How big does it have to be.

Joined
Oct 2, 2004
Messages
17,489
I've went off at length on how I've sent to smaller and smaller knives over the years. Maybe I've finally crossed over to old fartdom. You know, the old guys you see with the little pen knife. It seems like the older I got, the smaller the knife I carried. Maybe it too me a lifetime to come to the point where my dad was most of his life. Or maybe he was just alot smarter than me. No maybe about it.

But I guess it all kind of crystalized in my mind one day at the Smithsonian Museum down in Washington D.C.

It was the Iceman.

Years ago they uncovered a frozen guy from 5500 years ago up in the Alps on the Austrian-Italian border. They've studied him for some years now, and his personal equitment he had with him. Down at the Smithsonian they have an exibit with exact replicas of his gear and clothing. I was drawn to his knife and hatchet. There was his knife, a small white flint thing with a nice flaked blade about 2 inches long, with a handle out of ash held on with wrapped sinew. It was about the size of a peanut with a bit longer handle. This was his only knife. For heavier duty cutting, he had a copper ax the size of a Boy scout Plumb hatchet.

That was it.

A small 2 inch knife and a hatchet.

About 5500 years ago, Europe was a very sparsely populated cold place, with elk and buffalo roaming around. Some of the Icemans clothing was of elk and deer skins. He had a thick fur hat and leggings. It seemed like the flint knife he had was typical, as on the same floor of the museum were other exibits from the same period of Europe and the near east of what is present day Iran and Iraq. There were cases of flint tools like knives, arrow heads, scrapers, and such. Most of the flint knives from the period of 8,000 to 3,000 years ago seemed small by modern standards. About 2 inches seemed the norm.

I think of my dad, and the other men of his era who carried the typical mid 20th century pen knives, and how they got by. They certainly lived a more "civilized" life than the Iceman, who had to dress and skin large mammals like elk with his 2 inch knife.

It makes me wonder, how much do we really need?

In 1997 Karen and I went on a tour of the U.S. We loaded up the camping gear in the Toyota and off we went on a counter clockwise trip to all the major parks for the month of May. We spent almost the whole month on the road. In Mesa Verde I again saw a small flint knife in the museum of the cliff dwellings. Again it seemed about the same size as a small pocket knife when open. Later, at another time and place, when I saw how a small flake off a chunk of obsidian went through a deers hide to cut the meat, I was very impressed.

A friend showed me the basics of knapping, and when I went to cut something with a flake of obsidian, it was eye opening. Kind of like leaving the house with a good sharp peanut, or baby butter bean, or even Vic classic, and realize it will do most of what you need. I realized that the hand of the person and the skills used are way more important that the tool. Like the saying; software over hardware. If Otzi the Iceman could skin an elk and live in cold pre-history Europe with a 2 inch blade, it makes me wonder why I carried all those larger knives in my younger day. I think of my dad, or my Uncle Paul, making repairs by cutting a gasket out of the bottom of a Kleenex box with a little pen knife, or dad gutting and skinning a big catfish with his peanut, that was fried up latter for dinner, or even Mr. Van with his 2 1/2 inch bladed scout knife, showing us camp crafts and woodsmanship. Looking back on it all know, I realized I never used much more than a 2 inch blade untill I became infected with knife collectivitus. Then things went haywire for some years. Untill my old friend and co-worker, Andy Warden showed me how he field dressed a nice big buck on opening day, with his trusty little Buck cadet.

Now I'm at a point again where I'm carrying almost the same kind of knife I carried as a scout, all those years ago.

How much do we need?
 
I definatly agree on the blade length, as long as the handle is long enough for a paw to grasp.
 
I agree wholeheartedly. I'm in my late 30's and for a long time I was infected with the "new knife" syndrome. I was constantly looking for the newest steel, new designs and super strong locks. Out of personal preference, I kept the length of the blades to about 3.5 inches max.

I've come to understand that bigger is not always better. I've just picked up my first peanut and have paired it with a Buck Trio. I carry the Trio as a whittling knife and plan on using the peanut for everyday chores. Prior to the peanut, I was carrying a Buck Trapper, and before that it was some sort of tactical knife. However, since finding this place I've pretty much gotten over the tactical knife affinity that I had.

I still like the design of the tactical style knives, but I've grown to appreciate the simple elegance of a small slipjoint. Looking at what I generally use a knife for on a daily basis, there really is nothing that I can't handle with a peanut or similar knife.
 
I like about 2 1/2 to 3". But I agree with JackNate, 2" will do if the handle is big enough for the hand to hold. That may be why I like the bigger blade, not for the blade length, but to get the amount of handle I want.
 
Hi,

Truthfully, not much. Though a good reason for short flint blades is strength. Too long and thin, and they break easily.

I've almost always preferred smaller blades to large ones. I don't really like big and bulky in my pocket. And belt knives never really did anything for me. And over the years I've learned that I can pretty much do what ever I need to do with a medium stockman or smaller. If I need more, well I got a can opener on my Vic Soldier.:D But I'd rather carry my Canoe or one of my Mini Canoes.

