Whats the deal with chopping blades

F

fishbulb

Joined
Sep 18, 2001
Messages
1,196
I've noticed that a lot of people on the forums consider a blades' unassisted wood chopping ability to be a critical factor in deciding which knife to purchase and carry.

In my admittedly limited experience, I have found that even a relatively small ~6 inch knife will chop and split wood just great if you club the back of it with a sturdy stick. I assume that if there is wood that requires chopping it can't be too difficult to find a stick close by.

It seems that a stick has a number of advantages over a dedicated chopping blade:
- Sticks are free.
- Finding them as you require them means you don't have to carry a large knife or axe around.
-Since you are swinging a blunt piece of wood rather than sharpened steel, the potential dangers of missing your target are less.

So what am I missing?
Why do people desire a large chopping blade for standard outdoor use?

I don't mean to offend anybody (use works for you), I'm just looking for an explaination from people with more experience than me.
 
I agree completely. I find that only a small fraction of my outdoor knife uses include actual chopping. If I do plan on doing a great deal of chopping, I bring along a hatchet or axe. Then again, I live in the northeast. Other parts of the country may be vastly different.
 
I think one of the unspoken ingredients is the secure feeling of a big knife that can act in a defensive role. Also, the baton method is effective, but inefficient in terms of energy expended; a big blade will chop through a sapling in relatively few motions as compared to the flurry of pounding that using a baton requires. One also puts a greater demand on a small knife used for baton work. That being said there are lots of tricks to make the small knife work smarter with a baton, but many prefer the simplicity of just swinging some steel at the target. While I prefer an axe for chopping big stuff, or better yet just using a saw, a large blade is a bit more multi purpose in that it performs better in brush and light foliage than an axe, while retaining some efficacy on larger things. Trying to concentrate a lot of functions into one tool is always a recipe for heavy compromise, and of course opinions and experiences differ greatly, but in my opinion, the big knife can perform more functions than most other common outdors tools (axe, saw, medium/small knife) Of course those items each do some tasks better than the big knife, but none is able to handle the wide range of tasks the big knife can. Some small knives approach this functionality by incorporating more than one tool (Victorinox SAK Rucksack being a stellar outdoors knife that does most everything and is still very portable), but they omit the essential ability to provide for self-defense/security blanket/penis replacement duty.

A long winded, tangential way of saying: the big knife has its place in the chopping world and in the outdoorsperson's kit...
 
I don't get the large blade thing either, other than
self-defense/security blanket/penis replacement duty.
Click to expand...
I would say the small fixed blade is far more versatile, especially if carried with a axe or saw, which I think most people do. If you look at the knives carried by people like Mors Kochanski and Ray Rears, I think they would agree.

How about we but it to a vote? Small blade or Large chopper?:)
 
Most of my cutting can be done with a 3" or less blade. I find the smaller blade more versatile than a larger one. For chopping I'll take an axe/hatchet any day. If I were forced to only have "one knife", it would be a 4" fixed blade. Small enough to maneuver easily, and big enough to whack with a stick. Like Buzzbait, I'm in the northeast. You're milage may vary.

Paul
 
How about we but it to a vote? Small blade or Large chopper?
Click to expand...

It all depends on which "outdoors" we are talking about. If you are talking about taking a walk in a downtown park, or even in most US National Parks, then I agree it is hard to justify a big knife. But most of the real world isn't like that.

You don't have neat little trails, signs, and a rest area waiting at the end of a hike. When you look at ethnographic knives you will notice very quickly that they tend to be big (as in really big - almost sword size). The same goes for the knives used during and before the 19th century.

Wood is your basic construction medium in the outdoors. It can block your way, provide shelter, provide tools, provide warmth, and cook food. If you are going to do anything more sophisticated then opening a bag of dehydrated food, or cutting a few feet of paracord, then a large cutting knife is essential. It is more practical to use, more ergonomic, and more durable.

