grobe said:
my issue with skammer's statement is that according to his rationale, anyone who goes out for a day hike without a 7-8", 1/4" stock fixed blade is unprepared and not carrying a "suvival" knife.
No, this really isn't what he has said, he discussed it in more detail on the Swamp Rat forums awhile back. There is also a difference in camping/hiking vs survival gear. As well simply not being survival gear doesn't mean useless, just not ideal.
I wear cotton gloves most of the time when working outdoors, mainly habit. These are not even adequate survival gloves and no one would recommend them as such, but they would of course be better than being barehanded.
i go on many dayhikes without what i refer to as my "camp blade". this does not mean that i am unprepared.
There is a long way between no preperation and ideal. Many view long blades as the essential tool because they can be used to make everything else, and are so versatile. Mears for example speaks this viewpoint in his Bushcraft series using a golok.
This doesn't mean you die without it, just that it has tremendous ability and versatility and thus you benefit from knowing how to use it, just like anything else. I think he assumes you have proper clothing, as otherwise in northern climates I think that has to rate as the most essential.
most of the peope in the statistics you talk about probably wouldn't have known how to use a big "survival" knife any better than a decent folder.
Most don't know how to do anything. Basic skills are really rare. Even highly remote "primitive" tribes no longer know how to use friction fire starting, see Mear's Bushcraft series for example. Odds are most people don't know how to use a compass.
almost all of the authorities on wilderness survival use something smaller (i.e. 4" fixed blade) because it's easy to have it with you at all times, and there isn't anything you can't do with it.
This really isn't true, Davenport, Hood, Janowsky, Mears and even Lundin all refer to large blades highly to varying degrees of importance. Even the guys who favor small blades tend to accompany them with an axe. Only Ritter comes to mind as someone who warns about large chopping tools in general, but he notes he is speaking mainly of the danger to a novice which is reasonable.
...what ever you carry is your "survival" blade, and more time should be spent learning what it can do and how to do it than just grabbing a large blade and the false sense of security that generally comes with it.
Well no one really argues that if you buy a Valiant golok you can hang it on your wall and you are ready, you have to know how to use it just like you can't just buy a ferro rod and not practice any fire starting.
But you can make distinctions, lots of survival instructors will not rate matches as survival quality gear because of the problems with reliability. This again doesn't mean they are useless, just that there are better choices.
Just consider if one of your female friends showed you a pair of spiked heeled shoes and asked you if they were survival boots would you say yes simply because she wore them most of the time.
Probably not, it is the same with all other gear and knives are just part of it like anything else. Buy the best you can, meaning most suited to you and your enviroment, and figure out how to use it as best you can.
I think the label is problematic in general because it actually depends on the user, most assume that if you buy something you will figure out how to use it, thus ferro rods are generally rated much higher than matches.
However for someone who doesn't actually practice spark based firestarting then a ferro rod is a poor survival firestarter. However if you learn how to use it will it is more reliable and generally much more useful. That is what most people tend to mean.
-Cliff
That, gentlemen, is prejudice.
.
:thumbup: