What specific knife features do you require on a Bush Craft Knife?

[Elen]

I think that you could make an argument that the Scadinavians knives aquired their recognizable form because they was cheap and easy to make them that way. (To me, many Scandi's have too much handle and not enough steel, but steel was precious back in the day.) Same with the seax and the old "long knife" of early America. America may have only been here for a few centuries, but their knives were not, for the most part, invented here. An original big bowie is, depending on the style, either an improved seax or Mediterrenean dirk with a fair bit of influence from a single edged broadword and a saber. A dagger is, well, a dagger derived from European designs which were derived from Roman, Greek, Celtic and other early designs. Same with the drop point knives, nesmuks, etc., although i often wonder if the Nesmuk and Green River skinner were discovered by accident by guys who didn't know that the blade curved up when you forge the bevels If you think about Europeans blades and this includes the Scandinavian stuff, cheap blades did not have guards or complicated blade shapes and fittings. Expensive ones did. You cannot ignore the fact that the REALLY expensive blades were designed in part or in whole for combat, but the fact remains that the pricey stuff had guards, pommels, etc.

The reason for the short, narrow tangs in Scandi knives is exactly the price and rarity of steel: since a larger tang would "waste" steel without providing critically better performance in the work the knife was expected to handle, it was left out so as to save expensive steel. The grind of Scandi knives has two main goals: ease of field sharpening, and effectiveness in wood carving. I'm not aware of price being a factor in the choice of grinds, although it has certainly been that in tang design.

As for the origins of American designs, it's worth noting that old designs can be easily discarded if they're found unsuitable by the people that use them. Seeing how America was colonized by Europeans, it's quite logical that the knives (like all other tools) would have large European influences if they weren't entirely European in design. However, the fact that guards, ricassos and choils are still hugely popular in American designs suggests that Americans in general have some desire for these features, or at least do not have a raging hatred against them. Scandinavians, on the other hand, are much more opposed to guards, and even more so than guards, ricassos and choils. The reasons for this you can see in this thread: a number of American members have mentioned wanting a guard, ricasso, choil or all of these on their knife for reasons such as safety, but not a single Scandinavian has mentioned wanting any of these features. That's not statistically valid in any way, of course, but it does echo my experiences that Americans in general feel more comfortable with guards on knives while Scandinavians in general don't want guards getting in the way.

As for the cheap knives versus expensive knives issue, that is very simple indeed. Cheap knives are work knives - and in work knives, you want performance, not looks, and therefore you want to get rid of anything that hinders performance in work, meaning throwing out choils, ricassos and guards. If that makes the work knife cheaper to make, so much the better! Expensive knives, typically, are decorative knives, ritual knives, or weapons for noblemen - these all need features designed for combat effectiveness, and also for show and prestige, but performance in "common" work is something that makers of such knives traditionally haven't had to consider much at all. Hence, it would be very unfair to say that the only reason, or the best reason, for leaving out guards and choils is the fact that it would give a simpler construction cheaper to manufacture. Quite to the contrary, the form of Scandinavian knives is what it is today simply because that form offers the best performance in the tasks Scandinavians have traditionally used their knives. The limitation of steel being expensive has since then been removed, but it is true that the habit of giving knives weaker tangs to save steel still remains, out of tradition, even though there is no need these days to save the steel so desperately. Of course, there is a good side to a light tang, it's not all negatives. It makes the knife somewhat lighter in weight, which is good in a tool that you're going to be holding a lot of the time. Personally, though, I wouldn't mind owning a Busse Puukko.

 

[jdm61]

The reason for the short, narrow tangs in Scandi knives is exactly the price and rarity of steel: since a larger tang would "waste" steel without providing critically better performance in the work the knife was expected to handle, it was left out so as to save expensive steel. The grind of Scandi knives has two main goals: ease of field sharpening, and effectiveness in wood carving. I'm not aware of price being a factor in the choice of grinds, although it has certainly been that in tang design.

As for the origins of American designs, it's worth noting that old designs can be easily discarded if they're found unsuitable by the people that use them. Seeing how America was colonized by Europeans, it's quite logical that the knives (like all other tools) would have large European influences if they weren't entirely European in design. However, the fact that guards, ricassos and choils are still hugely popular in American designs suggests that Americans in general have some desire for these features, or at least do not have a raging hatred against them. Scandinavians, on the other hand, are much more opposed to guards, and even more so than guards, ricassos and choils. The reasons for this you can see in this thread: a number of American members have mentioned wanting a guard, ricasso, choil or all of these on their knife for reasons such as safety, but not a single Scandinavian has mentioned wanting any of these features. That's not statistically valid in any way, of course, but it does echo my experiences that Americans in general feel more comfortable with guards on knives while Scandinavians in general don't want guards getting in the way.

