-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is available! Price is $250 ea (shipped within CONUS).
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/
Doug Ritter RSK Mk3 or Fallkniven F1 ?
- Thread starter pitdog
- Start date
Critter
Platinum Member
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 1,787
Just to be clear, this is NOT the case with the RSK Mk3. Its sculpted G-10 handles/scales are flush with the full tang for that very reason. Also, just to make sure their is no misunderstanding, the only actual similarity between the Fixed Griptilian and the RSK Mk3 is the basic handle shape. While they both evolved from the same sketch, they ended up in different places, similar looking and related, but quite different in most respects.
FWIW, the F1 is a good knife, I have a couple, just a very different approach to a survival fixed blade than the RSK Mk3. Pick your survival philosophy and then pick your knife. :thumbup:
To clarify, the fixed Griptilian is NOT the same knife as the fixed Rittergrip, though they are related:
Fixed Griptilian // Fixed Rittergrip:
Blade material: 154CM // S30V
Blade length: 4.16" // 4.5"
Blade thickness: 0.119" // 0.140"
Overall length: 8.72" // 9.1"
Weight: 4.6 oz // 5.7 oz
Handle material: molded plastic w/ soft rubber inserts // G-10
Also a completely different sheath.
In addition to the difference in the blade steel, the fixed Rittergrip's blade is much larger/thicker blade, has a different handle material, and comes with a different sheath.
Doug Ritter says he brought the idea for the fixed Rittergrip to Benchmade first, and the Fixed Griptilian actually was developed as a sort of mass production version of the fixed Rittergrip that helped lower the cost of the fixed Rittergrip.
To put this in perpective, in comparison to Mk3 the F1 has a shorter, considerably thicker (0.18") blade whose thickness is more akin to the Becker blades (0.188"). The thicker blade is great for survival, but I find it a bit too thick for general camp use. With the thinner blade I find the Ritter Mk3 is a better all-around camp knife that is certainly suitable for (and specifically designed to be) a survival knife. Keep in mind that my Ritter Mk3 is used while camping and I tend to do much more slicing/carving than chopping (I use an axe for that).
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 823
Doug
Sorry if my griping about my griptilion sounded like i was putting down the RSK MK3 that was not my intention
I mentioned my fixed grip mostly to compare the size difference between it and the F1
Critter
Platinum Member
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 1,787
No problem, I really didn't think that, but I also wanted to be sure that everyone understood the difference, which because they are visually similar and produced by the same manufacturer, it's easy to miss this. The tang/handle materials situation was a significant reason we ended up with essentially a totally different knife when the initial plan was more collaborative and evolutionary like the RSK Mk1 with the same handle, but a different blade profile and steel. In the end it all worked out great for both parties.
I'm going to go against the flow and vote for the RSK3 :thumbup:
I don't have an F1 yet. So far I do have a Mountaineer II, a Street Scrapper 4, an old style Nimravus M2 and an original Swiss Basic Tool as comparisons but my RSK3 is my favourite.
I really love the RSK3 blade geometry - 0.14" thick with a 1" high flat grind makes it an excellent slicer. Nice length, good bellly, flush G10 grips and the slight protrusion of tang at the rear for point first batoning is a lovely touch and shows the attention to detail.
The blade runs up to 1.5" deep so when people say they prefer the F1 on strength grounds my mind boggles. I'm not sure what people expect to do that will cause a CPMS30V blade over an inch deep to fail. Attempt to baton a rail track with a club hammer maybe?
I've not bought an F1 yet because every time I look at it I see "Blade Thickness 0.18 in/4.8mm" and go hmm. The edge cuts, but then to go deep the knife will have to push the material sideways for the blade width to pass through. Sometimes thicker is not better and it's why I rarely carry the Mountaineer II these days (5mm). If I wanted to go to 5mm in a survival knife I'd buy a Busse. PS I own 4 and do love Busse's.
After reading this I've also become doubtful of the benefits of laminated steel. I know all the principles, but I can also put a cracker between 2 pieces of bread and it will still break when flexed. I can't get away from the idea that laminating the steel leaves you neither here nor there and the best way is to have the properties you want homogenous through the entire blade, which is probably why custom knives perform so well.
