What is a big knife for?

[Thomas Linton]

Put the right bevel on it and it can.... If I can get a picture of mine, I'll send it to you.

I am sure you are right. I need to do that. If INFI performs as advertised, the need for an obtuse bevel is not apparent.

I have an INFICoot, and it cuts just fine, but it's virtually full-flat ground.

 

[Ebbtide]

Jim the sheep horn knife is a little skinner by Russ Easler

ATS 34 and mosaic pins too!
It is a sweet little knife.
==============================================
So how come all of the batonning pictures have logs with saw cut ends and no one recommends carrying a saw?

 

[Cliff Stamp]

One thing is for sure there is public perception and fear of large blades. Its ingrained in us from childhood by people and the media that blades are wrong. So it makes sense that the larger the wrong the more negative attention it gets.

The discussion used to be balanced, Mike Swaim for example on rec.knives wrote frequently both on the cutting ability of small blades and the chopping ability of large ones, machetes and khukuris mainly. The rants against big blades are the same as the rants against "concrete" chopping, they have nothing to do with a fear of large blades.

What is big and small of course differs, in Fike's video he constantly refers to a knife with a 16" blade as a small knife but this is from a sword perspective. I have showed a Battle Mistress to a maker who forges parangs and he described it as a small knife, not for "serious" work, and he is right given what he meant for it to do, lots of brush work with a blade that small is tiring.

Arguing that "thick" knives can't cut well is just silly when you consider blades from people like Fikes and watch the guys in the ABS competitions, and if you are not into swords and such then just look at Boye who used up to 3/8" stock in really small knives (4" blades), but they in general cut very well because he understood primary grinds.

Really thin knives are good on some media of course, I have knives with 0.050" thick blades, they cut really binding materials like thick cardboard much better than the Ratweiler.

I can split a minimum of 10 times faster with a large blade with little effort and no wedge making ...

Depends on the wood, if it is well seasoned and cracked open, and you have a bunch of wedges, which can be easy to make in some conditions, the wedges could be faster. You could have one knife and a dozen guys, you can then split a massive amount of wood by just giving them wedges. You can fly apart a large log like that in a chain gang, it is pretty amusing to do, you start at one end and basically just hit the wedges like a wave and CRACK the log falls apart. You really can't do anything like that with just one axe or knife.

Survival isn't always just about what you can do and it doesn't take much skill to pound a wedge in a crack, but giving a novice a big blade or axe and asking him to split wood could end up with another survival situation as they mangle themselves. I have seen wood though which was so horrible that you can actually split it faster with a long knife by batoning than with a maul. You can't really bind a large blade in wood, you just have to hit it hard and I have however seen wood take a maul and two wedges and refuse to split.

I find it curious that advocacy of a "big" knife for survival purposes gets (crudely) panned as irational by some when a "big" knife is advocated by Ray Mears, John "Lofty" Wiseman, and Ron Hood.

Not to mention the constant references as to the use of scandinavian knives as if they were the only culture who used knives. What is more amusing is citing Mears which is frequent in the arguements against long knives when he appreciates both types of knives. I would be curious as to his take on knives with primary grinds vs the scandinavian bevels, I really can't see how anyone would favor that style of grind against multi-bevels, aside from cost of course.

all these tasks for me are served better by a small axe and not as well by a big long and thick knife.

How thick is the poll on your axe, does it make it a poor cutting tool, why not? When people discuss axes do they frequently measure the thickness of the poll and then use this to judge how the axe cuts? What does the bit of a hardwood axe look like compared to a soft wood axe? Is the "thick" bit on the soft wood axe a bad thing or does it make it actually cut the wood better?

I like axes too, have a bunch of them, use them frequently, cut down over ten cords of wood a year with them, limb it out and split it. Would much rather use a parang to limb out the trees and the surrounding brush, and would never choose a small 3-4" knife to do any of that efficiently.

Use a saw to buck it mainly, though I bucked over a thousand rounds this year with blades and small axes, time consuming but way more fun than using a swede saw, though if I had as many high end swede saws as I had axes/knives I might feel different.

I have seen Mors Kochanski take his 12.00 Mora and quickly split two wood wedges off of a 12" Spruce log. Started a crack with his mora and a baton and 1 minutes later we had 6 peices of fire wood.