My deadly Leatherman Micra might work well in the office, and it might be able to cut small 3/8" brush; but, it would be painfull in more than one way to cut through a thorny briar with such a tool. Every tool has its place, and each is best when used for it's designed purpose.

n2s
 
Another thing that occured to me is that these chopping blades aren't good for much else. Almost by definition, they are made of very thick stock and relatively thick edges for strength. This means that they don't actually cut very well.

I'm sure people have different priorities, but I know that the amount of wood chopping I do is very small compared to cutting other things; like rope, cloth, and food. Unless you plan on building a cabin or something similar chopping is primarily just a way of getting fire wood.

A knife that won't cut (or cut well) seems to be a contradiction.

By the way, another northeasterner here, maybe its just us.;)
 
It could very well be that the northeast particularly lends itself to the axe. The northeast tends to have a great deal of standing dead or fallen dead, both of which require little effort to gather. If trees are chopped down, they tend to be bigger than the standing dead, which is way too big for a large knife. And from what I hear, northern wood tends to be softer than southern wood. This would mean that a chopper might only be required for large trees in the northeast, while smaller trees could simply be broken by hand and body mass. If small southern trees are that much harder, a large knife might be needed to cut down a very small tree. This is all a big guess though. I’ve never had to chop down a large number of southern trees. I’m just going by what they say on those TV lumberjack meets.

I personally prefer a 4 or 5 inch fixed blade; carbon steel and convex ground. It slices through wood much better than most other grinds, and can even handle some limited chopping. It’s plenty big enough to skin a whitetail deer, yet small enough to be useful for cleaning northern pike and bass. The size is small enough to comfortably hang on a belt, and light enough that it isn’t a hassle. A blade of this size will cut down a small pine tree, birch or white cedar in a minute or two, just from bending the tree while cutting, or using a baton. And if the tree is a little tougher than expected, there is always the saw on my SAK. I seldom need to cut down a tree that is larger than the SAK can handle. Temporary shelters do not require large trees, if you know what you’re doing. Best of all, the edge on my small carbon steel knife can be maintained with just a small piece of wet/dry paper, for the most part.
 
I'm suprised at you guys... I split wood with a medium sized knife and baton all the time, but using a baton to cut <i>across</i> grain is a real pain in the neck, and actually risks breaking the knife (especially so if its a good [thin] cutter) because of all the pounding you have to do.

Sure I don't do a lot of chopping either if I'm in my normal backpacking or day hiking mode, but the idea is what if you <b>have to</b> build an emergency shelter, or cut your way through a thicket because there isn't any trail where you are going?... A hatchet will likely do nicely for the shelter, but not so well for making trails. The bigger knife is a traditional compromise and works well. If done right, they will cut too!
 
fishbulb :

... these chopping blades aren't good for much else. Almost by definition, they are made of very thick stock and relatively thick edges for strength. This means that they don't actually cut very well.
Click to expand...

Chopping does require more durability than slicing, and thus you can't build a chopping blade as thin as a fillet knife, so the latter will of course always out cut the former on light work. However chopping blades don't need to be nearly as over built as common perception which is based mainly on low end poorly crafted blades. Also, a blade that you are going to chop with under its own power, is going to under far less strain than one you are going to beat on with a stick, so it can have a lower profile and thus in general cut better. Splitting is also far worse on a blade than chopping, assuming you are not working on clear wood, which is unrealistic. Splitting requires vastly thicker designs, for example, compare a splitting maul profile to that of a felling axe.

The biggest problem with a lack of chopping ability in most blades isn't the mass, but that the profile is too thick, which means in general they cut very poorly. This is an unfair way to judge chopping blades as you are looking at poor execution not a fundamental design limitation. Try using some of the bowies by the better makers like Ray Kirk and I will bet you will have no complaints about the cutting ability. The balance is also very critical and is another key area where chopping ability can be lost. There is no right or wrong, just do you want the blade neutral in balance so it sits stable in your hand and has a low fatigue rate when doing light cutting, or a balance point further out on the blade so you can use it to generate power during the chop and is thus less fatiguing.

