What do you think of the "Generic" bushcraft knife?

[stabman]

On this one, I hope the right answer is for Stabman (and those like him) and I (and those like me) to take the debate (civilly) to the Wilderness sub-forum. Do I have this right?

I knew I could count on you to show up here.

You can start a thread there, and I might post (or not if I don't feel like it), but I am not going to change your mind, nor do I care to.
Likewise, you will not sway me to thinking that I am some sort of environmental criminal, nor will I stop doing what I do.

 

[stabman]

It is the law and not an opinion. Not to mention anyone who is morally sound and not hugely self entitled shouldnt have to be reminded of these laws.

Ah yes, the classic "You're a criminal who is morally unsound and hugely self-entitled" debate tactic.

 

[Tachead7075]

Ah yes, the classic "You're a criminal who is morally unsound and hugely self-entitled" debate tactic.

Come on man, your "I don't care" comment was pretty bad. It pretty much showed your morals, entitlement, and lack of common courtesy toward others. But, you did somewhat redeem yourself when you said you used the same spot and that you would clean up if you switched to a different spot. Really though, you should clean up every time you go camping and try to leave as little evidence of human use as possible. Leaving those concrete blocks, an intact shelter, or a pile if rubble/garbage IS against the law.

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

 

[KingMC]

Social Justice keyboard Warriors aside, this thread asks an interesting question. My feelings on the 'generic' bushcraft knife is that I don't like it. It seems gimmicky and often overpriced for what you're getting. I find Scandi grinds harder to maintain in the wilderness than regular double-beveled FFG blades, and the Scandi grinds certainly don't look nearly as pretty as a nice FFG.

Having a set of knife companies define what a 'bushcraft' knife is supposed to be kind of irks me, it's really just a sales gimmick like the 'tactical' knife. I buy knives I think are useful for what I plan on using them for, and as of yet I've only owned one Scandi knife, a long Mora that I found less satisfying than a good Becker.

 

[stabman]

Come on man, your "I don't care" comment was pretty bad. It pretty much showed your morals, entitlement, and lack of common courtesy toward others. But, you did somewhat redeem yourself when you said you used the same spot and that you would clean up if you switched to a different spot. Really though, you should clean up every time you go camping and try to leave as little evidence of human use as possible. Leaving those concrete blocks, an intact shelter, or a pile if rubble/garbage IS against the law.

I pack out all garbage.
I even pack out the garbage that other people leave when they camp at the same spot (that happens from time to time where others end up using the same spot...never met anyone out there though).

The thing is, the deer out there don't mind the site; we've seen deer out there when we approached! They seem to accept it as part of nature.

I just get tired of the hypocrisy of those who say they leave no trace but drive a gas guzzling vehicle, live in a multi-room house, and consume so much more of everything than me.
I do not criticize their choices though...until they decide to dump on me for establishing a campsite that has provided so many years of joy.

The "I don't care" isn't so much about nature as me not caring to conform to their imposition of supposed morality.
Heck, after the initial clearing of the area, the vast majority of wood used out there is deadwood, because it is dry and burns better.
The shelter poles remain in place, because it took a lot of searching to find straight sections that would be suitable.

The steak cooking poles are cut new, but they are from the same area that was initially cleared, which grow back in quite quickly (the specific environment makes a HUGE difference in that regard).

The overall woods there is undisturbed, with one specific area that has a clearing suitable for camping.
And although pinnah and some others say how horrible they would find it, every person I have ever brought out there found it quiet, peaceful, magickal almost. You emerge into a nice clearing after struggling through dense growth that makes it impossible to walk a straight line for much at all.

Some people see a travesty.
Some people see a peaceful place to relax and escape the worries of the outside world.
Neither side will flip to the opposite view; that is life.

