Educate me on Bushcraft. Survival or sport? Knife props of a 'Classic' Bushcrafter

E

effer

Joined
Feb 13, 2009
Messages
797
Reading couple of recent threads made me think about Bushcrafting knives. Commonly listed properties of such knives are:

Blade length ~4" (4-6?)
Scandinavian (Scandi) grind
Carbon steel
Guardless, neutral (simple) handle
Natural (organic) handle materials
Typically leather sheath

This probably best makes up the common 'Classic' image of a bushcrafting knife. I believe there is really no definition of it.

In my understanding Bushcraft is about survival skills and working with natural products to make useful items in wilderness. Depending on individual conditions, situation, skills and experience the 'classic' properties listed might not be ideal for a 'survival' knife (the way I look at it).

In my mind the 'classic' bushcraft knife image is usually associated with very inexpensive easily produced knife (often handmade) out of common materials. Carbon steel with good properties is easy to come by and fairly easy to work with, scandi grind is very simple also, wood for the handle is easy found as well. Very simple blade shape and handle shape are also commonly found in such knives. I think this is what made those knives so popular.

My question is, are there really advantages of those 'classic' bushcraft knives vs modern knives, and can those advantages overcome the shortcomings of the design in a survival situation? Or maybe my understanding of the Bushcraft is wrong?
 
Last edited:
I'd say you have the 'classic' image down pretty well, but that doesn't mean it's only in that image. Some popular bushcraft knives, such as a Fallkniven F1, don't fit that image at all and realistically anything can be a bushcraft knife if it works for you.

Personally I don't see any disadvantage to the 'classic' image compared to a 'modern' knife but then I'm biased as puukkos are my favorite style of knife. Also remember that many people (I hate to say 'bushcrafters') carry a larger knife like a leuku or even an axe/hatchet along as well when they head to the woods. A good example is the famous Nessmuk trio, though none of his would fit a 'classic' bushcraft knife image.

If you want to get a better idea on the whole subject I'd suggest dropping in at the Wilderness & Survival Skills sub-forum. A lot of us don't venture much out of there. :)
 
BlackHills said:
I'd say you have the 'classic' image down pretty well, but that doesn't mean it's only in that image. Some popular bushcraft knives, such as a Fallkniven F1, don't fit that image at all and realistically anything can be a bushcraft knife if it works for you.
Click to expand...

That's exactly the way I see it. I just don't know why when it comes to bushcraft the 'classic' is considered to be ideal.

BlackHills said:
Personally I don't see any disadvantage to the 'classic' image compared to a 'modern' knife but then I'm biased as puukkos are my favorite style of knife. Also remember that many people (I hate to say 'bushcrafters') carry a larger knife like a leuku or even an axe/hatchet along as well when they head to the woods. A good example is the famous Nessmuk trio, though none of his would fit a 'classic' bushcraft knife image.
Click to expand...

Well, that's the thing, if there are couple of other tools at my disposal, I won't really feel much disadvantage of the 'classic' design. It is comfortable and useful tool. But if it is the only tool I can work with and rely on, then some things do seem like a slight disadvantage of the classic design. For example, I strongly believe that synthetic handle material (say G10, micarta etc) is stronger than 'classic' natural (wood). Having a small guard like on F1 (or maybe even a bit more pronounced) might be a better idea, than going 'classic' guardless. Then again there is a very controversial topic of 'classic' scandi vs convex and leather vs kydex.

BlackHills said:
If you want to get a better idea on the whole subject I'd suggest dropping in at the Wilderness & Survival Skills sub-forum. A lot of us don't venture much out of there. :)
Click to expand...

Thanks a lot for this link. I've been on the forum for quite a while and know that there is a section for such talk, I just never thought to look inside of "tactics & training" thinking that it is for martial arts, mall ninja stuff etc :)

To moderator: Please move the thread to "Wilderness & Survival Skills". Thank you.
 
effer
My question is, are there really advantages of those 'classic' bushcraft knives vs modern knives, and can those advantages overcome the shortcomings of the design in a survival situation? Or maybe my understanding of the Bushcraft is wrong?
Click to expand...

consider the possibility, that the design of a classic bush craft knife evolved into what it is today for reasons. Hey, the design works, and works well, doing the tasks that the typical woods monkey is up against. :D
 
effer said:
In my understanding Bushcraft is about survival skills and working with natural products to make useful items in wilderness.
Click to expand...
Bushcraft is one of those hazy terms, that seem to mean different things to different people. :rolleyes:

Perhaps its just semantics, but my view of "bushcraft" is that its not so much survival skills (as in "lost in the woods with nothing but a knife" survival) so much as skills for living in the wilderness without a lot of "modern" gear. The kind of skills that many people practiced on a day-to-day basis a couple hundred years ago. Not to say that bushcraft skills would not be useful in a survival situation, but in my mind at least that's not their main focus.