As for the cheap knives versus expensive knives issue, that is very simple indeed. Cheap knives are work knives - and in work knives, you want performance, not looks, and therefore you want to get rid of anything that hinders performance in work, meaning throwing out choils, ricassos and guards. If that makes the work knife cheaper to make, so much the better! Expensive knives, typically, are decorative knives, ritual knives, or weapons for noblemen - these all need features designed for combat effectiveness, and also for show and prestige, but performance in "common" work is something that makers of such knives traditionally haven't had to consider much at all. Hence, it would be very unfair to say that the only reason, or the best reason, for leaving out guards and choils is the fact that it would give a simpler construction cheaper to manufacture. Quite to the contrary, the form of Scandinavian knives is what it is today simply because that form offers the best performance in the tasks Scandinavians have traditionally used their knives. The limitation of steel being expensive has since then been removed, but it is true that the habit of giving knives weaker tangs to save steel still remains, out of tradition, even though there is no need these days to save the steel so desperately. Of course, there is a good side to a light tang, it's not all negatives. It makes the knife somewhat lighter in weight, which is good in a tool that you're going to be holding a lot of the time. Personally, though, I wouldn't mind owning a Busse Puukko.

I think that originally, what you wanted in a steel work knife was ANY knife at all. If it worked well, even better. You do make an interesting point. Perhaps the Americans who are in this discussion do not really think about having a "bushcraft" knife to do the same things as Europeans do. I see this with my British comrades too. To me, the ability of a field knife to do fine woodworking is not near the top of my list of requirements. I may never attempt to carve a wooden spoon in my life, but if i did, i would probably want to use a purpose made woodcarving knife. I stated that I would prefer a 4-5 inch hunter, but realistically, if i could only carry one knife into the woods, it would probably be a bit larger. One VERY interesting point that you made is that one does not need a super thick full tang in order to have a knive that can tolerate hard use. My hidden tangs, especially on my big knives, are a bit burlier than the really short and thin tangs that I have seen on some knives, but they are still hidden.

 

[udtjim]

Short answer. Just about any Mora.

 

[Elen]

I think that originally, what you wanted in a steel work knife was ANY knife at all. If it worked well, even better. You do make an interesting point. Perhaps the Americans who are in this discussion do not really think about having a "bushcraft" knife to do the same things as Europeans do. I see this with my British comrades too. To me, the ability of a field knife to do fine woodworking is not near the top of my list of requirements. I may never attempt to carve a wooden spoon in my life, but if i did, i would probably want to use a purpose made woodcarving knife. I stated that I would prefer a 4-5 inch hunter, but realistically, if i could only carry one knife into the woods, it would probably be a bit larger. One VERY interesting point that you made is that one does not need a super thick full tang in order to have a knive that can tolerate hard use. My hidden tangs, especially on my big knives, are a bit burlier than the really short and thin tangs that I have seen on some knives, but they are still hidden.

One of the obvious results of the scarcity and high price of steel back in the days was that you couldn't make many tools out of it, because you didn't have much of it. You need an axe for wood, so you had to have that and spend some steel on that. You need a sword or spear, perhaps, for warfare, and that took a lot of steel. After these things, the leftover steel you could use on other tools: basically, a knife that had to do everything that the axe and sword wouldn't do. It had to be able to carve tools out of wood, serve as an eating utensil, dress game, and a variety of other things - because you wouldn't have any other tool for precise wood work, nor fancy metal forks, spoons and steak knives. In this sense, the Scandis are the ultimate poor man's knives - they're meant to do the tasks of many tools and do so extremely well. Because almost all other tools had a wooden component to them, wood working performance was critically important to Scandi small knife design. Now, one might think that as work knives, they were just thrown together as quickly and sloppily as possible, but that couldn't be farther from the truth. There were skilled bladesmiths working in Scandinavia back when Columbus was just a glint in the milkman's eye. The fact that steel was precious meant that you couldn't waste it on crap designs that wouldn't perform or survive the use - quite the opposite, in fact. You had to make it good. Now, since people couldn't afford to make very many blades due to the scarcity of steel, the knifemakers actually could spend more time on the individual knife than they could have if steel would have been more common and inexpensive. So, they had time to work on the knives, they had a strong demand for high performance knives, and they had quite a lot of skill in spite of not living in the Holy Roman Empire. Why would they not make good knives? Granted, there are some that have had a history of hastily made, poorly performing cheap knives due to such things as lack of skill or motivation, but Scandinavians aren't those people, in spite of us being viewed, historically, as barbarians by many of the more continental European peoples.

The tang size thing is indeed, I think, a bit overblown. Sure, a full tang is stronger, but how much stronger? Unless one is going to chop concrete and pry car doors, it is pretty hard to break a decently made hidden tang knife if it has been designed for rougher use. I think the Ka-Bar Heavy Bowies are pretty good examples of this.