I have seen lots of wood eat wedges, twisted grain, chain and rings knots, I split some wood yesterday that had starburst patterns, those are kind of interesting to split. Surely Mors noted to you that there are massive differences in wood types and what seasoning can do to grain and that often wood can require multiple wedges or wedges of different tapers (just like axes need different grinds) and wedges can break (really easy if you consider stress in a survival situation) and other methods can be more optimal. He did show you how to use a large knife and have you try both on a wide variety of woods right and see which methods match your skill and physical ability and then tell you how someone with a different level of skill and physical ability would find different methods optimal. And he of course showed you quality examples of large knives made for wood working not some large tactical knife like a SOG SEAL and use that as an example of why "thick" knives don't cut well.

Safer for me in a thicket than swinging a heavy deflectable and sharp object.

Jim Aston, one of the heaviest proponents of the scandinavian grind, discusses dangers of long blades in clearing heavy brush, he however does not use this to advocate switching to a light utility knives and cutting the sticks individually using two hands. I would really like to see that arguement pitched to a native using a parang, bolo, golok, khukuri, machete, etc. . Watch Mear's "in the jungle" use long knives on both leafy and woody vegetation, while he has his scandinavian blade on his belt.

I could make a very thin bevel on the Camp Tramp but I'd still have a big thick heavy blade with a somewhat silly edge.

The edge would be thinner than on the Mora not thicker. To be specific, for the edge on a typical 1/8" scandinavian blade to just equal the thickness of the edge on my battle Mistress the bevel has to be 0.65" wide, because that is how high you have to go on the Busse for it to hit 1/8". Mine was one of the early ones with thicker stock, the new ones have thinner spines and thus the primary profile is actually thinner. You can actually see what that edge looks like in the pictures of my Battle Mistress because the edge I run on it is actually more acute than the edge on your Mora's unless you have modified them.

As an aside, awhile back Matt Lamey dropped me an email about spending some time with Fikes and wanting me to have a look at one of his knives, I asked him would it be alright if I did a passaround, he had no objections. If he does find the time I intend to do it. I would really like to see all the anti-long blade guys participate in the pass around.

-Cliff

 

[Temper]

I mentioned a saw in my first post

 

[ranger88]

The blades on the regular cheap Moras are about 1/10th of an inch. The tang construction is either a through tang riveted at the back or a hidden tang. They look flimsy but I have beaten the hell out of my plastic handled model and it is still going strong.

Some of the heavier built scandi-knives start at .125 thick and up and have a substantial pommel that the tang is riveted on to at the back with a hefty brass guard up front. A few are even full tanged.

What I had half hoped for when starting this thread was a more factual discussion of how knives are actually used and for what purpose rather than a big bash up....(well maybe some good natured sparks) maybe I named the thread wrong?

I bought an 8" Leuku blade and will make it up into a big knife just because I like the look of it. I am hoping that it will be a usable design it has a fairly thin blade compared to something like my Trail Master. Hoping it will be a good wood worker and a decent butcher knife. Cleaning caribou I use the Inuit method of skinning before gutting and then taking off the front and rear legs and a nice big thin knife is a good thing for long cuts. Also be a good tool for snowhouse making. 10,000 Laplanders can't be wrong!

A long thick knife is more of a puzzler to me although I know some people really like them. Truth be told I really like my Camp Tramp but I never take it anywhere... It seems too big to have precision and not in the same league as a small axe if you need real power. I love that resiprene handle and maybe I'll take it out more and see what it can do for me. Seems a shame to leave it in the bag but I am a bit skeptical about it's real utility.

Yeah, I get what you're saying, Now that I think about it. Back in my (in the woods every day) days, I never carried more than a good Barlow in my pocket. If I needed to chop down a tree, I took a hatchet.

I own some pretty big knives, but I must admit that finding a use for them is sometimes hard in every day experience. Believe it or not, cooking is where I use large knives the most. Old Hickery. :thumbup:

 

[ranger88]

3rd from left is a SWedish Army Knife
Next is a IJ1244
6th is a Helle Jegermester.
On the extreme right is a Marbles Woodcraft.

