American tomahawk knife

[justjed]

The Todd Begg Recondo, made by White River, is what the SOG Pillar wishes it could have been.......

I like the ATC, though. It's a versatile size and shape, should be a competent cutting tool.

 

[Mistwalker]

"Near fanatical?" Where are you getting that from? What "fanaticism" are you referring to on the part of this specific company/knifemkaer?

No, not on the part of this specific company as a whole no, but mainly on the part of this specific designer with the UCAP, Combat Africa, and original Utsidihi, and some other knife models over the years. He's definitely a fan of the old-world designs, and it shows in a lot of his work.

Other designers there have come up with some good stuff that doesn't have integral guards. I think Jonathan did a fantastic job on the Peregrine handle. Partly because I helped him see for himself the downside of an integral guard on a knife intended for combat.

I handed him a Bill Harsey designed Spartan Hunter and stood a timber against the wall and said "there, take the knife in a reverse underhand grip and plunge the blade into the timber and hard as you can" and he did. Then I handed him a Fiddleback Forge mid-tech Kephart, and said "okay now do the same thing with this knife, and tell me the differences." He took the Kephart in his hand, looked at it, and looked at the timber, and handed the knife back. And said, "I don't need to do that to understand what you're trying to show me." Then later we both did the same thing with the Peregrine and loved the results.

And you do realize that French trade knives had a direct influence on knife designs carried on the frontier, of which this is a deliberate modernized version, yes? It sounds like you have some understanding of history, so I'm guessing you do. Which makes your assertion all the more odd, since you seem to have missed the point of this knife.

Yes, I grasp the influence, and that's my point exactly. To me the name "Rifleman" presupposes a certain amount of tactical intent, so I would expect a modernized version to exhibit features based on improvements that can easily be made in our modernized world.

I'd be curious to hear you elaborate on "all we've learned about knife use," since the days when people literally depended on their knife on a daily basis for their very survival.

That's simple, we...or at least some of us, have learned that integral guards can be very painful in thrusts into penetration resistant materials. And we've learned how to make both more durable handle materials than wood and epoxies to attach them to the tang with. So now wrapping the forward end of the handle a little further down and around the forefinger to make a wider guard isn't so much a waste of time now since the little points won't just break off now the way they would have then. So now we can more easily reduce the pounds per square inch applied to the forefinger or pinkie in thrusts into penetration resistant materials.

Then it sounds like you should get a SOG Pillar and start a thread about how superior it is, no?

Gathering the material for a thread on the Pillar is already in the works.

 

[Mistwalker]

The Todd Begg Recondo, made by White River, is what the SOG Pillar wishes it could have been.......

Lol, I'd stick with the Pillar even if the Recondo wasn't twice the price. I'd pass on all the holes drilled in the blade just in front of the handle.

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

I think you're relying on the name too much when it comes to presuming the design intent rather than interpreting the intended function based on the features. While there is a certain degree of tactical aesthetic in part due to ATC's brand positioning and established design language, the design itself is anything but. This appears to be more of a hunting and camping knife.

 

[Mistwalker]

I'd personally rather use the ATC than the SOG. AEB-L is one of the finest all-around steels

As I understand it from studying some discussions on it here, AEB-L is essentially 1070 with just enough added chromium to make it stainless, and patented in 1928. So it's pretty old tech compared to some other steels and offers neither the toughness nor the abrasion resistance of the CPM S35VN.

in my book and the design strikes me as superior for general outdoors use.

Superior in what way? What alldo you see it doing better and how so? Maybe butchering large game? Maybe on a cutting board in a kitchen?
To me it seems rather specialized for pull cuts, like an Old Hickory Butcher knife's handle. While the Pillar handle offers a more comfortable purchase for doing pull or push cuts, and tip work, while simultaneously providing a safer guard to use with the forefinger for leverage when rotating the blade and tip in detail work like making trap triggers, prongs on fish/frog gig, boring holes for a water filter, or to facilitate dislodging it from being hung up in an enemy's body/clothing etc.

From Meriam Webster
Rifleman: Noun
1: a soldier armed with a rifle

I just can't see the logic in limiting the versatility of a soldier's knife in other fieldcraft applications by optimizing it for kitchen use or butchering game.

and with a thumb-locked grip it doesn't appear as though any undue pressure would be applied to the forefinger in use.