 

[RX-79G]

Come on man, your "I don't care" comment was pretty bad. It pretty much showed your morals, entitlement, and lack of common courtesy toward others. But, you did somewhat redeem yourself when you said you used the same spot and that you would clean up if you switched to a different spot. Really though, you should clean up every time you go camping and try to leave as little evidence of human use as possible. Leaving those concrete blocks, an intact shelter, or a pile if rubble/garbage IS against the law.

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

So is speeding and not reporting your mail order purchases on your taxes. When having this type of discussion a little proportionality is appropriate.

The woodsy public land I grew up near was always completely empty, despite being several hundred acres surrounded by suburbs. In ten years of running around in this land I found a single sign of any other human being, and never saw a live human being. I could have built a moonshine distillery that no one would ever suspect was there. People rarely go in the woods where there aren't trails, picnic tables or Scenic Vistas. The chances that any other human being is going to be discommoded by Stabman's camp is barely above zero.

I would be ecstatic if so many people were using the woods like Stabman that there was actually a measurable effect, because that would mean weren't spending all their time doing things that aren't so great for the environment, like buying yet another new Prius or their 40th factory made knife in a plastic bubble pack.

Time spent debating the environmental impact of bushcraft is time not spent banning pesticides, factory farming, disposable diapers, overuse of antibiotics, coal power plants, deforestation, honey bee die-offs, palm oil and fracking. Americans calling Stabman's activities "immoral" is the pot calling the snowball black. I applaud the man for getting off his ass and finding something to do that doesn't use electricity and encouraging the rest of us to do the same.

 

[Tachead7075]

I pack out all garbage.
I even pack out the garbage that other people leave when they camp at the same spot (that happens from time to time where others end up using the same spot...never met anyone out there though).

The thing is, the deer out there don't mind the site; we've seen deer out there when we approached! They seem to accept it as part of nature.

I just get tired of the hypocrisy of those who say they leave no trace but drive a gas guzzling vehicle, live in a multi-room house, and consume so much more of everything than me.
I do not criticize their choices though...until they decide to dump on me for establishing a campsite that has provided so many years of joy.

The "I don't care" isn't so much about nature as me not caring to conform to their imposition of supposed morality.
Heck, after the initial clearing of the area, the vast majority of wood used out there is deadwood, because it is dry and burns better.
The shelter poles remain in place, because it took a lot of searching to find straight sections that would be suitable.

The steak cooking poles are cut new, but they are from the same area that was initially cleared, which grow back in quite quickly (the specific environment makes a HUGE difference in that regard).

The overall woods there is undisturbed, with one specific area that has a clearing suitable for camping.
And although pinnah and some others say how horrible they would find it, every person I have ever brought out there found it quiet, peaceful, magickal almost. You emerge into a nice clearing after struggling through dense growth that makes it impossible to walk a straight line for much at all.

Some people see a travesty.
Some people see a peaceful place to relax and escape the worries of the outside world.
Neither side will flip to the opposite view; that is life.

That is good, I do the same. Leave it as you found it or better I was always taught.

Yep, many animals are great at adapting.

You are making assumptions though. You really dont know how anyone lives or how much they consume. Not to mention the discussion is about camping and using the forest not about carbon footprints or general consumption. But, just because you dont drive a car(for instance) doenst mean you get to shite on the crown land that everyone is entitled to enjoying and think you are better then those that do(not that you necessarily do this but, the "I dont care" sounded bad). Someone who cares about others and tries to not be wasteful or excessive at all things in life shows the better morality imo.

Thank you for clearing some things up with the rest of this post. It is good to hear you do have some good practices and try to minimize disturbance/impact. If I could make one suggestion it would be that you take all the shelter poles down before you leave and hide them in the bush for your next visit. That way the campsite stays cleaner and more natural for the next guy that may use the site but, you are still reusing the poles to minimize waste.

Sorry to rag on you man but, your "I dont care" post just really sounded bad and rubbed me and others the wrong way. I just think it is always important to consider others and their enjoyment especially when it comes to public land as it is for everyone to use.

 

[LukeTheSpook]

You guys really can't stop. Bushcrafter knives, remember?

