knife vs. saw question

M

mr_dove

Joined
Apr 12, 2004
Messages
90
I've been pondering the question of which knife to include in my BOB/camping setup. I've read in various places that you should not duplicate tools in your bob, meaning that you shouldn't have two tools that do that same job. another point I read is that you should always try to choose 1 tool that can do more than 1 job if possible.

So, I'm looking for knives that can be used around the camp and also be used to cut wood for the fire. I don't know if there's really a knife that's up to the job of cutting wood for the fire. Would I be better suited to get a knife and a folding saw?

The Becker Brute has a wide spot on the back of the blade that can be used as a hammer, but I'm not sure if I would be better served by a 7" blade instead of the 9 1/2" blade if I end up with a folding saw on top of the knife. That hammer options makes it look pretty attractive though. The Brute is also a darn sexy knife in my eyes as well. I just love the lines on it.

So, I guess my underlying question is: Should I get a folding saw, a big knife, or both? In either case, what blade length would best suit me for camping in the woods?
 
For general camping, the knife should be sufficient. If you are planning extended stays, a saw would be a benefit as well. You may need to build a more permanant shelter, buck firewood etc. A pruning type of folding saw or a larger Sierra saw are lightweight and easy to pack.
 
I carry 4 cutting tools, 2 fixed blades (M2K & BK-7) and 2 folders w/saw (SAK & German issue utility folder) and a dual edged sheath saw by Buck. I like duplicating my slicers and dicers. I'd hate to lose or break my main blade and not have something around as a replacement. The saw, Becker and German utility blade ride in my ruck and the little extra weight isn't noticeable.
 
It takes a large piece of wood to make a saw more efficient than a strong wood cutting blade (the Brute isn't such a knife). This wood is much bigger than you will be able to burn without building a fire to a considerable size and intensity. That being said, a slight folding saw is *very* light and packable. I have several that I try to carry at all times. When injured you can use a saw much more readily than a blade.

-Cliff
 
I don't agree, Cliff. A GOOD bow or folding saw is much more efficient at cutting hard dry firewood than a chopping knife or hatchet. It is true a saw is not as versatile, though.
 
If the wood is large enough sure, which is what I wrote. On small woods a quality knife will cut it in a few chops. You really are not burning large pieces of wood in a fire unless you start it with a lot of gas or other accelerant, in which case you really don't need a knife or a saw.

It takes quite a while before a fire will burn even a 2" piece of wood unless you split it multiple times, and it has to be very dried out. Swede saw blades for bow saws won't even cut at all on wood of this size as their teeth are far too aggressive and will not readily be pulled through the wood, especially when dry. Though a decent pruning saw (Felco) will.

Most cooking fires rarely need anything beyond 2" becuase above that point the fire is so large it is difficult to cook with because you can not get near it. Of course for signaling and other applications you might want large wood. But it takes awhile to build the fire up to that point, and in general those are pretty extreme situations.

We use a wood stove to heat our house all winter, the vast majority of the wood is small (mainly because all the large wood in the area has long been cut for sawing sticks). You can produce quite a large and long lasting fire from ~4" thick pieces of wood. If you want longer time you just pick wetter wood once the fire is going.

Gathering and moving larger wood gets quite problematic once the wood size increases because the weight goes up very fast with increasing radius (the area is as the square, and the density increases because the surface area to volume ratio is lower thus larger logs take longer to dry out).

That being said, as noted I carry lots of saws of different types. Mainly I use them to cut sticks close to the ground as I don't like leaving a lot of pointy stakes around for obviously safety reasons. Plus in extreme cold or when injured it is easier to use a saw, plus I would much rather give a novice a saw than a large blade or axe and you have to consider that you might need to depend on someone else in such situations.

Anyway if you are finding a saw to be much more efficient than a blade on smaller woods it is probably due to problems with the blades? Which specific ones showed such performance? A decent place to start is a decent 12" machete with a modified edge profile, many tend to come too thick so you need to thin them out a little. There are lots of thick tactical knives which can not chop very well of course.

-Cliff
 
A bolo like our WWI soldiers carried. Worked well on shrubs, trees, and German barbed wire.
 
