Initial Comparison Between Battle Rat and Battle Mistress

Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
4,769
I just got my hands on my new Swamp Rat Knife Works Battle Rat. Swamp Rat Knife Works is located in the same shop as Busse Combat Knives, and is run by Jennifer Busse (Jerry Busse's wife and business partner). Swamp Rat Knife Works was apparently started so that the Busses could get back to their roots of supplying reliable and affordable knives to those who need them, at the lowest prices possible. While Busse Combat apparently strives to offer the best knife and customer service it can at whatever price that must cost, Swamp Rat apparently tries to make the compromises which least hurt the quality, but decrease the cost the most. (For example: If you call Busse Combat to place an order or resolve an issue, you'll get to talk to a live person, and probably Jerry himself; conversely, Swamp Rat handles all customer communication through email.)

The Swamp Rat cutlery bears many similarities to the offerings of Busse Combat: black ceramic crinkle coatings, unconditional lifetime warranties, finger choils, similar blade designs, and so forth. Someone looking for a hard-use knife might be torn between the offerings of Busse Combat Knives and the offerings of Swamp Rat; while someone who already owns the Busse Combat blades may wonder which meaningful ways the Swamp Rats differ, and whether they are worth getting in addition.

Thus, I'll now compare and contrast the major differences of related blades.

The BR is made out of SR101, a modified version of the steel generally known as 52100; the BM is made out of INFI. SR101 should have lesser corrosion resistance than INFI. How great this difference is remains to be seen; how much it matters depends on your usage and maintenance habits. The blade coatings should alleviate corrosion issues somewhat. The SR101 should also have lesser toughness and strength. How much less is not yet known. The SR101 blades did perform quite impressively (chopping through a concrete block, jacking a large old pick-up truck, being bent in a vise, etc.) in live demonstrations at the BLADE show; they are unconditionally warranteed for life; and I suspect they are probably quite strong and tough in their own right.

The BR has a clip point versus the BM's drop point. The clip point should provide much better penetration, while the drop point should offer maximum tip strength and toughness.

The BR has a slightly wider aspect ratio, just a hair over 1/16 inch wider than the BM.

The BR has a high sabre grind, while the BM is flat ground. I haven't carefully measured this, but I think that this means that the BR has a slightly more obtuse primary grind than the BM. All other things being equal (which they are not--keep reading), I think the more obtuse primary grind is less efficient in terms of chopping penetration.

The BR is shorter than the BM--something I didn't expect. The cutting edge is 1 inch shorter, and the handle is about 1/3 inch shorter.

The finger choil immediately behind the cutting edge is a little wider on the BR than the BM. I know some were very pleased about this; I'd rather have 1/3 inch more cutting edge. I don't need the extra width, though I'd have appreciated if the choil was slightly deeper. How you'll feel about this will depend a lot on your hands. I have the an extraordinarily light bone structure.

The edge grind is much wider on the BR than on the BM, about 1.5 times as wide as on the BM's flat ground side, and mucher wider still as on the BM's convex ground side. In other words, the edge geometry on the BR is much more acute than on the BM. I think that this will greatly increase the BR's slicing and push cutting abilities over the BM's. Also, all other things being equal (which they aren't--read on), this should give the BR a big advantage over the BM in chopping penetration.

The BR is a much lighter knife than the BM: 5.2 ounces lighter (16.6 ounces vs. 21.8). This makes a huge increase in carrying comfort. It also decreases chopping power.

The BR has no hole at the front of the guard, while the BM. does. That hole has tremendous utility for braiding a D-Guard onto your handle, or for tying the handle onto other things. For me, this loss of the front guard hole would be a significant drawback; however, I expect it will be very simple to drill such a hole myself. (I'll just have to take it slowly, avoiding overheating the knife and damaging the temper.)

The handle is the area of most significant difference between the two knives. The BR has a slighly smaller handle, with a narrower tang (but still very sturdy full tang), completely enclosed in a rubber-like substance called Resiprene C (as opposed to partially enclosed by micarta), with a much more contoured and 3D shape, and only a single lanyard hole in the butt.

The shorter handle initially disappointed me slightly, but I can't honestly speak about how well it serves until I use it more.

The Resiprene C is much harder than I expected. For those skateboarders among you readers: the handle material feels almost identical to the "80 durometer" Sims Street Wheels from the 'eighties. It even smells like it is the same material. I think it's the same stuff.

I have only chopped a few times yet, but I can tell you I was startled by how effectively these handles absorb shock. The BM transfers shock to my hands at least several hundred percent more than the BR. This is a huge comfort advantage in the BR's favor. I have experienced in the past that (for prolonged chopping) I tend to go lighter than optimal, to minimize shock to my hands. I may be able to do prolonged chopping harder with the BR. I expect I will be much less prone to fatigue, bruising, and callousing, when using the BR. This could lead to faster chopping, even if the BR is less effiecient per chop. (Unknown.)

The rubberized handles are also clearly superior in terms of protecting your hand from freezing or scorching bare metal (significant, if you play in the woods in the snow, or in the hot Southern deserts).

