What's the minimum fixed blade size for an effective chopper?

[maximus83]

What is the smallest fixed blade knife that can achieve good, efficient performance in the same ballpark as a small camping hatchet, for heavy wood processing tasks like splitting and chopping?

I see a lot of discussion on this subject. Some folks say they can get good results chopping with knives as small as 5 inches, like some of the Becker offerings. I suppose the catch with these discussions is what you define as "good performance." Others say you can't really get into serious chopping performance with a knife until you're up into the 9" to 11" blade range, with a heavy blade in a carbon steel like an ESEE, a large Becker, a Busse, etc.

Here's what prompted this question. The Survive Knives site talks about a new heavy chopping knife, the GSO 8, that will start production soon. Here's what they say about it on their site:

"The SURVIVE! GSO-8 came into existence because of Bladeforums member demand and design input. A group of Bladeforums members were looking for a camp knife that would be useful for a variety of general tasks but still large and robust enough to be chop-able; Something that would have much of the capability of the larger GSO-10 but in a more compact package."

So with that in mind, I'm curious if folks think a knife like this is the minimum size you can go for a serious chopper that could compete reasonably well with a small hatchet. According to their site, some folks from our forums think so.

 

[19-3ben]

efficient performance in the same ballpark as a small camping hatchet, for heavy wood processing tasks like splitting and chopping?

That's a HUGE qualifier, and also. Very high bar. You're asking a knife to be as good of a hatchet as an actual hatchet is?

I suppose in part, to get an answer on that, you'd have to identify which hatchet you're comparing to.
An unsharpened harbor freight hatchet is not going to compare a well sharpened Wetterlings.

Don't get me wrong. There are some very good chopping knives, but they are being assessed as knives that are being used for chopping so you get comparisons between a Jugulas and a BK9 and other apples-apples comparisons.

Asking which knife chops as well as a hatchet would be like asking which hatchet can fillet a trout as well as a Rapalla.

 

[Thomas Linton]

I suppose a khukuri might not count on the grounds that it's a short sword. But it chops just fine, thank you.

But not so good for cleaning trout.


"Size" must include specifications other than length.

 

[justjed]

10 inches. Get a Browning Crowell/Barker Competition knife. We're done here.

 

[maximus83]

That's a HUGE qualifier, and also. Very high bar. You're asking a knife to be as good of a hatchet as an actual hatchet is?

I hear you, 19-3ben, valid clarification. A Gransfors hatchet is vastly different from, and more efficient than, say a typical Coleman camp hatchet. For pure chopping/splitting work, I agree that if you have a high quality hatchet like the GB wildlife hatchet, there are few if any knives that will be able to compete with that.

So, let me clarify my OP a bit by saying: if you're committed for some reason to using a chopping knife INSTEAD OF a hatchet, what is the minimum knife size that will let you get the best possible hatchet-like performance for splitting and chopping wood? Basically I didn't intend this to turn into a "what's better, big knife or hatchet" thread. I'm ASSUMING for some reason that folks in certain cases want to use a knife, and in that case, what's the minimum knife size you need to get good chopping performance that would even be in the same county as a good hatchet?

 

[AF]

With a hatchet you have most of the weight in the head and you have a short bit length so the chopping force is concentrated. A knife is more versatile but doesn't really compete in pure chopping.
Obviously you could find a lousy hatchet and a great knife and dispute what I said.
I think of chopping knives as starting out at a 9" long blade and 1/4" thick. When they get longer they can get work well with thinner stock.

 

[maximus83]

AF: yes this has been my conventional understanding that for a reasonable chopping knife, the "minimum" starts around 9" with a heavy blade. That's been my personal practice as well, I use an ESEE Junglas for that role when I'm planning to chop wood and don't want to lug a hatchet/axe along with me. I use the ESEE in cases to just keep the weight down here in the Pacific NW. It's handy because it'll not only chop, cut, and split, but I can also use it like a small machete to clear brush, all in one tool. I'm not under any illusion that it could compete with say a GB wildlife hatchet for wood chopping efficiency. But my question is more, when you have to use a knife, what's the minimum effective size? I've always thought 9" to 10" minimum, for a chopper knife.

What prompted all this discussion was two things:

1. Love my Junglas, but it is big and bulky. Would love to find a "big knife" that's a LITTLE more compact while still being effective for chopping.
2. Saw the blurb about the GSO 8 at Survive Knives, and that folks here had given design input for that 8" chopper knife, with a similar goal to come up with a more compact chopper.

