Why carry a large knife and an axe?

[mewolf1]

http://www.mukluks.com/

 

[North61]

http://www.mukluks.com/

Yup that's the one.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

Your point about time is well taken but can be solved far more effectively than by increasing the size and weight of the knife.

Using an efficient primary grind, a distal taper and tang, you can make a large long blade (over a foot) which weighs less than a small bottle of pop. This is for the thicker versions made from 1/4" stock, the slim ones which are more for brush than thick woods weigh about twice as much as one of the larger folders.

I think it is dangerous to people who are new to wilderness survival for us to constantly discuss “The Knife is Essential” and “Which Knife is Best” giving the impression that this alone is THE crucial issue.

It is a sub forum of Bladeforums, so you kind of expect the discussion to be central on knives, just like if there was a cooking subforum the discussion would pretty much be focused on cutlery, this doesn't imply that you don't need anything else, but should be obvious given the nature of the group.

It is also kind of ridiculus to note that people discuss or defend the use of long blades in particular on Bladeforums when you consider that there are several subforums devoted to them specifically such as the HI forum which is one of the largest and most active sub groups here and has been around since basically the beginning. It would be like being surprised that people defended forging on an ABS forum.

Long blades are no different than any other gear, the main problem is however a huge disparity between how they are treated. If someone asked for suggestions on boots, would you get a rash of posts attacking the guy as if he didn't abuse his boots he would not need such over built gear and cavemen didn't have those boots, and "I have spent 25 years outdoors with sneakers and I am still alive so you can't say boots are essential."

Probably not. People say these things all the time about other gear, Mears for example noted in his canoe trip that he feels a mosquito suit is "essential", I would not disagree with Mears statement having been in heavy black fly regions, though I doubt that you can find a lot of people who have died because of lack of a suit (diseases from mosquitoes/flies are really rare where he was).

Can you compensate for lack of blade wear with other supplies, sure, a large tarp can make a wind/rain shelter fairly fast, and with the right tinder in the right woods you don't need to cut, chop or split any wood. Is this really an arguement though that there is no need to carry the long blade, this is what the thread asks specifically.

It doesn't pose the question, is the best survival kit just one large knife, but asks is there any value in adding such a tool to your kit in *any* enviroment. It seem kind of more than a little extreme to answer with a resounding no if you consider even for a moment the massive amount of traditional long blades.

Many people who teach jungle wilderness survival for example will note a machete is essential, some in fact put it as the central part of the kit, the thing they do in fact reach for first. Everyone has their own approaches and there are pretty strong viewpoint on nearly opposite perceptions on those issues.

Nessmuk for example favored a small double bited hatchet, however you don't have to go very far before you will find many people who consider that to be the worse combination of aspects in an axe because it combines two of the most dangerous features of axes into one tool.

Does this mean one of the groups is a "moron", no, and attacking either group with such a label does nothing productive. Cook goes as far to note that he would recommend a heavy knife even over a single edged hatchet because of the danger and warns heavily against the dangers of double bitted axes but also describes their advantages.

Primitive skills and what you can build or carve with a knife are a poor back-up plan in lieu of a well though out daypack.

Davenport takes this approach, his first book on wilderness survival is all about preperation and gear choices to make sure that camping, hiking, etc. never turns into a survival situation.

Bushcraft and wilderness survival are complimentary disciplines but they are distinct.

I think it is an evolution, settlement being the obvious case. The difference is fairly obvious one being a desire to get out of a situation and another one to adapt to it and remain.

-Cliff

 

[pict]

"I think it is an evolution, settlement being the obvious case. The difference is fairly obvious one being a desire to get out of a situation and another one to adapt to it and remain." - Cliff

Exactly. My point being that there is a "big knife cult" out there that seems to think that if I have my big knife I'm set, I can handle it, I can make any shelter, trap, friction fire set, whatever if I have my big knife. (And I'm not pointing to you as its proponent).

This is a great way to spend a weekend but it is a poor strategy for "Wilderness Survival". I think people who are just starting to explore this discipline need to understand that. There are very many people who can make a shelter with only their big knife, make a friction fire with only their knife, and do all the other things they need to do with their big knife. The crunch comes when you have to do all that at the same time, in the same fading light, or with a broken bone, jammed finger, or hypothermia setting in. I would challenge anyone to get it all done in one full day here in central Brazil either in rainy season or above 5,500 ft elevation. (dry seaon would be far easier)

This is a BLADE forums sub-forum, yes, but the general topic is wilderness survival. If anyplace gives voice to the big knife cult it is here. Yes, learn to do as much as you can with your knife (whatever it may be), fantastic idea. However, don't get fooled into thinking that those skills alone will get you out of a situation such as I have described. That's the only dog I have in this fight. Mac

 

[Cliff Stamp]

My point being that there is a "big knife cult" out there that seems to think that if I have my big knife I'm set, I can handle it, I can make any shelter, trap, friction fire set, whatever if I have my big knife.

