Survival v Bushcraft?

[forestwalker]

I think many people on this thread are just avoiding the question. The issue is what knife you would rather have in a survival situation, and not, how likely do you think it is that you will be in a survival situation. An answer along the lines of "I will never be in a situation where I would need a survival knife, so I only have a bushcraft knife with me", is not a response to "what knife would you rather have in a survival situation". Similarly, an answer such as "I only need a bushcraft knife because I always have an axe with me" does not answer the question.

Maybe your question is silly? Maybe others use it as a springboard for disussing things they feel is of more interest? Maybe the answer is there all the time, but you are unable to see it?

I would carry a "bushy" blade (Mora, SKB) because that would allow me to carry out just about any tasks that is within the reach of a knife in a survival situation. But I will also insist that the question is silly, since there is no difference between buschcraft and survival once you reach a certain skill level. Let me illustrate by taking an example.

Think of two persons. One is Mors Kochnski (or RM, Lofty, Lars Fält, etc) and the other a random chav who has never been outside greater London (M25?). Dump them in a northern Swedish forest with only a knife (of their choice) in early June, around 8 PM, in a light drizzle. For the experts it would be no big deal, just a matter of building a shelter, making a fire, and then start finding their way out the next day. For our stereotypical chav it would be a major survival challenge, and no knife would make much of a difference. But it is the same situation! Once you have the skills it ceases to be a survival situation and becomes a matter of bushcraft.

We have a bit of that problem in the Survival Guild. A couple of decades ago the "challenge/hardship" courses were 5 days, with only a knife and a firesteel (or a few matches, plus some extra clothes). Today the equivalent is 10 days, with no knife or firemaking tools ("just clothes"). The reason? The number of people for whom 5 days with a knife and a firemaking apparatus would be a pretty relaxing "walk in the woods" have increased. Without adding silly things (military SERE stuff, faked injuries, doing it naked, walking inordinate distances, taking a kindergarten group along, etc) one soon is at a point where it is difficult to make it more challenging and still keep it compatible with normal peoples lives (i.e. no month long courses, no kidnapping people from their places of work). I suppose we should run it in mid October instead (we already do a winter version, and there one runs into safety limits pretty quickly).

 

[Andrew_S]

If people aren't answering the question, it may be that the real question is how you get in that situation.

It would be silly for me to go off on a backcountry trip with a Grohmann, a filet knife, and a Mora, and then also throw in a "survival knife" in case. If you're already carrying knives for camp tasks, why add a survival knife to perform ... camp tasks?

Which knife would I rather have in a "survival situation?"

Well, wouldn't that depend on the situation?

 

[rg598]

I was not the one who posted the question guys.

While it is fair to ask "how would I get into this situation", I don't think the question is silly. I think it just brings out some biases people have that they are not willing to confront. A rational person should have no problem answering a simple hypo-"If you were dropped off deep in the woods with just a knife, would you rather have a knife with a four or an eight inch blade?" For some reason some of the people who like small blades are jumping around on this post as if though it is a personal attack on them.

To me it seemed like a simple question. If your answer is that when bropped in the situation described above, you would rather have a small Mora, then fine, that is your answer. You might want to add why that would be your choice, but that's all. The only thing I was pointing out was that people were answering the question by changing the fact pattern.

Oh, by the way, Forestwalker, why so angry? Maybe if you don't like the question you should start a post with another one. That's the great thing about this site. I personally thought that the question was interesting, and would like to hear what people have to say even though it wasn't my post. If you think the question is not worth answering, then don't answer it. I think you are afraid to answer the original question honestly because you don't like the conclusion you reach. Perhaps that is why you insist on changing the fact pattern. Is that the answer that was there the whole time but I was unable to see, or did you have somethng else in mind.

 

[forestwalker]

To me it seemed like a simple question. If your answer is that when bropped in the situation described above, you would rather have a small Mora, then fine, that is your answer. You might want to add why that would be your choice, but that's all. The only thing I was pointing out was that people were answering the question by changing the fact pattern.

