Maybe I should hold out for a lighter version....but the HOG's as a group will definately have a "heavier is better" majority....maybe he might try both...we will just have to wait and see!!

You have hit upon a pet peave of mine. Somehow, knife buyers have been led to believe that thicker and heavier is better. Speaking of knives that are large enough to use for chopping and such, I have quite a few that are just too heavy for anything but chopping. They are slow and cumbersome for clearing or slashing brush. They are awkward for any task but chopping. Having used so many of the big bush knives, I have come to the conclusion that for me, 22 oz is the upper limit of any knife I will carry. I prefer one around 17 oz. The FBM, FFBM, KZ, and several of the large HI khukris are just too heavy to be practical. The extra weight not only makes these knives a bit heavy for carry, it limits their practical uses. Give me a good camp machete or lighter long knife, and I can get some real use out of it. The biggest heaviest choppers have limited utility. Here are some large knives that actually work:

DFLE, Ont Survival Bowie, Western Bowie, Marbles Trailmaker, CS bowie machete, M9LE, Condor Inca knife, Condor combat machete, NMSFNO, Camp Tramp, Ratweiler, Chopweiler, CS Trailmaster, CS Gurkha Kukri, Ranger RD9&RD7, Becker Bk-9, BRKT Hudson Bay, BRKT golok, Sarsquatch, SODLE, and most machetes.

+1 ..... Bigtime for me. And pretty much DEAD on the numbers (weights) as I see appropriate for my uses as well.

I also consider somewhere around "22 oz is the upper limit of any knife I will carry."

And I also: "prefer one around 17 oz." .... or LESS!!!!! when considering regards to actual trail carry. But, since the question was specifically inquiring about “large” knives…. Otherwise I generally actually carry much lighter.

I know a lot of folks around here like ultra big and ultra mega tough…. “FATTIES” and such.
It is nice to know you have the biggest, baddest and toughest knives on the planet. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/bowdown.gif" alt="" /> And since most of us seem to have some sort of lust, covetousness, fetish, fixation for steel <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />, it feels pretty cool to have a massive hulking hunk of steel in your hand. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbup.gif" alt="" /> I can’t deny the same. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

But, aside from what I might lust, "function" is still a 1st, foremost and primary concern for me and I consider ability to carry comfortably a HUGE part of function.
I am highly prone to over-kill on many things I do..... no.... seriously <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />. I build projects and similar and LOVE over-building, way too much. Strength, reinforcement, engineering, lasting forever and similar mindsets on things I build or buy.

But, when hiking, I “used” to be one who wanted to bring everything and the kitchen sink in my packs.... Kind of like Andy’s pockets.... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

However, after a few too many times wearing myself out more than enjoying my hikes and vacations, I have more and more developed into somewhat of a minimalist for hiking. And while I still tend to bring a lot of gear, I bring most of it with intent on only using it out of the vehicle “IF” and only if I am near the vehicle and don’t intend to carry certain things and weight much anymore.

However, I still don’t want to sacrifice durability and dependability in my gear!!!!

But, with Busse's AMAZING steel quality and considering how tough a piddly thin 0.084" thick machete can be, I think Busse can do VERY well with THINNER and LIGHTER longer blades.

For chopping, I find length adds power pretty fast and more efficiently than thickness. Mega tough steel with good edge properties like Busse offers should be able to offer INCREDIBLE longer powerful chopping blades that are both thinner and lighter.

If considering and choosing a blade especially intended for chopping or similar use on the trail, and considering 18 - 20 ounces or so starts to push my limits, if given the choice, I think I might generally prefer more length at the same weight than something short and stubby. Same reason I prefer my 9.375” BR at 16.5 ounces over a Ratweiler with 7.5” blade at 20 ounces. Everyone loves the Ratweiler. And the Ratweiler deserves the praise. But, if a knife is intended to be used for dedicated chopping, I personally think the BR is a better chopper.

I can very easily see a 14” to 15” blade with a Res-C handle weighing close to 18 – 20 ounces as being a VERY good chopper (most likely better than a DFLE or BR at very little more weight) and still very fast and nimble in the hand and not too heavy to carry. Probably some sort of Bolo or Golok design.

