Hiking knife RC-3 or RC-4 ??

I say go with the ESEE3. It will not let you down. Moose
 
luckykitty said:
I love my 3, but if you have really large hands the 4 might be a bit better as it has a longer handle.
Click to expand...

The grips are the same OAL on the 3 & 4.
The 4 is a tad wider, due to the steel stock being thicker on the 4, other than that they are the same dimensions.

I really enjoy both my 3 & 4 but the 3 is with me more than any other knife I own. The 3 seems to be just right for some reason.
 
yea, i second that..seeing how i just got mine in the mail two days ago..this thing is more then i expected, and would be great for hiking....you wont be disappointed..go with the 3.
 
wiiawiwb said:
I will be carrying it solely for survival.purposes. If I get lost, break a leg, etc I would need it to use to cut branches, strike my ferrocerium rod, make kindling and other survival needs.

It won't be used as a "camp knife" to cut meat, food and other related camping activities.
Click to expand...

I would go with the 4. I go hiking with the 4 all the time and would definitely count on when I need it.
 
I went with the RC-4 because I always have a folder on me with a 2.9 to 3.5 inch blade. For me, it makes a good hiking combo.
 
It's interesting to see everyone's reasons for carrying what you carry. What I'm starting to glean from replies is that a hiker is more inclined to go with an RC-3 while a backpacker would prefer an RC-4.

The backpacker is likely to be out in the woods for several days or even an extended period. My sole purpose of selecting a knife is to have something for survival in case of a problem. Survival could be one night or it could be several days.

If the RC-4 is what "extended-stay" backpackers use I'm leaning toward that for my needs.

Flawed thinking?
 
wiiawiwb said:
It's interesting to see everyone's reasons for carrying what you carry. What I'm starting to glean from replies is that a hiker is more inclined to go with an RC-3 while a backpacker would prefer an RC-4.

The backpacker is likely to be out in the woods for several days or even an extended period. My sole purpose of selecting a knife is to have something for survival in case of a problem. Survival could be one night or it could be several days.

If the RC-4 is what "extended-stay" backpackers use I'm leaning toward that for my needs.

Flawed thinking?
Click to expand...

Not at all. Reading all the replies, the consensus seems to be "either one; get what works for you." The 4 is slightly more "heavy duty" which could be important in a survival situation, but it weighs more than the 3 (being thicker). As long as you're OK with the weight (2.2 ounces extra for the 4) the extra peace of mind is what it sounds like you are looking for.
 
For day hiking I woudl think the 3 would be just fine. I have a 3 and 4 and Izula. I use my Izula a LOT... My 4 is just awesome, but I like that thinner blade and (IMHO) better balance of the 3.

Honestly a Mora would be just fine for a day hike, or SAK or folder. But if you want the scurity of a stout fixed blade... a 3 should handle anything you would need on a hike, over nighter, or even more. Nothing wrong with that RC3!
 
Any of these will do.

IMG_6688-1.jpg


IMG_2119.jpg


IMG_2092.jpg


-RB
 
I'd also say go with the 4 in case you need something thicker for batoning wood, etc. I'd pair it with a Leatherman or a smaller folder like the Vic Huntsman or one of the larger Vic SAKs that have a saw and scissors.
 
wiiawiwb said:
It's interesting to see everyone's reasons for carrying what you carry. What I'm starting to glean from replies is that a hiker is more inclined to go with an RC-3 while a backpacker would prefer an RC-4.

The backpacker is likely to be out in the woods for several days or even an extended period. My sole purpose of selecting a knife is to have something for survival in case of a problem. Survival could be one night or it could be several days.

If the RC-4 is what "extended-stay" backpackers use I'm leaning toward that for my needs.

Flawed thinking?
Click to expand...
Succinctly stated. Go with the 4.
 
I think to cover myself I am going to go with the RC-4 and an Izula.

What self-respecting outsdoorsman would turn down the opportunity to buy yet another knife!
 
gwlee said:
Limited to these two knives, I would choose the RC-3 because it's lighter, thinner, and better for preparing food.
Click to expand...

I like my knives to be thicker rather than thinner (well not the fillet knife obv ;) ) Gives me a more robust feeling of the knife.
 
wiiawiwb said:
I think to cover myself I am going to go with the RC-4 and an Izula.

What self-respecting outsdoorsman would turn down the opportunity to buy yet another knife!
Click to expand...


That's all you had to say!! Post again when you get em dirty.. I always like to hear peoples input on knives in general and what works well enough for them..
 
Own both: go for the 4. Great handle to blade ratio (3 is a little short on blade for that handle size). The 3 has a great belly, but the 4 only adds to the design by adding an inch of extra straight blade to the already excellent design of the RC-3.

Between the ESEE line and old Ontario line, I've owned every size from the Izula to the RTAKII. I can comfortably say the RC-4 with G-10 scales is the best in their lineup for actual use in the woods.
 
Tough call, so you need to get them both. I did. The 3 is just such a handly little bugger it begs to be carried on day hikes. The 4 is also quite handy and I trade off on them often for day hikes.
 
3 vs 4, the main differerce is the option for a kydex sheath for the '4, and the lighter weight of the '3.

I choose the ESEE-3 (clip point :eek:) for my daily knife, and an ESEE-6 for the woods.

My RC-4 sits in my safe in my backup bugout bag because I don't like the lack of balance due to it being too thick.

luckykitty said:
I love my 3, but if you have really large hands the 4 might be a bit better as it has a longer handle.
Click to expand...

Scales transfer from the 3 to the 4, don't they :confused:
 
how would the RC3 and RC4 legal but the HEST not? The HEST has the shortest blade of all of them. I vote HEST. Hands down.
 
NYS (as opposed to NYC) has no restrictions whatsoever on blade length. They do have a "dangerous knife" statute which, I suspect, is purposely vague. Does the HEST fit in that category? I honestly don't know but wouldn't want to chance being arrested for being wrong.

I can't imagine the HEST even being considered in the worrisome category were it not for its pommel design.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top