Oh, by the way, Forestwalker, why so angry? Maybe if you don't like the question you should start a post with another one. That's the great thing about this site. I personally thought that the question was interesting, and would like to hear what people have to say even though it wasn't my post. If you think the question is not worth answering, then don't answer it. I think you are afraid to answer the original question honestly because you don't like the conclusion you reach. Perhaps that is why you insist on changing the fact pattern. Is that the answer that was there the whole time but I was unable to see, or did you have somethng else in mind.

Angry? Moi? Hardly. As me what I think of MS Windows if you want to see lots of ""****** ****, no I correct myself **** could sue me for slander for comparing such utter useless ******* to perfectly respectable ****" style statements. But many here rejected the question, and took the discussion of why the rejected it as an interesting starting point. That is one of the great things about (on-line) discussions; the conversation can wander away from where it was initially, but still be very interesting.

Afraid of my conclusion? Afraid of the fact that there is (IMNSHO) no single better tool for the job than the style I have carried in the woods in the woods for the last 25+ years. I too was a teenager once, and bigger and neater did draw my attention once uppon a time, but I grew out of it. I grew up carrying finnish pukkos in the woods (a Martinni, then a Roselli) then I played with "neat" for a while, before going back to the style of knives I prefer (you should have seen my arguments with Ron Hood on a mailing list a decade ago, back when he pushed 8+" choppers). There is not a lot of difference between a Woodlore, a Mora, an SKB, a traditional Sami blade, or a pukko; they are all part of the same familly of knives.

There is a number of tasks that a knife could be given in a sane scenario (excluding R'yleh and Mutant Zombies from Redmond). Once I set the stage (taiga) the set was limited (e.g. no jungle style chopping neeeded) the list could be grouped as "making things", "butchering (mostly small) game" and "shelter building". I think Mors Kochanski have amply demonstrarted that the bushcraft style blade (mora/pukko/woodlore/SKB) can do all of those about as well as can be expected,

The bigger blades are better for chopping, but a mora and a baton can do as well, och technical skills can compensate (e.g. bending saplings before cutting them). The bigger blade is impractical fo.r fine work (constructing traps, etc), and the butchering of game has been done so many times by moras, pukkos and sami knives that one could not argue that they are not equal to the task.

But you do have a point; I am "afraid" to admit that the SEK 29 mora is just as good as my SEK 1000 Julius Petterson, and slightly better than the SEK 1600 antler knife (they are cheaper when you buy them direct from the maker, in his home village). But I knew that when I bought them, I bought them because I wanted to have tools that "felt" better than the red thermoplastic did. Totally irrational, but there you have it. The antler knife and Julles blade taken together is not 100 times as good as the mora. But they look better, so I suppose I am a fashion victim after all. Oh the embaressment.

 

[rg598]

lol. Fair enough-an honest answer.

 

[tsitenha]

You guys think way to much.....

Survival knife = the knife you have with you at the moment...simple..yes

Bush (craft?) knife the one you carry most often to accomplish you regular basic tasks often the same..yes

now go out and play, don't forget your ax..yes

 

[rg598]

That's true. That's why it is important what knife you carry for your general tasks, so you can have it in the survival situation. I think those two tastks require different knives, and a person has to decide which task is more important.

 

[forestwalker]

That's true. That's why it is important what knife you carry for your general tasks, so you can have it in the survival situation. I think those two tastks require different knives, and a person has to decide which task is more important.

I agree with you. This is why my main knife is not a short bladed Mora slöjd; it is lousy for batoning or butchering game. A compromise like the Skookum, Mora or Woodlore is a much better general bush knife, just like a SwissTool is better in a server hall than the Mora, or a 8" Sabatier chefs knife is better in the kitchen than the SwissTool.

The only tasks I would like to be able to do with a knife in a "survival situation" that I don't normally do is butchering large game and in extremis batoning full size trees. What exactly is it that you feel the Mora/SKB/Woodlore is unable to do?