That depends on the direction(s) of the force being applied and how much force.

The blade shape appears all around more useful for knife work

"Knife work" on a farm can be very different than "knife work" on a battlefield

this style of knife is meant to be paired with a more robust striking tool like...their axes.

Never mentioned chopping. A 5 inch blade seldom makes a good chopping tool.

There are cases where a woods knife is leaned on as a primary tool for hacking and prying

I've spent my entire life studying them (and most of my life studying knife design for such applications), a battleground can very easily become one of those places. Not everyone has a functional context for that fact, as is often demonstrated by knife designs like this one being given names that presuppose a certain amount of tactical intent, but then not really living up to their names in my opinion.

but to suggest that this knife is a poor design because it's not as well suited to it as the SOG is seems to be a glaring misinterpretation of its intended context of use and optimization.

And there's the false dichotomy. I never said it was a "poor design", now you're putting words in my post. I literally said the overall design had potential. I simply said I feel the SOG Pillar is a knife better suited for a Rifleman, and is more optimized for that particular context of use.

 

[Mistwalker]

I think you're relying on the name too much... This appears to be more of a hunting and camping knife.

My point exactly

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

1• As I understand it from studying some discussions on it here, AEB-L is essentially 1070 with just enough added chromium to make it stainless, and patented in 1928. So it's pretty old tech compared to some other steels and offers neither the toughness nor the abrasion resistance of the CPM S35VN.

2• Superior in what way? What alldo you see it doing better and how so? Maybe butchering large game? Maybe on a cutting board in a kitchen?
To me it seems rather specialized for pull cuts, like an Old Hickory Butcher knife's handle. While the Pillar handle offers a more comfortable purchase for doing pull or push cuts, and tip work, while simultaneously providing a safer guard to use with the forefinger for leverage when rotating the blade and tip in detail work like making trap triggers, prongs on fish/frog gig, boring holes for a water filter, or to facilitate dislodging it from being hung up in an enemy's body/clothing etc.

3•From Meriam Webster
Rifleman: Noun
1: a soldier armed with a rifle

I just can't see the logic in limiting the versatility of a soldier's knife in other fieldcraft applications by optimizing it for kitchen use or butchering game.

4•That depends on the direction(s) of the force being applied and how much force.

"Knife work" on a farm can be very different than "knife work" on a battlefield

Never mentioned chopping. A 5 inch blade seldom makes a good chopping tool.

5•I've spent my entire life studying them (and most of my life studying knife design for such applications), a battleground can very easily become one of those places. Not everyone has a functional context for that fact, as is often demonstrated by knife designs like this one being given names that presuppose a certain amount of tactical intent, but then not really living up to their names in my opinion.

And there's the false dichotomy. I never said it was a "poor design", now you're putting words in my post. I literally said the overall design had potential. I simply said I feel the SOG Pillar is a knife better suited for a Rifleman, and is more optimized for that particular context of use.

1• I never said it was new. My preference for AEB-L as being what I consider a phenomenal blade steel stems in part from it being able to be adequately sharpened on most stones, including natural ones if needed. Are there tougher steels? Yes. More corrosion-resistant steels? Yes. More wear resistant steels? Yes. But I find that AEB-L has qualities that hit the "above average" mark in every respect while balancing them well against limiting factors that may be present in other applications. Within specific contexts there are better specific steels to choose, but that's why I said I consider it one of the best all-around steels. That is to say that when a context isn't specified, a knife made of AEB-L is unlikely to fall short of being at least suitable for an application, if not always optimum.

2• Given that in reading the design it appears to be geared towards hunting and camping, superior in terms of tasks like game and food processing, cutting at depth in materials, doing general camp crafting work, and so on. Regarding crafting specifically the longer and deeper belly and the more open handle design appear as though they would give some additional options compared to the finger-notched Pillar and the way its tang projects slightly past the scales. That's not to say that the Pillar is incapable of pulling off such work, but it does appear as though the Rifleman is better suited to such tasks.

3• The second definition from Merriam Webster is "2: one skilled in shooting with a rifle" which seems to be the case here. Again, a deliberate hybridization of the tactical and frontiersman angle they seem to be going for with their overall market positioning and design aesthetic. You would have seen this definition in grabbing the one you cited, I expect.

