Small Fixed Blades in the Outdoors?

J

Josh Feltman

Joined
Feb 12, 2001
Messages
4,501
How many of you would be comfortable with a relatively small fixed blade like the Dozier General Utility or even Straight Personal as your primary fixed blade while camping? I am really drawn to large blades, but the more I think about it, the more I realize that most of my outdoor cutting could be done with a smaller knife. I know large blades can do things that smaller blades can't in terms of chopping, but small knives just seem more useful. What are your thoughts on the issue, and what size knife do you carry when you are outdoors?
 
Josh,

For many, many years I got along just fine with a 4" blade Buck M102 Woodsman. That knife still serves me well since it was refitted with on of Normark's concealex sheaths. My primary outdoors knives now, however, are a Benchmade Nimravus Cub and a Victorinox Pioneer SAK or Rucksack. I find very little use for a larger blade. My "large blade" tasks are currently handled very efficiently with either a GB mini hatchet or a Martindale #2 Golok.

Mike
 
Modern light weight camping kit is so good, that so long as you keep on the beaton track, there is no need to carry a big blade. A SAK is a must. A locking medium sized folder is also a good bet. Conservation measures should mean that no one should ever suspect you have been there. If you are traveling foreign populated land a fixed blade could well land you in trouble with the local authorities. Journalists venturing into trouble spots take no more than a SAK.

There are some truely wild places left where a fixed blade is definitely worth it. But to go there you should know what you need anyway. However, there is nothing wrong practicing survival type skills and then a fixed blade comes into its own. Poking around looking for things to eat, making shelters, fires and tools requires a real tool. How far are you going to venture away from your vehicle/telephone?

If hiking its more enjoyable to travel light. You need to carry some emergency kit and be organised and prepared. For example tell someone where you are going and latest when back. Being prepared doesn't mean carrying the kitchen sink.
 
I do a lot of camping in the San Francisco Bay Area. Although fixed blades are legal when worn exposed, I rarely carry a large fixed blade in the area. However, I find that even when I am on an extended trip, that a blade that is less than 3.5 inches long is not what I favor for food preparation.

In the kitchen at home, my cutting tool vary between 3 inches and 11 inches. After years of testing various sizes of knives for food prep while hiking/camping, I don't like using anything less than 5 inches, and it has to be flat ground.

At the same time, on two different occasions, our campsites have been intruded upon by wild boars. I do not own or carry a gun. My only recourse if charged or backed into a corner would be a fixed blade.

These two things considered, I carry a 6 or 7 inch blade with me when hiking/camping. I don't chop down trees, but I do think a utility blade capable of doing camp food prep and that can actually perform a defensive role is important.

If you look at the market, is seems that the knives that are really designed for this function are the "combat" type knives. I had been using a Kershaw Roughneck II, but I do not like the placement of scallops on the spine. I tried the CRK Mountaineer II, a very nice knife, but the grip leaves something to be desired.

I an going to try the Busse Natural Outlaw next.
 
I've been relying on an SAK Huntsman or Outrider for years. After discovering www.equipped.com and reading what Doug Ritter has to say on the topic, I'll probably buy a relatively small fixed blade "survival knife"--F1, Master Hunter or Marbles Sport 99--but I still don't forsee taking it backpacking.

Here's a LINK to Ritter's page on fixed blade knives. Among other things, he says:

There are few areas with regard to survival knives that elicit as much controversy as the length of the blade. Advocates of larger knives think that those who champion smaller blades, such as myself, are out of their minds. Likewise, the reverse is often true. For me, the deciding points are that a smaller blade is easier for the inexperienced user to work with and less dangerous in inexperienced hands, weighs less, a critical matter for pilots and many others, and is more versatile for the myriad of basic chores associated with a typical survival situation.

Those areas in which a larger knife excels, such as chopping branches and wood, are adequately handled by other means without the liabilities the large blade carries with it, in my opinion.

For experienced outdoorsmen, this controversy is entirely academic. They will have found what works best for them and have the experience to use it competently, small blade or large. Often, the choice is to simply carry two knives, each sized and optimized for its particular tasks. When you have to rely on a single blade which could end up being used by almost anyone, it pays to be conservative.

This leads to my recommendation that a survival knife should have a blade at least four inches long, but no longer than six inches, or there about. Many experienced woodsmen carry a knife about 4 inches long, give or take a little, for general purpose work (many also carry a second bigger knife, but the small knife is what is used for most chores). A survival knife can stand to be a bit longer, but not too much longer. You simply do not need an enormous blade for any job you will likely be faced with in the wilds. A little brain power will more than make up for any extra inches, without the problems inherent in trying to use a knife which is too damn big, especially for the inexperienced.

