BK7 vs. CS Recon Tanto

D

Dave Hunnicutt

BANNED
Joined
Feb 16, 2000
Messages
46
If you had to carry a knife into combat (along with all your other gear), which would you rather have?

Dave
 
Considering that the BK7 and CS Recon Tanto come out of the same forge, so to speak (a.k.a. Camillus), the steel and heat treat is likely very similar. My druthers though for an all-around "combat" blade would be the BK7 as it seems like it would be more versatile than the tanto blade.
 
For me at least, the Becker handles blow the CS handles out of the water, both ergonomically and in terms of durability.
 
It seems the closer comparison is the BK7 and the Bushranger.
Very similar knives from the same manufacturer. As much as I love
my BK7, I prefer the handle on the Bushranger. I really like the
more secure grip the contoured and checkered kraton handle provides.
 
In any case I would opt for the BK 7 by mainly two reasons: First the BK7 is made of 0176-B, which holds the edge better than the 1095 steel of the Recon Tanto, and the second reason ist the blade shape, which is much more versatile. Last but not least the grip of the Bk 7 seems to fit my hand better than the Recon Tanto's.

greetings
sniper66
 
The BK-7, hands down. More versatile, stronger than a Bushranger, better overall design for a combat knife. The handles are superb, and if they ever got ruined for explosion etc., you have a full tang underneath, and can cordwrap a handle, aka Strider, and keep going. That knife was designed by Ethan Becker with EXTENSIVE input and feedback from spec ops soldiers of many genereations. The goal was to replace the old USMC/Fihghting Utility knife with a stronger knife, while retaining most of the capabilities of the old blade -- especially keeping the blade light in weight. Keeping it light weight was the most often repeated feature soldiers requested.

The 0176-C steel holds an edge forever, and blows away Carbon V, which is just 1095 disguised under Lynn Thompson's advertising. Carbon V is not a proprietary steel, Carbon V is just a proprietary name for the 1095 steel. Now, don't ge me wrong -- I love my CS Recon Tanto, but if forced to choose between the two, the BK-7 is the one I feel would more likely help me stay alive, and hold up under field conditions. I trusted my Becker Brute, with same steel and same handles, in very harsh conditions in the remotest Idaho wilderness last year, and it kicked butt all the way.

The CS Recon Tanto is still a good blade, and is a stronger prybar, becuase of the blade thickness. If forced to choose one knife from the CS lineup to take into the field, the RT would be my choice. But the BK-7 has hit on that magic mix of "slightly thinner blade profile" v. "strength."

Best,

Brian.
 
Hands down the BK-7, its just a lot more useful as a tool than the recon tanto. As strictly a weapon
the recon tanto might have an edge in ease of penatration. Also with the cold steel Recon Tanto,the rubbery handles though would give me pause. I wonder how they would hold up to a lot of rough use. I dont want to be in never never land and have my handles go to hell. I think most folks who own the cold steel knives with these handles dont actually use them that much or hard. People that do on the larger trailmaster models for chopping etc, complain the handles twist etc. Maybe it varies from knife to knife, I may be wrong, and your mileage may vary. :cool:
 
Brian: You said that Carbon V is 1095. Usually what I read is that since Camillus makes Cold Steel's Carbon V knives, Carbon V is therefore Camillus' 0170-6C. So, what is it really? Is it 1095 or 0170-6C? Why the different answers? Does anybody know for sure?
 
Carbon V has been variously identified by different sources as 50100b. I believe the BladeForum FAQ on steel by Joe Talmage says something like this: 50100b is almost the same as 52100 except that it has a bit less chromium. It has about .4% and 52100 has about 1.5%. Also 50100b has about .15% vanadium in it whereas 52100 has none or very little, like less than .05%. It is a pretty good balance between hardness, sharpness, and toughness. For a tougher blade you could go to multi-quenched 5160 or 52100. Carbon V would work well for a large knife if you aren't going to use it extensively as a crowbar. It is pretty similar to O1 which has been used for Randall fighting knives for decades.
From my experience it is a step or two better than 1095 (which is, incidentally, a great carbon steel which has been used extensively in military knives like the K-bar for the better part of a century). The heat treat also has a good deal to do with its performance. I understand that Camillus produces Carbon V blades for Cold Steel, and they do a superb job, IMHO. To echo Ethan Becker, Carbon V "cuts like a screaming witch."