 

[rg598]

It is not an issue of what you can do, it is an issue of how easily you can do it. As I said before, you can build a shelter with a Mora, and you can split wood with it (assuming proper technique), but the amount of energy it takes is much greater that when doing it with a large knife. That does not matter much when we are just doing it for fun-we can spend two hours making wedges to split wood, and when we get bored pull out the axe, but in a survival situation, the speed with which you can perform those tasks and the energy you save are very important. In such a situation, delicate wood carving is a distant second to rough wood work such as shelter buiding.

If your experience leads you to believe that you can build a shelter just as fast with a Mora as with a RTAK II, and can collect wood just as fast, then your experiences differ largely from mine. If a 4 in knife was the best for all wood work, then we would never carry an axe.

Each knife is a compromise. I think in a survival situation the compromise should be towards heavier work, as large projects like shelter building and fire making are much more important than spoon carving. Again, you can carve a spoon with an RTAK II just like you can make a shelter with a Mora, but neither one is suited for the respective task.

 

[sandbender]

...If your experience leads you to believe that you can build a shelter just as fast with a Mora as with a RTAK II, and can collect wood just as fast, then your experiences differ largely from mine.

In 'Northern Europe' I can usually build a 'natural' shelter without any kind tool at all

...but in a survival situation, the speed with which you can perform those tasks and the energy you save are very important

How exactly would I be saving energy by hacking away at my environment with an undersized machete?

 

[moab]

I would carry a "bushy" blade (Mora, SKB) because that would allow me to carry out just about any tasks that is within the reach of a knife in a survival situation. But I will also insist that the question is silly, since there is no difference between buschcraft and survival once you reach a certain skill level. Let me illustrate by taking an example.

Think of two persons. One is Mors Kochnski (or RM, Lofty, Lars Fält, etc) and the other a random chav who has never been outside greater London (M25?). Dump them in a northern Swedish forest with only a knife (of their choice) in early June, around 8 PM, in a light drizzle. For the experts it would be no big deal, just a matter of building a shelter, making a fire, and then start finding their way out the next day. For our stereotypical chav it would be a major survival challenge, and no knife would make much of a difference. But it is the same situation! Once you have the skills it ceases to be a survival situation and becomes a matter of bushcraft.

forestwalker - I've been fascinated by the responses to this thread, including the various wanderings into other areas which were not part of the original question (but make good and thoughful reading), the question was a "what if" and not a "real life" scenario where you would clearly not be able to choose your knife.

The question may have been poorly worded but not "silly" . I would disagree with the notion that there is no difference between a bushcraft and a survival situation. I would hazard that most people do not attain that level of knowledge to make it a bushcraft "event". My question was not directed to the knowledge people have about bushcraft/survival but merely the differences in knife "tool" styles.

I wonder what would happen if the roles were reversed in your example with the experts being dropped inside the M25 along with the "chav"
ATB

 

[forestwalker]

It is not an issue of what you can do, it is an issue of how easily you can do it. As I said before, you can build a shelter with a Mora, and you can split wood with it (assuming proper technique), but the amount of energy it takes is much greater that when doing it with a large knife. That does not matter much when we are just doing it for fun-we can spend two hours making wedges to split wood, and when we get bored pull out the axe, but in a survival situation, the speed with which you can perform those tasks and the energy you save are very important. In such a situation, delicate wood carving is a distant second to rough wood work such as shelter buiding.

In summer (northern decidious forest or taiga) you do not need any tool to build a shelter, and the amount of time you same is minimal (say 15-20 % max). In the winter/autumn we preferably need logs in the taiga (well outside the usual scope of any knife, even if it is doable with just about any sane knife).

If your experience leads you to believe that you can build a shelter just as fast with a Mora as with a RTAK II, and can collect wood just as fast, then your experiences differ largely from mine. If a 4 in knife was the best for all wood work, then we would never carry an axe.

http://www.google.se/search?q=rtak+11 ... That's not a knife, that's a teenaged machete.