Now, if you're flying over the tropics, you would also want a machete or large bolo. This is really the only environment where such a large blade is an absolute necessary. However, this should be carried in addition to a basic survival knife.

(As noted, many prefer a larger survival knife than that discussed in depth here. While I prefer a smaller knife for the average person, especially the inexperienced, there are some advantages to a larger knife in some circumstances, for someone with the experience to use it safely and competently and if they also carry a small knife, be it fixed blade or a folder. We will take a look at larger knives suitable for survival use in an upcoming article.)
 
Architect, have a look a Steve Filicietti, boar knives, www.unitedbladeworx.com.au ;)

I also agree with Arckitect that for food preparation nothing beats a flat ground kitchen knife preferably 5-6 inches, especially when feeding others as well. Carry a SAK and folder on your person when on walk about and pack a Victorinox Kitchen knife for camp. You'll have to make a sheath up. They are not so expensive and they don't weigh much either. Even in a survival situation they would probably hold up to some tree surgery until help arrived. Three knives might seem over the top but then you can lend one out without worry.

I only carry my CR Project because I always have done.
 
There's not too many better small fixed blades than a Mora #1. I'd miss my SAK Rucksack saw and my CS Mini Khukuri, but the Mora would do the job nicely...
 
To put what I say in a perspective... I come from northern Finland, where 0F is normal and -40F has sometimes been reached in winter. 4-6 feet thick snow is normal. I have done a few boy scout ski treks in the woods, where we have usually spent a night or two in the snow beside a fire, pretty far from roads and paths.

In the woods I have a 3-4" puukko. I feel that's the optimal length for all of the utility tasks I have for a knife. The tasks are

1) Preparing food. Puukkos are okay for this.
2) Carving wood. Puukkos are designed to do exactly this. I need to carve firestarters from wood when I want to start a fire.
3) Cut misc. things such as string.

Someone who hunts would use it to disembowel/skin, the puukko does this well too. I don't carry a backup knife, but I have always been with others, who have their own puukkos, and you don't really need a knife that often. Never lost or broke one in the woods.

I always have an axe, about 20" long Fiskars (they might be sold as Gerber in the US?) which performs all chopping work.

When used carefully, the axe can (usually) be used to split thin firestarters from wood. Then I don't have to carve those with the knife. Lot less work with the axe.

I don't carry a saw, except when I plan to use up multiple trees as firewood (per night) or build a shelter. A saw helps significantly if multiple trees have to be felled, but is very limited in use compared to the axe.

When in northernmost Finland, it makes sense to dump the axe and instead have a machete-like knife, almost as large as the axe. There are only 1-2" thick little bushes in there (tundra u'know), and that kind of bush is too flexible to cut efficiently with an axe.

No worries with SD here, in the woods you never see another person, and animals just run from you. If SD is a concern to you however, surely an axe/machete is a lot more serious than a "normal" big knife. I won't even start about firearms, which should naturally be choice #1.

So there. I don't find any use for larger knives than 3-4", because the axe or other chopping tool does everything better.

Whoa, long post, but I just gotta tell this story that came to mind.
An old acquaintance's grandfather had made his living as a hunter, hunting alone in the vast woods of northern Finland. He killed more than one *bear* with a single shot .22LR rifle, shot them in the eye. But one bear wouldn't die right away, and charged him. In the end, the man lived, although without half his face. Somehow he had stabbed the weakened bear dead with his puukko. He had a long way home to get help, afterwards.
So.. it's not what you have but how you use it :)

- Gon
 
RUK Sak, folder for a slicer and a full tang fixed blade is my camping attire bladewise. The point about a smaller fixed blade when not venturing off the beaten path is a valid one. Though I am a big-knife fan, I have done well afield with a Busse Basic #3, Busse basic #5 or Chris Reeve Mountaineer II. These knives are just great when backpacking or "civilized" ligh 'n easy camping. They are very handy outdoors knives.
 
Welcome to the Forums Gon, That is a great first post!
I also tend to be in the small knife camp. Most camping or hiking trip cutting chores can be handled by just a SAK or a multitool, but I also carry a small fixed blade (preferably with a flat blade grind). I like an axe, saw, kukri, or machete for heavy work when needed, instead of a big "do everything" knife.
 
