why a large knife is better in the woods - an informal trianing scenario

When I was up north and did winter camping, I wouldn't go out without a hatchet (long before I discovered kukris). I do believe a kukri would only make it easier and safer (much longer cutting edge, what would be a miss with a hatchet is just a less than optimal cut with a kukri.

BTW, I would argue with posters that refer to kukris as big chopping knives. Once you've dealt with one, you really understand that they are in a class of their own. But still, the principle is there, and the principle is that, under duress, a large tool will be quicker and easier to use for such things as gathering wood and building shelter than a small one. For two reasons. First, because there's just more tool to use. If you're going to cop, weight is your friend, not your enemy. I guarantee, I can do more work with less effort with a 20", 3 pound Ang Khola, than I can with a 1/4" thick, 15" OAL Kumar Karda (think Leuku on steroids), and the KK is NOT a small knife by any means. And I can do this not because I'ma stud, but because I let the weight of the tool coupled with gravity do most of the work, and I just tell it where to go. With the knife or saw approach, more of ME has to get behind it to do the work.
The second reason large tools work better in such situations is that they are more easily utilized with gross motor movements. Fine and delicate work CAN be done with them, but when, due to stress of whatever type, you lose fine motor function, it will be easier to still make use of a large tool than a small one.

I also think the comparison between the kukri and SAK is appropriate because it is one of the common arguments seem on this forum. On one side is the cavemen like me who won't go into the woods without a large hatchet/kukri/machete/golok, etc, and the other side who contends that their SAK or small Mora is all that's needed.

Before we start a fight, let me be clear that I'm not contending that if you don't go out with a big chopper that you'll die. Just that if you get in a bad way, things are easier with one.
 
I have a kukri and never really tried it. I got it about a year ago for fun to see if it would actually show up. It took about 4 weeks and showed up in foreign post marked packaging. It's made in nepal by hand and by feet. In the photo of the guys making these things they actually use their feet and I thought that was funny.

Compared to how my 12" machete feels, the kukri doesn't feel as nice and I don't think I would ever trade my hatchet for it. I'd have to give it a actual trial to appreciate it.
 
I love Khukuris have about 20 of them or so but don't carry them backpacking with me very much due to the weight. But if I thought that I might have to do all that stuff you did I would.

I hate to say it but most of my actual overnight trips are spent more in having fun and oogling at the beauty when I really should be practicing some wilderness skills:(
 
Great "testing", and very informative.

However....

Here's something else to consider:
When one is under duress (cold, wet, fatigued) it is far easier to maim oneself with a large chopper than with a locking folder.

When I was in the Army I once saw a young soldier, who was tired and cold and using an ax, miss his target and chop in to his own leg.
He had to be flown out of the field and back to the base hospital.
Had he been alone in a survival situation he might not have survived.

Larger choppers can save time, but they are much less forgiving of mistakes and accidents.
 
3wolves said:
I used to prefer large choppers first too until I convexed and sharpened a cheap Canadian tire hatchet. I personally did a comparison between a chopper and a hatchet but that was before I became involved in BFC so I have no pics. It will perform better at everything a chopper does with the exeption of cutting down small standing saplings, but it does that great too. It can also be choked up on like an ulu for fine whittling or food prep. I like my fiskars hatchet so much that I'm gonna put micarta around the shaft for a better grip and also try and stuff a small psk in there. If it means anything to anyone, if I could only have one sharp object in the woods, it would be a hatchet.
Click to expand...
A good chopper has much superior control and speed over any hatchet, therefore it's easier to use, it requires less force while maintaining precision, so you are able to cut more stuff in less time. Only an dedicate axe outguns a chopper, but then again, you won't haul such behemoth on a hike...
 
Another vote for a good hatchet. If I were stranded for a long period of time in the woods and I only had one tool, it would be a hatchet or small Ax. Second choice would be a good 5 inch fixed Blade knife like the SOG Northwest Ranger or Buck 119.