As an accumulator of sharp and shiny things, I do have a few blades in the 3" to 4" range, just because I can. But i can't see a reason to carry one other than for fun.

dalee
 
Course, on the other hand. I've got a Cattle King in my pocket at the moment.
I think it is compensation for only being able to carry a Tiny Trapper at work all day.
The Tiny Trapper is one of those knives that the blade is actually long enough, but I'd like more handle.
 
I think it depends on the person, and their lifestyle. I use a folder everyday for work, and need a heavy duty folder(and should probably be carrying a fixed blade) for the types of tasks I do.
 
I am no expert, and given a choice I carry "small" knives, but I would bet the iceman's blade length had as much to do with the fragile nature of the material than anything. It seems to me that to maintain any durabilty in flint, obsidian or any other stone, the blade would have to be close to half as wide as it was long, and fairly thick in relation to the length. Imagine a filet knife made of stone, better not hit bone with it.

Fortunately we have the option of carrying knives with blades that are more than twice as long as they are wide, and very thin, because of steel, beautiful steel. Even so, a 2.5" blade will get most anything you need done, done. Of my favorite knives I would say 90% or more are under 3.5" closed.
 
well sorta:) because for me this will go out the window when i get my hands on a real elephant toe:D Then look out, bye bye medium stockman, hello saggy drawers:D
ivan
 
Small blades work well if sharp. It's hard to get steel as sharp as Flint and Obsidian, and a small piece held in the hand was very controllable.... nothing could beat the stone tools they had to work with.... Small is Good but not necessarily Better in all situations...
 
It may be a little wasteful of me, but I'm in a habit of shortening blades on both new and used knives. Might as well make my tools comfortable.
 
Ya know I can't disagree particularly, but, yeah, I got a but.

I carry a couple knives most of the time, pretty much always a bigger folder, sometimes locking liner or frame lock, sometimes a bigger slippy. And always a normal small to midsized folder, usually a stockman or whittler pattern. I reach for the smaller knife 9 out of 10 times honestly, and most of the time it does the job just fine. But when I'm cutting up a bunch of boxes, or cutting heavy plastic strapping, I reach for the heavier knife. The smaller knife might do the job, but the heavier duty knife is really the better tool for the job. Between length of blade, and a heftier handle, it just works better. Now if your knife needs don't include that kind of heavier work, then absolutely the smaller knife is all you need. No question. If I ever reach a point in my career/s were I don't feel like I need the larger knife, I'll happily leave it home.

Syn
 
I carried a cheap tactical for a while, then slowly started working my way down to smaller blade sizes. A good-sized handle with a small blade is about all I need these days. For most chores & outings, I'm down to no more than a standard Scout-knife sized pocket knife.

thx - cpr
 
We like to spend time out in the desert around where we live lookin for arrowheads, and your story made me think of some of the things we have found.
Some of them are absolutely amazing. TINY bird point broad heads that were worked many years ago to a razor edge. Even after being buried in dirt and sand for all these years some are still VERY sharp.
The workmanship on some of these is just incredible...

As long as I can remember, I've always prefered smaller knives.
My hunting knives are very small compared to what many folks use.
But they have never failed to do the task of skinning deer or elk.
I like the "feel" I get with smaller blades.
It has always amazed me, some of the absolutely huge sheath knives that are marketed as hunting and skinning knives..
 
Another big plus about a smaller knife is its pocket friendly nature and dexterity in use.

Big blades,esp sheath knives are unwieldy in my view,they are like some clumsy bayonet! When I want to chop or split a small Fiskars belt hatchet covers all my needs.I don't need to hew down trees or build a raft.... I don't hunt so I don't need some massive chopper to split open an elk(moose). I fish though, and that's where a knife you can control is a must.
 
I would bet the iceman's blade length had as much to do with the fragile nature of the material than anything. It seems to me that to maintain any durabilty in flint, obsidian or any other stone, the blade would have to be close to half as wide as it was long, and fairly thick in relation to the length. Imagine a filet knife made of stone, better not hit bone with it.

FLymon beat me to it. While I do believe that most guys these days (and certainly the majority of guys who post to BladeForums) carry way more knife than what's really needed, I bet Otzi the Iceman would have gladly traded two mammoth skins, a wife, and one of his clubs for your Buck 105 Pathfinder.
 
I've been carrying these lately Jacknife. The blades are sharp as the dickens, and they're stout for being little guys.

P1010022-2.jpg


One more added so i have one for every day of the week.

BQN9hgCGkKGrHgoOKkEjlLmM-TBJ3p6c-1.jpg
 
In my 50+ years I've carried and used most every shape and size of knife we see on BF. I've narrowed it down to a maximum of 3.5" closed length pocket knife and a maximum 3 to 3.5" blade length, fixed blade sheath knife.

There are always exceptions, for one reason or another, but that's probably about 95% of the time. There was no conscious decision. Just a process of elimination based on a lifetime of carrying and using.
 
Last edited:
nav, i think any old geezer would LUV to wear any of them knives. for that matter , any wannabe geezer too. great POCKET knives!!!! paul ( old geezer )
 
Back
Top