When is a short fixed blade better than a large/sturdy folder for bushcraft/survival?

[RX-79G]

I think most of us would choose a 3.5" or larger fixed blade knife if we were going to be in the woods/jungle for awhile. The size, strength and comfort of a medium to large fixed blade knife for most uses isn't really in question for most folks.

But some people like the idea of an EDC that can step up into a survival role because the knife offers something close to the strength, comfort and cutting ability of a larger knife in a much more portable package. For instance:

Neck knives, like an Izula. Small blade, strong construction, very flat due to no or little handle thickness. The blade is very small the handles aren't really comfortable. About 7" long. Can be fast or slow to deploy depending on how you carry it (neck vs. pocket).

Short Puukkos. Small blade, light and fat. Still 7" or longer stowed. They often have thick handles for grip instead having long handles. Fewer carry options, somewhat slow to deploy if not on a belt, thick in a pocket.

Big lockbacks. Enzo Birk, Sebenza, Eka 92, CS Tri-Ad, etc. For a very small/short carry package (under 5") you get a much larger blade than a small fixed blade (3.25 - 4"), often a much more comfortable handle than a neck knife, and often a stout enough blade/lock/pivot construction that anything you could put a sub 4" blade through will survive.


I recently got a couple of big, stout lock backs and really wonder what my Becker BK24 is going to do (even with custom scales) that this thing won't do better while being less of a pain to bring anywhere.

When does big a folder become a liability? How small can fixed blade be before the advantages of one piece construction are lost in the fact that the blade or handle are so small that you can't put that much force into them anyway?

Perhaps this is best discussed without making it all about batoning, since that is also possible with an unlocked folder?

 

[Lost Cosmonaut]

When the folder breaks, that's when a fixed blade will be better.

I know it's cliched, but hear me out. Any time you introduce a potential failure point, that's a point where something could go wrong. A fixed blade has minimal failure points, and usually a failure at those points is catastrophic but takes a lot to get there. On fixed blades, the main failure points are usually any kind of skeletonizing in the handle and handle scales themselves (or more likely, the bolts or whatever else holds them handle scales on). On a folder, you have a LOT of failure points. The pivot, the handle, the standoffs, the springs, the lock, the pivot hole in the blade, the blade stop, etc. etc. Most of that holds true for any kind of folder.

Honestly, a friction folder is the best type of folder you could rely on for survival. The failure points are minimal. But a fixed blade will still have less chance of failure in the end.

 

[WhiteTiger]

For that environment I'd prefer a fixed blade, that said there would also be a back up carried.

 

[zzyzzogeton]

Obviously just my opinion, but a small fixed blade will always be a better option than a large folder in a "survival" situation. Not getting into the "good, better, best" opinions as in such a situation any knife is better than no knife.

My reasoning is that a fixed blade does not have the failure point of the hinge/pivot. A smaller 3" to 4.5" blade will do everything necessary that a large folder can accomplish in the same scenarios. I just like to eliminate potential failures BEFORE they happen. Having a folder of any size with you is a plus, but if my choice is between a folder and a fixed blade of the same size, the fixed gets my vote.

 

[Insipid Moniker]

It really depends on the environment as much as anything. I live in an urban/suburban environment, so an ideal survival knife for me is often a rescue folder (can't wait for the new Salt Assist) and I wouldn't particularly want to replace it with a fixed blade due to convenience, tool selection (not many fixed blades with a carbide glass breaker) and legality (if I'm in a survival situation here, the police are likely to show up sooner or later).

I carry a fixed blade when camping or hiking, but then we're getting into other things than EDC.

 

[collim1]

One thing I have noticed is I rarely find a folding knife as comfortable to use for extended periods of time as a fixed blade.

I carry a folding knife because it's convenient and concealed from view. When out of the city I have no use for a folding knife and usually have some form of Mora around my neck.

 

[sloth357]

One thing I have noticed is I rarely find a folding knife as comfortable to use for extended periods of time as a fixed blade.

I carry a folding knife because it's convenient and concealed from view. When out if the city I have no use for a folding knife and usually have some form of Mora around my neck.

This is what feel too. My short fixed blades have nice contoured large handles.. Folders don't.

In a pinch, sure a folder will work.

Have you ever spent a week really using a folder for food and fire prep? Doesn't sound like it.

 

[Spey]

Perhaps this is best discussed without making it all about batoning, since that is also possible with an unlocked folder?

Out of curiosity, when is the last time you were batoning enough firewood for a decent fire using an unlocked folder ...?

I believe one of the main benefits of selecting a fixed blade becomes apparent after repeated hard use. Ya, you can get through a piece of wood with a fixed blade or just about any other task for that matter, but for the most part it's a matter of time using a tool that really differentiates the potential for long-term repeated use which is where the fixed blade overshadows.