Just like a gun, you can't use what you don't have because you won't carry it. To me, it is more important to have something that you "WILL" carry and find a way to make the best of what you are willing to carry.


I have some blades and tools that I ONLY rate as "car camping" tools and have NO interest in carrying. So, they just don't go on my belt. I have back-packed enough to start having a STRONG preference for LIGHT-weight stuff. But, even if not carrying my large pack, if I am going for any hike that warrants carrying a heavy duty knife because I might need it, I am also typically carrying a fair amount of water which weighs a lot too. So, my "Heavy-Duty" knife needs to be and WILL be lighter. For this reason, no matter how much I love certain other knives, my CT and BR are still currently and have been for a long time now my favorite go-to larger knives. They are simple and not real fancy, but they are HIGHLY effective, comfortable to use, the CT is quite versatile, light-weight and MEGA-bang-for-the-"weight" knives.

That said, there are other knives I still consider very worthy for belt carry. And MANY that are more appealing to look at and fondle. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

I will also add that I agree with Mcjrobinson about belts being a very important factor in comfort of carry. A good heavy thick (taller) belts seems to carry heavier knives much better than thinner ones. Having a dedicated belt can have some advantages too (like a gunslinger). A heavy knife looped through your pants can cause cinching of the waistband and pinching.

I don't have all the same knives as Vic, but for me, my largest options worth considering range from about 16.5 ounces to 22 ounces as well. I have all of the following except the Ratweiler. I sold my Ratweiler as I received the final run scales and wasn't thrilled with them. Plus, I prefer the Chopweiler's blade shape and handle is more versatile for me.

All of the following are options for me:

NMSFNO………………….= 21.5 ounces; .25” thick; 8.25” blade; 14.0” oal
FSH (full flat grind)..= 22.0 ounces; .27” thick; 8.1875” blade; 14.4” oal
Ratweiler (orig.)……. = 20.1 ounces; .25” thick; 7.5” blade; 13” oal
Chopweiler - Micarta = 19.1 ounces; .25” thick; 7.5625” blade; 13.1875” oal
Chopweiler – G10….. = 20.5 ounces; .25” thick; 7.5625” blade; 13.1875” oal
M9LE……………………….. = 20.0 ounces; .23” thick; 9.125” blade; 14.875” oal
Dog Father LE…….. = 17.0 ounces; .250” thick; 10.0625” blade; 15.125” oal
Battle Rat……………. = 16.5 ounces; .250” thick; 9.375” blade; 14.4375” oal
SARSquatch………… = 17.0 ounces; .1875” thick; 7.0” blade; 12.75” oal


PINK – For the record, I have seen where people have posted the weight of the CG FSH to be 19.0 ounces. And I know I have seen some variance in weights from knife to knife of same model. But, mine is the full height grind – not saber, and I weigh mine at 22.0 ounces. I am sure a saber grind FSH is probably 23.0 – 23.5 ounces or so – and NOT a lightweight.
I had an HH at one time and LOVED it, but honestly felt it to be heavier than I wanted for a knife it’s length.

But, considering how much a BR and DFLE can do at a full 5.0 - 5.5 ounces less than some of the heavier options.... They tend to be my favorite first choices for when choosing a larger heavier carry blade.

---------

However, my "Preferred" carry size is going to be smaller and lighter still. My favorite mid-weight choices get carried WAY more than any of the above options.


*** Camp Tramp............= 14.5 ounces; .236" thick; 7.325" blade; 12.5" oal

SARSquatch………… = 17.0 ounces; .1875” thick; 7.0” blade; 12.75” oal (listed above as well because actually about same weight as my BR.

Hell Razor…………………= 14.75 ounces; .1875” thick; 6.625” blade; 12.75” oal

My Skinny ASH is pretty nice, but tends to fall between the cracks of my SARSquatch and SJTAC. I prefer both the SARSquatch and SJTAC just a bit over my Skinny ASH.

