Originally posted by djweaponx
I would have to agree also, but running in the woods hunting /survival would the differnce in size between 18" Sirupati and, the 16.5" WWII make a difference?
If you mean ease of carry, I find that the 18" and up don't lend themselves well to belt carry out in the brush, they tend to drag through everything. When I'm on a hike I slip the 18" into the side straps of my pack. It's easy to reach over the shoulder and draw, and adds no noticeable weight or drag to the pack.
I'd probably pack a 16.5" on my belt. It would likely be more difficult to draw from a backpack unless you had it arranged in such a way that you could reach under your arm to draw it. Hmm, now you've got me thinking. I'll have to experiment with ways to pack the shorter blades now.
I see "hunting" and "survival" as differing scenarios and feel the need to make a distinction here. In a "survival" situation I'd forsee having the knife readily and quickly accessible, while a firearm might be condition two or three and not necessarily ready for a snapshot at all times.
In a hunting situation I'm carrying a rifle and ready at all times to react and fire quickly. Any knife over six inches will be tucked securely inside my daypack, as was the Pen-knife all season. This eliminates it as a source of noise, reflection and drag. It also keeps me from crushing the scabbard or spearing myself on it if I drop quickly into a firing position or take a spill down a steep slope.
And lastly, it minimizes unnecessary wear and tear on the knife itself. I sometimes come home from hunting looking like I was dragged behind a street sweeper, and while a small Schrade fixed-blade can weather it well, I'm not willing to subject a khukuri and scabbard to the abuses of riding my belt during a long hunting season. It'll get to prove its worth after the chase is done, no need to beat it up beforehand.
Good topic!
