Originally Posted by greaser
Originally Posted by Architect
Massive Metal,
Agreed. I don't think anyone in a real survival mindset would want to risk damage to their principle survival tool unless it was 100% necessary.

I'm not a Bear Grylls styled outdoorsman. I'm very much of the Les Stroud mindset...he tries to not use his knife if he can easily fashion another cutting implement in an attempt to save the tool for "when it really counts".


This ^^^ with all of your equipment is a good practice when replacement isn't readily available.
..... I wholeheartedly agree that we MUST know how to improvise tools, if your primary is lost or damaged (or course that will be hard to do to my ASH.. wink )so that it is no longer usable. There is however a balance that must be struck in a true "survival" situation. Taking the time to make a replacement tool/implement can be a time/energy/calorie burden that cannot be entertained, that may not be readily predictable at the time either. By way of example, I am a believer in getting things done there and then if they are a must (eg shelter), so if I take the time to fashioning a rudimentary hand axe from a flaked stone(as opposed to chopping with my ASH) that may be well and good, the sun is shining and the birds chirping, but as I am still 1/2 way through building the shelter (that would have been finished had I just "got on with it") a storm/cold front rolls over (just last week here in Sydney and the surrounding mountains we went from warm and sunny to gale force winds and light snow in an hour)and I am caught waaaay out. Saving the wear on my ASH was not worth it in the great scheme.

Architect - not a negative to making tools at all, you know that, just hard know when this is the appropriate course of action in the interests of saving one you already have.

This is why WE ALL are on the quest for the best quality tools in the first instance.