Yes, everthing has its people in the extremes, there was a comment made on Knifeforms recently that carving a fuzz stick is the ultimate test for a survial knife (not as a joke). Now that is far more extreme than the comments that Skammer has made about large knives. I can carve fuzz sticks all day long with a small custom paring knife, it is in fact the optimal design to do so, however would anyone recommend this as a broad enviroment survival knife, or wilderness knife in general. I have never seen one so promoted. Not to mention lots of enviroments don't even have any wood.

The big problem is a lack of appreciation for the arguement. Consider for example the typical clash between a really intense puukko fan vs someone who advocates a RD9. The puukko guy will rail into the RD9 user as an unskilled brute and rant about how you don't need that much knife if you know what you are doing. Ok, now take that exact same arguement and apply it to the puukko, it isn't if that is a knife which is designed as a pure cutting tool either. My EDC knives make scandi knives look like blunt prybars. Of course you can keep going, you can split a piece of oak with a scalpel blade if you have the time, and a Mora 2000 is more efficient, and a RD9 the same only more so. So how can you argue for one but critize the other?

[I am not saying you are making any of these points, just discussing the arguement]

There are very many people who can make a shelter with only their big knife, make a friction fire with only their knife, and do all the other things they need to do with their big knife.

How is this any different than asking the same of someone with a small knife and axe? Or any other gear question? Yes there are a lot of knife related questions because the user group are knife fans.

If anyplace gives voice to the big knife cult it is here.

Spend some time on the HI forum, or any of the heavy tactical forums. The ABS crowd are *really* heavy into large bowies. For an extreme example see the Jungle Honey by Fikes.

However, don't get fooled into thinking that those skills alone will get you out of a situation such as I have described.

Even the most extreme guys like Skammar have never argued that a long knife is the only requirement just a critical one. I think knowing how to navigate is essential, but knowing just how to do that would be fairly poor practice. I think the first thing you should do is forget about gear questions and ask about the enviroment.

For topics in general it would be more productive for learning in general to not focus on what a tool can do, but what needs to be done and how to go about it. Once you under stand what the goals are and how they should be achieved, it is only then can you apply the tools. Tree felling for example follows the same principles if you use a chainsaw, axe, parang, or Mora and a baton.

It isn't nearly as important as what you use to do it as how you actually go about doing it and of course should you actually be cutting down a tree in the first place.

-Cliff

 

[Bob41081]

Pict, Jim, alco and a few others. Please remember trying to have a discussion with a brickheaded wall is impossile, they never listen or learn. Their way is the only way, NOT.

Bob

 

[Jim Craig]

Right you are, Ken. Er, Bob. (Oops,too much MXC)

I only hope that the ones who are looking for legitimate, intelligent responses are capable of wading through the crap, and take something of value from this.

Jim

 

[DFW_Dave]

I agree with Jim "carry the right tool for the job". A knife is for cutting. Yes it can be used for other purposes, but why? I'm not going to inventory all my backcountry clothes and equipment but as far as knives/cutting tools go I carry a 3" folder, 2" neck knife, and a 4 1/2"fixed blade belt knife. For heavy chopping I have a Wetterling axe.

 

[sodak]

The right tool for the job is great - as long as the job has been defined. Many things are a compromise, and that's when knowledge and flexibility come into play. It's nice to have tools that can do many jobs, not just one. I can never understand carrying a "one trick pony" such as an axe. Too heavy for my liking, not enough benefit derived.

I agree that this thread has a lot of crap in it. Who exactly is putting it forth, however, is subject to debate.

 

[Jim Craig]

I agree that this thread has a lot of crap in it. Who exactly is putting it forth, however, is subject to debate.

Nope. Not to me. I think I have that one figured out.

I agree that a tool should have other uses, in addition to it's primary function. It just seems to me that the primary function should actually be primary. For a knife I think that primary function should be cutting, for an axe, chopping, and for digging, a shovel or backhoe, Whether or not one carries an axe is personal choice. Same with a backhoe.

Come to think of it, this arguemnt has been made over and over again, and looking back at it, why keep on keeping on? It is obvious the only people who are giving this arguement consideration are those who already know it to be a valid one. We are not changing the opinion of the "hack and chop" club, or the "club and chop" hacks, for that matter, and nor would I want to. So why bother? Dunno, actually.
I think I'm done here. I'm going outside. It's the one place I know I won't run into Cliff and Skammer.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

It just seems to me that the primary function should actually be primary. For a knife I think that primary function should be cutting ...