About the whole One Knife thing that often comes up - "if you could carry only one", and so on - it's interesting to note that Scandi small knives are really expected to always go with an axe. They really aren't batoning or chopping knives in any sense. The idea traditionally was that a man has an axe and a knife and with these two tools can tackle all tasks rather well, without spending too much steel in their making or carrying too much weight. If, for some reason, I was to be tossed out into some remote patch of woods to live off the land and was only allowed to take one bladed tool with me, then that would not be a Scandi knife. If, on the other hand, I could have one knife and one axe, then I'd probably take a Scandi knife to go with a very large axe.

 

[Mtn Hawk]

As I say, the choil is a relic feature more derived from swords than work knives. A choil does in fact increase precision with huge chopping knives, and on those it's all good. A choil also increases precision on smaller knives that have guards or extensive ricassos on them, but in these cases, the increase in precision comes packed with a decrease in ergonomics. That's the problem with choils. They will always decrease ergonomics, and won't allow for a grip any more precise than the knife would have if it was relieved of excessive guards and ricassos. The only exception to this I can see are knives with blades much wider than the handles, in which case a choil will allow you to take your grip much closer to the cutting edge for precision, but again, for the price of losing ergonomic comfort.

Most knives have the capacity to perform many functions. Whether more than one of these functions is utilized is, of course, up to the user. It's also up to the user to determine what is the best grip for each of these functions. This is limited by what type of grips the knife design will allow, and safety. Considering each possible function, the way the user chooses to hold the knife for each function, and the possible types of grips the knife design will allow for each function, there can be many ways to hold a knife. While I certainly agree with you that a choil is not necessary on short blade knives, say under 3.5", I cannot agree with your generalizations about how knives are held, as if there are only one or a few functions a knife can perform and only one specific grip to be used for each function.

In reality, there are some functions I can perform better using the choil and some I can perform better using the handle. If using a choil was "packed with a decrease in ergonomics" I certainly would not use it, as I am not an idiot. Having the option to use either the choil or handle makes a knife much more efficient and versatile.

Many of the best-designed and highest-quality fixed-blade knives I've seen and used have choils. I'd have to wonder why the makers and manufacturers of these knives go to the extra effort and expense of putting a choil on a blade if they weren't a desirable and useful feature.

...the most important thing, as I see it, is to use what feels right for you, while remembering to occasionally experiment in order to, perhaps, find something that works for you even better still.

True.

Why not just leave it at this regarding choils?

It means nothing to me whether a person likes choils or not. That's an individual decision. But I don't like to see them put down. Some people who have never used choils and know nothing about them might read these posts and think they are useless or worse than useless, and never experiment to see if they are beneficial.

 

[Liam Ryan]

For me a handle that makes it feel like an extension of my hand is a must, as is a good balance.
I have also discovered a convex edge and 4-5 inches of blade length are my major considerations.
Right now the BRKT Fox River fits the bill nicely.

 

[Elen]

Most knives have the capacity to perform many functions. Whether more than one of these functions is utilized is, of course, up to the user. It's also up to the user to determine what is the best grip for each of these functions. This is limited by what type of grips the knife design will allow, and safety. Considering each possible function, the way the user chooses to hold the knife for each function, and the possible types of grips the knife design will allow for each function, there can be many ways to hold a knife. While I certainly agree with you that a choil is not necessary on short blade knives, say under 3.5", I cannot agree with your generalizations about how knives are held, as if there are only one or a few functions a knife can perform and only one specific grip to be used for each function.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Certainly knives are intended to have many functions, if by function you mean working on different materials - on small knives, chopping and such are hardly intended functions. For the functions a small knife is intended to perform, there are of course a number of effective grips that can be used - but none of them that I know of would absolutely require a choil to perform, and most would be either less comfortable or simply much less efficient with a knife that has a choil on it. Now, if you were referring to knives that have guards, then certainly you will get no argument from me that the choil can allow for better grips (in terms of precision, not in terms of ergonomics, which will suffer in such use), because that's the way it is, and there's no way around it - if there's a guard in the way, then you can't get a good grip on the handle for highest precision tasks, and a choil will allow you to take your grip beyond the guard and right next to the cutting edge for the best precision. I'm not saying, at all, that choils are useless or a hindrance in all knives. In fact, I'm saying they're quite useful in large, blade heavy knives, and also useful on smaller knives that have swordlike features such as guards and extended ricassos on them that prevent proper precision grips on the handle. And the other thing I'm saying is that on knives that have been designed from the ground up for precision work, not impact work or combat use, choils, ricassos and guards have absolutely no place in terms of performance and ergonomics - their only benefit is added safety, and that is only a benefit to those who need the added safety, even at the cost of performance and ergonomics. If guardless knives were so dangerous, Scandinavians would've slaughtered themselves into extinction already with their guardless, dangerous knives, but somehow, such a grim fate has been avoided.

In reality, there are some functions I can perform better using the choil and some I can perform better using the handle. If using a choil was "packed with a decrease in ergonomics" I certainly would not use it, as I am not an idiot. Having the option to use either the choil or handle makes a knife much more efficient and versatile.