Thanks! Great pic. It answers my question. :thumbup:

 

[North61]

Cliff I never claimed that the only culture who invented knives were Scandinavians however...the culture with the longest metal working technologies in an area with fauna like the forest where I live is Scandinavian.

As for Mors Kochanski he was a house guest for five days as I organized a 5 day training session for our community. He taught us knife use for one of these days. I actually show'd him my Camp Tramp and he just looked a bit embarrassed and was too polite to say anything too specific. He handed it back after about 2.3 seconds of perusal. He had a big bag full of knives to show us what to look for in knife construction and design and then we worked on all sorts of excercises making things with knives. After the end of the day our hardware was out of Moras and almost the whole class showed up with 10.00 Moras strung on their necks. No one brought a machete.

Mors also talked about axes and saws. He did mention the Leuku design but didn't spend much time on it as when he wanted to Chop he had an axe. He liked an old Norland hatchet too. Mors is a pretty open minded guy with a lot of experience...if someone had demonstrated a superior use of a big thick knife he would adopt and share it.

He also wanted us to experiment and try different methods... so I will but I am biased going in as my past experience has frankly left me unimpressed and puzzled by the utility of a big knife.

A big saw....yes
A big Axe....yes (well at least 3/4)
A big Knife? I just don't know. Seems like the gee whiz gene talking and not practicality. (THIS IS BASED ON USE IN THE BOREAL FOREST and above the treeline...what works anywhere else I have no idea)

I like having my heavily reprofiled Trailmaster by my side when it's dark and I am alone in the Forest. It's a comfort. However, precision with a 9" blade no matter how thin is iffy and power is way under the 3/4 axe. In fact it is so inferior to both a palm sized thin blade profiled for wood and an axe profiled for power that to me it frankly sucks at both. That is the curse of a generalized jack of all trades....it is a master at none.

At least that's what it looks like for me today.

When I take the family out I have a Mora around my neck and a Gransfors in my belty pack. Your mileage may vary.

 

[Ebbtide]

I mentioned a saw in my first post

My comment was not directed personally at you
Your photo, however reminded me of the question that I've been meaning to ask.

 

[North61]

Did someone say Saw?

This big cross cut saw from Sweden works like a dream..It's hard to beat equipment designed for specific use.

For under a half dozen medium size logs this is faster than my chainsaw as I don't have to fart around starting it and gassing it up.

 

[Thomas Linton]

Saws:thumbup:

 

[Necroshine]

Put the right bevel on it and it can.... If I can get a picture of mine, I'll send it to you.

:thumbup: I can second that!

 

[mogmz]

I use anywhere from a 3.5" - 4.5" blade for about 75% of my total knife needs. That other 25% usually involves(for me) removing branches for shooting lanes out of various trees for deer stands, and chopping up larger size fallen branches for fire wood. For those times, I prefer a 12" machete or other large bush blade that is of thinner stock, 1/8" - 3/16" or so. Mostly this is becuase I can chop the tree limbs more controlably than with a hatchet 14 ft. up a tree, and faster than with a small saw or belt knife.

I carry it on my back with a strap that is slung over my shoulder. I dont even notice that its there most of the time. As opposed to a large blade hanging from my belt.

It really depends on what your actual uses for a knife are. Different people use their blades for different purposes.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

A big Knife? I just don't know. Seems like the gee whiz gene talking and not practicality.

Parangs, bolos, goloks etc. are simple working designs, forged and used by people making dollars a month, practical is the nature of the blade used for a very long time by many cultures as working tools, not status symbols. The nature of the primary grind design with tapers in both blade and handle, is far more performance based than a flat stamped blade with an edge grind which is designed that way because it is cheap and easy to make, not because it actually works better than a primary grind on suitable stock. A 1/8" blade with no primary grind weighs the same as a flat ground 1/4" blade of the same width, and the 1/8" blade is a lot weaker.

Yes if you take a stock Camp Tramp and compare it to a Mora 2000 for light wood working then yes the Camp Tramp will be outperformed, but not because the spine is thicker and not by some huge margin. The edges are what cut and the edge profiles are not as different as what is often implied. The standard scandinavian blades are 1/8" thick and so is the edge because there is no primary grind and the edges are 10/11 degrees per side. The standard blades from Swamp Rat and Busse Combat are around 0.035" thick at the edge which are thus a third the thickness (even the thickest ones I have seen are still well under half) and ground from 15-20 degrees per side.