Excellent review.
 
Actually, this is why I prefer large knives/machetes/khukri type blades over axes and hatchets. I've nearly legged myself on more than one occasion, and that was sober, well rested, and paying close attention to what I was doing. If you grew up using hatchets/axes and have a good control over their motion and what they hit they're fine, but it's still a small cutting edge that needs to be put spot onto the target, otherwise you'll hit the handle or miss completely, maiming yourself if you aren't lucky.

**edit: Then again I basically grew up using an 18 inch tramontina, I think I started using one of those before I even got my first pocket knife. Maybe that has something to do with my comfort factor using them.

allenC said:
Great "testing", and very informative.

However....

Here's something else to consider:
When one is under duress (cold, wet, fatigued) it is far easier to maim oneself with a large chopper than with a locking folder.

When I was in the Army I once saw a young soldier, who was tired and cold and using an ax, miss his target and chop in to his own leg.
He had to be flown out of the field and back to the base hospital.
Had he been alone in a survival situation he might not have survived.

Larger choppers can save time, but they are much less forgiving of mistakes and accidents.
Click to expand...
 
Bushman5 said:
OHT, and i was warm and dry. Took approximately 45 minutes to build a nice frame,most of the time was spent whittling the limbs to cut them down.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you didn't use the saw? In my experience with up to about 2.5 inch diameter wood the SAK saw comes pretty close in speed to a medium sized chopper.
 
Elen said:
You know, I'm rather surprised you didn't get a heart attack if you went three days without drinking anything and then hiked with a load on a hot day.

Anyways, I certainly agree that it's good to "field test" different scenarios, especially ones where your gear or yourself will be limited in ability. I've spent a lot of effort doing that - and it pays off to know what your limits are in different conditions.

I don't consider the SAK vs Kukri comparison to be a valid comparision of a small knife versus big knife, though. The SAK is a folder, and therefore a non-knife in the first place. That is, if you ask me. A small fixed blade is far more convenient for actual work, and not much harder to carry. Of course, it won't chop like a kukri, but then, I've never seen chopping as that all important.

I found it extremely interesting that you found the grip of the kukri comfortable to use in those conditions. Because, I find it absolutely awful in normal conditions. But then, tastes differ. That's why it's important to test these things for yourself, and not rely on what some Mors or Ray writes. :thumbup:
Click to expand...

everyones body is different. I had no problems not drinking and then hiking. I avoided dry throat by chewing gum or holding a pebble in my cheek.

but yes it can be very dangerous! thats why i had a bunch of people along for the test. all had basic, and one was EMT. The last persopn was a sports stress tester . I had lots of gizmos hooked up to me.
 
Bushman5 said:
nope, it was a blade test! :p
Click to expand...
Ummm ok.
So why didn't you pick a single bladed folder to use (ala Buck 110) instead of a SAK?

The saw on the 111mm Vic OHT is a pretty impressive cutter.
Heck even the Vic 91 and 84mm saws are pretty impressive considering their size.
I fairly easily cut (pruning) 2-3 inch diameter limbs on a tree in my yard yesterday with my Vic Huntsman's saw.


Your test was well done but i'd be curious to see how you would do using a folding/retractable saw like a Fiskars, Bahco or Opinel.
It would be interesting to see your results.
 
You should have started this by saying that a large knife is better for you. Each will pick his own and why pick the SAK if you were not going to use the saw? The comparison would be much different IMO. If you compare just blades then compare a large fixed blade to a small fixed blade like the F-1.
 
Last edited:
I find that the choice of big or small knife radically changes what sorts of shelters I'll even consider making. I try to use designs that don't involve having to cut poles at all if I have a small knife; it's just a waste of valuable energy.

Great experiment though, and kudos to you for attempting these things under real conditions...
 
I know I'm going to be in a minority when I say this 'cos I've only seen one other person here recognise their worth, ever: but for me this is just another affirmation of why I so often carry the secateurs.


