3 or 4?

Murphyslaw said:
I think that there is enough of a difference in handle size and balance between the 3 and 4, that it behooves one to check out both. I have a medium size hand, and both work for me. If you have large hands, the 4 might be a bit more friendly.
Click to expand...

Just to clarify, the handles are the exactly the same except the 4 is a bit thicker in the hand because of the increased blade/tang thickness.
 
Wait until Jeff is finished using the Chris Reeve Nyala to decide. If he really likes it, all the new ESEEs will be made of CPM S35VN wonder steel, and we will all have to upgrade to the new models and sell our old 1095 ones cheap. It will be even more expensive than the Ontario RAT to Rowen change over. You should be able to pick up both the 3 and the 4 cheap on the exchange. I can't even imagine what the Junglas II in S35VN will cost. You can't fight progress.
 
I would go with a 4 (I actually just did). It's a great all around size with a little more blade length and thickness, with not much more of a footprint for carry.
 
For short day hikes, either knife will do great. When I hike, I always pick the 4 over the 3 though....
 
As other have said, you won't go wrong w/ either, and you'll end up w/ both. But I'd suggest the -3, especially as you already have the -6. In my own (very limited) experience, the thinner stock of the -3 makes food prep (and eating), whittling, etc. about 1/16th(?) easier than the -4, and 3/4" blade length doesn't make >that< much of a difference in use, but does in carry. I'm sure every one else's milage varies greatly.

In sum: Get the ESEE-3 this week. Get the ESEE-4 next week.
 
Horn Dog said:
Wait until Jeff is finished using the Chris Reeve Nyala to decide. If he really likes it, all the new ESEEs will be made of CPM S35VN wonder steel, and we will all have to upgrade to the new models and sell our old 1095 ones cheap. It will be even more expensive than the Ontario RAT to Rowen change over. You should be able to pick up both the 3 and the 4 cheap on the exchange. I can't even imagine what the Junglas II in S35VN will cost. You can't fight progress.
Click to expand...


:eek: LOL! The crazy part is that this is how a lot of people think. I'll keep my good old Rowen 1095, thanks very much.
 
For light tasks and trying not intimidate sheeple, Izula II. The three still has a fairly large sheath (in the eyes of a non knife carrier). The Izula has a very low profile and still works fine for most things that need cut.

If your stuck between the -3 and -4, since you have a -6, I vote for the -3.
 
Either the 3 or 4 will handle what you want to use it for. As others had said the 3 as the added plus of being a great knife to pair with the 6. They are both great but as a stand alone the 4 might cover more things. I don't think the 4 would get you to many looks. I just looked at my 3 and 4 with the sheath on the molle back (which is great) and it looks like very little difference. I think either will do you fine.
 
I like the 4 a LOT, and I like it as a primary belt knife in the woods because it is a good size to do large and small chores and it's tough as hell. But I also like the 3 a lot more than I expected I would when I first handled it, even though it has a bit more flex than I personally prefer in a field knife. However you already have your heavier bases covered with the six so I would get the 3, or even an Izula for smaller tasks. The 3 can handle the vast majority of work needed to be done with a knife in the woods..
 
I prefer the -3 over the -4 all things considered. It's enough blade for most any need and it is slightly more sheeple-friendly if you should forget to remove it from your belt prior to grocery shopping. This happens to me all the time and even the smaller Izula II will draw some stares. In any event, you can't go wrong with either one!

Dave
 
I'm getting the vibes on the 3! I figured this would be the logical choice but I didnt know if it would be too small. thanks for the input guys!
 
i was in the same situation as you, i went with the 4 and im absolutely beyond pleased with it. I have the 6 and izula and i find myself grabbing for the 4 the most
 
The length of the blade is dependent upon its need. I trapped coyote, bobcat and an occasional fox or badger (God help ya!) in eastern Nevada for years and most were processed with an Old Timer Trapper folder. The Mulies we shot were done with a heavier blade but not much longer - the venerable Buck Folding Hunter 110.

In hindsight all around, the Izula II would have been perfect. The -3 a close second. Your game and experience may differ however. That's why I carry an Izula II but my point is I favor a somewhat smaller blade for conditions out here.

I don't baton wood w/ a blade to split it. I let my fire do the work for me. I really don't need a long blade. I understand that conditions are different elsewhere in the world though. Good luck in your choice!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top