4• I was discussing the comparatively cutting-focused design in how it made sacrifices in how robust it was for the sake of performance in cutting and slicing tasks over high impact, stabbing, prying, and so on, which are the areas in which the Pillar appears to have an advantage over the Rifleman. Regarding chopping in specific, 5-inch knives do make poor choppers but some are nevertheless better at it than others and often tactical knives in that size range are often built in such a way that they're able to provide some degree of utility in that role in the absence of other chopping tools. But this also applies to many of the tasks for which a knife might be used in prying, not just chopping.

5• This seems like an intellectually dishonest response. The term "poor" is obviously being used in a comparative sense here given your statement of

"At this size range and price point, I'll definitely stick with the SOG Pillar. I believe it's a superior design, made of superior materials, and developed from a superior working knowledge of both knife making and knife use in fieldcraft."

Again, it appears (as I previously mentioned) that this knife is designed with hunting and camping tasks in mind, but you have here chosen to criticize it in a context other than that which it seems to have been intended for. For the context you chose I agree with your assessment, but my point remains that it seems as if you've deliberately misinterpreted the context of use it was actually intended for. Which is in line with the second of the Merriam Webster definitions, and with their brand image. I think their customers are most likely fully aware of the intended context. From the item description on their website:

The Rifleman shares classic lines from the knives that built this country, it is a true utility work horse. It is well equipped for wide range of cutting chores, and would make great companion on a hike or around camp.

 

[Hammer67]

My point exactly

But....no one ever claimed it to be a "tactical/battlefield" knife at all (incl. the designer and manufacturer). That seems to be an assumption that you've made, and then based your criticisms on. And honestly, it seems like a misguided assumption, imo.

To put it in more "tactical" terms - the Pillar might pair nicely with an AR, while this model might pair better with a lever action. It's more of a historic design than a modern, tactical knife, although I thought that was already abundantly obvious...

 

[justjed]

Lol, I'd stick with the Pillar even if the Recondo wasn't twice the price. I'd pass on all the holes drilled in the blade just in front of the handle.

Hope my Recondo doesn't crawl up on a shelf and cry itself to sleep, vowing to never, EVER cut anything, EVER again, just because you don't like the aesthetics!

I mean, aside from aesthetics, the Pillar and Recon are the SAME knife. 5-ish inches of S35VN, through-hardened to 58-59RC, with a micarta handle, extended pommel, and a synthetic sheath. Ain't either one any better than the other.

The Recondo actually LOOKS like it should be a SOG branded blade, though. The Pillar? Not so much. THAT was the point I was trying to make.

And I'm not ranting on SOG, btw. My S1, a user, will never be sold. The Agency is decent knife, and I wish I still had my first-series Tomcat.....

 

[Mistwalker]

2• Given that in reading the design it appears to be geared towards hunting and camping, superior in terms of tasks like game and food processing, cutting at depth in materials, doing general camp crafting work, and so on. Regarding crafting specifically the longer and deeper belly and the more open handle design appear as though they would give some additional options compared to the finger-notched Pillar and the way its tang projects slightly past the scales. That's not to say that the Pillar is incapable of pulling off such work, but it does appear as though the Rifleman is better suited to such tasks.

I see it differently. I see the design of the guard of the Rifleman as not only being uncomfortable in many tasks with force applied to the tip and the forefinger abrading on the integral guard, but also as it being less safe when using the guard for leverage for rotating the blade in carving trap triggers etc. than the guard of the Pillar. And personally, I'd prefer the finer point of the Pillar for detailed work. Plus, since you mention it (it was one of the features that drew me to this knife) the textured tang extension allows the knife to be used in chisel fashion without damaging the scales, making it even more versatile in fieldcraft.

3• The second definition from Merriam Webster is "2: one skilled in shooting with a rifle" You would have seen this definition in grabbing the one you cited, I expect.

Obviously I did, I just see it as it is, a secondary subordinate definition, and not really in line with AT's or RMJ's (their owner) historical context of providing top of the line advanced tactical tools for soldiers. In conversations with Ryan Johnson on "riflemen" in the past, he was referring to riflemen in American Revolutionary War terms, and soldiers. Which I suspect influenced his thought of this design, so I would have expected a more modern hybridization of the design to be more modern in furniture to improve the overall function of the design in that role.