As for the argument about carrying heavier gear, the amount of extra effort it takes to carry even a very heavy knife (1 lbs) all day long, is insignificant compared to even light activities like gathering limbs to make bedding, even if they are already cut. My viewpoint is rather simple, if I could take just the one knife, it wouldhave the maximum potential to do the hard tasks and not the easy ones. If I could take multiple tools they would all be task specific. What these tasks are depend greatly on the enviroment, what materials you will have at hand, and what it needed to craft them to shape. So it is critical that in order to know how to best pick your blades you spend time in the outdoors doing the basic activities.

-Cliff
 
Batoning an break the knife if you don't do it right -- keep it at angles and it'll keep you from having an inadvertent multiple blade collection with only one handle. <g>

That said, it can work well. I use batoning often as a technique -- even with my TOPS CQT Magnum folder, with a 4.25" cutting edge.

A big knife, if you are going to take the challenge in a cold wet environment, if it is well-designed, will save you the weight of an axe, and save more calories than batoning because it will be more energy efficient. Your mileage, of course, may vary -- it's a general rule, though. So, big blade=less wirght to carry=more energy efficient than a small knife. Plus someone mentioned the possible self-defense value because of reach, and it can pry and split logs far better because of the length.

Either way, I'm comfortable.
 
Originally posted by Cliff Stamp
"if I could take just the one knife, it would have the maximum potential to do the hard tasks and not the easy ones."
-Cliff
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree with Cliff on this one. I decide on each item I carry with close attention to maximum overall usefulness, and not based upon degree of difficulty. If one knife will do 95% of the tasks beautifully, and be unusable for 5% of the tasks; I’ll choose it over a knife that will do 100% of the tasks, but only do 5% of them well. That problem 5 percent on the chosen knife is made up for via sweat, luck and ingenuity. It’s the only way to keep from lugging around a 2000-pound pack, and not tearing your hair out all day long. You try to do as many things as well as possible, and try to stay within the limits of these things.

I’m assuming that we’re talking about a mobile situation though, where weight and size are an important consideration. If we’re talking about use around a permanent dwelling…… The one with the most toys wins. :D
 
It all boils down to the user and his/her creativity and technique more than the knife, in the end.
 
Buzzbait :


If one knife will do 95% of the tasks beautifully, and be unusable for 5% of the tasks...
Click to expand...

The problem comes when the 5% of the tasks takes up much more effort than the 95%, which can easily be the case. This is why I noted very strongly that you have to know what needs to be done. For example, if you have to clear through 12" of ice this is doable with a large knife with a strong tip and a decent bit of weight, however it is near impossible with a light utility knife. Or consider trying to start a fire and having to gather wet and or frozen wood, which will only burn well if split multiple times and which is often very necessary to get a decent amount of tinder. Further consider that you are wet and cold and the temp is dropping.

As for the comment :

a knife that will do 100% of the tasks, but only do 5% of them well
Click to expand...

This implies that a larger knife is as bad on the slighter tasks as the smaller knife is on the heavier ones, this isn't the case at all and is pretty much the critical point. The extra effort using a Battle Mistress to fillet a trout isn't comparable to what you will face using a Deerhunter (A.G. Russell) to cut down a 3" piece of spruce.

As for the axe, yes that is a valid point, and is why in many enviroments an axe is vastly preferred to a knife. For example, if all the wood around here was spruce and oak instead of the more common and much softer pine and fir, I would lean much more towards a small axe. Do axes fell trees more efficiently than knives, yes, however is this the only thing you will need to do, no. For example I also consider ease of limbing (which is more work than felling), and the benefits of having a much slimmer point for wood digging / prying. When I add all this up I come up with chosing a blade over an axe, specifically now my choice would be an 18" Ang Khola if I had the one blade, though there are a number of others that I would also be very pleased with. Basically to extend the statement I made in the above, I look at what needs to be done, and how difficult it will be with the various blades and come up with an overall best choice which is essentially a weighted average of the performance in all the tasks with the weights being the difficulty. Because the harder tasks are more physically demanding, the choice will get skewed towards them.