RSK3 costs more yes. The Mora is (rightly so) frequently hailed as a great knife here. But it's a great knife at the price. If you compared it against the NWA forum knife without consideration as to cost you'd say it wasn't such a great knife. To an extent you get what you pay for, and if the F1 sold for the same price as the RSK3 you may find it might not be as popular as it is. Certainly if the Mora sold for the same price as the RSK3 it would not enjoy the popularity it does. I paid about 50% more than the list price of the RSK3 because I live in the UK so when it shipped in got stung for VAT... and import duty on top... and a fat charge on top for the priviledge of being billed :jerkit:. Regardless of this I was very happy with my RSK3 for the price. And if Mr Ritter could get a limited edition in M2 as was done with the RSK1 I'd buy one in an instant (hint hint
)
Don't get me wrong, the F1 is a great knive and it wouldn't have the number of fans it does if it wasn't, but I have to get across the reasons why I really do prefer the RSK3.
P.S. because it is such a popular knife here I will be buying one at some point as in June 2008 I'm booked onto a Ray Mears camp craft course followed by a fundamental bushcraft course. 2 weeks solid
. It's my plan to take the RSK3, F1, Mountaineer II, SS4, Nimravus, Swiss Basic Tool and a custom SWC bushcraft knife I'll have by then, and perform all tasks throughout the 2 weeks with all knives and give a comprehensive review and comparison for the forum when I get back. I'll also be taking my CGFBM to replicate all axework classes to give a similar take on the ever popular Axe vs. chopper debate.
I don't have an F1 yet. So far I do have a Mountaineer II, a Street Scrapper 4, an old style Nimravus M2 and an original Swiss Basic Tool as comparisons but my RSK3 is my favourite.
I really love the RSK3 blade geometry - 0.14" thick with a 1" high flat grind makes it an excellent slicer. Nice length, good bellly, flush G10 grips and the slight protrusion of tang at the rear for point first batoning is a lovely touch and shows the attention to detail.
The blade runs up to 1.5" deep so when people say they prefer the F1 on strength grounds my mind boggles. I'm not sure what people expect to do that will cause a CPMS30V blade over an inch deep to fail. Attempt to baton a rail track with a club hammer maybe?
I've not bought an F1 yet because every time I look at it I see "Blade Thickness 0.18 in/4.8mm" and go hmm. The edge cuts, but then to go deep the knife will have to push the material sideways for the blade width to pass through. Sometimes thicker is not better and it's why I rarely carry the Mountaineer II these days (5mm). If I wanted to go to 5mm in a survival knife I'd buy a Busse. PS I own 4 and do love Busse's.
After reading this I've also become doubtful of the benefits of laminated steel. I know all the principles, but I can also put a cracker between 2 pieces of bread and it will still break when flexed. I can't get away from the idea that laminating the steel leaves you neither here nor there and the best way is to have the properties you want homogenous through the entire blade, which is probably why custom knives perform so well.
RSK3 costs more yes. The Mora is (rightly so) frequently hailed as a great knife here. But it's a great knife at the price. If you compared it against the NWA forum knife without consideration as to cost you'd say it wasn't such a great knife. To an extent you get what you pay for, and if the F1 sold for the same price as the RSK3 you may find it might not be as popular as it is. Certainly if the Mora sold for the same price as the RSK3 it would not enjoy the popularity it does. I paid about 50% more than the list price of the RSK3 because I live in the UK so when it shipped in got stung for VAT... and import duty on top... and a fat charge on top for the priviledge of being billed :jerkit:. Regardless of this I was very happy with my RSK3 for the price. And if Mr Ritter could get a limited edition in M2 as was done with the RSK1 I'd buy one in an instant (hint hint
)Don't get me wrong, the F1 is a great knive and it wouldn't have the number of fans it does if it wasn't, but I have to get across the reasons why I really do prefer the RSK3.
