cold steel recon bowie or buck nighthawk

J

Jay12

Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
3
I'm just wondering if the cold steel or buck knife is a better choice for general survival/hunting use. I wont really abuse it, but ot will get abused a little bit, chopping trees and stuff. Maybe you guys could give me some suggestions
 
IMO,The Nighthawk is a nice knife.At one time I used it as a camp knife,I didn't do much chopping.Don't know about Cold Steel.The Nighthawk would be a very stealthy knife if the Manson family reunited and bought a house next door.
 
Some numbers on the Nighthawk:

OA length 11.25"
Blade length 6.50"
Blade thickness ".25 inch"
Wt. 10 Oz.
Steel 420 HC

Ed. to add:

Numbers on Cold Steel Recon Scout (bowie)

OA length 12.5"
Blade length 7.5"
Blade thickness 5/16"
Wt. 15 oz.
Steel "Carbon V"


Very different knives with very different handles.

You can buy two of the Bucks for one of the Cold Steels, and have some change.
 
I have a buck mini-nighthawk, it's a good solid knife, but the sheath is a crummy nylon job. It definately needs something more 'tactical'.
 
I'd go for the CS Recon, since it has the better steel and is full flat ground. These, imo, make it more versatile and reliable. If you'll only be dressing game and doing some light camp chores, the difference isn't that big. But then again, for that, there are better choices than either of these. For chopping, this would definitely be my choice.

Nighthawk might have the upper hand when it comes to the handle, but that's always a personal preference. It's also a lot cheaper.
 
For more serious, heavy-duty use, you'll definitely find that the Recon Scout, with its 5/16" thick blade will chop much more fluidly and, I would wager, take more abuse. It's a carbon steel, which is a tougher steel, as a rule.
For more fine tasks, the Nighthawk will probably beat out the Recon. The Buck knife is smaller overall with a much thinner blade. For fine work, though, I'd go with something even smaller and thinner than the Nighthawk.

IMO, either knife is better than having nothing; however, the Recon Scout will be tougher and better at chopping, whereas the Nighhawk will be better for fine work. If it was me, I'd gladly take a Recon Scout and add to it a thin-bladed, 3 1/2" bladed folder or fixed blade for delicate work.
 
Trout Tamer said:
The Buck knife is smaller overall with a much thinner blade.
Click to expand...
The Nighthawk is 1/4" (4/16") thick; the Recon Scout is 5/16". Not a huge difference, especially at these sizes. The Nighthawk is still a "sharpened crowbar" compared to most camp knives.

Only a die-hard Busse or Strider junkie would consider a 1/4" blade "thin"!! ;)
 
I believe the Recon Scout is the better of the two knives you mentioned. I have a Recon Scout, and have been using it for a number of years. No complaints. I like it. :D
 
I have only good things to say about the Nighthawk. Used mine in the army in severe arctic conditions for almost a year. It did a good job and never let me down. The ergos are great! Mine came quite dull and it was a real pain to sharpen, that is until I reprofiled the edge using a diamond rod. I can really recommend this knife! Also check out Swamp Rat Knifeworks as some others have suggested. A lot of knife for the money! Good luck!

/Botond
 
he Nighthawk is 1/4" (4/16") thick
Click to expand...

whoa, I had no idea! It seems to me, the last time I saw Nighthawk, it was somewhere around 5/32" thick... either my memory's not so hot, or they've changed it since its issuance...

All things considered, though, I'd still go with the Recon Scout. Or, yeah, check ou some Swamp Rats... :)
 
Having spent time with both, I would say the Recon Scout is the better knife, especially if you plan to do some chopping. Nothing wrong with the Buck though, just realise there is a considerable "perceived" size and weight difference even though the numbers don't really show it.
 
Trout Tamer said:
whoa, I had no idea! It seems to me, the last time I saw Nighthawk, it was somewhere around 5/32" thick... either my memory's not so hot, or they've changed it since its issuance...
Click to expand...
Well, I was operating from memory, too... and you got me doubting. So I dug out my Nighthawks and calipers, and miked 'em.

The "standard" Nighthawk (black coated blade, olive drab / black handle) miked 0.232" thick; the "civilian" Nighthawk (satin uncoated blade, black handle) miked 0.235". Basically, both are 1/4" stock, polished down a tad. The grind maintains that max thickness out to within 2" of the tip, too.
 
If you decide to go with the suggestions for the Ontario RAT or Beckers, skip the D2 RAT and Extreme Becker models and stick with the normal ones. Both are cases where a good, solid working knife was given a brittle steel and doubled in price. Drop a D2 or S30V blade that size on the ground and it's likely to shatter. Either of the carbon steel versions will last the rest of your life, more than likely.

Of the knives you mentioned, I have to agree with others that they're very different from each other. Both solid working knives, the Recon will be the stoutest and have the most power where the Nighthawk gains portability and corrosion resistance. I'd heartily recommend seeing each in person before buying, if possible.
 
I have both Nighthawks although I don't know if the Tanto bladed one is still made. I also have the CS Recon Scout. If you are going to do chopping go the CS Recon Scout. Also the Recon Scout has a securex (fancy plastic like kydex) sheath which is better than the nylon sheath my ywo bucks have. If the retaining strap un snaps on the bucks the knife falls out easy.

Which ever you choose Buck or CS they are excellent knives. Yep there are plenty here who bag them especially the CS. Truth is they work. I've read here that the kraton handle on the CS can give blisters after prolonged chopping etc. I've never had that happen from the soft grippy rubber handle. Both are good solid knives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top