Folders add continence of carry and concealability (& I suppose "fun" of operation resulting in a sence of companionship).

From a pure performance aspect ..., I believe anyone would be hard pressed to make a valid case for a folder over a fixed blade (I carry both on a daily basis & can assure you a fixed blade is a much simpler, more maintenance free, & higher performing platform). Others I am sure may disagree, but to those I would ask their primary purpose of carry & use.

Last week I spent a full day in the woods comparing various fixed blades of differing blade profiles & geometries. Theses comparisons are relatively frequent for us to do. Additionally, compared three folding knives that I daily carry as a base-check. The folders all performed admirably ;-) but each was sub par by comparison to fixed blade in similar tasks. Daily repeated use in these conditions and tasks would further show the superiority of a fixed blades simpler design. I trust that with repeated exposure to this type of use that various types of physical breakdown would result with the folders. At least that is the conclusion I get to based on first hand comparison.

 

[Spey]

Forgot to actually reply to the specific question of the OP.

"When is a short fixed blade better than a large/study folder for bushcraft/survival?"

I would say ALWAYS !!

I believe that in the context of the question it would be safe to assume that a "short fixed blade" would be something over 3.75" blade with a equal or great handle length. While I would prefer 4.25" or greater on blade & handle I would be very comfortable we a little less and would take either over a folder given the conditions of the question.

Direct competitive example:
1) My Survive GSO 4.1 in 3v steel
2) My Spyderco TUFF also in 3v steel
Press a folder into hard use long enough and it's gonna been in need of a pit crew minimally.

 

[RX-79G]

A smaller 3" to 4.5" blade will do everything necessary that a large folder can accomplish in the same scenarios. I just like to eliminate potential failures BEFORE they happen. Having a folder of any size with you is a plus, but if my choice is between a folder and a fixed blade of the same size, the fixed gets my vote.

I think I didn't ask the question well. Of course you'd pick a fixed blade over a folder if they have the same size blade. But that's not what I'm talking about.


If the folder and fixed blade knife are similar in size as carried (folded or sheathed), the fixed blade is going to be well under 3" - a length that gets difficult to do things like baton when the folder is still smaller in the pocket but can have a 4" blade and a hand filling handle.

vs.

I'm not decided either way, but I think 2.5" fixed blades might be a little small to get a lot done. Especially with flat handles like the Izula.

 

[Spey]

Hmmm ..., when you began a thread asking about "bushcraft/survival" and fixed blades, then referenced "smaller" fixed blades in comparison to large folders, I don't think any of us would assume smaller actually meant diminutive in size. Seriously ...?

 

[RX-79G]

Hmmm ..., when you began a thread asking about "bushcraft/survival" and fixed blades, then referenced "smaller" fixed blades in comparison to large folders, I don't think any of us would assume smaller actually meant diminutive in size. Seriously ...?

Seriously. I laid it out in the OP. Both knives have to be small enough to carry really easily. I even listed dimensions and gave examples.


Clearly people are buying "diminutive" fixed blade like Izulas and Ritter RSK MK5s for some reason, and I'm asking about that reason.

 

[TheChunk91]

A fixed blade that has at least a big enough handle to comfortably fit your hand and work with will always be better than a big hd folder for survival purposes IMO, no matter how strong the lock it just will not come close to a solid piece of steel, in an emergency situation ill take that strength over blade size. I always have at least one fixed blade and multiple folders so I dont have to worry about choosing one or the other though.

 

[RX-79G]

A fixed blade like izula or EDC size will always be better than a big hd folder for survival purposes IMO, no matter how strong the lock it just will not come close to a solid piece of steel, in an emergency situation ill take that strength over blade size. I always have at least one fixed blade and multiple folders so I dont have to worry about choosing one or the other.

Thanks. We are talking about one knife and only one knife, like an EDC. I know people not Nutnfancy carry 4 knives, 2 multitools and a gun everywhere, but most of us have a life.

The scenario I'm thinking of is the unplanned walk in the park turns bad with a mudslide or a borrowed car breakdown when you're already lost. Street clothes and EDC. Not a planned hiking trip with pack and multiple survival tools.


What I think is interesting is that I have had a hard time finding references to broken folding knives. If you do a google image search, broken knives are usually tips, followed by tang failures. Google "broken lockback knives" and you get a bunch of spydercos. "Broken pivot knife" gets almost nothing. "Broken linerlock knife" yields one pic of a batoning failure.

While I appreciate the notion that simple is better, I'm wondering where all the broken folding mechanisms are. I realize that the hard core bushcrafters are generally using fixed blades, but there are more folders in the US than anything else, and a lot of them are getting abused.

I would just hate to short change myself on a practical knife for fear of a mechanism breaking that almost never does. A tiny fixed blade may never break, but makes taking care of business twice as hard.