I like my modified SJTAC a LOT. But, it is a bit in no-man's land since it doesn't do heavy work nearly as well as a Camp Tramp and is a little large for a task knife where the RMD and smaller are better choices IMO. Still, my SJTAC is IMO a great all-rounder. I don't have my S6LE anymore, but it would be comparable and better at chopping. But, I like my CT better and justify the added weight of the CT over the S6LE for the added power and versatility of the CT.

SJTAC….(stripped)…. = 13.0 ounces; .187” thick; 6.375” blade; 11.875” oal
Scrapper 6 LE...........= 12.7 ounces; .268" thick; 6.25" blade; 11.44" oal


I have a CS Trailmaster and like the blade, but I am not fond of the handle and prefer my SR-101 for comfort and quality.
I have a Fallkniven Tor that I consider "Better" than my CS Trailmaster with a nicer handle. But, because of such a selection of Busse and kin users, my Tor has remained a Queen. I have a few other larger blades I feel similar about.

With larger blades, I feel there are some worthy ones, but Busse and kin rules.


* However, I like both my BRKT golok and my 17" bladed Tramontina machete. They both offer incredible performance at a reasonable weight.

Tramontina…………….. = 17.0 ounces; 0.084” thick; 17.625” blade; 22.9375” oal

BRKT-Golok………. = 17.5 ounces; 0.210” thick; 11.5” blade; 17.5” oal


I just received my new Condor El Salvador machete and I have not used yet, but quite honestly, it "appears" to be EASILY the nicest made machete I have ever seen. And EASILY the nicest factory edge - which is VERY NICELY convexed and EASILY "PUSH" cuts through paper. DANG impressive for a "machete" factory edge! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ooo.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/bowdown.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbup.gif" alt="" /> - As far as machete's go, this one isn't cheap at about $40 - $50. But, considering the quality, fit, feel and pretty decent leather sheath, I have to call it a bargain.

Honestly, I "Found" my Tramontina left behind by a tree service crew on a job sight and I didn't have a way to contact them to ask if they wanted to come back to get it. But, considering they sell for about $10, I doubt they would have bothered with the trip back. The Tramontina has been an awesome tool. But, I spent a fair amount of time making it a worthy tool by working on the edge and reshaping the handle to fit and be comfortable. Considering the Tram doesn't have a sheath vs. the Condor does and vs. fit and finish, if the Condor is as tough as the Tram, I say the extra money for the Condor is worth it.

But, the Condor is thicker heavier and should add signficantly more power at the cost of speed and nimbleness.

[color:"blue"] Condor – El Salvador = 22.0 ounces; 0.115” thick 17.9375” blade; 23.125” oal [/color]

I would say the Condor (assuming decent toughness) is quite a bit better suited for heavier limbing and chopping vs. the Tram more suited for light to medium limbing and light vegetation, vines, etc.

At 22.0 ounces, assuming the Condor is sufficiently tough, even without using it yet, I would have to put down some good betting money on it vs. many similarly weighted shorter choppers.

For safety reasons, "Control" is NOT over-rated with these longer blades. Slicing through light vegatation or smaller limbs often means having to stop the blades forward momentum = wrist and forearm strength for stopping. The lighter Tram is easier to control. The heavier Condor will require more focus and care in swings to make sure body parts aren't jeopardized.


Considering the designs involved, I REALLY think a Busse and kin Bolo out of SR-77 or Differentially treated SR-101 could be a WORLD Class trail tool/chopper!... that also could possibly carry well "IF" they would make it thinner, One-handed Res-C handle, have about a 14" - 15" blade, and keep the weight around 18 - 20 ounces! I would look for power at the front of the blade, but while maintaining control, quickness in hand and ability to remain nimble like a thicker, but light machete or Battle Rat/DFLE.

I am VERY excited about Swamp Rats new Waki. I think it is AWESOME and will offer a lot of chopping and/or Zombie destroying power. I "WILL" get one. But, I am sure it will be heavier than I care to carry. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

It is EASY to have quality tools around my house or vehicle. But, finding the Ultimate tool that is also what I consider reasonable to carry and THEREFORE have on me when and if I need it - is the challenge to me.