:)
 
CS stuff in aus 8a or carbon V etc and i dont care who makes the stuff--I love carbonV even if they use cat shiznit as fuel in the furnace...Im an old CS collector; still do..and I never heard the stuff about Camillus makin CS's stuff/steel until I started frequenting BladeForums.

Carbon V outperforms IMHO Aus8a or any stainless ive ever used...Randall has used a version of 01 for years and they make no bones about it..theyll tell you to TRY to make a knife outa 01 like they do..Gotta be something said there...

But my esteemed collegues there is only one way to know....

TEST..or benefit from someone elses knowledge..Maybe we can get Cliff Stamp to compare the two..

That being said..I carry my Becker CU/7 every damn day even in the house..I will own almost every Becker made..I love the darn things..I will own 4 CU/7's when I can find somebody 2 sell me 3 or more at less than $40 apice..

I would put the Becker CU/7 up against any CS knife of COMPARABLE size; thickness; etc..I like Becker handles better for durability; CS for grip...well see:D T

The CSRT will beat the CU/7 for penetration w/o a doubt..but penetration is a given to a decent tanto.. The CU/7 is a clip blade utility design..HELL carry both..they dont weigh that much.
 
I agree that the BK7 is a great knife.
I disagree with Brian over his claims that the steel is better than that used by Carbon V, I'll bet you a new BK7 (to be donated to the public service ort military person of you choice) that they are theu use the exact same steel.
Hop on over to Will Fennell's forum and ask him!!!!
Camillus is the OEM manufacturer for Cold Steel's Carbon V knives (which I don't think is an industry secret anymore....) and utilizes the same steel, under a different name for both.
I would even venture to say that the heat treatment (which is excellent) is the same (or very similiar) on both, adapted to maximize the abilities of the steel.
How about it Brian Jones, care to take the bet???????

Oh BTW I agree that Carbon V, 0170-6C, 50100B (50100 modified by the addition of vanadium) is better for most applications that 1095....

Brain, email let me know if you want to accept the bet and provide me with the name of the service member you want......

Take care,
Chad
 
Yeah, my conclusion was based on a tech eval of the steel in a lab, so I'm pretty confident it's 1095...however, others have said that the steel changes based on costs, so who knows?

I'l email you -- a bet like that goes both ways. If you have a servie member you want to donate to (if you win), let me know as well. I'll drop you an email...

This kind of bet is great, because either way, a person in the line of fire benefits, so whether I lose or win it, I don't care, because we all win.

Good idea Chad234...

:D
 
If it's of interest to anyone, this topic got me lookin' and I think i'm just gonna buy both... i've wanted a good 7" tanto for some time now, and finding out that Camillus (one of my absolute favorite companies) is makin' the blades is a huge plus. But I was always gonna get a Becker, and I do think the Becker will be the superior hard use knife... the CSRT might be pretty dang coo - especially for a geo-tanto enthusiast like myself.
 
Carbon V doesn't mean a specific steel. It was tested by Wayne Goddard and found not to be 1095, but a very similar low alloy steel. However another test could should it to indeed be much closer to 1095, depending on which Carbon V knives you test and when they were made. Ref :

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=184702

Personally, it is not something I would put much weight on either way. These alloys are very close to each other and it would be very difficult to tell them apart in use assuming they are heat treated with the same quality, to the same hardness. Small variances in geometry (blade as well as handle) would also swamp out the materials performance issues. Even the quality of the steel, where it is bought, would probably be as significant an effect as the small amount of alloy we are talking about here, assuming of course that they are in fact different at all.

As for the choice, easily C/U7 for similar reasons as stated in the above posts.

-Cliff
 
Proven steel, proven design, used it in the field personally, I'll take the CS Recon Tanto any day.
 
They both seem to be pretty good knives. I have an older Becker Campanion, and that might be something to consider for said purpose as well.
 
I haven't tried the camillus, but I do have a recon tanto and it's a great blade. I like the fact that it's a bit of a prybar, since the purpose of the big knife for me is to provide some chopping power. Any single knife is a compromise, and since I always have a few smaller knives on board at all times, I choose to have a thicker rather than thinner blade on my 'big knife' (I know, 7" isn't all that big). Even with the thick blade, I can make better fuzz sticks with the Recon Tanto than with some of my smaller knives, due to the insanely sharp edge (reprofiled to roughly 20 degrees). It's a great all around knife.
 
Don't get me wong, I love my Recon Tanto. THe BK7 is just more versatile.

However, if I had to get into a hand-to-hand (knife-to-knife) situation, I would by far prefer the Recon Tanto...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top