(This reminds me of the revolver vs. auto debate among gun people. Autos are supposed to be less reliable, yet plenty of shooters have had revolvers lock up and also own autos that have never jammed.)

Anyway, I appreciate the discussion. These stoutly constructed folders just really get me wondering how smart I am bothering with toy-like fixed bladed.

 

[folderfrenzy]

A fixed blade that has at least a big enough handle to comfortably fit your hand and work with will always be better than a big hd folder for survival purposes IMO, no matter how strong the lock it just will not come close to a solid piece of steel, in an emergency situation ill take that strength over blade size. I always have at least one fixed blade and multiple folders so I dont have to worry about choosing one or the other though.

ummm... cough cough axis loc-ahem ahem compression hurhurhur, triad cough cough

 

[EChoil]

In a real "survival" situation a fixed blade should always be primary, a folder secondary or backup. A fixed blade is going to be a stronger knife.

IMO, the sweet spot for an all-round fixed blade in such conditions would be a 4 -- 5.5" blade.

My goto folders for 'survival' have been the HEST 2.0's ever since they came out, followed closely by a Grayman Dua. I consider both to be brutal-use folders and they have proven so.

Over time and under load the benefits of a fixed blade in the cited 'woods/jungle' scenario become more and more apparent. Ease of sharpening is more of a factor here too.

In the scenario cited later, that of mudslide in the park,' a good folder would probably suffice for most anything you'd come across in the course of the, say, 1-3 days you may be out of touch with modernity.​

You say you don't read about an inordinate amount of broken folders. I think it's because most people know when to stop when it comes to abuse of the knife. It doesn't mean the knife handled the worst chores though---it only means the people probably opted not to attempt it with the folder after all.

But none of this means you should just dismiss the stoutly constructed folders. I happen to like them too.

 

[Todd21969]

To be honest I like small necker sized fixed blades and large folders. And I carry both, for differant reasons.

Both will work fine in a woods role, but if forced to decide I would take a 3.5" - 4" folder over a necker (like the BK11 I used to own). Just based on ergonomics in my hands, and ease of every day carry. My current daily carry fixed is even smaller than the BK11.

I can , and have, notch cut saplings for shelter poles with a folder. As well as where I live a knife is not needed to prep, start, and maintain a fire. A lot of deadfall, standing deadwood, punkwood, and birch bark laying around.

 

[timberweasel]

(...)The scenario I'm thinking of is the unplanned walk in the park turns bad with a mudslide or a borrowed car breakdown when you're already lost. Street clothes and EDC. Not a planned hiking trip with pack and multiple survival tools (...)

It has been said many times before: the most important thing one can EDC is knowledge and experience. Having a knife of any kind (or any other tool, really) can certainly be useful in some unforeseen emergency, but it won't make a lick of difference if the person carrying it can't use it. It can even make a bad situation a whole lot worse if the person using the tool does not use it proficiently or without some modicum of common sense and/or caution. There are a great many things one can accomplish without using any knife at all.

-Brett

 

[Todd21969]

There are a great many things one can accomplish without using any knife at all.

-Brett

I have to agree, good points in your post.

I threw this together in my backyard last summer.

It's not much, but it's rainproof and would do for a few days. The only knife work was cutting notches and cordage. No battoning, chopping, prying needed. Could be done with a tiny peanut sized slipjoint.

 

[craytab]

When is a short fixed blade better than a large/sturdy folder for bushcraft/survival?

To answer the title, Never.

But some people like the idea of an EDC that can step up into a survival role because the knife offers something close to the strength, comfort and cutting ability of a larger knife in a much more portable package.

The whole "survival" thing is a fantasy fanned by marketing. Where the heck is marcinek. This is normally his territory.

I mean, most people will never be far enough from civilization to be in a true survival situation. Plus, the knife can't survive for you. The most important thing about survival is your skills, not what you have.

Heck, if I even go into the country or up in the "mountains" (which is heavily populated) I always bring a fixed blade along with my normal edc folder.

Big lockbacks. Enzo Birk, Sebenza, Eka 92, CS Tri-Ad, etc. For a very small/short carry package (under 5") you get a much larger blade than a small fixed blade (3.25 - 4"), often a much more comfortable handle than a neck knife, and often a stout enough blade/lock/pivot construction that anything you could put a sub 4" blade through will survive.

Does CRK make a sebenza lock back? My Large 21 is a frame lock.

When does big a folder become a liability? How small can fixed blade be before the advantages of one piece construction are lost in the fact that the blade or handle are so small that you can't put that much force into them anyway?

Never. A folder is just a broken fixed blade.

Perhaps this is best discussed without making it all about batoning, since that is also possible with an unlocked folder?

Also possible but much more of a pain I would think, I don't know, I've never batoned with a folder and don't think I ever will. I do like making kindling with my Izula though.