I'm thinking you're referring to knives that have guards on them, here. If so, I agree - on such knives, choils can help performance in tasks that require precision for reasons previously mentioned. If you refer to knives that haven't got guards, large ricassos and such, then I strongly disagree, and would very much like to see even just one function (short of scraping a firesteel on the choil notch) that you could do better with such a knife if it had a choil on it. There are very few such functions, and in the majority are those functions that will suffer from the presence of a choil.

Actually, I'm guessing that you use a choil because you're smart - because in such knives that you have come to use, you have a finger guard preventing a handle grip right next to the cutting edge, and therefore using a choil will give you the higher precision that you want in some tasks, even if a choil certainly isn't as comfortable as a good handle would be to hold. There is such a thing as false versatility, though: something that appears more versatile by virtue of design, but in reality, makes many tasks more difficult, and few tasks easier than they would be otherwise. In my experience, a choil on small knives meant for precision work is exactly such a false versatility feature. Again, in larger knives or knives with sword features such as guards, sure, a choil provides much needed versatility! If you want, for example in carving wood with the tip of the knife, to move your grip closer to the tip of the blade, a choil helps in that, certainly, and for novice users, will be safer than a choilless knife in such work. On the other hand, novice users should probably not try that, or they're likely to get hurt. Further, if you want your grip as far forward as possible, then the choil will no longer help at all. And rest assured, you can move your grip far forward with a choilless knife. Here's an annoyingly small picture that presents a close-to-tip wood carving grip I lifted from somewhere. It's a grip that I've used a lot, that works quite well in fact, and while it looks a bit risky, it isn't, if you know how to do it.

Many of the best-designed and highest-quality fixed-blade knives I've seen and used have choils. I'd have to wonder why the makers and manufacturers of these knives go to the extra effort and expense of putting a choil on a blade if they weren't a desirable and useful feature.

Many of the highest-quality knives I've seen have had thick blade coatings on stainless steel blades. The coatings in fact decrease cutting performance a little, but the benefits are added protection from corrosion and a supposedly cool tactical look. This isn't a jab at tactical knives - I have a lot of coated blade type of knives myself, and on some, I really like to have a coating, especially if it will see saltware use. The point is, knifemakers are quite human and make compromises, and are likely to consider the needs of their target audience. If, for example, their target audience really feels that knives need a guard to be safe, then they will add guards to their knives. And if they're smart, at that point they'll realize their knife just lost some of the precision it could have had without the guard. And after that point, a lot of them are going to slap a choil on the blade as a band-aid to improve precision again. It's a vicious circle. As I've said, choils are a useful feature on certain types of knife. My argument is, in a nutshell, that the types of knife that can make use of a choil are the types of knife one wouldn't want for precision work (and precision work is pretty much what I would use a small to medium knife for, since the axe or a larger chopping knife will handle all else): knives intended for combat use involving lots and lots of stabbing, or knives intended for users that are not yet confident that they won't cut themselves up with their knife (needless to say, the latter group isn't too likely to attempt anything that requires much precision or skill). If that sounded harsh, then it's probably because it was - but that's the way things are. All things, including choils, have positives to them, but it's quite another question whether the positives outweigh the negatives.

True.

Why not just leave it at this regarding choils?

It means nothing to me whether a person likes choils or not. That's an individual decision. But I don't like to see them put down. Some people who have never used choils and know nothing about them might read these posts and think they are useless or worse than useless, and never experiment to see if they are beneficial.

Because that would achieve nothing. Why shouldn't we, then, leave everything to that, and never tell anyone what works and why? Instead, when someone asks us a question or a discussion arises, we could just always reply: "Experiment, and use what feels right for you." That in itself is good advice, but it teaches absolutely nothing to anyone. If someone asks us of knife steels, perhaps of the virtues of mystical Chinese "440 Series Stainless" as compared to S30V on a Spyderco, should we just tell them to "experiment and see what works" for them, instead of, say, pointing out the rather obvious performance differences between such steels? I think we can agree that this isn't the way we want to go. Why, then, should choils be any different? If we can "put down" certain Chinese made steels due to their rather abysmal performance, why can we not "put down" choils for their factual effects on performance in small knives?

I'm the fighting against windmills kind of silly guy. Always been, always will. I'm not trying to "put down" choils as entirely useless on all knives or label anyone who uses them anything, even if one may be inclined to interpret my words so. My intention isn't to offend at all, although some find that hard to believe. What I'm attempting to do is remind people of things they either had forgotten or never knew in the first place. I figure that many of us in this forum can agree that knives don't need huge serrations in the back and enormous "blood grooves" to do their tasks well. So, why do those features still exist in many knives, even though some rather smart people think they're less than essential, even counterproductive? Because it's either tradition, or because the target audience likes it. It's the same with choils. They're not there because they make knives better. They're there, because someone had the bright idea of putting a guard on a work knife, and then noticed it didn't exactly help precision.

