Is bigger always better?

[Stuartvt]

I can not decide on the 4” Mountaineer I or the 5.5 “ Mountaineer II. I was wondering if the smaller diameter and length of the handle of the 4” knife decreases the usefulness of the hollow handle. Does the handle become more of a novelty or is it a useful feature in the 4 incher?

I will be using this for general camp and outdoor use. I would be using the knife during long hikes so weight is a consideration.

Two other questions: How is the butt of the one piece knives for using as a hammer (only in an emergency of course)?

Also, would anyone like to comment on the likes and dislikes of the blade shape of the Mountaineer vs. the Sable.

Thanks,

Stuart

 

[iubigred007]

to answer your question in the thread title; i would say "no", bigger is not always better. but like everything else in life, there is an exception. IMO, i would go the bigger route for a fixed blade, for camping/hiking/hunting. if you were doing personal EDC carry, i say smaller, but in the woods you need something bigger. afterall, 1.5" is not that much of a jump.

i have got a CRK mark VI, and it is 5.5" blade, previously i used a becker bk7, and in length, the 2 are not that different, eventhough the bk7 is a lot bigger in blade depth and handle thickness overall.

i have never hammered with my CRK, but in an emergency, if you need to hammer with it.... DO IT.... i'm sure it can handle it and you can always buy another one. knife would be there to help save your life, at any costs, so beat the crap out of it if you must

just my .02 cents... you asked for it

 

[Razor]

Buy both, that is what I did! That will solve your probbaly. You will end up buying both anyways.