I just got my hands on my new Swamp Rat Knife Works Paul's Ratchet. 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. This similarity is most extreme in the case of Paul's Hatchet and Paul's Ratchet. If one glances casually at the pictures of the two, one would probably be inclined to think that the design is identical except for the handles. (I thought so.) Someone looking at the two might be torn between Busse Combat's Paul's Hatchet and Swamp Rat's Paul's Ratchet; while someone who already owns Paul's Hatchet may wonder whether Paul's Ratchet is worth getting in addition.
Thus, I'll now compare and contrast the major differences between Paul's Hatchet (PH) and Paul's Ratchet (PR).
The PR is made out of SR101, a modified version of the steel generally known as 52100; the PH 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 (especially due to the tremendous solidity of this particular design).
The geometry of the PR is, indeed, very close to identical to the geometry of the PH. But for four differences, they are exactly the same design, above the handle:
1) The first is that the edge is much more acute on the PR than on the PH. The edge is approximately 2 mm wide on the PH, and it is just under 4 mm wide (!) on the PR. This should drastically increase the PR's cutting efficiency for both push cutting and slicing, and should enable significantly deeper penetration when chopping. I expect that these increases are counterbalanced by increased likelihood of denting, rolling, and chipping; nevertheless, the edge is still thick enough that this is unlikely to be a concern for wood use. I don't know about how the more acute edge will stand up to harder uses, like chopping bone. In any case, it is still a rather thick edge in an apparently very tough and strong steel, backed up by an unconditional warranty.
2) The second is that the finger hole has been significantly enlarged. This was unexpected and disappointing for me. (They look close enough in the pictures to have fooled me as being the same.) The finger hole on the PH fit my hand perfectly and enabled extraordinary control; The finger hole on the PR is too large, and my control is, consequently, much lower--just mediocre.
One of the aspects of Paul's Hatchet that makes it so splendid is the innovative and flawlessly executed way in which it doubles as a chopper and a highly controlled cutter for fine tasks. This second ability is halfway (or more) lost for me with the PR.
How you'll feel about the enlarged finger hole will depend a lot on your hands. I have an extraordinarily light bone structure. The PR seems optimally designed for someone with short thumbs, very thick fingers, and broad hands.
3) The downward pointed bottom of the blade on the PH has been ground off of the PR. This brings the blade down from a hair over three inches to a hair under three inches. This means a little less cutting edge to use for any task (Though this is the area of the knife least likely to come into use.) The downward point also had some potential uses, which are lost: it made a usable hook to aid climbing (definitely for last resort use only, but it worked well in my tests); it was good for puncturing food packaging and cans, and it had both offensive potential and defensive potential.
On the other hand, bringing the blade down to under three inches makes it a legal carry almost everywhere, which can greatly increase its utility.
4) The PR has no hole at the front of the guard, while the PH. 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 PR has a
slighly shorter (about 1/3 inch) and much wider 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. While the handle on the PH is similar to the handle on the Busse Satin Jack, the handle on the PR is identical to the handle on the Swamp Rat Knife Works Battle Rat.
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 PH transfers shock to my hands at least several hundred percent more than the PR. This is a huge comfort advantage in the PR'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 PR. I expect I will be much less prone to fatigue, bruising, and callousing, when using the PR. This could lead to faster chopping, even if the PR 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 PR 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 PR handle doesn't even come close to the PH handle.
Note that, in the PR handle, the tang does not extend out of the handle butt, as it does on the PH. The extended tang on the PH is a very useful feature for pounding and hammering, and can also be useful defensively. This is a strong mark in favor of the PH.
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 PR having two fewer handle holes than the PH, 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 PR is 1.8 ounces lighter than the PH, over a 12% difference: 12.8 ounces vs. 14.6. This makes an increase in carrying comfort. It also decreases chopping power.
The PR is more forward weighted than the PH. The PH is balanced about 1 1/2 inches above the top of my hand when I hold the handle as far back as possible; the PR is balanced about 2 1/8th inches above the top of my hand when I hold the handle as far back as possible. This should increase chopping power.
The overall quality of the finish is lesser with the PR than with the PH. Nevertheless, the difference is minor, and purely cosmetic.
Overall, my feelings are mixed, but mostly positive, about the changes in Paul's Ratchet from Paul's Hatchet.
On the down side, I am sorely disappointed with the loss of superb control for fine cutting.
Also, part of the visceral appeal and charm unique to Paul's Hatchet is its sheer toughness. Even compared to the other famously indestructible Busse blades, Paul's Hatchet stands out strongly as remarkably sturdy. While the PR is very, very sturdy, that sense of utter indestructibility is lost. The more acute edge, the (presumably) slightly weaker and slightly more fragile steel, and the rubber handles bring it back down to the level of mortality, make it seem conceivable that it could somehow be damaged. To be clear, it is certainly very tough, and could certainly handle most use just fine. It probably can handle more than I could do to it with my own power. It just doesn't convey that sense of monumental indestructibility which brings me to my most bizarre flights of fancy in terms of possible blade uses.
On the upside, I like better slicing, push cutting and chopping, lighter weight, and greater shock absorption. I like all that A LOT. I thought that Paul's Hatchet was the lightest I could confidently go for an emergency outdoor blade. Now this comes along, nearly 2 ounces lighter, more effective, and probably more comfortable. And legal for me to carry nearly anywhere.
In any case, the PR is, indeed, a more different hatchet in comparison to the PH than it seems at first glance.