 

[stabman]

You guys really can't stop. Bushcrafter knives, remember?

I never found the "Bushcraft" knives to do anything special, really.
They also aren't worse.

It allows for a thinner stock to still be rather stout due to the Scandi grind.
If the grind comes far enough back, it still cuts fine.

One positive thing is that many of them seem to be designed with attention to handle ergonomics; that's a good thing.
Of course, in order to cash in, there are also offerings that have too short a grind and have horrible handle ergonomics; that's a bad thing.

Overall though, it's just another category of knife, with some great ones, some crappy ones, and a bunch in between.

They really don't make you do "bushcraft" any better though, no matter what you consider that to entail.

I bought a couple because I like knives, and they are knives.

 

[RX-79G]

On topic, the "generic bushcrafter" is certainly a thing, but all the other knife styles that are readily embraced for bushcraft - even by those who own the OP type. Kephart, CBK, Beckers, Tops BOB, puukkos, Moras, etc are so common that the generic version of the OP is hardly in the majority.

The number one bushcraft knife is probably one of the Moras.

If anything, the bushcrafters seem to embrace more styles and grinds than you would expect. Considering a somewhat codified list of activities, that's pretty cool that different styles and grinds all do well.

 

[pinnah]

Social Justice keyboard Warriors aside, this thread asks an interesting question. My feelings on the 'generic' bushcraft knife is that I don't like it. It seems gimmicky and often overpriced for what you're getting. I find Scandi grinds harder to maintain in the wilderness than regular double-beveled FFG blades, and the Scandi grinds certainly don't look nearly as pretty as a nice FFG.

Having a set of knife companies define what a 'bushcraft' knife is supposed to be kind of irks me, it's really just a sales gimmick like the 'tactical' knife. I buy knives I think are useful for what I plan on using them for, and as of yet I've only owned one Scandi knife, a long Mora that I found less satisfying than a good Becker.

That bushcraft knives are gimmicky doesn't distinguish them in the knife world in any way. 90% of all knives sold are purchased based on some fantasy dream that never gets lived out. This includes SAKs and hunting knives and most certainly "survival" knives.

As for grinds, people have different opinions. I've yet to find and use a full flat grind knife (or hollow grind knife) that works wood as well as a convexed scandi or convexed sabre grind. I find the extra width behind the edges acts like a fulcrum, allowing for better control of the cutting angle.

Personally, I don't care for the so-called pure Scandi grind. As I understand it (happy to be corrected and maybe Thomas Linton can weigh in), the so-called Scandi grind is just an unfinished knife. The tradition is to convex and shape the grind on stones to match your preference. Some prefer high convex, some low convex. A pure Scandi is like a clean slate, with a lot of metal left on it, allowing the user to finish the grind to suit their preference.

Fully convexed blades (like my grandfather's old knife or that old Schrade or the convexed Mora below) are very easy to maintain in the field with simple stones. Generally speaking, a natural movement of the hand on the stone will impart the convexity near the edge.

Mora Companion by Pinnah, on Flickr

 

[Gaston444]

I think a difference of perspective is at issue here:

I just heard today from a very respected crime writer (Max Haines), who was asked:

"Are Canadian murders different from other countries? Is there something specifically Canadian about Canadian murders?"

And the crime writer answered, without hesitation: "Oh yes, they use the woods a lot more. Someone in New York, well he can't use the woods that much, but to a Canadian, they are everywhere."

I think in America, with a more dense population and heavier infrastructures, it is hard to imagine just how wild, deserted and untamed most Canadian woods are. Most Canadian woods you can't even walk into because the bushes are so thick from no one ever going there: This is right next to very big towns, and sometimes snaking into the big towns.... I'm guessing this is because the trees themselves are more sparsely limbed and leaved, so they let enough light to grow bushes under them: There are places you can actually walk, but unless you stick to trails, it is rarely easy, often very uneven and dangerous to ankles and whatnot.

