basic #9 vs. RTAK?

shootist16

shootist16

knife law moderator
Moderator
Joined
Dec 25, 1998
Messages
7,394
I am looking serious;y at these knives. I know the RTAK is cheaper but not by enough to make a difference to me. Could anyone comment on either of these knives? Recomendations?

------------------
-Dennis


 
Search the the forums hear and you'll find plenty on them. Personally, I just bought both a #9 and a #3 from Busse. These are incredible knives. You can't go wrong with them.

------------------
Knowledge without understanding is knowledge wasted.
Understanding without knowledge is a rare gift - but not an impossibility.
For the impossible is always possible through faith. - Bathroom graffiti, gas station, Grey, TN, Dec, 1988

AKTI Member #A000831
 
I opted for the RTAK....Mine should be in transit right now. I take it you've already visited Newt's Page and Jeff Randall's site? I just don't see how you could go wrong w/ this knife....is a tough purpose driven tool. The Busse Basic 9 is probably just as tough, but has it been put to the test in a real world enviroment? Newt and Jeff designed the RTAK to perform in the wilderness, and Mr. Randalls extensive use of this knife in the peruvian jungles says alot to me about its quality and functionaliy.
 
One of the significant differences between the RTAK and Basic #9 is the thickness. The Basic is thicker so it will be stronger and probably a better chopper if light effort is used, it will also bind less in soft woods and such. Because the RTAK is thinner it should have better penetration when moderate to high levels of force are used. However the difference in thickness is not really that great, and the performance could actually be effected much more significantly by the respective balance points, bevel geometry, and even the grip ergonomics. Little differences in design in these areas can make large ones in performance.

Besides the geometry the obvious difference in performance would come from the steel. Newt uses 1095 which is a decent blade steel and the Basic uses M-INFI which Busse Combat has made several impressive claims about and from what I have experienced so far they seem to be on the level. Now how much of a difference this makes will depend on how hard you are planning to push on the blade. Even at low stress levels you will notice a significant level of performance difference in regards to edge retention, ease of sharpening and durability in regards to the occasional mishap where the blade hits something you wish it didn't. The difference would really only start to standout heavily though if the blades were really stressed hard in those areas regarding strenght, toughness, and ductility, so if you are looking towards heavy impact work then this might be of interest. The steel differences also effect other areas such as corrosion resistance and ease of cleanup, both aspects which M-INFI performs very well in.

Both makers do have a realistic attitude about their knives and neither have a problem with you actually using them which is readily appearant if you talk to either or them. Both I am betting would be very good functional tools, and the Basic on paper, and from my experience with it, would seem to be able to handle high stress work better. I would appreciate any first hand experience in this regard though.

-Cliff
 
Cliff said it well. From what I've heard the Basic 9 is an awesome piece, and from Busse's reputation I have no reason to doubt it. Matter of fact...I want one! and will have one once production gets in full swing.

As for the difference, I believe the RTAK will be a little better in slashing and vegetation work due to edge configuration and thickness, and may even be a little easier to re-sharpen, where the Basic will probably be stronger laterally and hold and edge a little longer.

See Steve Dick's article in Jan. 2000 Tactical Knives. He states that the RTAK had a little more problems cutting kindling than the others tested due to the long flat grind, but also notice it cut 1 1/2" rope with ease and the slashing ability was a little better than the others. This is not to take away from any of the other blades mentioned because each blade had its stregths and weaknesses and Dick pointed that out well.

Maybe Steve can post up further info on this if he reads this thread.

Bottom line: You can't go wrong with either one. Both makers work is highly regarded and the price is so close it shouldn't make too much a difference. - Jeff

------------------
Randall's Adventure & Training
jeff@jungletraining.com

 
I'm not really looking at either of these knives, so these are more just "curious George" Q's, but:

1) How do folks like the handles on the Busse Basics? (and what IS "Resiprene C"?) The RTAK has a full tang, like Busse's "original" INFI line (Badger, Stl Heart, Bttl Mistress) and I suppose that might be a plus/minus for some...

2) Cliff, you noted that the m-INFI has better corrosion resistance. Can you (or anyone) elaborate on this? Comparable to... D2? less or more?

Glen


------------------
"What's so funny 'bout peace, love, and understanding?" -Elvis Costello
 
Jeff, was the problem with the chopping on penetration, binding or comfortability?

Glen, concerning the grip on the Basic, the wear resistance is high, and while it can be cut easily you can just heat the grip to close the cuts as it will undergo a phase change at high temperatures (being exposed to a direct flame) and becomes like putty. This also allows you to remold impact dents, pretty cool actually. It is very resistant to temperature changes and does not get brittle (I left it in the basement freezer for 6 hours and then hit it with a hammer a few times) or catch fire easily (it starts to smoke after about 6 seconds but that stops once the flame is removed). And last but probably most important, it is also very comfortable. It might be less secure than the BM grip however during heavy fatigue and a loaded grip (sweat, blood etc.) because of the lack of a butt hook. My only real problem is no extended tang.