Ok, I just went out an played some with my macho-man chopper (MOD survival knife) and a bog standard mora. I was perhaps slightly faster on the "chop down a 4" pole" bit with the MOD, and about as fast on the cut it in two part (using a baton). For splitting the MOD was better if it did it in one blow, but worse if one needed to baton. Not as good for any carving task (the MOD blade is simply too clumsy to perform well). For spruce branches breaking them off was about as fast as the MOD, and it was not quite big enough (and too thick a grind, I think) to clear second growth salix very well.

I was unable to test the zombie killing abilities, due to local game laws.

The MOD weights about 600 g, while an axe needs only be about twice that. No contest, unless I need to split a lot of kindling.

Each knife is a compromise. I think in a survival situation the compromise should be towards heavier work, as large projects like shelter building and fire making are much more important than spoon carving. Again, you can carve a spoon with an RTAK II just like you can make a shelter with a Mora, but neither one is suited for the respective task.

Ok, what are the tasks one would need in a "bush scenario" (be it survival or minimum kit travel) in your opinion? I'm starting to think that -- asumming you do not need to worry about sun-induced lithification -- we have somewhat different ideas of what is needed under those circumstances.

 

[forestwalker]

The question may have been poorly worded but not "silly" . I would disagree with the notion that there is no difference between a bushcraft and a survival situation. I would hazard that most people do not attain that level of knowledge to make it a bushcraft "event". My question was not directed to the knowledge people have about bushcraft/survival but merely the differences in knife "tool" styles.

But if we are assuming less that stellar knowledge we also have to worry about our protagonist chopping his fingers off while trying to gather materials. Much more likely with the medium chopper than with a non-chopper like the mora. And a decent axe naturally puts your hands away from the head, all you have to worry about is the feet...

But even given "moderate skills" as the critera (say after a competently run one week course?) I would argue that there are very few --if any -- tasks that needs doing that the chopper can do that the Mora can't do just about as well. Realistically we are talking lost hiker/berry picker/hunter, who could expect at most 3-4 days before regaining contact with what passes for civilisation locally, not Slavomir Ramicz hiking to Tibet.

I wonder what would happen if the roles were reversed in your example with the experts being dropped inside the M25 along with the "chav"

How good is Mors credit card? If it was Lars Fält (with many years at the para-ranger school) I would not bet on the chav if it came to a fight between them...

 

[Andrew_S]

But if we are assuming less that stellar knowledge we also have to worry about our protagonist chopping his fingers off while trying to gather materials.

This is the main issue, in my view.

Proponents of large knives like to say there is nothing a small knife can do that a large knife can't, but the fact is that there is a great deal that a small knife can do that a large knife cannot do as easily or as safely.

The primary use of a "survival knife" in the real world is mundane, ordinary camp tasks where a smaller blade is better. If you ask me to balance the risk of injury from an outsized blade against the additional energy I might use chopping wood that I probably won't really need to chop anyway ... well, I think that one's pretty obvious. Slicing your hand open when lost in the woods is a bad thing.

In all honesty, when I first think of a "survival knife" vs an ordinary outdoor blade, big choppers don't even come to mind. I think of a Fallkniven F1 vs. say, a Mora Clipper. I don't know who got everyone to believe that "survival" must equal "big chopper," but I bet they were trying to sell big knives.

 

[rg598]

Forestwalker, do you ever use an axe? If so, why? Why would so many of us carry an axe if you can do all the same tasks with a four inch blade? For that matter, why did people ever invent the axe or the machete? All man kind ever needed for wood work was a four inch blade! If your skill level is so great that it makes no difference to you what tool you have, then I bow down to your greatness.

As for me, and my humble skills, if my life depended on only one tool, I want that tool to be as close to a machete or an axe as possible. Again, probably because I have no idea what I am doing, I can split a four inch log with a large knife much, much faster and with alot less effort than I can with a small knife. Maybe it's just me. On the other hand however, if it was just me, why do so many people carry what they call camp knives? I'm sure you have seen some of the posts and the explanations of how people use them. Why would the Sami carry a leuku? I have to tell you, everytime I see one of them chop wood, he is doing it with the leuku. Maybe they are just nuts-you should go educate them. After all, they carry a perfectly good puukko.