It is still possible to use only deadfall, even if most of it is rotten, but once in a while de-limbing the bottom of a tree really helps to get some breathing room... In America I'm guessing finding pristine places is considerably more work, hence the difference in perspective.

Gaston

 

[RX-79G]

I used to fly a helicopter between Norfolk and Washington DC. Most of the East coast of the US is forest. We might have big cities, but even a New Yorker can get to a forest in an hour.



As far as Scandi grinds being "unfinished", most Scandi knives never get sharpened. They are purchased, used, and thrown out. If they were so objectionable I doubt that would happen.

The reality is likely that Scandinavians probably have the same debates and arrive at the same varied conclusions we do. It isn't like they don't work as is.

 

[pinnah]

I think a difference of perspective is at issue here:

I just heard today from a very respected crime writer (Max Haines), who was asked:

"Are Canadian murders different from other countries? Is there something specifically Canadian about Canadian murders?"

And the crime writer answered, without hesitation: "Oh yes, they use the woods a lot more. Someone in New York, well he can't use the woods that much, but to a Canadian, they are everywhere."

I think in America, with a more dense population and heavier infrastructures, it is hard to imagine just how wild, deserted and untamed most Canadian woods are. Most Canadian woods you can't even walk into because the bushes are so thick from no one ever going there: This is right next to very big towns, and sometimes snaking into the big towns.... I'm guessing this is because the trees themselves are more sparsely limbed and leaved, so they let enough light to grow bushes under them: There are places you can actually walk, but unless you stick to trails, it is rarely easy, often very uneven and dangerous to ankles and whatnot.

It is still possible to use only deadfall, even if most of it is rotten, but once in a while de-limbing the bottom of a tree really helps to get some breathing room... In America I'm guessing finding pristine places is considerably more work, hence the difference in perspective.

Gaston

Gaston,

I appears that the mods are willing to let this discussion continue so we'll proceed, albeit cautiously.

You raise a great point about the differences between Canadian and US literature and what it reveals about attitudes towards wild places. The way I've heard it described, the major theme US literature is the "frontier", which is to be tamed, while the major theme in Canadian literature is the "north", which is untameable. I've done a bit of travel in Canada, mostly in the Maritimes. Been to all 3 corners of Newfoundland and as far north as Cartwright, Labrador. Hiking/skiing in the Chic Chocs and in Gros Morne are on my bucket lists and yet to be done.

IMO, bushcraft and survival knives are both sold on the (faulty) mythology that there are pristine, untamed and unmanaged lands that are beyond hope of rescue and beyond the trappings of humanity. Even your choice of words, "pristine" reveal a deep connection to the Romantic movement in literature and art in which we have to view writers like Nessmuk.

The present day reality is much different. Touch any point on the map of North America and you find land that is both governed and either owned or managed. As I've said repeatedly (and rather self-evidently) when this topic has come up in other threads, camping techniques that rely on harvesting are allowed on public lands that they're allowed on. In both the US and Canada, I'm know there are public lands where it's allowed and that depends on the intended use of the public lands and the attending land-management practices. For example, in the USFS lands of New Hampshire, there are places where fires are permitted and places where they are not.

Likewise, there are places in Canada that are quite wild and remote and dangerous and yet, harvesting wood and plants for making shelters and fires is expressly prohibited. Gros Morne National Park is one such place according to their backcountry rules and regs.

The issue with these regulations is only partially about protecting the land. It is primarily about protecting the right of the next generation of people to encounter the land in a near "pristine" manner. If it was just about protecting the land, the rules wouldn't permit human access. But humans are allowed and the management practices are established to help ensure each generation gets to experience pristine (looking) wild places, or as close as we can come to that while still allowing humans in. The US National Parks and USFS Wilderness Areas (a specific legal definition) tend to have more restrictive use policies.