4• I was discussing the comparatively cutting-focused design in how it made sacrifices in how robust it was for the sake of performance in cutting and slicing tasks over high impact, stabbing, prying, and so on...

Sacrifice? Both knives are 0.16 or so thick with saber grinds, so neither would make a great sharpened pry bar. And I don't see how the Pillar having scales that wrap down around the forefinger interfere with its cutting and slicing abilities, nor do I see how having had the scales on the Rifleman come a little further down around the forefinger, which is my only real complaint about the design (though I do like not having contact with the edge with my forefinger when I'm using the guard for leverage to rotate the blade) would have impeded any of its stated intended functions.

5• This seems like an intellectually dishonest response. The term "poor" is obviously being used in a comparative sense here given your statement of "At this size range and price point, I'll definitely stick with the SOG Pillar. I believe it's a superior design, made of superior materials, and developed from a superior working knowledge of both knife making and knife use in fieldcraft."

Intellectually dishonest? LOL. Like I said you're using a false dichotomy here. You're suggesting that because I say one thing is superior to another it obviously means I must feel the object it's being compared to is at the direct opposite end of the good/bad spectrum and that is not what I said at all. I simply said I feel the Pillar is superior in some functions.

LOL that's like saying if I were to say I feel a Lamborghini Countach is superior to a Pontiac Trans Am in speed and handling, that I mean the Trans Am is slow and handles poorly. When that wouldn't be the case at all. I had a Trans Am and know how fast it was and how well it handled. It was pretty impressive compared to many cars on the road, but having ridden in a Countach a few times I know it has superior speed and handling capabilities.

But....no one ever claimed it to be a "tactical/battlefield" knife at all (incl. the designer and manufacturer). That seems to be an assumption that you've made, and then based your criticisms on. And honestly, it seems like a misguided assumption, imo.

To put it in more "tactical" terms - the Pillar might pair nicely with an AR, while this model might pair better with a lever action. It's more of a historic design than a modern, tactical knife, although I thought that was already abundantly obvious...

My reply to Ben's 3rd bullet point above addresses this already, lol I don't think it's necessary for me to re-write it in a different order.

Hope my Recondo doesn't crawl up on a shelf and cry itself to sleep, vowing to never, EVER cut anything, EVER again, just because you don't like the aesthetics!

Hahahahahahahaha, that's pretty funny! If it does maybe you can send it to counseling, to work on those self-esteem issues!
It's not so much the aesthetics, I wouldn't mind the fullers if they were just fullers. My mind just sees the holes as possible stress risers and weak points in lateral strength is all. Not hating on the Recondo or anything, I just like the Pillar a little better is all.

I mean, aside from aesthetics, the Pillar and Recon are the SAME knife. 5-ish inches of S35VN, through-hardened to 58-59RC, with a micarta handle, extended pommel, and a synthetic sheath. Ain't either one any better than the other.

Similar yes, but not quite the same. I do like the finer point of the the Recondo actually, but I'm not sure I like the choil, and I prefer the tang extension of the Pillar for using the knife in chisel fashion if I need to. So it won me over.

The Recondo actually LOOKS like it should be a SOG branded blade, though. The Pillar? Not so much. THAT was the point I was trying to make.

I get that point. They are both modern iterations of Ben Baker's original CISO / SOG knife. The Pillar just seems to be more streamlined for exploiting small chinks in modern body armor. At least this time they lowered the forward hump on the spine rather than raise it like the did on the SEAL Team Elite and the Tigerhark Elite, which along with all the notches on the spine is why I decided I really didn't like those models as much as their original versions.

And I'm not ranting on SOG, btw. My S1, a user, will never be sold. The Agency is decent knife, and I wish I still had my first-series Tomcat.....

I'd love to have any of the dozen or so S1s I've owned over the years back, but divorces can be expensive and child custody cases can be the most important battles we ever fight so I don't regret selling them. Maybe someday I'll find another I can afford.

 

[Hammer67]

My reply to Ben's 3rd bullet point above addresses this already, lol I don't think it's necessary for me to re-write it in a different order.

You really didn't address it at all. You are making assumptions about the design intent of this knife, which several of us have tried to point out are misguided, and not based on anything the manufacturer has claimed. You extrapolate that, just because you've had a convo or two with Ryan Johnson, you feel this knife should be evaluated in the context of his other 'tactical' creations (RMJ line), not allowing for the fact that just maybe they are trying something a little different with the AT line (which again, seems obvious to me, but apparently needs explaining).

