|
Post by eddiewouldclearhot on Dec 7, 2014 17:33:31 GMT -5
I thought we were talking about a system that serves as both a weapon and a multi function tool, and bayonets were brought up as a means to an end to address that requirement. My argument is that there are better systems.
if we are strictly talking about bayonets, then forgive me, i can't contribute anything to the discussion except that i don't think they are worth their weight.
|
|
|
Post by hudson5969 on Dec 7, 2014 19:47:10 GMT -5
It's a matter of the common discussion board artifact of someone asking about something, and an answer coming about something outside of the discussion. It's not a big deal, but it would be a bit more conducive I think to say why you would not carry a bayonet, as your answer was a bit vague, and perhaps end it with "I think the tomahawk is a more useful tool."
Personally, I'd argue that the OKC-3S is a very useable field knife, and I've done extensive work with it, primarily in the "bushcrafty" arena of fire starting, shelter building (think building a hide), generally stuff like that, and I explained why I thought it made a good fighting knife.
I'll disagree that the AK bayonet is much good. One might think the chisel grind would act like a plane and it'd be good for fuzz sticks and the like, but it's not. The grind drives the blade into the wood trying to essentially carve a big circle in it. The saw on the back is useless for notching as it barely scrapes wood. It's like the M9 bayonet, it's designed to saw through thin aluminum like an aircraft skin, to get out of a wreck. Wire cutter? Most guys I know would carry a small set of wirecutters if they thought fences and the like were a problem, and there's other ways to disable power to a building then cutting wires with your bayonet.
My main argument for the OKC is that it does a lot of things well besides being a bayonet. I would agree, however, if one was only looking at carrying something for use strictly as a bayonet, I'd not bother.
|
|