 

[Horn Dog]

So, Elen, what do you think of choils on bushcraft knives? Just kidding. I have enjoyed the read. :thumbup:

 

[Elen]

So, Elen, what do you think of choils on bushcraft knives? Just kidding. I have enjoyed the read. :thumbup:

Well, I'm not really sure. I'm kinda on the fence about it. Haven't really formed an opinion yet either way.

It's all good, really - I tend to sound a bit too serious about things sometimes. It depends so heavily on what one wants from a knife, and what one considers a bushcraft knife to be. If you're like me, and like all sorts of ridiculous stuff like carving spoons, butter knives and plates and elaborate trap mechanisms out of wood for amusement, and will also carry a large chopper or an axe with you into the woods, then a choilless, guardless knife will likely be the best choice, if you know how to use it. On the other hand, for those of us who like to go the One Tool way, carrying a knife that has to be able to do it all from skinning that deer to splitting and chopping up the firewood if necessary - which is an entirely valid method of approaching the issue - then choilless, guardless Scandi style small knives aren't a very bright idea at all (and quite frankly may be outright idiotic if one doesn't realize the limitations this type of knife has in terms of durability). Some of my favourite knives have choils - like the Ranger RD9. It may get lost in all my overly long ranting, but there's really only one type of knife that really shouldn't ever have a guard, extended ricasso or a choil, and that is the small-to-medium length precision work knife, that for some people would also be a bushcraft knife. Larger, heavier knives do benefit from a choil, and knives with guards will benefit from a choil no matter how small the knives in themselves are. And some people will consider a bushcraft knife to be that "If You Had To Take Just One" knife, in which case it will likely be a bit larger, and will benefit from having a choil. It's just the experience of some dozens of centuries of craftsmen in rather extreme conditions, that in any work that requires much precision, large knives, guards and choils simply get in the way. It's the good old keep things simple rule. :thumbup:

 

[Horn Dog]

I'm a big Ranger Knife fan myself. Great knives for chopping, digging, prying, batoning and such. I've never made a wooden spoon in my life. If I do, I'm getting one of those curved edged carving knives I saw in Ragnar's. As a knife user and lover for 50 years, the only "Bushcraft" I've ever done is to make tent pegs and poles, and hack my way through miles of "Bush" with machetes. My fuzz sticks are laughable. Thank God for pine cones and palm fibers! But at 60 years old, it looks like fun. I have a Mora. It has a small finger guard, but no choil! One is never too old to learn new tricks. My hands still operate just fine. It is good to have this forum where I can improve my skills and be inspired.

 

[jdm61]

Here is my question. I have oft times wonder about the whole firestarting this. If you took the time to pack a purpose built bushcraft knife with a firesteel. etc, why wouldn't you take the time to pack some waterproof matches or a lighter and maybe some fuzzy stuff to use as tinder? What's up with this whole "fuzz stick" thing? You may say "lighters get wet" but if it is wett enough to permanently ruin a lighter, how are you going to find anything dry enough to ignite with a spark?

 

[misanthropist]

You have to cut deep into standing dead wood to get really dry material, in my experience.


I wonder what effect on the design of knives the amount of land in North America had...the further you have to go, of course, the more weight is at a premium. In tiny countries like the Scandanavian ones, for instance, perhaps the knife/axe pairing evolved in part because there was so little ground for the early settler to cover, whereas the settling of Western Canada and the Western US mean a lot of people covering thousands and thousands of miles of wilderness. The indigenous peoples of Western North America were also highly nomadic, following buffalo herds for thousands of miles. Perhaps the one-tool philosophy is rooted in the vast territory of the Western wilderness, and the multi-tool philosophy of Scandanivia is tied to the very small wilderness there.

Just a thought!

 

[Cpl Punishment]

Mmmm, not sure about that.
From what I've studied the concept of a tool set is common among all cultures all the way from the earliest man (Oetzi had a knife and hatchet/hand axe) through fairly modern times.

It's pretty much the standard that one carried a large, heavy use item (axe/hatchet/golok/seax/kukri,tomahawk, etc) and a small secondary blade. It also seems that, beit scandinavians or North American Indians, or europeans, that folks that lived in temperate forests favored axe-like tools, and those in desert or tropical environs preferred long blades. No matter how far cultures were separated, it became quickly apparent what was the most useful in what environment.

I also find it interesting that the secondary blade is almost always close to Mors Kochanski's ideal of blade and handle being equal to the width of the palm.

There were, of course, specialist blades (fighting blades, butcher blades eating cutlery), but the day-to-day field blades usually consisted of the big tool and the little tool.

I think the "one tool" came from more civilized man who was no longer a hunter-gatherer, and had a place to go back to if he needed more tools, or had the need to travel as fast as possible with the least encumberance. What is interesting here, is historically the "one tool" tended to be a fairly large one. Let's look at one of the most famous, the Bowie blade. Very long, heavy blade, good for chopping and fighting. Fairly thick to handle stress. Very wide. This allowed for a taper to a fine edge, as well as holding onto the blade itself for finer work with little risk of the fingers slipping over the edge. The clipped point afforded good stabbing capability, for fighting and other uses, and yet with one holding the blade near the clipped portion, allowed to surprisingly fine work to be done.

