What's the minimum fixed blade size for an effective chopper?

A belt axe, hatchet, or tomahawk would be best.
You're less likely to fold or chip the edge when (there is no "if") you find that hidden knot or worse when using an axe, hatchet, or tomahawk.
That said, my next choice would be a froe or heavy Kukri, in that order.
 
I'm gonna throw out that if you can benefit from the ignorance is bliss or too stupid to know strategy that can be helpful. For example, I'm fine with the chopping potential of both my 7" old hickory butcher knife and Esee 6, and I may just be too stupid to know that I shouldn't be.
 
maximus83 said:
Hey Goober, yes interesting post. I agree my OP question could be more detailed, seeing the various branches in this discussion. If I started over , I would word the scenario more detailed, like this: Assume you want to carry a single large knife on a backpacking trip, rather than several specialized tools such as a saw, a hatchet, and a machete, so that you can bring one tool and keep your pack light on this trip. You plan to use this knife to handle tasks that each of the specialized tools would clearly be better at if you brought them all along. Those tasks could include: chopping wood, batoning/splitting wood, limbing branches, clearing brush and vines, digging, processing game, light duty pounding/hammering (tent stakes, etc.), and chopping or slicing food for food prep. In this case--assuming you bring a quality large knife with a blade and handle design that can handle these tasks--what is the minimum recommended blade length that would enable a knife in this role to efficiently handle these diverse tasks? [There, I TRIED. :) ].

I'm fascinated with your experience that the Junglas did "similar" to your GB. GB is a serious quality axe, IMHO, among the very best and worth every penny when you're doing serious chopping. I've tried their small forest axe owned by a friend, that thing is amazing when you want to do serious wood processing. But that's quite an endorsement to say that, at the level of a small-ish wood processing tool (versus a much larger axe), the Junglas was similar to the GB. I've not had the luxury of doing a side-by-side comparison of say the GB wildlife hatchet and the Junglas, but would love to see that. I have seen a review by Cliff Stamp of the Junglas, and also of the GB hatchet, and my perception was that he clearly endorsed the hatchet if you were focused 100% of chopping efficiency with a small tool. But....if you were looking at a scenario more like I described above, where your focus is not 100% what's the best wood chopper, but rather what's the best multi-purpose tool that can ALSO chop some wood, I would be interested to hear his take on that. He seemed pretty positive about the multi-purpose use of the Junglas, for example. But I cannot find anywhere that he has commented on what he thought was the minimum effective length for a large chopping knife.
Click to expand...

Sorry for the late reply, I wasn't able to get back to you until now for personal reasons.

Yeah, I was surprised myself. But it's a big knife and only a small and very light hatchet. The Wildlife hatchet has a shorter handle but a heavier head than the Outdoor Axe and also has a much thinner edge. I have no experience with the SFA but that one probably outperforms every knife on the planet where it comes to chopping.
The Junglas is even a couple ounces heavier than the Outdoor Axe (almost twice as heavy including its sheath, something to consider as well if weight-saving is important). And the Outdoor Axe was designed to be able to split as well as it cuts so I'm sure it could chop even better if it was shaped more like the Wildlife or Mini. I like it for its all-round features though, it can do a lot of work without weighing you down on longer hikes.

I had almost forgot about this but I've previously compared my Ontario RAT7 to my GB mini hatchet and those performed very similar to each other at about a similar weight as well. The RAT7 did need a lanyard to get the most out of it though.

Overall I think the minimum length you'd need for a good chopping knife is about 8 to 9", but the weight and to some extent the edge & -blade geometry will probably be the ultimate decider for how well it'll actually chop.
 
Technique is more important than blade length, or weight. Using a proper snap-cut can get more chopping power out of a knife than one might imagine, as well as reducing the stress and strain on your hand/wrist/forearm, as well as the blade.

If you have a LOT of wood to cut, you might consider a chain-saw...
 
How thick is the wood? Green wood or hard dried? Soft or hard wood?
I use the Skrama now for everything green and springy up to 13/4" thick. Not much it can't do with a couple of cuts. Done hours of work with them now and they are brilliant.
Thicker and harder than that then its a Siky Saw up to 3". Small Forest Axe can work but its getting a safe swing that tricky in brush; just easier to get in there to the job with a saw.
Thicker than that its an axe, or if there is a lot of it a chainsaw.

For Reed a Skrama does it but if you need reach then a ditch knife on a pole or any long thin machete.

I love the idea of a Junglas but for the life of me can't find a role for it. Too heavy for long endurance work, a pain checking the chop, and not keen enough to catch the cut on small springy stuff. I don't beat on logs.
 
Balls Deep said:
I'm gonna throw out that if you can benefit from the ignorance is bliss or too stupid to know strategy that can be helpful. For example, I'm fine with the chopping potential of both my 7" old hickory butcher knife and Esee 6, and I may just be too stupid to know that I shouldn't be.
Click to expand...


Up to you... For 3 more blade inches and 5 more ounces, you would get 3 to 4 times more work done per chop. One more inch and 5 more ounces over the 10", and it goes to 5-6 X...