I'm just curious how many folks think a chopper knife of that smaller size would be viable.

 

[Hickory n steel]

The shortest effective blade length for a chopper is 2".
However said 2" blade is the bit length of my 8oz Vaughan sub zero hatchet.

Btw I've got a harbor freight hatchet that I bought 5 years ago and I was pleasantly surprised, it holds and takes an edge surprisingly well and chops well too after I thinned out the bit a little.
It was 11$, but better vintage heads can be had for this or less so it's not hard or expensive to get a better chopping tool.
If you want a chopping knife I'm sure someone will have a good recommendation for you, but just know that hatchets chop better and can cost less.

 

[hlee]

How long is the hatchet you're comparing? How heavy is it? Because of the different weight distribution, a knife of equal weight and length will be less efficient than that hatchet. If you are looking specifically for chopping, a hatchet is the most efficient package as it is purpose built. As a knife grows to become a better chopper, it generally becomes a less good knife. What do you want? A knife that CAN chop? A mora makes a fine wood splitter (not a chopper), given you adhere to some design limitations during use. And, it makes a really good knife. I've got several choppers, and I wouldn't reach for any of them to skin a deer. If I were going for a dedicated chopper, I'd look for an 8-10" blade , 1.5-2" deep, with a 5" handle, and weighing at least 1 lb. Not exactly compact.

 

[bearfacedkiller]

You already have a junglas so you already know how it compares to a hatchet. It is already inferior to a hatchet at chopping so going smaller will only widen the gap. You have a good reference point. It is up to you how much more you want to give up.

It is my opinion that a 9 inch blade that weighs a pound is where choppers start. You need weight and speed. A longer knife has more speed towards the tip and more forward weight. You can make a shorter knife heavy but it lacks the speed and forward weight that length gives.

 

[unklfranco]

I agree that 9" is the lower end for a chopper. Designs like a Dogfather or Junglas immediately come to mind. However, ESEE makes a clever cleaver that has a 6" cutting surface.

Cleavers can be used for chopping tasks like building a shelter and quartering game. They are not so good at stabby tasks. If we define a set of tasks, we may find blades smaller than 9" cutting surface can do the job.

 

[The Zieg]

I think the heft of the blade would have to be pretty substantial to account for a shorter length. The Becker BK-2 at approximately five inches is the shortest blade I'd be comfortable with in a chopping role.

Zieg

 

[barmettlerjosh]

Personally I like a chopper blade to be between 15-19 feet long so I can chop down whole trees with one fatal blow

 

[maximus83]

So it sounds like consensus so far is 9" minimum, with aligns with what I've heard in the past, and is aligned with designs like Junglas and other big choppers like Becker BK9, Ontario RTAK II, Busse choppers, Swamp Rat Rodent 9, Gossman tusker, etc.

Given that, maybe some of the new "compact" chopper desigsn, like the 8.3" Junglas 2 that just came out, or the forthcoming 8" Survive Knives GSO 8 mentioned in the OP, might be pushing it a bit on "optimal performance" for a chopper. I'm sure these quality companies are going to put out quality knives in these 8" designs, but I'd also guess they are going to perform significantly less efficiently than the larger choppers.

 

[GrReaper]

Yeah, 9 inch blade is a minimum for the most part. But there may be a few 8 inchers that can be effective, like the Blackjack Tac Ops model 8. That one has a humped back, giving it more weight for chopping. Some heavy knives, even at 7 or 7 1/2 inches, can be decent choppers, like Tops Steel Eagle. No knife is ever going to be as effective at chopping as any good hatchet.

 

[Zagorov]

I'd say 8 inches (~20cm).

 

[Gaston444]

No knife is ever going to be as effective at chopping as any good hatchet.

That's not true for thick broad 11" blade knives, with a thin but sufficiently strong geometry.

A Randall Smithsonian Bowie probably outperforms any hatchet by a lot, given the 3/8" stock and 32 ounces... It is still flatter, more evenly balanced, and thus easier to carry, but it is getting on the extreme side... 20-25 ounces is a more manageable weight range.

The absolute minimum blade length, assuming a broad heavy blade, I would say is 10", but really 11" is far better.

In tests I did, a similar proportion 11" blade, 10% wider as it is 10% longer, will gain about 30% of cut depth, maybe even 50%, over a similar 10" blade for the same number of chops. That is just huge... This is with only a gain in weight from 18 ounces to 22 ounces... But that doesn't tell the whole story: Not only will you gain 30% for just one extra blade inch, but moving the center of mass, 1/4" or more down the blade, will make every chop far more comfortable on the hand: The cumulative difference is large.