Guys who pick the big chopper as their "if you could only have one" are following this path. If you're only going to have one, it needs to be stout, it needs to be big enough to do the jobs the small blade just can't, and it helps to have a wide blade and a drop or clip point to hold onto the blade and do fine work.

IMO (note opinion), the "only take the smallest, lightest blade I can find" philosophy is very recent and is taking the ultralight thing to an, again in my opinion, unsafe extreme.

 

[Mtn Hawk]

Elen-- I think the difference we have, if there is one, has more to do with guards and blade length than choils. I've seen the results of a few knife accidents, had a couple myself, and know firsthand how easily and quickly they can happen. Athough I'm a responsible person, I don't trust myself to be alert enough 100% of the time to feel comfortable using a knife without some kind of guard. Also, except for SAKs and multi-tools, most of my blades are in the 4"-5" or 9"-10" range. I have nothing against short fixed-blade knives, just have never had much use for them. For tasks requiring a short blade I use folding knives. I also have nothing against knives without guards. If people want to use them, that's their choice.

So, not wanting to use knives without guards, and not using short fixed-blade knives, choils are very useful to me. The other thing is that most of my knife use is in the wilderness, where I carry everything, so it's important to keep the weight down. One way to do this is by carrying a minimum of knives, or even just one, basing my choice on how functional and versatile they are. Choils contribute much to this.

From reading your posts, I think you can see where I'm coming from. Also, I think we have been looking at this issue from using knives in very different ways, which doesn't help with understanding.

jdm61-- I just saw one of those survivor shows (Bear Grylls) last night where he couldn't get a fire started in the jungle because everything was so wet. If guys at his level can't get a fire going every time then I think it's wise to have a good "Plan B", and not rely 100% on firestarting.

 

[Hawkings]

Here is my question. I have oft times wonder about the whole firestarting this. If you took the time to pack a purpose built bushcraft knife with a firesteel. etc, why wouldn't you take the time to pack some waterproof matches or a lighter and maybe some fuzzy stuff to use as tinder? What's up with this whole "fuzz stick" thing?

I am Fairlie sure it because its much more fun to do fuzz sticks, and as knife nuts we just look for stuff to do with our knife

 

[Elen]

Man, a lot of good posts, quickly!


Horn Dog: I think most people, by now, haven't ever made a wooden spoon. Many of my friends like to say that the reason we have modern technology is so we don't have to make wooden spoons in the field. Me, I just find it a fun exercise, and it does develop knife skills quite a lot.


jdm61: I think it's all about the Learn Primitive Skills trend. I'm all for it - it's fun, and potentially lifesaving in SHTF situations, to practice and to a degree master primitive firecraft. But honestly - I always carry matches, and they're my number 1 method of starting a fire. Cheap, quick, comfy. The primitive firestarting methods, which in my view include firesteels, I will leave to the times when I'm specifically practicing such methods and have lots of time to burn (pun not intended). Granted, my use of matches can be a little ridiculous, as I always try to use just one to get the fire going, which means doing a fair amount of preparation on the firewood and tinder before trying to set it all alight.


Cpl Punishment pretty much said what I wanted to say in response to misanthropist, only more eloquently. I, too, think the One Tool concept is mostly a modern man thing - the creation of a man that is no longer completely at nature's mercies. First, this meant carrying a large knife as the only bladed tool. Nowadays, it's increasingly starting to mean carrying a very small and/or weak knife, perhaps even a folder, as that one bladed tool. That, I find, like Cpl Punishment, to be taking the ultralight thing too far, perhaps.


Mtn Hawk: Yeah, now I see exactly where you're coming from, and I agree with you. For guys that prefer to carry larger blades (depending on the design, I would say from 4" or in some cases even 6" of blade up, very roughly put) or small blades with finger guards, a choil is in fact a useful thing to have on the blade. It will allow better precision, either because on large knives it lets you take your grip closer to the balance point of the blade, or on smaller knives because it allows you to take your grip beyond the guard and right next to the cutting edge. In these cases, about the only downsides to a choil are the possibility (although the longer the knife the slimmer the chances) of getting things a bit stuck on the choil in prolonged cuts, and losing some comfort on the grip because one has to grip the metallic, pretty awkwardly shaped choil. Those two downsides would only present themselves in the kind of prolonged work that isn't often done with such knives, since like you said you'd probably tackle that work with a folder, so they're practically a non-issue. My serious blade use is mostly in the woods as well, but then, I'm of the old school type that doesn't mind carrying a bit of weight in the form of perhaps carrying two knives instead of one or a knife and an axe instead of just either-or.