You are definitely right though about the difference culturally in thinking about these things and IMO it's also tied to population density and access. The US is more dense and our protected places are closer to our cities, so we get to see the ravages of overuse more quickly. The Whites of NH are getting increasingly trashed up by "bushcrafter" types, adding to the damage done by the "Bud Lite" crowd. Here's a picture of an ugly fire ring left behind near the summit of Mt. Garfield.
Stupid Fire Ring by Pinnah, on Flickr

In this way, your comment about cultural differences swings both ways. What can work up there in Canada shouldn't be advocated as being reasonable in many places down here. To this end, I would rather camp in a spot that was previously used by a devotee of Ray Jardine than one used by a devotee of Ray Mears (or Mors Kochanski).

Getting this back to the subject of the OP, I think the question of a bushcraft knife should be placed into a larger question of gear selection. We see 2 mistakes in NH all the time: too little and too much. Too little happens when people wander into the woods without the right gear or worse, without the right knowledge of what they're getting into. But too much happens when people, mostly out of fear and inexperience, bring too much and get weighed down by a too heavy pack.

IMO, a bushcraft knife is "too much", just as too much clothing is too much and just as too much food is too much. You can travel safely without it and in many ways, you can travel more safely without it. Chouinard correctly said, "Speed is safety" and in reverse, excess weight is a needless risk. The excess weight of a heavy knife is like the excess weight of a book or a set of juggling balls - nice if they provide amusement but they add risk with no huge value.

So, I don't typically carry a bushcraft knife in the woods. More likely to carry this.
Outdoor Carry by Pinnah, on Flickr

Winter ski trips where I want to feed a small twig stove (legal where I ski), I'll change out the Opinel for a Mora or that old Schrade.

 

[pinnah]

I used to fly a helicopter between Norfolk and Washington DC. Most of the East coast of the US is forest. We might have big cities, but even a New Yorker can get to a forest in an hour.

a) The technical term used by regional planners for what appeared to you as "forest" while up in the helicopter is "suburb".
b) There is no comparison to any woods within 3 hours drive of NYC and what you can find 3 hours outside of, say, Moncton, NB.

As far as Scandi grinds being "unfinished", most Scandi knives never get sharpened. They are purchased, used, and thrown out. If they were so objectionable I doubt that would happen.

The reality is likely that Scandinavians probably have the same debates and arrive at the same varied conclusions we do. It isn't like they don't work as is.

Suggest searching the archives on this subject by Thomas Linton. He's looked at this in more detail and reached very different conclusions.

 

[GREENJACKET]

I think the specific style you mean was really popularized by Ray Mears and the Woodlore knife he commissioned. I think it's a good design in many ways - versatile, comfortable, practical. However, it is definitely a jack-of-all-trades design, so not the best at almost any given task. For many users, like hobbyists or hunters, a more delicate knife - narrower blade, flat grind, stick tang would probably be adequate, but the whole "full tang or it's broken" thing just won't go away. On the other hand I think the fashion of bushcraft knives has something going for it over the knives they arguably replace: the 80s survival knife. You know the one: hollow handle, huge blade, serrations on the back.

I think both the bushcraft knife and the survival knife attract some serious users, but since they're popular, a far larger audience of people that might not use them very much at all. In either case, I like that the bushcraft designs are at heart practical, rather than flashy.

25 years ago I had the same argument with Ray Mears when he showed me his Woodlore Knife for the first time. I didn't like it then and I still don't.
It should have a slimmer, shorter and keener blade for cutting and carving.
The frontiers blades, of adventurers, explorers, and privateers, were a much more substantial knife and paired with a very thin and sharp patch knife. Otherwise they used normal kitchen and farming tools.
The traditional puukko was an eating tool. They had larger blades for work, or axes.

And I like a substantial lower guard on any large blade that might be pushed on. (Don't need it for a slasher, gollock or sheepsfoot).

Bushcraft Knives aren't all the same. A lot aren't for me.
As for firesteels! What is wrong with a bic lighter or matches?