There was a nice article in the latest tactical knives about small fixed blades for backpacking use.
 
Frank K,
until I read your post I totally forgot about multitools! I tend to carry 1 or 2 Leathermans (original + Supertool) into the woods, so I guess there are backup knive(s) after all. I use the pliers and other tools more than the knife blades, but have also used the knife blades if the primary fixed blade is too dirty to be used for food.

People who like large knives - what do you use the knife for, actually? Judging from Bladeforums posts, I understand US military people tend to use Ka-Bars as a miniature crowbar and shovel :)

One definition for light 'n easy camping: having a self-supporting tent, cooking with gas heater, being max 5 miles away from help, +20F minimum and with other people besides you.
The multitools and the puukko would still go with me, but not the axe.

- Gon
 
Terve Gon,

Now I don't need to speak for Puukko. I prefer a bit longer = 11-12cm or about 4,5 inch long puukko. Fällkniven F1 and S1 are also sound choises but offer a bit less performance in food prep and wood handling department. I personally also prefer dangler type sheath that is the most common sheath for puukkos.
 
I am definitely a small knife kind of guy. Overnight hikes usually mean that I have my Marbles Fieldcraft on my belt, along with my SAK. I really like the utility value and control of a 3 1/2 to 4 1/2 inch blade. If I’m just going hiking for a couple hours, I’ll most likely be carrying an even smaller knife this year, such as my BlackJack small.

If I’m camping out for a few days, I aim a little larger. If the hike to the camping spot is short enough, I add a small axe to the mix. For longer hikes and long stays, I’ll be trying out my 6 inch Busse Satin Jack.

Either way, I’m just not a large knife kind of guy. I actually would have gotten a smaller Busse if they had made one that I liked. Most of my cutting can be done with my small knives, while larger cutting jobs often require a full axe.
 
I liked your review of the satin jack Buzzbait. That's about the largest knife I can imagine myself using. I'll probably buy a Marbles Sport 99 first--while I can still get one--due to their steel change. Now that I've caught the "knife bug" I might still get an F-1, Master Hunter or used Busse Basic #5 (if I can find/afford a used one that is in good shape).

I find the blade on the 111mm Victoinox lockblades suits me fine for most outdoor cooking chores most of the time. If I'm with a larger group or doing more cooking, I usually have a kitchen knife and a saw and/or axe, so I don't need a chopper. I was looking at the Forschner chef's knives at Bayou Lefourche Knife Works and am thinking about getting a 6" to 8" chefs knife and making a sheath for car camping and longer family camping trips. The Forschners are consistently given top ratings by Cooks Illustrated and other magazines and cost less than $25 at Bayou Lefourche Knife Works. They're light, too.
 
I'm not comfortable going into the woods with a blade less than about 4" long, and I prefer 5" if I'm going to be over-nite. I say this even though on most trips, I don't actually need anything larger than 3", and even 2.5" will often do.

The distinction here has to do with what I <b>know</b> I will use the knife for - opening rations, spreading or cutting food, cutting rope, making stakes, or otherwise having to shape/shave wood - vs what I <b>might</b> have to use it for, which would be to split more substantial wood for a larger/longer fire under unexpected conditions. I want the extra 2" for that purpose alone, and try to find a compromise between something of adequate length without too much weight. At even 5", I've found that 1/8" stock is more than thick enough to take the necessary abuse, and am becoming less inclined to take thicker knives, though I have to admit I might really miss my Livesay AA (length perfect at 5", but 3/16" thick) in this role, but its just heavier than necessary.

I should note that I always have a small saw (SAK or other folding saw) in the event I have to cut wood, and not just shape or shave it.

My machetes see work in my own back yard, or over at a friend's house where we work in the fall to clear dry stream beds (before the rains come) of overly long black berry and other vines. I'd love to try one in a real jungle setting, but I don't know when that will happen...
 
Originally posted by Buzzbait
Either way, I’m just not a large knife kind of guy. I actually would have gotten a smaller Busse if they had made one that I liked.
Click to expand...

Buzz, Bro,

Y'all best check out Busse's German site. They have an awesome looking 4" that isn't offered here.

Mike
 
sgtmike88 - can you post the URL for the Busse German site or email me? Much appreciated if you can.
 
The Basic #4, #5 and #6 with uncoated blades all look good. I just plugged the Euro prices into an exchange calculator. They're about $191, $265 and $237 respectively. I wonder how much they charge for shipping and why the #6 is cheaper than the #5?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top