|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|||||||
| Randall Knives Forum Discuss Randall Knives |
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
09-13-2005, 11:35 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Randall "Fighter construction zone"!! 2nd story
Attention Randall knife freaks,
The votes have been tallied and the clear winner for "building" our Randall "fighter" is the Model #1 "All-purpose Fighter". Now it is time to move on to the 2nd part of our construction: Blade length and the choice of steel to be used. Model #1 Randalls come in 5", 6", 7", or 8" lengths. I am not going to even consider the blade length votes from the "first" stage in this project because a good many votes were cast for other models. Those folks now have an equal vote in this stage#2. Please keep in mind some of the things one might call upon this Randall to do. Overall size, weight, length,blade steel are critical in this project! I am not going to influence any of you by interjecting my personal preferrences. Now let's hear from all comers!! Remember: You "have" to participate in these building stages in order to qualify for a chance to purchase this knife, with a 60-90 day delivery time...at current "catalog price" (2006, more than likely).. Best for now, Captain Chris Stanaback __________________ Captain Chris Stanaback 
|
|
#3
09-13-2005, 01:32 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I vote #1-8.
I vote #1-8.
The way I see it, the extra length could make a difference in a knife fight?all other things equal. I have #1-7 and a #1-8. Side by side I?d pick the #1-8 for a knife fight every day over the #1-7 or -6 or -5? (For the purposes of this exercise, I imagine an old fashioned knife duel; the knife case is opened by the seconds and I am afforded the opportunity to pick first; inside are four knives: #1-5, #1-6, #1-7, #1-8; I pick the #1-8?no brainer, for me). I understand the weight problem but don?t think it would be much of an issue for me (between a #1-7 and #1-8, anyway), i.e., I think the extra length more than makes up for any (ever-so-slight) mobility advantage the #1-7 might offer. I also like the length and width advantage with the #1-8 for parrying. I realize there are perceptible drawbacks with the #1-8 vis-?-vis ease/ comfort of carry, and/ or (maybe) speed to unsheathe and mobility, but I?m not too bothered by any of these possibilities. (But a fighting knife is a very personal thing and its size and shape are determined, not least importantly, by things like the size of the fighter. What?s good for me isn't necessarily good for everyone). I could go either way on the steel type. Last edited by escapement; 09-13-2005 at 04:11 PM.
|
|
#4
09-13-2005, 02:33 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
...I think most of the votes will be for either a 7 or 8 inch blade. The obvious, and already mentioned advantage of the 8 inch blade is the extra reach it affords. The advantage to the 7 inch blade is the better balance. I have an 8 inch stag handled Model 1 with brass lugged hilt and brass butt that just feels too blade heavy. My 7 inch Model 1s with several different handles and butts all feel well balanced. I have so much faith in the ability of our team effort here to come up with a well balanced 8 incher that I am voting for the 8. If the 7 wins we can do lots of different things with the handle and furniture. If the 8 wins we need to think carefully about furniture and handle to balance the longer blade.
Jeff
|
|
#6
09-13-2005, 03:20 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Put me down for 7", SS, please.
-gary __________________ "If some, among you, fear taking a stand because you are afraid of reprisals...recognize that you are just feeding the crocodile hoping he'll eat you last." - Ronald Reagan
|
|
#8
09-13-2005, 04:01 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Yea...what Gary said. 7" stainless steel
Perry
|
|
#9
09-13-2005, 04:05 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
7" stainless sounds good to me.
Wayne __________________ crimsontide
|
|
#10
09-13-2005, 04:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
A 6" Stainless would do me.
Jeff..
|
|
#12
09-13-2005, 05:45 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Good point about the balance, Jeff. But I like a fighter a little blade-heavy and honestly (though this is going to sound pretty boring and virtually ends the rest of the configuration of the ?Fighter Knife? for me) I think a basic leather handle #1-8 is just about perfect? a nice, light, leather handle with aluminum butt and brass hilt. In fact, I traded for that knife with my brother who was using it as a practice knife when he was taking Escrima knife fighting classes. He said the knife was configured to replicate the weight and balance of the fighting stick used in practice. The one change I might make, suggested by my brother, would be to put a bike inner tube over the handle.
Randall does a great job balancing these knives out of the shop. For example, the balance points on my #1-8 and #1-7 are about the same?the vertical axis on the 7 in. is just about exactly at the hilt, and on the 8 in. it?s only a ~? in. forward of the hilt, even with the leather handle; I think it might have something to do with the size of the handle and tang in relation to the blade, i.e., a longer, wider blade might have a longer, wider tang. And I notice on my #1-8 that the handle is actually larger too?fits my hand better (than the #1-7?s handle), and that helps to ?balance? the knife as well. It looks like were trending heavily to the 7 in. model anyway and although it wouldn?t be what I?d choose, there?s nothing wrong with a #1-7. 
Last edited by escapement; 09-13-2005 at 05:47 PM.
|
|
#15
09-13-2005, 07:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'll also say 7 inch in stainless steel.
BR
|
|
| Tags |
| blade, knife, knives, switchblade |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
than to frown 
!
Linear Mode