My question is, are there really advantages of those 'classic' bushcraft knives vs modern knives, and can those advantages overcome the shortcomings of the design in a survival situation?
Click to expand...
Well, perhaps I am a bit biased becuase even before I had ever heard of Ray Mears or the "bushcraft-style knife", several decades of backwoods experience led me to considered something very much like it as the ideal fixed blade for wandering the woods. So I really don't see a lot of disadvantages to the design. The only real "disadvantage" I can see to the classic bushcraft style blade is that its not as good at chopping or heavy batoning as a larger, heavier blade and that's just not something I have ever really wanted or expected a knife to do, anyway. ;)
 
I think this all comes down to the definitions of the words. They seem to be more personal than anything else.

Take some examples - Myself, Magnussen, and Joezilla.

My concepts of bushcraft are the skills that can support me while I am hiking and camping to make my life easier - they are also those things that will get me out alive if I am stuck.

If you look at Rick's posts - he speaks of 'training' and looks at Bushcraft much more as a lifestyle than a support role. Rick also is in a very northern place and so his knives fit those roles. Thicker knives that can handle hard woods as well as hard woods.

Joezilla, if I am correct, uses bushcraft on all his crazy cool adventures and uses bushcraft in that capacity. He travels to tropical places and thus his blades (and it appears his obsession) is with machette's and parangs. They help him in that role.


I love reading all the different way's bushcraft can be used - but I think a singular blade type can not be called 'classic'. I think the blade you are describing comes from a Mors Kochanski / Ray Mears type of bushcraft - where they were in moderate hard wood forests.

Just my two pennies.

TF
 
Talfuchre said:
I think the blade you are describing comes from a Mors Kochanski / Ray Mears type of bushcraft - where they were in moderate hard wood forests.
Click to expand...
I think Talfuchre has a point here. The so-called "classic" bushcraft knife does seem to be based on a "northern" tradition. Northern Europe and northern North America. My own experinece is mainly in northern forests (upper tier of the lower 48, Canada and AK), and lately in eastern forests (mostly the southern Appalacians) where this "classic" design works very well. Certianly, if I was spending my time in equatorial jungles, the desert south-east or some other radically different ecosystem, my personal preference might be different.
 
IMO a guard is only good for stabbing. I don't think it serves any other purpose than that if you know what you're doing. But then again like has been said, bushcrafters usually have a tomahawk, axe, machete, or even a long bow.;)

As for the overall design and materials it's like just about everything else. I own one because I like it. Sure it can do somethings better then my Howling Rat like drilling holes and being lighter but the HR is more indestructable. I carry either depending on my mood.
 
I've been into "bushcraft practice" for a while, and am a rank amature by any standard..but I have used a vairety of blades scandi and others... the real honestyof it is you just need something that you feel comfortable with (don;t worry abuot the gold standards, Scandi grinds are preferred largely because in bushcraft your knife is not a stand alone tool.ais used primarily for detailed wood working involving precise cuts... an axe is used for heavy work....
in amore minimalist perspective a knife with amore robust grind might be more beneficial as a multi-tasker though a less efficient carver....in other words if I had an axe Icarry a scandi ground knife...if not... I carry something a little bigger with a flat or covex grind
 
The "Classic" bushcraft knife described is nothing more than the age-old Finnish Puukko, and is, indeed, of northern descent.

However, if you look at what we call wilderness living historically, the small knife is very close to being the same the world over. Reason is, they are for light work, and that design works well anywhere. There will be variation, such as the Scandinavian knives with large, barrel-shaped handles, good for working with gloves/mittens on.

But, the primary tool was the big tool. In northern climates, the axe ruled. In more tropical areas the long knife or machete family was king. All of the heavy chopping, splitting, etc was done with the big tool.

So, returning to the OP, I agree with the others that any knife that works for you to do your bushcraft is a bushcraft knife.
 
effer said:
That's exactly the way I see it. I just don't know why when it comes to bushcraft the 'classic' is considered to be ideal.
Click to expand...