P.S. because it is such a popular knife here I will be buying one at some point as in June 2008 I'm booked onto a Ray Mears camp craft course followed by a fundamental bushcraft course. 2 weeks solid
. It's my plan to take the RSK3, F1, Mountaineer II, SS4, Nimravus, Swiss Basic Tool and a custom SWC bushcraft knife I'll have by then, and perform all tasks throughout the 2 weeks with all knives and give a comprehensive review and comparison for the forum when I get back. I'll also be taking my CGFBM to replicate all axework classes to give a similar take on the ever popular Axe vs. chopper debate.
I'm going to go against the flow and vote for the RSK3 :thumbup:
I don't have an F1 yet. So far I do have a Mountaineer II, a Street Scrapper 4, an old style Nimravus M2 and an original Swiss Basic Tool as comparisons but my RSK3 is my favourite.
I really love the RSK3 blade geometry - 0.14" thick with a 1" high flat grind makes it an excellent slicer. Nice length, good bellly, flush G10 grips and the slight protrusion of tang at the rear for point first batoning is a lovely touch and shows the attention to detail.
The blade runs up to 1.5" deep so when people say they prefer the F1 on strength grounds my mind boggles. I'm not sure what people expect to do that will cause a CPMS30V blade over an inch deep to fail. Attempt to baton a rail track with a club hammer maybe?
I've not bought an F1 yet because every time I look at it I see "Blade Thickness 0.18 in/4.8mm" and go hmm. The edge cuts, but then to go deep the knife will have to push the material sideways for the blade width to pass through. Sometimes thicker is not better and it's why I rarely carry the Mountaineer II these days (5mm). If I wanted to go to 5mm in a survival knife I'd buy a Busse. PS I own 4 and do love Busse's.
After reading this I've also become doubtful of the benefits of laminated steel. I know all the principles, but I can also put a cracker between 2 pieces of bread and it will still break when flexed. I can't get away from the idea that laminating the steel leaves you neither here nor there and the best way is to have the properties you want homogenous through the entire blade, which is probably why custom knives perform so well.
RSK3 costs more yes. The Mora is (rightly so) frequently hailed as a great knife here. But it's a great knife at the price. If you compared it against the NWA forum knife without consideration as to cost you'd say it wasn't such a great knife. To an extent you get what you pay for, and if the F1 sold for the same price as the RSK3 you may find it might not be as popular as it is. Certainly if the Mora sold for the same price as the RSK3 it would not enjoy the popularity it does. I paid about 50% more than the list price of the RSK3 because I live in the UK so when it shipped in got stung for VAT... and import duty on top... and a fat charge on top for the priviledge of being billed :jerkit:. Regardless of this I was very happy with my RSK3 for the price. And if Mr Ritter could get a limited edition in M2 as was done with the RSK1 I'd buy one in an instant (hint hint
Don't get me wrong, the F1 is a great knive and it wouldn't have the number of fans it does if it wasn't, but I have to get across the reasons why I really do prefer the RSK3.
P.S. because it is such a popular knife here I will be buying one at some point as in June 2008 I'm booked onto a Ray Mears camp craft course followed by a fundamental bushcraft course. 2 weeks solid
You don't own the F1 yet? Well, in that case, I might as well be real quiet - your opinion on that knife that you do not yet own might change once you do actually own it and have used it for some time!
Protruding tangs are nice for point first batoning - the F1 has one, too. I can see how someone might prefer the flat grind, as some find it, among other things, easier to sharpen than convex. With the right method, though, convex is very simple to keep sharp.
As for the thickness, you'd be surprised. To break the tip off a 0.14" piece of S30V isn't hard, it's in fact quite easy - all you have to do is a little harsh digging in wood with the point. Something that's easily avoided, but also something that easily done if you're in a rush and not very careful. The F1 can be broken in this way, too, although it pretty much requires actually trying to get the point to break. But sure, one would manage with a knife only 0.1" thick, as well. The F1, largely thanks to the convex grind, cuts very well indeed, in spite of the thickness.