This is one of those topics that can leave one feeling schizophrenic. On one hand, I'm a knife guy ( funny...saying it like that makes me feel like I should be standing in front of a room full of 12 steppers :p ) on the other hand, a saw can be a wonderful thing.
In my younger years, I always carried basic survival gear in my pockets while hunting, basic stuff like a bic, water/windproof matches, a spool of dental floss, a candle stub, etc. and in there was the ubiquitous "COMMANDO WIRE SAW". It was actually one of the genuine issue ones, and would have been far better than nothing, but truth be told it sucked. I would always carry an old, rounded off Marbles Woodcraft for game as well as fire prep duty, and never call to practice survival skills in earnest. When I finally had to spend an unplanned night in the bush of north-central British Columbia in late October, I resolved to get a more efficient wood processing rig. First stop was a Sierra Saw (el cheapo brand if I recall), which was a POS, then came a 18" machette (same brand) While it was pretty good at harvesting small branches, it flat out excelled at getting stuck in conifers. After I joined the Canadian Forces, as a Combat Engineer (First to arrive, and last to leave!) I learned to appreciate a fine quality, well sharpened Swede saw, but they were just too heavy and cumbersome. I thought that a Wyoming saw might fill the bill, as we have to pack a meat saw for moose anyway, but they were a little spendy for me then.
All of which serves as a long-winded lead up to saying that, in this golden age, you can have your baked goods, and partake of them as well. I am now a veritable porcupine of both knife and saw blades! I wander the bush as a walking testament to man's aversion to cold,wet, lonely death, and his love for sharp and shiny geegaws. In fairness to myself, I have come up with extremely well concieved arguments as to why I could not possiby intentionally go into harms way without the full compliment of engines of destruction. Now wait a minute, hear me out, it makes perfect sense.....no, really. In my shirt pocket, I carry a PSK containing among other things, two utility knife blades ( cryonically treated...whoooooo) and a "COMMANDO SAW" :eek: . Next a small fanny pack...I mean a manly utility belt pouch...yeah...thats the ticket... anyway, it contains a pocket chainsaw, a locking SAK, and a Mora 2000 etc. This is for when I'm going to enter the bush on foot, but don't plan to go far. Then, when I know I'm going to forage far afield, I have a fleece day pack ( which is much more butch than it sounds....it's even camouflage) containing a GB hunters axe, a Sawvivor, and 55 lbs of lightweight gear :rolleyes: . The pocket chainsaw works way better than you would expect, and the sawvivor, which I bought for its bone-sawing skills, cuts with alacrity, and weighs almost nothing. I also have a Cold Steel SRK that has been ground down to a more useful thickness that is really efficient at both harvesting and splitting firewood.
If you are still reading this after all this time, my hat is off to you, you are obviously possesed of both a keen eye for well-crafted prose, and a resistance to boredome bordering on the miraculous. I guess what I am trying to say is that I like knives AND saws...oh yeah, and wool...wool is really good too.....I guess i like being able to live through stuff that seems to be designed for not living through....and I should probably get more sleep.
 
Cliff: Your point about cutting wood less than 2" in diameter has merit: the aggressive teeth of many saw blades do not function as well on the smaller stuff. But above that a saw shines, especially in hard dry wood. A summer of tree-top clearing taught me that. (I don't know what the Swede saw blades you refer to are like, but my bow saw works reasonably well down to about 1-1/2" or so.) Anyway, your initial comment about efficiency was what caught my interest and now that you have explained your reasoning some and defined "large" as more or less 2" or greater, I don't think we disagree as much as I did before.
 
mooseman said:
In my shirt pocket, I carry a PSK containing among other things, two utility knife blades . . . and a "COMMANDO SAW." Next . . . a . . . utility belt pouch. ... t contains a pocket chainsaw, a locking SAK, and a Mora 2000 etc. This is for when I'm going to enter the bush on foot, but don't plan to go far. Then, when I know I'm going to forage far afield, I have a fleece day pack . . . containing a GB hunters axe, a Sawvivor, and 55 lbs of lightweight gear :rolleyes: . The pocket chainsaw works way better than you would expect, and the sawvivor, which I bought for its bone-sawing skills, cuts with alacrity, and weighs almost nothing. I also have a Cold Steel SRK that has been ground down to a more useful thickness that is really efficient at both harvesting and splitting firewood. . . . I guess what I am trying to say is that I like knives AND saws...oh yeah, and wool...wool is really good too.....I guess i like being able to live through stuff that seems to be designed for not living through....and I should probably get more sleep.
Click to expand...


Great stuff.

However, polyester fleece . . . polyester fleece is really better too: lighter; more abrasion resistant; washable; warmer; bug-proof. Probably even cheaper now. Like $10.00-$15.00 for mid-weight jackets regularly on sale at K-Mart.
 
Thomas Linton said:
Great stuff.

However, polyester fleece . . . polyester fleece is really better too: lighter; more abrasion resistant; washable; warmer; bug-proof. Probably even cheaper now. Like $10.00-$15.00 for mid-weight jackets regularly on sale at K-Mart.
Click to expand...
I have to beg leave to disagree. Loosely woven, or recycled wool isn't very abrasion resistant, but a good quality wool jacket (like Filson's) is like wearing armour! I still have the Pioneer Brand double Mackinaw jacket that I wore as a kid, starting from age 13 to age 23. It was old when I got it, and I'm sure my kids, kids will still be using it. Lighter I'll gladly give you, but fleece is not wind resistant, and affords no protection compared to heavy wool. I like fleece too, but I stake my life on wool.
 
mooseman said:
I have to beg leave to disagree. Loosely woven, or recycled wool isn't very abrasion resistant, but a good quality wool jacket (like Filson's) is like wearing armour! I still have the Pioneer Brand double Mackinaw jacket that I wore as a kid, starting from age 13 to age 23. It was old when I got it, and I'm sure my kids, kids will still be using it. Lighter I'll gladly give you, but fleece is not wind resistant, and affords no protection compared to heavy wool. I like fleece too, but I stake my life on wool.
Click to expand...