As for the corrosion resistance that comment was such based on some discussions with Ron Hood. I plan on eventually leaving both the Basic and BM exposed along with a few others to see if they resist corrosion any differently. Note however that they clean up very well, it is very difficult to get something stuck on them. Even cutting up cardboard boxes with old tape doesn't make much of a mess (that old glue can really gum up some blades).

-Cliff


[This message has been edited by Cliff Stamp (edited 07 October 1999).]
 
One of the issues I have with the Basic #9 is the lack of a full tang. I would like to see this feature added to the #9. The full tang and the handle is one of the reasons I was leaning towards the RTAK. Also I am not sure if I will like the funky edge on the #9. Does the edge make sharpening harder or easier?

------------------
-Dennis


 
The basic 9 may be a good blade, but I think it makes more sense to spend more bucks and get a Steel Heart II or a Battle Mistress.

The basic lacks a few important things that would have made it a lot better than it is:
1. Micarta Handle would be a lot better.
2. Extended full tang that sticks out of butt end of handle would have also been better.
3. A good ricasso area in front of the handle guard, that allows user to comfortably choke up on blade without getting cut.

All 3 of these features are found on the RTAK, and on Busse's Steel Heart and Battle Mistress. They are lacking on the Basic 9.

That's why I passed on the Basic 9, and opted for a RTAK and a Steel Heart II. The RTAK is a might big blade, though; sort of like having a small machete.
 
Hansen, I am leaning towards the RTAK for exactly the reasons you stated above. I may have to put a Battle Mistress on order as well.

*note- none of my comments about the RTAK or wicked Knife Company or Mr. Livesay is meant to be a personal attack.

------------------
-Dennis


 
Hansen,

I mostly agree with your observations. I still got a basic 9. The availability to last minite OS orders from my friends make up the difference. I have a lot of guys at Ft.Campbel that all the sudden are called out and need a bush blade ASAP. as well I find that while I like a full and hidden tang knife it is not imperative. Useing the spine for a hammer(while not reccommended) is expedient and gives you more power. I like the handle shape and size. It has palm swells and prefer not to have a back hook. It hurts my little finger. I do not know how the materical will hold up. I would like to see one with a 15-16" blade. I noticed that Mission is now advertizing thier knife with one this legnth. Every time I think I have it all in one sock someone unravels the end.

That is part of the fun being a gear head.

Cheers,

ts

------------------
Guns are for show. Knifes are for Pros.
 
Jeff, that is no surprise. My Battle Mistress, while thicker than the RTAK, does not have near enough of an obtuse grind to split wood easily for example. You can just of course beat it through with something, and I assume the RTAK could be used in a similar manner.

Hansen, thanks for the info, I didn't realize the #9's lacked the index finger cutout. I figured that it was just not on the #7 because it would not really be necessary. In regards to the handles, I think I would prefer if my Battle Mistress had a rubber handle like my Basic, just keep the extended tang and wrap the rubber around the grip area (if that is possible).

-Cliff
 

I got a #9 from bladeforums store. I certainly can not comment with the same expertise as Cliff. I can say two things though:

1) The quality control seems to be very good.

2) Before I received it, I thought I would really like the shape of the grip. When I got it, I discovered the shape of the grip is good but not great. I have a medium size hand and it is a bit too thick for me. Just my opinion ...
 
Cliff,

We designed the RTAK as a serious bush blade designed to cross-over into general wilderness work. It's an excellent slasher and vegetation cutter and all-around bush blade and does good in the chopping department. On any knife, as you know, certain compromises have to be made. If we would have increased the angle, the slashing ability would have suffered greatly. Hell...you already know that. - Jeff

BTW: none of my comments are meant to be a personal attack on Livesay's work either
smile.gif


------------------
Randall's Adventure & Training
jeff@jungletraining.com

 
Jeff, yeah, that's why its not something that I would look for much in a blade. Anyway, most kindling that I split I just do it by chopping the blade into it and then twisting the handle and wood in opposite directions. Of course you can't do this easily with large wood - but why would you want to anway. Get smaller wood to make the kindling out of. I wouldn't really give up cutting performance for splitting on a knife.

Shootist, the dual edge just means you have to sharpen it differently. The flat ground part can just be ground on a normal hone. The convex side could be as well I would suppose it you were skilled, but its easier with sandpaper on a piece of styrofoam or similar. The metal actually grinds really easily and responds well to stropping.

-Cliff

[This message has been edited by Cliff Stamp (edited 08 October 1999).]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top