For some reason you feel the need to look down upon and mock those who prefer a large blade in a survival situation. Why is it so hard to believe that some people might find it more useful, and not just because they don't know what they are doing. Believe it or not, no one outside the british bushcraft community uses four inch blades as their primary knife.

When I said that if your experince leads you to believe that a four inch blade is best, then that is what you should use, it was because I am willing to acknowledge that different people might have different conclusions based on their experiences in the woods. Maybe in your local woods you have alot of dead wood on the ground which you can use for shelter building. Where I am, most wood has to be chopped down. It is your certainty that you have found the holly grail when it comes to outdoor tools that leads me to the conclusion that you are certainly wrong.

 

[Andrew_S]

Believe it or not, no one outside the british bushcraft community uses four inch blades as their primary knife.

That's simply not true. In Canada, and I'd wager in the US, most people going outdoors use folding knives under four inches as their primary knives; next most popular is a four-inch fixed blade, then a fixed blade in the 4 - 6 inch range.

That's what people carry in the outdoors, in the real world.

 

[rg598]

Oh, by the way, I'm not the only person who sees things this way.

"There is no tool more useful in the backcountry than a knife~~~the size I prefer for this style of knife is overall about 310mm in length~~~the blade and handle all one piece of metal, the handle remaining strong throughout, ~~~~"

Raymond Mears, The Survival Handbook - 1990

 

[rg598]

Andrew, maybe they use folding knives as EDC, not a bush knife-certainly not in the US.

 

[Andrew_S]

If you look at the outdoors community as a whole, you'll see otherwise.

Most people actually carry folders, or shorter fixed blades. Backpackers, for example, overwhelmingly go for folding knives.

It's only when we narrow our focus to the "survival" crowd that large fixed blades become more popular -- and this, I think, has more to do with fashion than with necessity. If you examine actual case histories, you'll see that very few people have died of carrying a small knife -- many people, in fact, get through their "survival situation" with no knife at all, although I wouldn't recommend it.

 

[forestwalker]

Forestwalker, do you ever use an axe? If so, why? Why would so many of us carry an axe if you can do all the same tasks with a four inch blade? For that matter, why did people ever invent the axe or the machete? All man kind ever needed for wood work was a four inch blade! If your skill level is so great that it makes no difference to you what tool you have, then I bow down to your greatness.

Yes, of course I carry an axe. I can do things with it that your chopper can't. But there is no gap between the mora and the axe, actually there is a significant overlap.

As for me, and my humble skills, if my life depended on only one tool, I want that tool to be as close to a machete or an axe as possible. Again, probably because I have no idea what I am doing, I can split a four inch log with a large knife much, much faster and with alot less effort than I can with a small knife. Maybe it's just me. On the other hand however, if it was just me, why do so many people carry what they call camp knives? I'm sure you have seen some of the posts and the explanations of how people use them. Why would the Sami carry a leuku? I have to tell you, everytime I see one of them chop wood, he is doing it with the leuku. Maybe they are just nuts-you should go educate them. After all, they carry a perfectly good puukko.

I have no idea about the camp knife, I have never seen them carried outside the USA...

The leuko is a speciality tool, for cutting thin -- finger thin -- birch and salix for firewood and bedding. The blade is usually no thicker than 3 mm, it is more like a short machete than a zombie killer.

For some reason you feel the need to look down upon and mock those who prefer a large blade in a survival situation. Why is it so hard to believe that some people might find it more useful, and not just because they don't know what they are doing. Believe it or not, no one outside the british bushcraft community uses four inch blades as their primary knife.

No, I do not mock you, nort do any of the others here AFAICT. What we are arguing is that, based on a rather large body of actual field time, we have seen no reason to believe that the the big knives (like the one you apparently favour) is actually advantageous when compared to a smaller blade. I have spent well over a month out in actual (simulated) survivial conditions, and many, many months of more normal bush time. I have never seen a reason to carry such a knife as the one you argue for. What do you base your opinion on?