Not really spitting distance here... But that's not the whole picture.

3 times the work at 10" is also with about 2/3rd the strain on the hand, even compared to a hefty 12 ounces 6" blade, so roughly 4 to 5 times the work per unit of hand fatigue... An 11" blade is 5 times the work for half of the hand strain, so roughly ten times the work per unit of hand fatigue...

It varies per individual knives of course, but the above is certainly in the rough ballpark, as long as you don't go down to chopping loose 1" limbs as a comparative medium...

Then there is the ease of path clearing with 6" versus 10". I'll add that even small tasks are often done "cleaner" and safer with a little bit of blade momentum, rather than just pushing with a lot of effort, and then having the material suddenly give way...

But hey, like you said, ignorance is bliss.

Gaston
 
Gaston444 said:
Up to you... For 3 more blade inches and 5 more ounces, you would get 3 to 4 times more work done per chop. One more inch and 5 more ounces over the 10", and it goes to 5-6 X...

Not really spitting distance here... But that's not the whole picture.

3 times the work at 10" is also with about 2/3rd the strain on the hand, even compared to a hefty 12 ounces 6" blade, so roughly 4 to 5 times the work per unit of hand fatigue... An 11" blade is 5 times the work for half of the hand strain, so roughly ten times the work per unit of hand fatigue...

It varies per individual knives of course, but the above is certainly in the rough ballpark, as long as you don't go down to chopping loose 1" limbs as a comparative medium...

Then there is the ease of path clearing with 6" versus 10". I'll add that even small tasks are often done "cleaner" and safer with a little bit of blade momentum, rather than just pushing with a lot of effort, and then having the material suddenly give way...

But hey, like you said, ignorance is bliss.

Gaston
Click to expand...
It sounds like someone didn't get their juice box at recess today.

All of that mumbo-jumbo doesn't apply to every human being because we all differ physically.
Height, reach, musculature and core strength all play large roles when it comes to swinging an object. Hell, even adrenaline plays a factor.

Have you ever been pissed of and thrown something or have you had to lift something in an emergency?

That's called hysterical strength. Adrenaline driven power.


Ignorance is bliss, eh?
 
Last edited:
Gaston444 said:
Up to you... For 3 more blade inches and 5 more ounces, you would get 3 to 4 times more work done per chop. One more inch and 5 more ounces over the 10", and it goes to 5-6 X...

Not really spitting distance here... But that's not the whole picture.

3 times the work at 10" is also with about 2/3rd the strain on the hand, even compared to a hefty 12 ounces 6" blade, so roughly 4 to 5 times the work per unit of hand fatigue... An 11" blade is 5 times the work for half of the hand strain, so roughly ten times the work per unit of hand fatigue...

It varies per individual knives of course, but the above is certainly in the rough ballpark, as long as you don't go down to chopping loose 1" limbs as a comparative medium...

Then there is the ease of path clearing with 6" versus 10". I'll add that even small tasks are often done "cleaner" and safer with a little bit of blade momentum, rather than just pushing with a lot of effort, and then having the material suddenly give way...

But hey, like you said, ignorance is bliss.

Gaston
Click to expand...

Pulling numbers from one's own hindquarters and stating them as though they were proven facts is not the same thing as the scientific method and only serves to further muddy the waters. 4 out of 5 candlestick makers agree.
 
I think Gaston is correct on chopper size. (3x, 5x, 10x, who knows?) If you don't want to carry the extra weight or length, don't. But the longer blade heavy knife will chop better than as mentioned earlier.... a 7" Old Hickory steak or kitchen knife.

Why would someone bring up hysterical strength? We're just talking about what size knife works for chopping.
 
Last edited:
6“ blade length as long as the handle is long enough to add momentum when chopping otherwise it's 10“ blade length minimum.
 
Got to chuckle at that one. :thumbsup:

For some reason I keep thinking of the line "Bend and Snap" from the movie Legally Blonde. Maybe a little snap will help with the chopping.
 
22-rimfire said:
I think Gaston is correct on chopper size. (3x, 5x, 10x, who knows?) If you don't want to carry the extra weight or length, don't. But the longer blade heavy knife will chop better than as mentioned earlier.... a 7" Old Hickory steak or kitchen knife.

Why would someone bring up hysterical strength? We're just talking about what size knife works for chopping.
Click to expand...

I got sidetracked by my client when I was writing that and lost my train of thought.

It applies when it comes to extra momentum needed while swinging or moving an object out of the way.

There have been a few instances where I've gotten pissed and used that extra rush to chop through material.
 
I don't deny that the extra momentum would make a difference. However getting pissed doing something like this is a good way to bang up your blade or hurt yourself.
 
22-rimfire said:
I don't deny that the extra momentum would make a difference. However getting pissed doing something like this is a good way to bang up your blade or hurt yourself.
Click to expand...
It hasn't happened yet but I see your point.
Getting pissed or adding a little oomph to a swing can turn out bad unless a person is aware of their surroundings or using some sort of chopping block.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top