LOL, we have a God-given right to disagree in this country. ;)

Fleece plus nylon windbreaker trumps wool in all respects: thermal efficiency for weight; insulation when when damp; speed of drying; lack of alergic reaction; lack of skin irritation; field maintanability (wash in cold to hot water without shrinkage). Military artic units went to polyester some years ago. Scientific abrasion tests show polyester much more abrasion resistant. That's why all that great wool from Germany, Sweden, etc. came on the market in the late 80's and can still be had (although not as cheap any more -- no $10 boiled wool German pants now.)

As to expense, Filson's "Why Not the Best?" translates into "Why not the most expense?" I bought my last Filson's thirty years ago. What do they cost now? Arm, leg, and left kidney? :D
 
Swede saw refers to the tooth pattern, typical buck saws have uniform triangular teeth, a swede saw pattern is much more aggressive and clears wood better but does not work as well on narrow wood. As a horrible example, try to start one on the corner of a 4x4", you have to go *very* light .

Speaking of saws, right now Lee Valley is offering a *huge* deal on 10 tpi japanese saw which would be ideal for hard wood cutting. It is 70% off (yeah that is not a typo - 70%). It is also a bit stiffer and with a wider kerf than there regular Japanese saws and thus would be a great introductory piece.

-Cliff
 
Sawing will never replace chopping or vice versa. I prefer a light folding saw for precise and fast cutting of wood for shelter or fire. The saw is also much safer than swinging a large fixed blade or small axe. I know several experienced outdoorsmen who have injured themselves severely with a single moment of inattention. That being said, I also carry a GB or Fiskars axe for chopping duties, where a saw doesn't perform as well, such as limbing or splitting wood.

"Fleece plus nylon windbreaker trumps wool in all respects:" except for when you're near a campfire and notice all your expensive synthetics getting these funny little holes all over them..... ;) my wool jackets are the hardest wearing, most comfortable, warmest, driest garments I own; even better than my windproof fleeces, goretex jackets, etc....
 
There is something to be said for the fire retardant properties of wool, especially in a survival situation. Up north here, when you are in a survival situation, you are getting friendly with a fire. Debris huts are a wonderful thing theoreticaly, but up here, especially during hunting season, we survive around a fire, or not at all. That means about one step from a 6 foot long three log fire. Try that in nylon and polyester fleece, and I bet that, while you may not be comfortable, you will at least be water and bug proof (as you will be encased in hard, shiny plastic.)
Don't think that I'm anti-fleece, on the contrary, in my alpine mountaineering days, I was one of the earliest converts to fleece, and I still use it often. In moderate weather, while hunting, I wear poly-pro/wool johns, whipcord wool pants, and a boiled wool shirt. I carry a light fleece sweater, and a fleece jacket for layering. In the event that I have to get up close and personal with an emergency fire, the wool shirt is large enough to go over top of the fleece. When its colder, its double mackinaw all the way, with a fleece sweater in the pack for extreme cold. Notice the popularity of fleece socks? Me either. Thats because in an environment where fleece can't dry, it is wet and clammy and cold ( I know from experience, I was into "high tech" as a younger man) whereas wool socks are beloved of all who venture out afoot.
Is wool heavy? yes. Does it hold water, yes. It also insulates when wet very well, where fleece needs to be wrug out or it loses a fair amount of warmth. Fleece also dries very quickly, especially in the wind, which may seem to be an advantage, but really means that it can produce high levels of evaporative cooling. so does wool save lives? yes.
In fact, the biggest draw-back of wool, for me is that it makes me a little nervous smelling like a sheep, around a bunch of guys that have been in the woods a while ;) Oh,yeah, to stay on topic, I have cut myself on a saw while wearing fleece, but never while wearing wool. Coincedence? I don't think so!
 
Another thing to consider:
If you do alot of chopping with a knife, expect to do ALOT of sharpening too.

A saw will cut more wood far longer between sharpenings than any knife.
And you will really be mad when you chop in to a hard knot and blunt your knife's edge.

Not to mention that a saw is more quiet and more safe to use.

Happy hunting,
Allen.
 
allenC said:
If you do alot of chopping with a knife, expect to do ALOT of sharpening too.

A saw will cut more wood far longer between sharpenings than any knife.

And you will really be mad when you chop in to a hard knot and blunt your knife's edge.
Click to expand...

I think you need a better knife. Ref wood chopping, and sharpening :

http://www.physics.mun.ca/~sstamp/knives/tramontina_bolo.html

in particular :

"After about three hours of felling, bucking, limbing and
stacking work, I had chopped with the Tramontina 700 times ... . In the area of maximum impact, the performance had degraded down to ... 29 +/- 6 % of its freshly sharpened
ability. "

Of course the carry over into loss of performance in chopping is *many* times less, you are looking at still above 90%.

Yeah, that edge could be turned on hard knots, but this can be prevented with a small micro-bevel, and this is pretty much the lowest performing (non-Ontario) blade you can get.

Yes a saw will last longer, in particular the impulse hardened Japanese saws go for long times (years), but a quality blade will cut for an extended period of time. Most working parangs for example are sharpened only once a week (Malaysia).

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