I've narrowed it down to two

B

bennyjenkins

Joined
Dec 18, 2006
Messages
210
So, my next purchase has been narrowed down to either a 15" AK or a 16.5" WWII. For those of you who have both and can compare, which is more practical for everyday use i.e.. carrying for long periods of time and usage as a camp knife on backpacking trips? Thanks.
 
What you should do IMO is wait until one of those 2 shows up on a DOTD at a price you like, a blem or a great deal like you see sometimes, and jump on it.
 
I like cybrok's idea. The right blade will find you, not the other way around. Either of those would make a fine camping blade, it just depends on which one you find more comfortable in actual use.
 
Get both.

Short of that, take the others guys' advice and buy them as soon as they present themselves to you.
 
I like my WWII better than my AK, but a large part of that is that the AK is pretty thick - close to half an inch if memory serves. I'm partial to the thinner khuks - a little less mass for chopping, but you can get equivalent performance if your technique is OK. Two major differences: the AK is a little pointier, and the WWII (or any 16.5" khuk) has a little more handle. Otherwise, performance is comparable - the variation in individual blades is bigger than the variation between models. If you have big hands, go WWII, if not, just wait for something exciting to fall in your lap.
 
If I was going to pack one in the field it would be my 15" AK. Last time I went camping I took the big WWII (18.5"/ 28oz.). But we went car camping and I didn't have to carry the beast. Uncle Bill used to say the right khuk will find you.

Frank
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top