True, I often carry something big for chopping, but even when I have that with me when it comes to shelter building it is the pruning shears that get the bulk of the work done. Consider exactly what it is gardeners do with them, and why we tend not to see that many gardeners performing those tasks by flailing around with a big sharp something – it's just not efficient. And it doesn't suddenly become efficient just because you are out in the wild and not in a garden. It's a no contest no matter how good you think you are with a knife. Using the pseudo survival situation which is the subject of this thread it strikes me as obvious than in most places on earth people post here from this holds good. You are not after building a cabin, and if you were too cold, exhausted, or whatever to be able to operate them you'd be a positive liability to yourself and anyone around you if you tried to swing something sharp and heavy.

I do find the chopper [#2 or axe] useful for stuff that is too big for the secateurs to take on, and for clearing stuff out the way / harvesting, but in the scenario that is the subject of this thread a quick expedient shelter requires none of those things, or minimal use. Yup, if we are going to judge this scenario by measure of the degree of hazard to the user and the energy consumption taken to make something expedient for an emergency the big blade is going to be the loser.

[Based on the fact I live in a temporate zone, and I guess most of you do, and that the test was conducted in one]
 
Last edited:
udtjim said:
You should have started this by saying that a large knife is better for you. Each will pick his own and why pick the SAK if you were not going to use the saw? The comparison would be much different IMO. If you compare just blades then compare a large fixed blade to a small fixed blade like the F-1.
Click to expand...

I think that should be an assumption any time someone claims one tool/knife/gun/compass/whatever to be better than another. Unless they are strictly relaying facts and figures, it is basically one person showing, through their experience, why one tool worked better for them than another...

Just my .02

Wicked testing though. I may try that if we get cold this year in TX
 
I can't avoid 3 blades either, UNLESS, a serious trek is in the offing. Nothing will slow you down faster than dead weight. So my rule is I start with the lightest blade at the top of my list- A VIC Farmer. Then I add a Mora which adds 6 oz and since I ALWAYS go out with one of my two Oregon saws, The big chopper blade only comes out if I'm doing a hike of 10 miles or less or I know I'm chopping for sure. For treks of unknown duration (only did that once in my life) I avoid the big blades alltogether-

Sorry, Moodino. You have to have a paid membership to advertise knives for sale on Bladeforums, plus, the wilderness forum is not the venue for that. :D Plus, it's not nice to hijack another member's thread with your sales. I have to remove it. ~Brian.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I often need to do wood cutting during my wilderness trips. Several years in my life I strongly believed the folding saws are the most proper tools for that, considering their ease of carry and they can be bought for lower prices than high quality choppers or axes. Now, I don't even carry any more any pocket saw and any victorinox with me even it's not heavy at all. If some of you consider a folding saw can cut a 1 inch branch as fast as a good chopper and/or with less effort, this means you have never tried a high quality chopper. I currently use (mainly) a Fallkniven A2 for chopping (and I strongly believe there are much better choppers on the market). I can cut 1 inch branches by one strike in soft wood (like pine for example). This is effortless for me and is more depending on the striking motion and not the power of the body or muscles of the hand. I only balance the blade and accelerates its speed on the flow. When you use a saw, you need to keep pushing while moving it back and forward on the branch and your fingers need effort to keep it fixed on the direction. Sometimes the saw stuck in the wood if the wood is resinous and you also need psychic concentration to control the fingers (more than you need to control the precise direction of the chopper strike if you are used to it).

While talking about cutting bigger branches or young trees, well, the folding saw is useless at all. It is a nightmare to try cutting a branch thicker than the saw length with the saw. I tried this many times. It really is a nightmare, even when the branch is soft wood (impossible to cut).

The only advantage I see now for the folding saws is they can cut in difficult angles or narrow positions, where a chopper has not enough space to operate (like, for example, when you want to cut a leafy branch covered by many limbs without cutting its limbs near the area where you cut it from).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top