I agree with BruceZed. For the majority of people, the large knife is a liability. A good Swiss Army with a saw and preferably a locking blade is much better. A saw in general is much better for most tasks involving wood anyway. Like any other tool (or weapon) it is only as good as the person using it, and if the person does not know how, it is dead weight.

I have carried large blades, mostly in my Army days, and they were not used for survival (or fighting) but as a tool. I abused my big knives (and broke K-Bars frequently), but always pampered my Swiss Army Knife.

Most young troops that I knew always had to go buy a large knife as soon as they reported into their units. The first thing they cut with it was usually themselves. My Boy Scouts are much better, they learn how to handle blades properly and carrying one is a privilege that can easily be lost. They show much more maturity with a knife. And we don't generally like for them to carry anything over 3.5 to 4 inches anyway.

The SAK Ron Hood mentioned was the Victorinox Swiss Army Rucksack.

Bigger knives seem to have a different mentality about them, IMO. It's taken me a while to find a place in my heart for fixed blades, but I'm not sure I'll ever get into beefier knives for anything other than wood processing (and bigger food prep jobs) when I don't want to bring my axe. My CRKT Mt. Rainier folder, SAKs and Wave will probably always be my go to knives.







Just for reference, there are my three fixed blades. The blade lengths of the Ruko and BG are almost identical, but you can see the huge difference between the knives. They both feel good in the hand, but that BG knife is probably going to have a very limited role in my kit. The smallest of the three is the knife my son bought me for Mother's Day last year, and I actually find it too short for most of the tasks I want to do with it. (Wood and food prep.) Weird that my folders are even smaller but I'm very comfortable with using them for just about everything. (I think it's a grip thing, btw.)





All of them do this quite well:



And this, which I'd never ask of a folder:



Regardless of which ones I actually pack when I head off the concrete, my belt is probably going to keep looking this this:

If I am planning on being overnight and making a fire, I will likely have a small hatchet (Gator Axe) and saw (Bacho) with me. In these cases, the knife is almost secondary and either my fixed blade or my small SAK would be sufficient.

However, where I see the fixed blade (Fallkniven F1) shining is when I am not planning on overnighting. Most times, I won't need it at all, and other times it might see minimal use. But if I did find myself in a true survival situation I have a single tool that is more than capable of any task I need from it; the most critical being processing wood so I can make fire.

This is why I think I'll stick with the fixed blade on my belt; it's the tool that can cover all the bases if the need arises. Realistically, I could even leave the hatchet at home when overnighting but I like using the hatchet as a hammer too when setting up camp.

That said, regarding size I agree that around 4" is a good size (as can be seen in my choice of fixed blade).

Since we were talking about the BG knives earlier, I should mention it looks like the new Ultimate Pro knife seems to be a pretty good choice for those in the market for one now. They seem to be going for under $70 now and have some good improvements over the original (which still had good reviews) and you get a ferro rod & field sharpener in the package.

Agreed, GauchoViejo, a bigger one and a smaller one is my preference also.

They say "experiences create beliefs". I think that the reason there can be no general consensus on a 'best' knife is that a persons' expectations of knife performance and utility are inexorably intertwined with their experiences.

Add budget, geography, and activity types to the mix, and the possibilities are endless.

Early on, I had a Buck 110, actually a pretty big knife when opened. I moved up to a Buck 119 Special and carried that for a long time. Next was a Western W36...similar to the Buck, but with a full tang and a wood handle. I still have and love those knives. Certainly, I have some smaller knives, but I learned what I could do with a 6 inch blade and am comfortable with them. It is no big leap to go the a Becker BK 7. I regard the BK7 as utilitarian replacement for a hatchet, one of which I had a close call with on a rainy night alone in the northern MN bush. That was an experience that created a belief.

I'll tell that story some other time.

Ahhhhhhh! Come ahhhhhhhhnnnnnn! :-)

I think there is a difference in basic approaches - what I might call "bushcraft" versus "LNT (Leave No Trace)"

Bushcraft is traditional - think Bradford Angier or Nessmuk, and rooted in the northern or eastern woodlands where timber is thick and wood resources are readily available. LNT is more at home in the western areas of the US - drier and often above timberline or in deserts, where one often runs out of bushes to craft. While a large knife and axe is useful in bushcraft regions, the LNT adherent is more likely to carry a lightweight shelter and stove, along with chemical fuel, traveling more self-contained. This person does not need to carry such large tools.

Both approaches have value and each works best in some situations, not so well in others. At least the differences between the two generate a lot of discussion.

I'll buy that... I'm going to give it a try during my upcoming two weeks hiking the canyon lands and high plains.

I have a few large blades and while they are useful for bigger tasks than an SAK, they would never be part of my EDC -- neither on person nor my EDC backpack -- so I cannot consider them to be survival knives, rather I consider them large wilderness/camping knives. As an example, my Fehrman Final Judgement while a great blade to have in a wilderness survival situation, is too large for EDC in any capacity. You would need to knowingly put yourself into the situation and then call it survival.

Survival is normally come-as-you-are which is why I wear or have within arms reach a survival vest when I'm flying. I am knowingly putting myself into a higher probability of harms way. But I carry all that stuff sitting down and if I ever deploy it I'll be swimming; in either case the weight of that vest is negligible. Does anyone here routinely carry a few extra lbs of steel on a casual hike or are there other items that might have a higher probability of being useful -- how about a half gallon of water?

I carry that knife in my truck along with a shovel and other large tools. At least for me it's not for routine carry.

The flying environment is particularly challenging. You can leave from a local airport here and in about five minutes be either in mountains about 8000 feet high or over an ocean; throw in seasonal variations and you need to consider preparation for a variety of environments and conditions. When I am traveling by foot or bicycle, the range is much more limited I almost always carry plenty of water (more than I think I will need), at least a light windshell (Patagonia Houdini), some sort of FAK, a map and mirrored compass (unless I know the terrain very well), a blade, and fire making kit. If the country is rough, or has the potential of being rough, I will often toss in a minimum of 30M of thin climbing rope. I usually have some edibles squirreled away; going hungry is such a drag!