But this is getting tiresome. It's not the knife for you - we get it.

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

I see it differently. I see the design of the guard of the Rifleman as not only being uncomfortable in many tasks with force applied to the tip and the forefinger abrading on the integral guard, but also as it being less safe when using the guard for leverage for rotating the blade in carving trap triggers etc. than the guard of the Pillar. And personally, I'd prefer the finer point of the Pillar for detailed work. Plus, since you mention it (it was one of the features that drew me to this knife) the textured tang extension allows the knife to be used in chisel fashion without damaging the scales, making it even more versatile in fieldcraft.

Seems to be a matter of preference, but there are lots of ways for working around those particular problems. I know you're aware of many of them, in fact.

Obviously I did, I just see it as it is, a secondary subordinate definition, and not really in line with AT's or RMJ's (their owner) historical context of providing top of the line advanced tactical tools for soldiers. In conversations with Ryan Johnson on "riflemen" in the past, he was referring to riflemen in American Revolutionary War terms, and soldiers. Which I suspect influenced his thought of this design, so I would have expected a more modern hybridization of the design to be more modern in furniture to improve the overall function of the design in that role.

A second meaning of a word does not make it subordinate and is an absurd interpretation. That's just flat out not how dictionaries work.

Sacrifice? Both knives are 0.16 or so thick with saber grinds, so neither would make a great sharpened pry bar. And I don't see how the Pillar having scales that wrap down around the forefinger interfere with its cutting and slicing abilities, nor do I see how having had the scales on the Rifleman come a little further down around the forefinger, which is my only real complaint about the design (though I do like not having contact with the edge with my forefinger when I'm using the guard for leverage to rotate the blade) would have impeded any of its stated intended functions.

The sacrifice in durability is due to the grind being deeper, as well as having the point situated below the plunge line, resulting in a thinner tip geometry. It's a matter of angles, blade width, and grind location, and not a matter of the guard. I never claimed any connection between the two. Now, I could be dead wrong about the respective geometries because I'd need to have them both in-hand to take measurements from, and it's entirely a presumption on my part based on what information can be gleaned from photos alone, but providing all else is held equal a deeper grind in equal stock thickness is going to result in a thinner geometry. Fortunately if you wanted to you could easily retrofit self-fabricated scales to the Rifleman if you wished to add scale material in the guard region.

Intellectually dishonest? LOL. Like I said you're using a false dichotomy here. You're suggesting that because I say one thing is superior to another it obviously means I must feel the object it's being compared to is at the direct opposite end of the good/bad spectrum and that is not what I said at all. I simply said I feel the Pillar is superior in some functions.


LOL that's like saying if I were to say I feel a Lamborghini Countach is superior to a Pontiac Trans Am in speed and handling, that I mean the Trans Am is slow and handles poorly. When that wouldn't be the case at all. I had a Trans Am and know how fast it was and how well it handled. It was pretty impressive compared to many cars on the road, but having ridden in a Countach a few times I know it has superior speed and handling capabilities.

By saying that Knife A is superior in comparison to Knife B in a certain metric, you are inherently saying that Knife B is inferior in comparison to Knife A in that metric. My use of the word "poor" was, again, in comparison regarding the performance qualities of the respective knives. And yes, intellectually dishonest. This feels like bad-faith argument and a distortion of how the knife was presented by its creators, both in its design language and in the item description on their own website.

All this said, I think there's not much more I feel like voicing on the matter here, nor do I feel further time spent on this subject will be fruitful, so I'll be withdrawing now. Use what you like, as always.

 

[Mistwalker]

You extrapolate that, just because you've had a convo or two with Ryan Johnson, you feel qualified to evaluate this knife...

LOL, I'm not the only one making assumptions in this thread, but mine may be a little more well informed and based more in reality, than just on some marketing text on a website...

I would say my having had a 9-year working relationship with Ryan Johnson, and having been involved in several projects with him, including some of the first, if not the first, clandestine "secret squirrel" manufacturing and assembly operations of a very special and very complex composite iteration of the original Jenny Wren for some very special people working in very special location, that covertly took place at a facility only a few of us know about, and only 3 of us were there to see with our own eyes.
My doing field research and test and evaluations of that version of it, and years later the current version of it, as well as several other models in between.