An edge thinness under 0.030" and an angle of under 15 degrees per side is also important for hand comfort, not for raw performance, because it decelerates more gradually in the wood.

To build a serious rain-proof shelter, 700 chops is not unrealistic: Losing one inch to go down to 10 inches will easily add 300 chops, but far more important is the 1/4" to 1/2" rearward movement in the center of gravity, increasing the "rearing up" "pommel down" bite on every hit for every one of those 1000 chops, vs 700 chops that would have been far easier and less painful in the end: The effect is exponential, and is compounded further by rotating the wrist slightly to add blade tip speed: Far more tip speed is added just by virtue of the extra blade length, and this relieves the hand even further because of the extra blade momentum soaking up the deceleration.

Because of my tests, I no longer consider a "Survival Knife" to be the "real thing" at much under 11".

Gaston

 

[popedandy]

My Condor Solobolo with an 8" blade is the smallest knife I have that I would consider useable for chopping, but it is what I would consider a light chopper and I normally pair it up with a folding saw. Realistically I would say 10" blade length is where choppers start. Even at 10", design counts for a lot. I have knives that size that are very poor choppers and others that are reasonably decent

 

[Hickory n steel]

That's not true for thick broad 11" blade knives, with a thin but sufficiently strong geometry.

A Randall Smithsonian Bowie probably outperforms any hatchet by a lot, given the 3/8" stock and 32 ounces... It is still flatter, more evenly balanced, and thus easier to carry, but it is getting on the extreme side... 20-25 ounces is a more manageable weight range.

The absolute minimum blade length, assuming a broad heavy blade, I would say is 10", but really 11" is far better.

In tests I did, a similar proportion 11" blade, 10% wider as it is 10% longer, will gain about 30% of cut depth, maybe even 50%, over a similar 10" blade for the same number of chops. That is just huge... This is with only a gain in weight from 18 ounces to 22 ounces... But that doesn't tell the whole story: Not only will you gain 30% for just one extra blade inch, but moving the center of mass, 1/4" or more down the blade, will make every chop far more comfortable on the hand: The cumulative difference is large.

An edge thinness under 0.030" and an angle of under 15 degrees per side is also important for hand comfort, not for raw performance, because it decelerates more gradually in the wood.

To build a serious rain-proof shelter, 700 chops is not unrealistic: Losing one inch to go down to 10 inches will easily add 300 chops, but far more important is the 1/4" to 1/2" rearward movement in the center of gravity, increasing the "rearing up" "pommel down" bite on every hit for every one of those 1000 chops, vs 700 chops that would have been far easier and less painful in the end: The effect is exponential, and is compounded further by rotating the wrist slightly to add blade tip speed: Far more tip speed is added just by virtue of the extra blade length, and this relieves the hand even further because of the extra blade momentum soaking up the deceleration.

Because of my tests, I no longer consider a "Survival Knife" to be the "real thing" at much under 11".

Gaston

I've seen pictures pics of the Randall Smithsonian Bowie, and there's no way in hell it could even come close to a good hatchet.
If knives could do everything as well as a good hatchet then hatchets wouldn't exist.
Good hatchets have a forward top heavy balance, they have a wood haft that doesn't transmit vibration back to you like knives do, they have a poll which you can use for light tapping and sometimes actual hammers, and they can split wood much better than a knife. A good hatchet and small belt or pocket knife will always be better than a huge knife for chopping tasks.

Big knives are cool and there's nothing wrong with liking them, but you shouldn't be blind to the fact that hatchets chop better.

 

[22-rimfire]

There are various sizes of hatchets just like there are various sizes of knives. What works best is based on your experience and the situation. I think a good hatchet out chops a 9" knife in most cases. But they aren't very handy for field dressing a deer even if the 9" blade is a mite clumsy for me for such tasks. It is also generally easier to carry the large knife in the woods as compared to the normal sized hatchet.

A 7" blade is generally the starting point for a chopper. A 9" knife such as the BK-9 is a common recommendation and certainly does an adequate job for a modest amount of chopping (especially green wood). My personal experience is that I want something 10"-12" long for an efficient chopper in comparison to to hatchet. Added: The thing is that a knife is going to generally be a more flexible tool than the hatchet in most people's hands. It all depends on "how much" chopping you are doing. Batoning is not chopping.