This look like a cutting tool :

http://www.physics.mun.ca/~sstamp/images/rk_bowie_light_concrete_chop.jpg

It is a picture of Ray Kirk's JS bowie, you might want to do a quick check on Kirk's background if you are not familar to note his ability to create and use knives which are designed as primary cutting tools.

Now further consider that he suggesed during the evaluation of that knife that it be used to chop up a concrete block. Not just dig a hole in the ground, but take the blade and chop it heavily into a piece of concrete.

Which it did, the above picture is *after* it chopped a huge notch into the block and before it was sharpened. It also dug well and made a decent prybar, this was all *after* it had passed the ABS bend test to 90 degrees and was just straightened.

It also cut very well also, from chopping up wood, to various meats (Ray mentioned either working on a moose or bear just before I got the knife), and as well as doing very delicate cutting. Again check Ray's background for the abilities of his knives in general in that respect.

Fowler also makes knives which are very well respected as cutting tools, some in fact put him very high on a list in that respect, maybe even at the top. As part of his requirement for a high performance knife he does very heavy prying, repeated bends to *180* degrees. He also feels you should be able to dig a hole in rocky soil and resharpen the knife trivially, and be able to baton on the knife with a hammer, not a wooden baton but a hammer.

Want to apply all the insults and insinuations you have thrown around recently to those two makers, noting that in fact the work they described is *MUCH* more abusive than the uses which you had no problems degrading. Those are not the only two makers of course, those two are just active on the forums and the above statements are a matter of public record so anyone can check them easily.

-Cliff

 

[Jim Craig]

Ever see how they come up with a five star crash rating on a vehicle? Is that how you are supposed to treat your new Volvo? In fact, is it recommended or safe?

 

[Ebbtide]

For Cliff's work with Mr. Fowlers' knife
http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=257608

sigh.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

In fact, is it recommended or safe?

Some of the uses described are in fact recommended by the makers as noted in the above. Fowler recently noted in a thread that when a customer commented about not using one of his knives for fear it would get scratched he offered to dig a large hole right in front of him and sharpen it up to show just how little the knife would be effected.

Now this is the maker doing a direct demonstration which *does not damage the knife*. This isn't the same as a crash test rating which totals the car. If the makers test destroyed the knife then you would have an arguement that it might not be a sensible thing to do, but when all it does it require you to sharpen a knife then it isn't.

About the most dangerous thing you can do with an axe is use it as it is meant to be used which is as a felling tool does this mean you should not do it, or you should learn to do it right. When axes were commonly used for this people got killed on a regular basis, however find reports of people getting killed by digging a hole in the ground with a knife or prying apart a tree stump to get pitch wood.


-Cliff

 

[IntheWoods]

An axe and/or saw is invaluable in a survival situation, for building shelter, securing firewood, etc.

So is a knife. Any knife is better than no knife.

Therefore, the best knife is often the one you're most likely to have with you.

Big knives, like bowies are an attempt to blend many tools in one and offer a defensive tool beyond the reach of most knives. Big knives often don't excel at all tasks but will perform adequately if necessary. So will some hatchets, that are also capable of performing knife functions.

If I had one knife in the back country in a survival situation, it would a large one.

The only advantage I can see of lock backs is portability and concealability.

That being said, like all tools, it's important to consider its limitations as well.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

Big knives, like bowies are an attempt to blend many tools in one ...

Yes, and you really need to use one to realize just how much this can be achieved. There is a big difference between the sabre hollow ground tacticals and ABS style long bowies or Valiant parangs, but a lot of the times the performance of the latter is inferred from the former. The edges on the latter are actually just as fine for example as the BRK&T small fixed blades so they don't lack cutting ability.

In terms of not having one, yes, the difference between not having any knife and having the worst one you have ever handled is probably bigger than the worst to best one, just like going barefoot in the snow vs wearing a sneaker vs nice winter boot. But there is a difference between appreciating a pair of cheap sneakers in the winter if you have to make due and actually recommending them as winter gear.

Most of the heavy disagreement comes when Skammar says something like "X is not a survival tool" and people assume this to mean it has no use. Which isn't what he is saying any more than when people say not to choose cotton for survival clothing it doesn't mean you would not appreciate cotton if it was all you had, just that it isn't what you would pick if you had the choice.

-Cliff

 

[Thomas Linton]

American "mountain men" got along pretty good in the Rockies and Basin with fairly thin (< 1/8") long knives plus one or more axe-type tools (axe, hand axe, hawk).

In a book endorsed by a who's-who of survial training and SAR, "98.6," the author illustrates moras as the ideal survival knife. He's most familiar with the U.S. southwest.

I rarely can justify a heavy knife as a supplement to a stout 4-5" knife, saw, and multitool when backpacking in Ohio, PA, Mich, southern Ontario - but that is never in November-March. And that's just me.