And my having had a great many conversations with Ryan on the origin of tool concepts and designs over the years, and each of us having had influences on the other's design philosophy.

And a long discussion on some of my design philosophies having lead to the first iteration of the Utsidihi...

Qualifies me to extrapolate and evaluate a lot of things about a lot of tools designed by Ryan Johnson.

But this is getting tiresome.

I agree. Trying to make a point about a design feature on a knife, with people who are seemingly determined to get nothing other than their own thoughts and opinions, and who appear to get annoyed at not hearing their opinions coming out of everyone else's mouth as well is getting tiresome.

It's not the knife for you - we get it.

Seems a little narcissistic to feel like you speak for everyone here, but hey, at least you get this part of the point. Maybe now we can end our conversation here and stop wasting each other's time.

 

[Hammer67]

LOL, I'm not the only one making assumptions in this thread, but mine may be a little more well informed and based more in reality, than just on some marketing text on a website...

I would say my having had a 9-year working relationship with Ryan Johnson, and having been involved in several projects with him, including some of the first, if not the first, clandestine "secret squirrel" manufacturing and assembly operations of a very special and very complex composite iteration of the original Jenny Wren for some very special people working in very special location, that covertly took place at a facility only a few of us know about, and only 3 of us were there to see with our own eyes.
My doing field research and test and evaluations of that version of it, and years later the current version of it, as well as several other models in between.

And my having had a great many conversations with Ryan on the origin of tool concepts and designs over the years, and each of us having had influences on the other's design philosophy.

And a long discussion on some of my design philosophies having lead to the first iteration of the Utsidihi...

Qualifies me to extrapolate and evaluate a lot of things about a lot of tools designed by Ryan Johnson.

I agree. Trying to make a point about a design feature on a knife, with people who are seemingly determined to get nothing other than their own thoughts and opinions, and who appear to get annoyed at not hearing their opinions coming out of everyone else's mouth as well is getting tiresome.

Seems a little narcissistic to feel like you speak for everyone here, but hey, at least you get this part of the point. Maybe now we can end our conversation here and stop wasting each other's time.

Then it's even more mind-boggling that, given your extensive experience, you still insist on evaluating this design in the wrong context. And that, given your firsthand knowledge of Ryan's experience, you would assume he would insist on such a serious design flaw as you claim the integral guard to be, rather than simply acknowledging the obvious - that the design and intended usage of the knife is different than you assume.

But ok - let's leave it there.

 

[Mistwalker]

I'll be withdrawing now. Use what you like, as always.

LOL, only the future knows what each of us may use from this conversation, but at least now others reading this thread have some honest feedback of opposing viewpoints based in real world uses, and in researching knife purchases opposing viewpoints are almost always helpful. I know I usually make use of all sides of the discussion in mt research.

 

[Mistwalker]

LOL. even 16 years later, the dynamic of the conversations in this place still cracks me up. That alone is worth the membership fees!

 

[Hammer67]

LOL. even 16 years later, the dynamic of the conversations in this place still cracks me up. That alone is worth the membership fees!

On that, we apparently agree.

 

[Mistwalker]

On that, we apparently agree.

LOL, well at least we agree on something. That's encouraging, I guess.

I wasn't going to trouble you anymore, I'm really not as much of a jerk as I suspect you think I am. I wasn't referring to you, just some of this conversation as a whole in relation to thousands of others I've read here in the last 16 years of reading material on this forum, but if you're determined to keep the conversation going to a mutually agreed conclusion, I'll address your last comment as well. Who knows maybe then we can end the conversation on friendlier terms if you can see where I'm coming from.

Then it's even more mind-boggling that, given your extensive experience, you still insist on evaluating this design in the wrong context. And that, given Ryan's experience, you assume he would insist on such a serious design flaw as you claim the integral guard to be, rather than simply acknowledging that maybe the reason the knife is the way it is, is because it's designed for different usage than you assume.

Perhaps it's only wrong to you because you're basing everything you've said about this knife on owning it for a month and mostly from the marketing text you read on their website? And I'm basing everything I've said about it on many conversations on this very subject with the designer.

A few of them were over why he insisted on doing such a pronounced shadowboxed tang and integral guard on the Combat Africa. Have you ever read the marketing text for the Combat Africa?