If you take thicker blade stock and use primary and distal tapers you get a much more versatile, much stronger knife which is also much easier to sharpen. All you have to do with the Camp Tramp is adjust the angle, and you can even ask for that when you order it, and then they will cut wood just as well as a typical scandinavian blade, just like axes cut wood very well even though the polls are very thick assuming the edge profile matches the properties of the wood.

Yes if all you do is light carving then you are better off with a smaller knife, flat stock isn't the optimal design though, a lot of the scandinavian group has moved onto the full convex ground blades as they will cut better and be far more versatile. But it isn't the convex vs flat that is making the difference, it is flat stock vs primary grind. And yes if you carry an axe, saw and small blade you probably are not going to want much for a parang or machete, especially if you go into it thinking it has no value because you will never see the abilities it provides because they are only visible once you realize what the blade can do, same as any other tool.

I have showed many japanese saws to friends who are carpenters, some appreciate them once they realize you can't use them the same way, others use them just like western saws which isn't productive and can even break them and they fail to see the ability of the saws. The first long blade I used was a khukuri, which I bought more on a lark than anything else and I used it to see what it could do not caring one way or the other about if it was better than the axe I was familiar with, just seeing what I could learn from it, same thing I do with any blade I take out now and I still learn new things to do with them and about them every time I do. They are all good at something, they are just tools and are only as useful as the person whose hand holds them.

-Cliff

 

[Kevin the grey]

Man what an interesting thread . I,ve been away too long .

If we look ar any advantage as having disadvantages and vice versa then whether size matters is a moot point . Preference ,job at hand , hand size , strength , even eye to hand coordination could all play a role in what we would choose and perplex us as to a differing opinion as to choice .

My preference is for smaller knives due to portability , concealment and hand size . Skill can do more with less . This does not make having more less desireable . A three inch stout blade will do wonders for me . I also like a 16 inch Kukuuri at times . Go figure .

 

[North61]

Cliff you make a good analogy about the Japanese saws... I started using them years ago and if you learn how to use them they are an amazing tool.

I like tools...My dad would drag me to the hardware from before I could walk and it eventually took. The garage at home was like a messy shrine filled with cool stuff and possibilities.

I'll play with my big knives some more and try to keep an open mind. Won't stop being a scandiphile though!

 

[oldsalt]

Just food for thought. I ran across a story about David Alloway the other day. He liked to carry a CS SRK as a survival knife. While not a "Big" knife it is slightly more substantial than a Mora. On one of his hikes he found himself in a box end canyon and had to climb a wall to get out. He used the SRK as a make shift peton to aid in his climb. Not something that you would encounter everyday, agreed, but also not something you could use an axe for nor would I want to trust my 200 plus pounds to a Mora blade in that type of scenario.
OldSalt

 

[Temper]

In my experience (and I live in areas of mostly Cedar, Birch and Beech with smatterings of other deciduous trees) I can not really see a real advantage in a knife with such thin stock.

We know that geometry plays as big a part in the cutting ability as the stock thickness, so what scenarios can you think of that would warrant such a thin stock blade, and in what parts of the world would it be mostly suited to?

We also know that the Scandinavians are very good at producing tools for their intended purpose. But in all honesty, is our intended purpose (Wilderness survival) the same as the 'design brief' for a Mora or Mora style knives? Which, is that of a cutting tool, how many of us see more than that in a knife, I know I certainly do.

 

[ranger88]

Did someone say Saw?

This big cross cut saw from Sweden works like a dream..It's hard to beat equipment designed for specific use.

For under a half dozen medium size logs this is faster than my chainsaw as I don't have to fart around starting it and gassing it up.

I don't think I ever saw a saw like that saw. How well does that saw saw?

 

[North61]

That saw is army surplus from Sweden and has retired my chain saw for weekly wood cutting. Takes twice as long but I am building muscle and saving gas. Much less bindy than a tensioned swede saw and cuts faster.

 

[Horse]

"Telling folks who have been using "big" blades (sometimes for centuries) "

There are people here that are hundreds of years old?