One interesting difference between Americans and Scandinavians in general, I've noticed, is the American fondness for folding knives, which really does not exist over this side of the pond. I'm really not a folding knife type of guy at all. I'm a knife nut, and I've tried to learn to like folders, and I've used them and used them and tried to get used to them, but I just can't. It's like I had some sort of a brain damage. Maybe that is what it is! The "handles" on folders I find to be uncomfortable, and even compared to light Scandi fixed blades, most folders feel very flimsy in construction. They seem to me, in all except the ability to be carried in a small pocket, to be inferior to small fixed blades. I've always wondered what has made folders so popular in America. I can't imagine a situation where someone would ask me to carve a spoon or something with a knife and make me choose between a fixed blade and a folder, and where I would then choose to do the job with a folder because I thought it would do it better. I seem to be digressing towards the off topic realm now, but I'm honestly very curious on why someone would choose to do those small tasks with a folder instead of a small fixed blade? It's a question that has been haunting me for a long time.

 

[Cpl Punishment]

One interesting difference between Americans and Scandinavians in general, I've noticed, is the American fondness for folding knives, which really does not exist over this side of the pond.

One big reason for that is that in many areas it's simply not legal to carry a fixed blade unless in the field "actively hunting or fishing", so guys get used to folders and come to prefer them.

I happen to live in a state where, barring local ordnance, I can carry any size knife as long as it's not concealed, or I can carry any blade concealed if I have a concealed weapon permit. So I tend to have more practice with fixed blades and prefer them.

The only place I carry a folder is at work because they consider folders tools and fixed blades weapons.


Re: choils and guards. You have to understand the American mindset a bit here to understand the popularity of these features. When Americans think "survival", one of the first things to pop up is having to survive an attack by an animal, or more likely a human. I think you'd agree that if you have to fight, a big bowie knife with a nice, big guard is preferable to a puukko. So when we pick that "one and only survival knife" fightability is often one of the criteria it has to meet. Right now the "one and only survival knife" for my Get Home Bag is a RAT-7. I picked it because the handle has enough detent to act as a guard, and it has a 7" blade. Because to be honest, if I have to walk home from work or something, I'm more likely to have to defend against a scumbag than whittle a spoon and build a debris hut. Different knives for different missions.

 

[jdm61]

Man, a lot of good posts, quickly!


Horn Dog: I think most people, by now, haven't ever made a wooden spoon. Many of my friends like to say that the reason we have modern technology is so we don't have to make wooden spoons in the field. Me, I just find it a fun exercise, and it does develop knife skills quite a lot.


jdm61: I think it's all about the Learn Primitive Skills trend. I'm all for it - it's fun, and potentially lifesaving in SHTF situations, to practice and to a degree master primitive firecraft. But honestly - I always carry matches, and they're my number 1 method of starting a fire. Cheap, quick, comfy. The primitive firestarting methods, which in my view include firesteels, I will leave to the times when I'm specifically practicing such methods and have lots of time to burn (pun not intended). Granted, my use of matches can be a little ridiculous, as I always try to use just one to get the fire going, which means doing a fair amount of preparation on the firewood and tinder before trying to set it all alight.


Cpl Punishment pretty much said what I wanted to say in response to misanthropist, only more eloquently. I, too, think the One Tool concept is mostly a modern man thing - the creation of a man that is no longer completely at nature's mercies. First, this meant carrying a large knife as the only bladed tool. Nowadays, it's increasingly starting to mean carrying a very small and/or weak knife, perhaps even a folder, as that one bladed tool. That, I find, like Cpl Punishment, to be taking the ultralight thing too far, perhaps.


Mtn Hawk: Yeah, now I see exactly where you're coming from, and I agree with you. For guys that prefer to carry larger blades (depending on the design, I would say from 4" or in some cases even 6" of blade up, very roughly put) or small blades with finger guards, a choil is in fact a useful thing to have on the blade. It will allow better precision, either because on large knives it lets you take your grip closer to the balance point of the blade, or on smaller knives because it allows you to take your grip beyond the guard and right next to the cutting edge. In these cases, about the only downsides to a choil are the possibility (although the longer the knife the slimmer the chances) of getting things a bit stuck on the choil in prolonged cuts, and losing some comfort on the grip because one has to grip the metallic, pretty awkwardly shaped choil. Those two downsides would only present themselves in the kind of prolonged work that isn't often done with such knives, since like you said you'd probably tackle that work with a folder, so they're practically a non-issue. My serious blade use is mostly in the woods as well, but then, I'm of the old school type that doesn't mind carrying a bit of weight in the form of perhaps carrying two knives instead of one or a knife and an axe instead of just either-or.