From the RMJ website "....The Combat Africa is a modern rendition of a knife from the great lineage of combat knives from the trenches, jungles, and beaches of the Second World War. The Combat Africa is a true workhorse, and while it may look great in your collection, it also begs to be used!"

So it's intended as a combat knife, but to my knowledge none of the production issue knives in that "great lineage" including the Ka-Bar that is actually named in the text had an integral guard and especially not the trench knives. And we had that conversation. His reply was that it was too much trouble to do the scales down around the guard.

Many conversations on the UCAP. Have you read that marketing text?

From the RMJ website "...The UCAP was created with a defensive purpose in mind...Weighing in at only 5.2 oz, the UCAP is deceptively light, yet well suited for everyday use as well as being a reliable tactical style knife... The kydex sheath is MOLLE compatible so it can be attached to any pack, plate carrier or similar gear with PALS webbing.

I got the same reply in that conversation. and later we had the same conversation about other RMJ combat related models.

We had the same conversation over the Marine Raider Dagger, which conversely was extremely well done and felt great in thrusts into penetration resistant materials during tests.

I thought he had finally got it when I saw the gen 2 scales on the second iteration of the Utsidihi he said I inspired (which the name means "man killer" in Cherokee, and is earned only by having killed an opponent in combat, and to my knowledge I was the only one working there at the time who could claim that title both in my level of Cherokee blood and having killed an opponent in combat.

Then came The Aquila. Have you read the wall of marketing text on The Aquila?

From the RMJ website "...The Aquila (Eagle) Knife takes its inspiration from the MACV-SOG knife..."

But anyone who ever read Ben Baker's, Deputy Director of MAC-SOG's Counter Insurgency Support Office in Okinawa from 1963 to 1972, and the designer of the 5th Group and MAC-V-SOG knives, has read how Mr. Baker felt about the importance of the guard of these knives during all of the thrust tests of the 5in, 6 in, and 7 in bladed test models. and was very specific about the size and type of guard these knives needed for the final design. And it certainly was not an integral guard.

For me, having grown up in a family of combat veterans who saw duty in Normandy, Korea, and Vietnam, knives designed for military operations are a subject of long and serious study. And I take exception to knives marketed for soldiers that leave so much to be desired to be a good fieldcraft knife in my personal experiences.

Incidentally it was SOG's departure from high quality serious knives and transition to cheaper more gimmicky knives, having developed a target market of the US military that made me lose interest in SOG knives for several years. The well-thought-out, in my opinion, U.S. made Pillar was the first SOG knife to catch my attention in several years.

So no, the Rifleman really isn't the knife for me, but there is a lot more to it than that. Maybe, with all knife names being duplicated at some point, and me being a rifleman myself, maybe someday I'll have my own version of a knife I'd call a rifleman made by my friend here locally who makes awesome knives. Maybe that should be my first design for him.

Anyway, I hope you have a good day, and find the rest of it less antagonistic than I've apparently been.

 

[justjed]

I think that, regardless of the name, the ATC knife is not a tactical knife, in the modern sense. By all appearances, it seems to be a general utility knife, that could be pressed into adequate service as a defensive tool, should the need arise. I'd prefer to rely on a .45 Commander, but you never know what's going to happen in unexpected circumstances. I digress.

The Rifleman seems to be a well thought out, mid-sized knife, in a good steel for the design intent. Richlite is basically a paper micarta, and is plenty tough. I've been knocking around a Richlite handled knife every day for more than 3 years, with no complaints. Obviously, the leather sheath is NOT tactical, but, so what? It's also quieter than Kydex.

It's on my list if I decide I need another 5-ish inch utility knife. I think it would pair nicely with a good tomahawk. I'm old school tactical.

 

[Hammer67]

LOL, well at least we agree on something. That's encouraging, I guess.

I wasn't going to trouble you anymore, I'm really not as much of a jerk as I suspect you think I am. I wasn't referring to you, just some of this conversation as a whole in relation to thousands of others I've read here in the last 16 years of reading material on this forum, but if you're determined to keep the conversation going to a mutually agreed conclusion, I'll address your last comment as well. Who knows maybe then we can end the conversation on friendlier terms if you can see where I'm coming from.


Perhaps it's only wrong to you because you're basing everything you've said about this knife on owning it for a month and mostly from the marketing text you read on their website? And I'm basing everything I've said about it on many conversations on this very subject with the designer.

