

I suspect you would like to acquire both. Get the BK-16 now and get the BK-2 later. If you like the heft of the BK-2, great. I would suggest you actually pick one up and handle it before you buy and maybe compare to the BK-7. I suspect you may leave the Izula home if you get the BK-16 in the woods as they are a bit redundant. I would also carry a folder that you like for smaller tasks where the thin blade stock is more useful.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top