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. This similarity is most extreme in the case of Paul's Hatchet and Paul's Ratchet. If one glances casually at the pictures of the two, one would probably be inclined to think that the design is identical except for the handles. (I thought so.) Someone looking at the two might be torn between Busse Combat's Paul's Hatchet and Swamp Rat's Paul's Ratchet; while someone who already owns Paul's Hatchet may wonder whether Paul's Ratchet is worth getting in addition.
Thus, I'll now compare and contrast the major differences between Paul's Hatchet (PH) and Paul's Ratchet (PR).
The PR is made out of SR101, a modified version of the steel generally known as 52100; the PH 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 (especially due to the tremendous solidity of this particular design).
The geometry of the PR is, indeed, very close to identical to the geometry of the PH. But for four differences, they are exactly the same design, above the handle:
1) The first is that the edge is much more acute on the PR than on the PH. The edge is approximately 2 mm wide on the PH, and it is just under 4 mm wide (!) on the PR. This should drastically increase the PR's cutting efficiency for both push cutting and slicing, and should enable significantly deeper penetration when chopping. I expect that these increases are counterbalanced by increased likelihood of denting, rolling, and chipping; nevertheless, the edge is still thick enough that this is unlikely to be a concern for wood use. I don't know about how the more acute edge will stand up to harder uses, like chopping bone. In any case, it is still a rather thick edge in an apparently very tough and strong steel, backed up by an unconditional warranty.
2) The second is that the finger hole has been significantly enlarged. This was unexpected and disappointing for me. (They look close enough in the pictures to have fooled me as being the same.) The finger hole on the PH fit my hand perfectly and enabled extraordinary control; The finger hole on the PR is too large, and my control is, consequently, much lower--just mediocre.
One of the aspects of Paul's Hatchet that makes it so splendid is the innovative and flawlessly executed way in which it doubles as a chopper and a highly controlled cutter for fine tasks. This second ability is halfway (or more) lost for me with the PR.
How you'll feel about the enlarged finger hole will depend a lot on your hands. I have an extraordinarily light bone structure. The PR seems optimally designed for someone with short thumbs, very thick fingers, and broad hands.
3) The downward pointed bottom of the blade on the PH has been ground off of the PR. This brings the blade down from a hair over three inches to a hair under three inches. This means a little less cutting edge to use for any task (Though this is the area of the knife least likely to come into use.) The downward point also had some potential uses, which are lost: it made a usable hook to aid climbing (definitely for last resort use only, but it worked well in my tests); it was good for puncturing food packaging and cans, and it had both offensive potential and defensive potential.
On the other hand, bringing the blade down to under three inches makes it a legal carry almost everywhere, which can greatly increase its utility.
4) The PR has no hole at the front of the guard, while the PH. 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 PR has a
slighly shorter (about 1/3 inch) and much wider 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. While the handle on the PH is similar to the handle on the Busse Satin Jack, the handle on the PR is identical to the handle on the Swamp Rat Knife Works Battle Rat.
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 PH transfers shock to my hands at least several hundred percent more than the PR. This is a huge comfort advantage in the PR'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 PR. I expect I will be much less prone to fatigue, bruising, and callousing, when using the PR. This could lead to faster chopping, even if the PR 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 PR 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 PR handle doesn't even come close to the PH handle.
Note that, in the PR handle, the tang does not extend out of the handle butt, as it does on the PH. The extended tang on the PH is a very useful feature for pounding and hammering, and can also be useful defensively. This is a strong mark in favor of the PH.
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 PR having two fewer handle holes than the PH, 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 PR is 1.8 ounces lighter than the PH, over a 12% difference: 12.8 ounces vs. 14.6. This makes an increase in carrying comfort. It also decreases chopping power.
The PR is more forward weighted than the PH. The PH is balanced about 1 1/2 inches above the top of my hand when I hold the handle as far back as possible; the PR is balanced about 2 1/8th inches above the top of my hand when I hold the handle as far back as possible. This should increase chopping power.
The overall quality of the finish is lesser with the PR than with the PH. Nevertheless, the difference is minor, and purely cosmetic.
Overall, my feelings are mixed, but mostly positive, about the changes in Paul's Ratchet from Paul's Hatchet.
On the down side, I am sorely disappointed with the loss of superb control for fine cutting.
Also, part of the visceral appeal and charm unique to Paul's Hatchet is its sheer toughness. Even compared to the other famously indestructible Busse blades, Paul's Hatchet stands out strongly as remarkably sturdy. While the PR is very, very sturdy, that sense of utter indestructibility is lost. The more acute edge, the (presumably) slightly weaker and slightly more fragile steel, and the rubber handles bring it back down to the level of mortality, make it seem conceivable that it could somehow be damaged. To be clear, it is certainly very tough, and could certainly handle most use just fine. It probably can handle more than I could do to it with my own power. It just doesn't convey that sense of monumental indestructibility which brings me to my most bizarre flights of fancy in terms of possible blade uses.
On the upside, I like better slicing, push cutting and chopping, lighter weight, and greater shock absorption. I like all that A LOT. I thought that Paul's Hatchet was the lightest I could confidently go for an emergency outdoor blade. Now this comes along, nearly 2 ounces lighter, more effective, and probably more comfortable. And legal for me to carry nearly anywhere.
In any case, the PR is, indeed, a more different hatchet in comparison to the PH than it seems at first glance.