A few of them were over why he insisted on doing such a pronounced shadowboxed tang and integral guard on the Combat Africa. Have you ever read the marketing text for the Combat Africa?

From the RMJ website "....The Combat Africa is a modern rendition of a knife from the great lineage of combat knives from the trenches, jungles, and beaches of the Second World War. The Combat Africa is a true workhorse, and while it may look great in your collection, it also begs to be used!"

So it's intended as a combat knife, but to my knowledge none of the production issue knives in that "great lineage" including the Ka-Bar that is actually named in the text had an integral guard and especially not the trench knives. And we had that conversation. His reply was that it was too much trouble to do the scales down around the guard.

Many conversations on the UCAP. Have you read that marketing text?

From the RMJ website "...The UCAP was created with a defensive purpose in mind...Weighing in at only 5.2 oz, the UCAP is deceptively light, yet well suited for everyday use as well as being a reliable tactical style knife... The kydex sheath is MOLLE compatible so it can be attached to any pack, plate carrier or similar gear with PALS webbing.

I got the same reply in that conversation. and later we had the same conversation about other RMJ combat related models.

We had the same conversation over the Marine Raider Dagger, which conversely was extremely well done and felt great in thrusts into penetration resistant materials during tests.

I thought he had finally got it when I saw the gen 2 scales on the second iteration of the Utsidihi he said I inspired (which the name means "man killer" in Cherokee, and is earned only by having killed an opponent in combat, and to my knowledge I was the only one working there at the time who could claim that title both in my level of Cherokee blood and having killed an opponent in combat.

Then came The Aquila. Have you read the wall of marketing text on The Aquila?

From the RMJ website "...The Aquila (Eagle) Knife takes its inspiration from the MACV-SOG knife..."

But anyone who ever read Ben Baker's, Deputy Director of MAC-SOG's Counter Insurgency Support Office in Okinawa from 1963 to 1972, and the designer of the 5th Group and MAC-V-SOG knives, has read how Mr. Baker felt about the importance of the guard of these knives during all of the thrust tests of the 5in, 6 in, and 7 in bladed test models. and was very specific about the size and type of guard these knives needed for the final design. And it certainly was not an integral guard.

For me, having grown up in a family of combat veterans who saw duty in Normandy, Korea, and Vietnam, knives designed for military operations are a subject of long and serious study. And I take exception to knives marketed for soldiers that leave so much to be desired to be a good fieldcraft knife in my personal experiences.

Incidentally it was SOG's departure from high quality serious knives and transition to cheaper more gimmicky knives, having developed a target market of the US military that made me lose interest in SOG knives for several years. The well-thought-out, in my opinion, U.S. made Pillar was the first SOG knife to catch my attention in several years.

So no, the Rifleman really isn't the knife for me, but there is a lot more to it than that. Maybe, with all knife names being duplicated at some point, and me being a rifleman myself, maybe someday I'll have my own version of a knife I'd call a rifleman made by my friend here locally who makes awesome knives. Maybe that should be my first design for him.

Anyway, I hope you have a good day, and find the rest of it less antagonistic than I've apparently been.

I'm not just "basing my opinion on having owned this knife for a month" - I'm basing it on having owned and used many knives in a variety of outdoors contexts, for decades.

I suppose quoting marketing text from all of those other RMJ designs with different intended uses has some tangential value to this conversation, but to stick strictly to the topic at hand, here's what the "marketing text" says on the AT website in regards to the intended usage of the Rifleman specifically:

"The idea for our first knife was to design a blade that was a great all around fixed blade capable of a large variety of cutting chores. The Rifleman would be right at home around your campsite or cabin as well as RV's and overland rigs. It can be used for food prep to splitting kindling, making feather sticks, cutting cordage, hoses, etc."

There's no marketing-speak there that even remotely references the assumed usages that you are basing your critiques on. Literally nothing. It doesn't say anything about this being a "battlefield/tactical" knife at all. Nor a "survival" knife. It's quite clearly intended to be a general outdoors/camp knife, period.

I'm really not trying to argue with you, and I'm all for common ground. But if you're going to continue to insist on coming at this from a point of view that clearly isn't applicable to the intended usage for this knife, then I'm not sure we are going to find agreement. Have a good night.