One interesting difference between Americans and Scandinavians in general, I've noticed, is the American fondness for folding knives, which really does not exist over this side of the pond. I'm really not a folding knife type of guy at all. I'm a knife nut, and I've tried to learn to like folders, and I've used them and used them and tried to get used to them, but I just can't. It's like I had some sort of a brain damage. Maybe that is what it is! The "handles" on folders I find to be uncomfortable, and even compared to light Scandi fixed blades, most folders feel very flimsy in construction. They seem to me, in all except the ability to be carried in a small pocket, to be inferior to small fixed blades. I've always wondered what has made folders so popular in America. I can't imagine a situation where someone would ask me to carve a spoon or something with a knife and make me choose between a fixed blade and a folder, and where I would then choose to do the job with a folder because I thought it would do it better. I seem to be digressing towards the off topic realm now, but I'm honestly very curious on why someone would choose to do those small tasks with a folder instead of a small fixed blade? It's a question that has been haunting me for a long time.

I agree with my Euro bros about folders. They are nice and have their uses, but any knife that breaks in half on purpose, even the Almighty Sebenza, is a compromise.

 

[harrybobble]

This might be a better place to ask. What does everyone think of san mai steel of Cold steel or falkniven, it is rarely mentioned. I have a falkniven A1 but have never tried to sharpen it yet, are they hard to work with ?

 

[Elen]

One big reason for that is that in many areas it's simply not legal to carry a fixed blade unless in the field "actively hunting or fishing", so guys get used to folders and come to prefer them.

I happen to live in a state where, barring local ordnance, I can carry any size knife as long as it's not concealed, or I can carry any blade concealed if I have a concealed weapon permit. So I tend to have more practice with fixed blades and prefer them.

The only place I carry a folder is at work because they consider folders tools and fixed blades weapons.


Re: choils and guards. You have to understand the American mindset a bit here to understand the popularity of these features. When Americans think "survival", one of the first things to pop up is having to survive an attack by an animal, or more likely a human. I think you'd agree that if you have to fight, a big bowie knife with a nice, big guard is preferable to a puukko. So when we pick that "one and only survival knife" fightability is often one of the criteria it has to meet. Right now the "one and only survival knife" for my Get Home Bag is a RAT-7. I picked it because the handle has enough detent to act as a guard, and it has a 7" blade. Because to be honest, if I have to walk home from work or something, I'm more likely to have to defend against a scumbag than whittle a spoon and build a debris hut. Different knives for different missions.

That legal thing is actually quite interesting to me. Over here, technically all knives including folders are illegal to carry without a justifiable cause - such as that you need the knife in your construction work day job, for example. In spite of that, or perhaps largely because of that, the typical knife carried is a fixed blade. Multitools are popular, but folding knives aren't. But then, Finnish legislation as far as knives are concerned is pseudo-strict. Sure, technically you can't carry any knife just because you want to, but in practice, the authorities aren't going to care one bit about it, and quite often you can chat about your new hunting knife with a LEO right smack in the middle of town - the problems only start if you do something actually criminal, and start a ruckus. At that point, if LEOs find a knife on you, that's one extra charge they can slap on you to give you a lesson. One LEO friend of mine likes to say that "If we started jailing people just for carrying a knife, there wouldn't be a free man left in Finland." It's really odd to me how fixed blades, in some countries (Britain comes to mind here) have come to be considered as weapons. It's a great shame, too, if it means people can't use fixed blades because of that.

Regarding the guards, yes, I've noticed that Americans seem to equate survival quite often with a violent attack. This I find interesting, seeing how I would bet most Americans, even most members on this forum, have never been in any violent altercation where they had to or chose to fight with a knife, whether that be with an animal or a human. As someone who's always liked swords, I will certainly agree that in battle, guards are very useful to have on a blade. And sure, if I had to choose, knowing that I will go into a knife fight, I would rather have a bowie than a small puukko. On the other hand, if I had to choose (and I do) which to carry daily, knowing that I might get into a knife fight but probably won't, I would choose the puukko every time. Further, if I somehow knew I was going to get into a fight, I'd bring a gun, or if it had to be a bladed weapon, a longsword. And then I'd likely introduce any bowie wielding aggressor to his intestines quite intimately. That's actually one of the many reasons why I don't subscribe to the One Knife ideology - different knives for different missions, as you said. Whenever possible, I'll have a smaller knife and a larger knife or axe, so I'll have the best of both worlds, so to speak. For bushcraft knives, I don't see why fighting should be a high consideration. How often do we get into fights in the bush? And if we are likely to get into one, can't we just carry a gun or a larger knife in addition to the smaller knife much more practical in small jobs? Maybe the tactical craze affects people a bit too much at times: fighting is the least likely thing you are to do with your knife. But sure, it's important to consider how one's knife would work as a last ditch weapon. For that role, I strongly advocate throwing folders right in the dumpster. They're slow and unreliable to open under stress, even with the best of "wave" and one-handed opening features, prone to failure even when open, and often quite difficult to even hold in the hand, due to the compromises required to house the blade when folded into the handle. And they don't have too much in the way of guards, either, typically. Personally, if someone had the power to make me have to decide what one knife to have and carry for the rest of my life, it would be an impossible choice. There's no one knife that can do all the tasks, comfortably, not in my experience.