Make no mistake, the BR has VERY sturdy handle, despite the narrower tang and the rubberized handle. Nevertheless, in terms of ultimate durability and reliability, I would have to guess that the BR handle doesn't even come close to the BM handle.

Note that, in the BR handle, the tang does not extend out of the handle butt, as it does on the BM. The extended tang on the BM is a very useful feature for pounding and hammering, and can also be useful defensively. This is a strong mark in favor of the BM.

I can't really comment on the fit of the handle contours, yet. I need to use it, first. Besides, my hand is confused by how different this feels to the handles I've grown used to over the last several months. It does seem very comfortable, so far.

Along with the BR having two fewer handle holes than the BM, there is some loss in options and utility. Nor do I think I could just drill those holes in without adversely affecting the knives. Nevertheless, I don't think the loss of those two handle holes matters too much.

The BR handle is less canted down from the blade than the BM handle. I think that this will make the BR quicker in the hand, more powerful in penetration, and less powerful in chopping.

The overall quality of the finsh is lesser with the BR than with the BM. Nevertheless, the difference is minor, and purely cosmetic.

The clip point, shorter, wider, and lighter blade, more acute edges, and shock absorbing handle do add up to an entirely different feel than any of the knives currently offered by Busse Combat. The more acute edge and the pointier tip seem like they will give the BR greater versatility. The lighter weight will be more comfortable to carry, and the shock-absorbing handle will be more comfortable to use. The more acute edge, and the decreased fatigue from both lighter weight and less shock, will probably make the BR more efficient in use.
 
Thanks for the review! I've been wondering myself. I have a BM and a Camp Tramp. Haven't pounded on anything yet. The CT is forward heavy, whereas the BM is more neutrally balanced.

I love the Resiprene handles on the CT.

Also the CT has the "Penetrator Tip" which I haven't tested out yet.

The Swamp Rat knives are definitely abusers!
 
Very nice contrasting overview of the two blades, I can't fault any of the interpretation. I can't think on a lot to add either, very comprehensive and some interesting questions raised. I look forwards to comments on use.


Just to nitpick, a wider edge is only more acute if it is the same thickness or less at the back as the one you are comparing it to. If they are the same, the resulting angle is simply linear in the width (approx).

-Cliff
 
You're welcome, Chiseen.

Chiseen said:

"The CT is forward heavy, whereas the BM is more neutrally balanced."

The Battle Mistress is balanced about 2.5 inches in front of the top of my hand when I hold the knife with the lowest grip I can; about .5 inches in front of the middle of the hole in the front guard.

The Battle Rat is balanced about 3.5 inches in front of the top of my hand when I hold the knife with the lowest grip I can; about 1.5 inches in front of the middle of where the hole in the front guard would be.

So, yes, the BR is significantly more forward weighted than the BM. I think this adds chopping power, at the loss of some coordination.

"I love the Resiprene handles on the CT."

They are fantastically shock absorbent, and very grippy. I love that. I need to reserve judgment on the comfort of the handle shape until I've put the handle through its paces.

"Also the CT has the "Penetrator Tip" which I haven't tested out yet."

I haven't done a whole lot with the penetrator tip, yet. I did do a few punctures into soup cans with the penetrator tipped clip pointed BR, and with the drop pointed BM. The equivalent penetration with the BR took far less force. I don't know how much of that was due to the penetrator tip compared to a regular flat spine at the tip, and how much was due to the clip point compared the drop point. Both the clip point and the penetrator tip reduce "drag". If I had to guess, I'd guess that the clipped point was responsible for a slight majority of the difference, and that the penetrator tip was responsible for a significant minority of the difference.

The penetrator tip surely increases penetration efficiency somewhat, with some corresponding loss in tip strength. It also looks really cool.

"The Swamp Rat knives are definitely abusers!"

Agreed.

On the one hand, I think the Swamp Rats make much greater concessions in durability (more acute edges, clipped points, rubber handles, etc.) for the sake of increases in other areas of performance than do the Busse Combat knives. The the combat line of Busses seem to put durability first and foremost, and make practically no compromises whatsoever in durability. While they still offer high cutting performance and comfort compared to like products by other manufacturers, Busse Combat seems to usually make that secondary to ultimate durability. Swamp Rat, on the other hand, seems to be using a different design philosophy, and making knives that are more rounded over multiple performance areas. I have little doubt that my BM could survive usage that would destroy the BR; however the BR might perform better than the BM for most chores. I would likely take the BR on local weekend trips, and would likely take the BM for month+ backcountry expeditions.

On the other hand, I'm guessing that this knife is tougher than I am: I expect that the BR could laugh off anything I could throw at it using merely the forces generated by my body. I also am fairly sure that the BR could spank the daylights out of most other "hard-use" blades (in regard resisting damage), including much more expensive top-end production models, and most customs.

Cliff Stamp said:

"Just to nitpick, a wider edge is only more acute if it is the same thickness or less at the back as
the one you are comparing it to. If they are the same, the resulting angle is simply linear in the width (approx)."