Views differ.

Debate and argument can be educational if approached with an open mind. They present alternatives.

Life is finite.

The abiliity to be offended when you REALLY want to be offended -
The ability to be offensive when it is totally unnecessary to your argument -
Apparently infinite.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

In a book endorsed by a who's-who of survial training ...

Regardless of what you pick it isn't hard to find a published and generally well accepted individual who either will strongly endorse it or strongly oppose it, often times for the exact same enviroment. Much of it depends on what else they have used and their background.

Jim Aston for example has wrote about how he feels hatchets are dangerous, this is the same viewpoint as Cook (who wrote the axe bible) and yet Nessmuk favored a small *dual edged* hatchet, which is a double strike for Cook. Locally hatchets are common and no one sees them as dangerous, people give them to five year olds, well they used to anyway.

I don't see it as much value to give a blanket recommendation, what is more meaningful is to describe why which is all that is actually useful. For example when Mears comments that he prefers a wood/canvas canoe over a modern synthetic he describes in detail why and his reasons might be completely irrelevant to lots of people.

-Cliff

 

[skammer]

American "mountain men" got along pretty good in the Rockies and Basin with fairly thin (< 1/8") long knives plus one or more axe-type tools (axe, hand axe, hawk).

Quite true Thomas. Oldtime bushman also used the traditional bowie to great success as well. Many travelled by horse or mule so weight was not an issue.

FOr those who are in error of my point of view I will clarify some.

A blade "may" not be essential to your survival but then again it may as you wont know till it happens.

YOur brain is essential to survival.

A blade helps in conserving energy in order to make survival more likely.

There is a time and a place for a larger blade vs smaller its entirely situational.

A large "quality" blade allows you to do more things in less time thus conserving more energy and making survival more in your favor.

There is vast differences in blade quality and thus huge variables as to what kind of abuse it can take while doing more things in less time while conserving more energy and making survival more in your favor.

A large blade does not make you smarter just gives you a better tool to do the jobs you need to do in less time with less effort.......

Having a large blade without fire means you freeze next to a large hunk of steel.

Having a larger blade means not having to carry an axe and small blade saving bulk and weight. Yes, a saw is lighter but not as utilitarian though it does have its place.

My idea of a good all round larger blade size is between 6-9 inches I prefer 7-8. I like 7-8 purely for its middle road utility vs bulk weight trade off.

There is a million variables that will determine ones ability or outcome of a bad situation and a blade is but one; but an important one.

Understanding a blade/tools limit of use is very important, the greater the durability limit the better the tool is to you when you need it most.

Forecasting "EXACTLY" what duties you will need a specific tool to perform is not possible thus hedging your bets and covering as many angles as possible with regards to utility and quality is crucial in choosing a tool in the planning stage.

Depending on environment a blades design requirements change but the requirement for quality, durability and utility does not.

Owning a larger blade does not mean you know how to use one, there is a learning curve best learned before your life depends on it.

Survival tools are not about what you can do without, improvise or compromise, its about having with you the best quality gear you can trust in order to gain an advantage of time, effort and efficiency over your given situation you must overcome. The situation will be hard enough without worrying about your equipment choices and their ability to perform. If you fail its should "NOT!" be because because of quality or ill chosen gear.

Good gear is not a replacement for knowledge but rather an adjunct that enhances your chances and thus deserves proper respect in the planning and practice stages.

The best gear in the world doesnt help stupid choices and ill concieved exposure to risk.

A poor man can only afford to buy the very best "ONCE!".


These are "MY" thoughts and beliefs. People have every right to agree or dissagree as I loose no sleep over it, but I do sleep better knowing my points of view are read and available to those who choose take the advice or not.

Information is power, take it with a grain of salt and make up your own mind what to do with it. This is a public forum after all. Just be thankfull we all have the freedom to express such opinions.

Chin up.

Skam

 

[Thomas Linton]

Regardless of what you pick it isn't hard to find a published and generally well accepted individual who either will strongly endorse it or strongly oppose it, often times for the exact same enviroment. Much of it depends on what else they have used and their background.

Jim Aston for example has wrote about how he feels hatchets are dangerous, this is the same viewpoint as Cook (who wrote the axe bible) and yet Nessmuk favored a small *dual edged* hatchet, which is a double strike for Cook. Locally hatchets are common and no one sees them as dangerous, people give them to five year olds, well they used to anyway.

I don't see it as much value to give a blanket recommendation, what is more meaningful is to describe why which is all that is actually useful. For example when Mears comments that he prefers a wood/canvas canoe over a modern synthetic he describes in detail why and his reasons might be completely irrelevant to lots of people.

-Cliff

Views differ

"There is no best design. There are only best designs for: for certain people, for certain jobs, for certain demands."