My EDC is, has been and probably always will be a folder.

And honestly, like J33ps, most of my hiking is actually done with smaller fixed bladed knives like RMD or smaller – typically sub-5” for me. I can do 99.9% of most anything I "NEED" to do on my particular trail hikes with a small good quality fixed blade…. And while my 1911’s remain my favorite pistols, like my knives, for carry, I just don’t want to carry even my Kimber Ultra-CDP. My Kahr P40 or my Glock 27 are about as heavy as I like to carry. And even though I don’t like to shoot it and don’t think it shoots as well, my S&W 360 Scandium in .357 (although, I much prefer shooting .38+P’s through it) is nice and light with typically enough power for what I expect on trails. …. I will try not to get sidetracked too much about gun restrictions at State and National parks, my desire to shoot snakes, how much BIG bore I might justify toting around if I hiked in BIG bear country, etc. etc.

When it comes to "NEED", I am just NOT sold on big, thick, heavy knives for most of my purposes and DEFINITELY not for when hiking. But, I do acknowledge that different people have different needs….. Or at least their perception is such.

Most of my big, thick, heavy knives are quite honestly mostly for fun. I like certain thick blades for various reasons. But, with sufficiently tough steel, I just don't find I "NEED" thick heavy knives - at least not on the trail.

Similarly, most chopping I do is more for "Fun" and entertainment rather than need.

If I ever actually "Had" to build a shelter or similar need for chopping, then a larger chopper has advantages. But, for that type of chopping, I would mostly be chopping 1" - 2" green limbs. And I will argue the Battle Rat and DFLE, machete, Golok and similar sized longer, thinner, leaner, faster tools are better suited for limbs that size (especially if green which is better suited for shelter) than heavy knives such as the FFBM, NMFBM, HH, or even FSH and I like my FSH a LOT.

I will give credit where credit is due: If doing some hardcore heavy duty chopping on thick, hard wood, bigger, thicker and heavier does have advantages.... The FFBM, NMFBM, HH and similar start to have advantages... But, then so does a large to full size axe if concerned about ultimate chopping performance and weight is not of concern.

HOWEVER, for such a HUGE amount of my actual and practical uses, I don't need heavy. For me, I would like to see some of the strength and toughness of Busse and kin steel used in some different ways - more options. I just don't pry much with my knives. And while I find thickness to help when batoning, if I want chopping ability and power, I find "Length" or otherwise putting more steel further out from your hand increases power "Better" than thickness. - like a baseball bat, axe or many other tools where length and more weight further out increases power/energy at the contact point further out. And I find I DON'T need thickness for chopping. To me, properly distributed weight on a longer blade is better in "most" cases for my uses... not all.

I will say that a certain amount of thickness DOES help for chopping large logs to aid in chip removal when chopping. A thicker edge with a good convex seems to remove chips best for me. Whereas, thinner blades are more prone to sticking and binding when chopping.

I have said this before, probably years ago now, but when I hike and camp I honestly go out of my way to NOT do much chopping. Granted, if camping with my vehicle near, I can't resist doing some chopping for the fun of it. But, for fire building, I typically try to build fires with dead wood and I can often break it WAY easier and faster by bashing it against a boulder or large tree, or wedging between trees to snap. Or I selectively chop to create a weak spot, then bash or break. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbup.gif" alt="" />
Certain larger logs I end burn and move into the fire as needed. I am not going to waste my time trying to chop through a large log. Point being, when I go camping, I do a pretty fair amount of hiking up and down mountains somewhere and I tend to be a bit whooped. I don't want to waste my energy chopping unless I have to.
I never see it mentioned NEARLY enough, but IMO, if ever in a survival situation, I believe having energy is HUGE for most any reason related to survival!!! So, conserving energy is equally important.


Anyway, I am rambling a LONG post now and need to go do other things.

I should add that my above opinions are just MY opinions. For others who want to tote 2-3+ pounds of steel into the woods - for whatever your reasons, have fun and enjoy. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

.