 

[GREENJACKET]

Pinnah,
In the UK the whole Island is a managed land. Pure footfall brings plenty of permanent change/damage.
For camping in the wild then you take all you need and take it all out again.
Historically, the population here ate all deer and game in the UK at least twice to the point it had to be reintroduced and protected by the Monarchy! US shot and ate all the Passenger Pigeons in no time and nearly all the bison. We are not very good are we?
So I agree lets keep our chopping habits to our gardens, or for farming existing farmland.

Without support from civilisation, or at least a community, then a whole lot of the world isn't survivable in anything other than as a tourist for a very short time. Thats a well supplemented tourist. Anything more is a lovely fantasy. I regularly fantasise until hungry again.

So yes I completely agree, go and enjoy the great outdoors and thats best by travelling light. Show respect and leave no trace.

 

[RX-79G]

a) The technical term used by regional planners for what appeared to you as "forest" while up in the helicopter is "suburb".
b) There is no comparison to any woods within 3 hours drive of NYC and what you can find 3 hours outside of, say, Moncton, NB.



Suggest searching the archives on this subject by Thomas Linton. He's looked at this in more detail and reached very different conclusions.

If you and the regional planners where looking out the window from 1000 feet, you'd find the lack of roads and houses in all those trees rather surprising for a suburb.

I had read some of the Thomas Linton stuff before:
http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php/680120-Scandinavian-knives?highlight=scandi+grind

The principle is that a knife only used for woodwork does not have a secondary bevel. It needs to be very sharp and it needs to hold a low sharpening angle.

Right from the get go he posits that some scandi grinds have no secondary bevel or convexing.

Further posts about secondary bevels make it sound like the are a system to ease field sharpening, after the factory finish has dulled from use. After some time sharpening this way you sharpen the primary bevel again.


None of that sounds like Scandi knives are never used without modification. It sounds like it is a simple knife grind that is used in a variety of ways, including as ground. Who are you correcting when you say it never gets used in primary bevel form?

 

[pinnah]

If you and the regional planners where looking out the window from 1000 feet, you'd find the lack of roads and houses in all those trees rather surprising for a suburb.

You should look more closely. You have to work very hard to find a spot east of the Mississippi that is more than 5 miles from a maintained road in US. Just to be clear, I was being tongue in cheek here. You compared what you saw in the Mid-Atlantic region to the forests of Canada. There's no comparison. US forests are, by comparison, suburbs.

I had read some of the Thomas Linton stuff before:
http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php/680120-Scandinavian-knives?highlight=scandi+grind

Right from the get go he posits that some scandi grinds have no secondary bevel or convexing.

No, he doesn't. If you were to read that thread more carefully, you would see that Thomas is quoting a bunch of folks from Scandinavian countries, noting their lack of agreement on what is or is not a traditional scandi grind. Again, my understanding is that zero-edge flat "scandi" grind like you see on the Mora a) have popularity in the English import market (aka Mears) and b) tend to end up getting convexed (including a convexed secondary bevel) when sharpened by hand in Scandanvian countries.

None of that sounds like Scandi knives are never used without modification. It sounds like it is a simple knife grind that is used in a variety of ways, including as ground. Who are you correcting when you say it never gets used in primary bevel form?

Again, you should read more slowly. I never wrote that. Perhaps you are thinking of somebody else. I said the traditional way to sharpen so-called scandi blades is on a stone, by hand in which case they evolve to a convexed grind to suit the user's taste. I never said never.

 

[kamagong]

Again, my understanding is that zero-edge flat "scandi" grind like you see on the Mora a) have popularity in the English import market (aka Mears) and b) tend to end up getting convexed (including a convexed secondary bevel) when sharpened by hand in Scandanvian countries.

This idea of a "traditional" scandi grind always makes me chuckle. I have a couple of Moras, a 106 and a Robust. Per Mora, the 106 is a carver. It has a zero edge. On the other hand the Robust is meant to do more than whittle on soft woods. It has a visible microbevel, put on at the factory for added robustness. It's evident that the scandi grind and the slavish devotion to its purity is a modern invention.