Anyone is of course entitled to having doubts about anyone and anything, but if lamination wasn't worth it, you'd think knowledgeable people would have stopped using it by now, what with having centuries and centuries of time to test it.
The technique has been widely tested, both scientifically and in the field. Properly made laminated blades do handle lateral stress better, and without sacrificing edge retention or cutting performance at all. Hence, lamination is a good thing, done reasonably - no reason to laminate INFI, for example. The price issue you raised strikes me as very odd. Looking at the worksmanship and materials of the RSK, what exactly do you think it has that makes it worth that much more than the F1? So much, even, that it would be in a class of its own compared to the F1, as the F1 might be compared to a cheaply Mora? I do so wonder about that.
I don't see, at all, how the RSK is superior. Just because something is more expensive doesn't necessarily mean it's better. Something to keep in mind. You know, I think that the RSK might be a lot more popular if it was priced at the same level with the F1. As it is now, it seems very much overpriced indeed. But as I like to say, it's a matter of tastes. Some people do not like the F1, and I can't blame them. Knives are like women - some like the hot college girl, and some like her grandmother.
Reply inline...
You don't own the F1 yet? Well, in that case, I might as well be real quiet - your opinion on that knife that you do not yet own might change once you do actually own it and have used it for some time!
I hope not! I said it was a great knife and I'd be foolish to attempt to argue otherwise. I just prefer the RSK3 for the reasons I gave.
Protruding tangs are nice for point first batoning - the F1 has one, too. I can see how someone might prefer the flat grind, as some find it, among other things, easier to sharpen than convex. With the right method, though, convex is very simple to keep sharp.
Sharpening isn't a problem: it's just personal preference from over the years I like flat grinds in general and the RSKs in particular.
As for the thickness, you'd be surprised. To break the tip off a 0.14" piece of S30V isn't hard, it's in fact quite easy - all you have to do is a little harsh digging in wood with the point. Something that's easily avoided, but also something that easily done if you're in a rush and not very careful. The F1 can be broken in this way, too, although it pretty much requires actually trying to get the point to break. But sure, one would manage with a knife only 0.1" thick, as well. The F1, largely thanks to the convex grind, cuts very well indeed, in spite of the thickness.
For people who rush or are careless with knives I wouldn't recommend either the RSK3 or the F1 but a rubber training knife
Anyone is of course entitled to having doubts about anyone and anything, but if lamination wasn't worth it, you'd think knowledgeable people would have stopped using it by now, what with having centuries and centuries of time to test it.
I really have to disagree on this I'm afraid. If lamination were so good all of the best knives would be laminated and all of the custom makers would be using laminated steel. The reality is almost all of the knives utilising laminated steel fall into the low to low-mid range price range. This speaks for itself.
The price issue you raised strikes me as very odd. Looking at the worksmanship and materials of the RSK, what exactly do you think it has that makes it worth that much more than the F1? So much, even, that it would be in a class of its own compared to the F1, as the F1 might be compared to a cheaply Mora? I do so wonder about that.
I mentioned prices as it had been raised in previous posts as a negative against the RSK and said "To an extent you get what you pay for". To me the RSK is justifiably more expensive because of the type of steel used and G10 slabs in place of the rubber handles. A quick search shows the regular F1 sells in the US for $85, the RSK3 for $165 and the micarta handle version of the F1 for $205. Expensive micarta but it doesn't need to be justified. What matters is whether you think it's worth it and I really do think the RSK3 is worth it.
But as I like to say, it's a matter of tastes. Some people do not like the F1, and I can't blame them. Knives are like women - some like the hot college girl, and some like her grandmother.
As I said at the start, I think the F1 is a great knife. I like all knives, and all women. It's just often I find myself avoiding the fat ones.
Aye, I noticed. But I was thinking that after trying the F1, who knows, perhaps you might change your preferences.
