Hi Leigh,

I think you maybe took the question literally instead of rhetorically. The rhetorical answer is "because you can never have enough gear, nor enough redundancy". I don't know that it was meant to level a charge of ignorance against Redflare. <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

The more literal answer to the original question is yes, it's somewhat redundant. To steal a phrase "not that there's anything wrong with that". As long as you don't mind the tradeoffs of additional weight, carrying a third blade is not a bad idea.

On the other hand, I like my gear, but I find a good multi and a pocket folder fit the bill almost all the time and feel a third is weight I can use on other things. A SAK is, however, NOT comparable to a good multi in my book. If I had a choice it would be for a multi over a SAK.

I find SAKs to be less "utilitarian" than a multi like my Leatherman New Wave. So, for me, It would be a folder and a multi and -depending on the circumstance- a fixed blade.

Let me explain my preference of the Multi over the SAK. First, it seems "meatier" and as a tool, I expect to be able to crank and torque it until my hand hurts. Most SAK I've used don't have that feel to them. Second is safety... sure some SAK have locking now, but most don't. I find it an incredible drawback. Third, my multi of choice has a real set of pliers, not to mention some real tools, like a plug and play screw-bit system. So I've always seen the SAKs as more of a nice toy with some decent features while the Multi's (good quality ones, at least $50+) as real tools. Certainly some tradeoffs with size and weight, but honest to goodness tools.

So, while I wouldn't call them equivalent redundancies, I can see carrying a SAK as backup in the field, especially the saw and knife. I think if I were the one carrying and I really liked the SAK, I would carry, a fixed, a SAK with locking blade and saw (mainly used as a folding knife), and a multi.