Others covered the Kochanski/Mears angle, but I'll add that a scandi grind is the one that many people consider works best when it comes to carving wood. If we want to use the 'classic' definition of bushcraft, again ala Kochanski/Mears, then wood carving is a major use for a knife.


Well, that's the thing, if there are couple of other tools at my disposal, I won't really feel much disadvantage of the 'classic' design. It is comfortable and useful tool. But if it is the only tool I can work with and rely on, then some things do seem like a slight disadvantage of the classic design. For example, I strongly believe that synthetic handle material (say G10, micarta etc) is stronger than 'classic' natural (wood). Having a small guard like on F1 (or maybe even a bit more pronounced) might be a better idea, than going 'classic' guardless. Then again there is a very controversial topic of 'classic' scandi vs convex and leather vs kydex.
Click to expand...

Everyone has their preferences. Many makers offer scandi grinds with synthetic material or small guards or whatever else you might find missing from a puukko. As I said before, whatever works for you is what matters and if you want to use a Kabar or Randall or whatever then go for it. You don't have to have a 'classic bushcraft' knife to carve wood or practice the skills.

As for the strength of wood handles, just think about what our ancestors used and how some of those wood handled tools still survive today. :)
 
a knife is a knife is a knife is a knife is a knife. If you have a knife, any knife, you are already ahead of the game.

"bushcraft" = trendy,romantic, overused term for playing in the woods.
 
Bushman5 said:
a knife is a knife is a knife is a knife is a knife. If you have a knife, any knife, you are already ahead of the game.

"bushcraft" = trendy,romantic, overused term for playing in the woods.[/QUOTE

why do you have to be ants at the picnic man??....


Guess I;m just a trendy romantic yuppie:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Bushman5 said:
a knife is a knife is a knife is a knife is a knife. If you have a knife, any knife, you are already ahead of the game.
Click to expand...
While its true that any knife is better than no knife, I don't think you can honestly say that any knife is equally suitable for the uses generally associated with "bushcraft". I would certainly rather have a typical "bushcraft" knife when living in the woods, than a Case peanut or Spyderco Civilian for example (even though those are both fine knives). ;)

"bushcraft" = trendy,romantic, overused term for playing in the woods.
Click to expand...
Its true some people do use the term that way, but in the stricter sense while practicing bushcraft skills may be enjoyable and rewarding, they are also skills that kept many people alive for generations, prior to the industrial revolution. You can't dismiss the skills out of hand, just becuase some people misuse the term.
 
effer said:
That's exactly the way I see it. I just don't know why when it comes to bushcraft the 'classic' is considered to be ideal.

Well, that's the thing, if there are couple of other tools at my disposal, I won't really feel much disadvantage of the 'classic' design. It is comfortable and useful tool. But if it is the only tool I can work with and rely on, then some things do seem like a slight disadvantage of the classic design. For example, I strongly believe that synthetic handle material (say G10, micarta etc) is stronger than 'classic' natural (wood). Having a small guard like on F1 (or maybe even a bit more pronounced) might be a better idea, than going 'classic' guardless. Then again there is a very controversial topic of 'classic' scandi vs convex and leather vs kydex.
Click to expand...

This is why I love my Koster Bushcrafter in 3V and G10. It's the best of both the traditional and the modern in my opinion. Classic blade shape and grind, but with modern "super" steel and modern handle material. It also has a small bottom guard which I didn't think I would like, but it works fine since the grind comes all the way back to the guard and it is nice to know if I ever need to use the knife in a reverse stabbing motion to dig into something, the guard is there to help keep my fingers from sliding down onto the blade. There are still some small things I would change on it, but for the most part I love it...
 
Last edited:
Thanks guys (and girls). I think I got the idea of the 'classic' bushcraft. I understand it is more "living in the woods' than strictly "surviving in the woods", and 'classic' design knife is not meant to be the only tool at bushcrafter's disposal.
 
I don't look at Bushcraft as survival training. Survival may very well not be in a woods or Bush terrain. I may be in the dessert or even more likely, in the water. I see bushcraft as woods skills/wood working skills.

Good wood/Bush crafting skills will help you in a woods survival but to me it is a sport or hobby, not survival. I strongly believe that there is no definition of bushcraft knife, it is a selling point and it comes down to what works for you personally, I would never rule out stainless knives for this duty.
 
A person outdoors who is thrust into a "wilderness survival" situation will experience a traumatic transition and reversal of fortune.

A bushcrafter is unlikely to notice much difference.

;):D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top