Physically ability of course is the other major factor besides enviroment. The only reason I would not pick the 22" Ang Khola over the 18" one for example, is that my wrist isn't strong enough yet to allow a decent level of fatigue. Of course if I could take a bunch of tools it would be different as you don't need to compromise. I would take a full size axe, a decent saw, a small blade and a large limbing/brush blade.

-Cliff
 
not2sharp and Cliff have already argued a number of my points, and I won't repeat them. There are still a few other things to say, though.

1) It's simply wrong to think that large blades which chop well are categorically poor cutters with poor control. My Busse Steel Heart certainly doesn't cut as well as small specialized cutters, but it cuts quite decently (and is sharper than my small Spydercos, Cold Steels, or SAK), nonetheless. And I can control it more than adequately, too. It's plain silly to totally discount the utility of large chopper blades as cutters. [Fishbulb said: "A knife that won't cut (or cut well) seems to be a contradiction."]

2) As someone who has had dangerous encounters with feral pigs, packs of feral dogs, and habituated black bears, I consider the self-defense needs of my knife to be real and significant. It's not primary, but important, nonetheless. To refer to these needs as "self-defense/security blanket/penis replacement" is condescending and false.

3) Buzzbait said: "And if the tree is a little tougher than expected, there is always the saw on my SAK."

I must say that this passage left me confused about your argument. I will readily agree that it can be wise to carry more than one specialized blade, such as a large chopper and a small slicer. But, if you are already carrying a smaller knife which cuts well (SAK), then why do you want all of your other blades to repeat this function instead of adding other useful functions like chopping?
 
There is a big differance between brush clearing and wood chopping. Using a machete to clear a trail is a world away from using a knife to chop a log.

My statement about carrying around a larger knife was not directed at the total energy expended throughout the day. Rather, I prefer smaller and lighter because at any given moment it is easier to move and carry.

I also didn't mean to imply that a knife that chops well is always a poor cutter. Mr. Stamp is one of the exceptions, but a large contingent seems to favor the "slightly sharpened prybar" approach to outdoor cutlery.

I have never broken a knife, ever a folder, as a result of using it in conjunction with a baton. It can be pretty rough on batons, though. I would like somebody to further explain how this is significantly more damaging to a knife than other common uses.

If you are worried about encounters with dangerous animals, I agree that a big chopper would certainly be preferable to a small knife. Even better would be a gun.

I have never had to do a whole lot of chopping, and I have never been unable to do what was required with a smaller knife. Besides the "you are freezing and about to die" scenario, what are some other common outdoor uses for big blades?
 
Im personaly of the opinion that "what ever works for ya..works". I myself would rather carry just a nice 14" hatchet...IF I had only one cutting tool to live with. The axe/hatchet "can" do everything a small knife or large knife can do, just in some cases not as well. The tools that we use in the bush/field is a reflection of our selves, and the way we live our lives. I do know folks that can, and do use there big "nastie" knives to cape trofie big hornes to skinning cased fur bearers, to cutting fire wood, to butchering game. And the whole school inbetween.I myself do not have that ability with any knife biger than 6". But I can do the same things with a hatchet.
As for "self protection"??? Well blade vs claw antics have never been my strong suit. I would prefer ither an axe, or a shovel...or better yet a REALY big gun.
 
I have to agree with those that say "fit the knife to the job". I normally carry a four inch fixed blade along with a folder when walking around the woods. But at the same time, when needed a 9" plus "chopper" comes in handy at times. I often get rid of saplings that come up where I don't want them. With a large blade this is an easy chore, with a small blade it is called work. I know everyone doesn't have the same needs that I do, so whatever they prefer is fine with me. A lot of people will say that seeing someone carrying a large knife shows that they are inexperienced. I say using the wrong knife, big or small, is more of a give away.
 
A big/thick knife can't do everything well;neither can a smaller/thinner knife. That's why I take I take one of each - at least. If I had to choose just one, the choice would be hard, and I've been in situations when I had a small blade and wished for a bigger, and visa versa. One could argue forever what the best compromise blade is, but why settle for a compromise? It's no great burden to have at least two more specialized blades, in most situations.
And yes, I've had people make the "penis substitute' comment - until they see me use the big blade, or bathe.:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top