One man's abuse is another man's normal use. Rubber training knives are nice for training, but not so good for cutting things. Spydercos may not be famous for their tips breaking, but most of their knives, which is typical in folders, do have weak tips, and I wouldn't rely on them in any serious use, especially not in survival type situations. Others may disagree, and be just as right - it really does depend on how one prefers to use their tools. S30V isn't the toughest steel one will find, and lateral pressure will break at the least the tip off an RSK surprisingly quickly. The RSK wasn't designed for prying, of course, but sometimes being able to do some prying is rather useful, especially in lack of a more appropriate tool - how often do we get into a survival situation with a crowbar in our hands? Make-shift prying tools can sometimes be made, but then again, sometimes there is little to no time for that.
Well, you're putting personal opinion against scientific fact here - hard to argue with that kind of approach.
By your logic, the fact that most custom makers are not using Japanese steels means that Japanese steels aren't so good at all. The effects of lamination on a knife's cutting performance and ability to handle lateral pressure are well proven. The fact that custom makers seem not to be fond of lamination has little to do with the performance of laminated steel. Obviously, lamination is certainly not necessary for making a knife take lateral stress well - just look at stuff made from 5160, INFI, S7 or even just 1055. Therefore, the choice of steel affects whether lamination would be reasonable. Since custom makers seldom seem to make "heavy duty" knives out of stainless steels or the less tough high carbon steels, lamination is not reasonable for their knives - if the knife isn't intended to be tough against lateral pressure, why try to increase that quality, and if the steel used already makes the knife tough as nails against lateral pressure, do you really need to increase it even further and is it even possible? Instead, they like using steels that are, in themselves, very tough and take lateral pressure well, and with these, there is little reason for using a laminated construction. Quite simple, really. Even on the F1, the lamination is hardly necessary - they weren't always laminated, and were pretty good at staying together even when they were a solid piece of VG10. The Micarta handled version of the F1 is pretty much robbery, in my opinion, for people who are not into collecting these things just for the sake of collecting. G10 certainly is more expensive than thermorun, no argument about that. But sometimes, I like to think, price isn't the only factor. The G10 scales on the RSK are more expensive than the thermorun handle on the F1. But, they are also far less grippy, and will freeze your hand in cold conditions, unlike the F1's rubber handle. It's not a coincidence that the F1 has that kind of handle. Something to keep in mind, especially for people who can expect survival situations in cold conditions.
But the fat ones are often better cooks. :foot:
I don't have an F1 (it may be an outstanding knife, I just have not tried it) but I have reviewed and tested the Ritter. I was very inpressed with it's performance on all of the chores I used it for and would suggest it to anyone. Since doing the article it has become one of my main "go to" knives anytime I'm heading to the woods.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2006
- Messages
- 2,194
Both are good knives, but I own an F1. Price and availability was a factor-- I got mine used at a good savings. The Ritter knives are newer and rarer and so hard to find used.
I've always assumed that the fixed Ritter knife was an offshoot of the development of the folder, parallel with the Benchmade Griptilian folders and fixed knives.
I also own a Griptilian folder, much for the same reasons as the F1-- price and availability. The broader blade of the Ritter design is okay, but the grip, blade steel, and lock were as important to me as the blade geometry.
Getting back to the F1/MkIII comparison, either would do a good job for you. If I found myself in a tight spot with either knife, my concerns would be elsewhere
The F1 was developed as a request from the Swedish Airforce as a new survival knife. It was later released to the public with minor changes and a fancier sheath. Later on the F1 and the S1 were even approved by the US army and Navy. The MC1 is also a military contract.
So actually both the F1 and the MKIII are "survival knives".
More info on www.fallkniven.com and http://hem.passagen.se/nodh
Yeah I know, it's a bit complicated, but honestly the fact that you don't understand it doesn't mean it doesn't work.
Yeah, sure, that's probably the main reason... "custom knives" are so great.
Wow thanks to Darkaz reminding me the best knives are the most expensive, I almost forgot. You should tell that to Ray Mears, I'm sure he'll agree, his bushcraft knife is only $450 after all.
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2005
- Messages
- 2,983
I think it's great that you owned both and can fairly assess boths knives.
Where and how, exactly, did the F-1 prove to be "far superior?"
Thanks for any insight !
.