Just to nitpick, the edge can actually be more acute even if it is slightly thicker at the back as the one you are comparing to (as is the case with the BR). Imagine one edge that is 2 mm wide and 1.5 mm thick at the back, compared to one that is (to exaggerate for the sake of making my point) 10mm wide and 1.6 mm thick at the back. I'm sure you'd agree that the latter edge would be much more acute, despite being wider at the back. More relevantly, imagine that you take any given knife with a wedge shaped geometry and a 45 degree included edge, then you reprofile the edge to 25 degrees. You will necessarily end up with an edge that is both wider and a little thicker in the back (since it now meets the primary grind higher up than before).

Nevertheless, the point that comparative edge width alone is only one factor, and not enough information to positively determine comparative edge acuteness, is valid. Point taken.

To get specific about the BM and the BR:

The Battle Mistress edge is .143 cm thick immediately behind the edge, is approximately 1.9 mm wide on the flat ground side, and approximately 1.1 mm wide on the convex side.

The Battle Rat is .155 cm thick immediately behind the edge, and is approximately 3.2 mm wide on both sides.
 
Nice overview, I agree with you on just about everything. Although i agree with you that the CG Busses have an overall toughness advantage, I don't think it's very large. Like you said, I'm sure both grades of blades are far tougher than I am able to destroy using my own power.

I have thinned the edge out on my BR considerably ( used a small belt sander). I'm guessing I cut the edge angle in half. The performance difference is considerable. I don't have a pair of calipers, but I will give you the width of my current edge grind (still light convex):
5mm.

BTW, I've started using the BK9 (thanks Cliff) and the BR together, and should have a comparison up within a few weeks.
 
Evolute :

the edge can actually be more acute even if it is slightly thicker at the back

Yes, my language was a bit sloppy.

The Battle Mistress edge is .143 cm thick immediately behind the edge, is approximately 1.9 mm wide on the flat ground side, and approximately 1.1 mm wide on the convex side.

That is about ~50 degrees included, maybe a little on the obtuse side. More so than my SHBM NIB, but maybe I got one that was more acute. Has Busse listed the edge spec's on these models anywhere?

The Battle Rat is .155 cm thick immediately behind the edge, and is approximately 3.2 mm wide on both sides.

That is about 14 degrees per side, cutting ability should be high. I would be interested in the reaction of the edge to heavier wood work as compared to the BM. Knots should be the only problem, unless the wood density is very high, nothing that hard around here though.

The point you made about handle issues and how they influence long term use is a very solid one which doesn't get a lot of discussion.

-Cliff
 
That is about ~50 degrees included, maybe a little on the obtuse side. More so than my SHBM NIB, but maybe I got one that was more acute. Has Busse listed the edge spec's on these models anywhere?


50 degrees included is almost exactly what I have seen SHBM run.
 
Does anyone know how the BR compares in similar situations to the Busse Basic 9?
 
Cliff said:

"That is about ~50 degrees included, maybe a little on the obtuse side. More so than my SHBM NIB, but maybe I got one that was more acute. Has Busse listed the edge spec's on these models anywhere?"

I don't know of any officially listed edge specs.

Eyeballing my BM--for whatever that's worth--it looks to me like around 45 degrees. Please keep in mind that I said "approximately" when I quoted the edge widths. My measurements could certainly be off by a tenth of a millimeter here or there. (And my Steel Heart seems to have a slightly more acute edge angle than my BM.)

I just came across this quote by Chad Engelhardt:

"The edge on the Busse [straight handled Battle Mistress] was very overbuilt. It is Asymeterical ( a design which I dislike), with one side being at 20 degrees and the other side at over 30 degrees. THis yields a total edge angle of over 50 degrees, far too obtuse for high performance. Having an edge this obtuse defeats the advantage of having a "super-steel"."

http://www.knifeforums.com/ubbthrea...186023&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=7&fpart=1

It seems that others are finding similar edge measurements to mine.

---------------------------------------------------

I also want to make clear that, separate from the rather obtuse edge angle on my BM, it came EXTREMELY sharp NIB.

---------------------------------------------------

Bobby,

Sorry. I don't know how the BR compares to the BB9, other than having read that the BR is a little shorter.
 
Great knife (in theory) I still have not recieved mine and I am #1036-read 36!- (some were before me when they werent using numbers...and show people seem to be ahead of some one in que who has prepaid). At least that is what they tell me...
 
Andrew,

"I have thinned the edge out on my BR considerably ( used a small belt sander). I'm guessing I cut the edge angle in half. The performance difference is considerable. I don't have a pair of calipers, but I will give you the width of my current edge grind (still light convex): 5mm."

That sounds like a wicked edge! I bet the performance difference is considerable.

How well is that edge resisting denting, rolling, chipping, and rippling? Do you have any specific before/after comparative performance data you can share? If not, how about giving us some specifics about push cutting, slicing, and chopping performance, now?
 
Back
Top