I want to begin by saying that the first run of Militaries was plagued by many problems of both design and construction, and should not, IMO, have been sold. The new model incorporates many improvements and is a differet beast entirely. I was a skeptic, my impressions of Spyderco very hurt by the first Militaries; I now carry one and consider it among the finest large production folders, and feel that Spyderco shows the best customer-support and willingness to improve of any large production company.
I'm not clear on how it might be considered a "production Sebenza," except that both have an excellent lock, great service departments, and fanatic fan following. The Sebenza already is a production knife, however, and teh Military has some substantial advantages: better blade geometry, faster deployment, and 1/3 the price. to the Sebenza's credit, it boasts the best fit-and-finish you may ever see in a production knife.
*********************************************
Getting to the question of Military versus AFCK, I would like to do a detailed comparison and then cover the points you raised:
Beginning with the basics, the Military has a better blade steel, hands down. Benchmade's ATS-34 is very hard and brittle, which gives good edge-retention but makes chipping a concern in many materials and makes sharpening difficult and unpleasant. 440V has at least te same edge-retention while remaining softer, tougher, and much easier to sharpen. The M-2 version of the AFCK is a big improvement, tougher than 440V and maybe a bit easier to sharpen, but the exposed edge can rust and it requires that the rest of the blade have Benchmade's BT2 coating. if you hate coatings, as I do, you will find this one especially bad as it wears easily and isn't even very attractive when new. I like the M-2 version but would much rather keep a stainless and have the performance - 440V.
The blade geometry of the Military can't be beat, as it has a full flat grind all the way to its 5/32" spine. The AFCK is also a great cutter, with a fairly long saber-grind on 1/8" stock. Both knives have very narrow points (fairly fragile, especially in ATS-34), good, deep bellies, and flat grinds. In short, both are excellent shapes for fine work, general utility, slashes, and thrusts. Both are moderately strong - not thick, beefy knives, but an excellent blend of strength and cutting performance. I feel the Military has a slight cutting advantage with its full grind, but the AFCK is more attractive with a more complex grind and has a better blade-to-handle ratio. AFCKs can be had plain, fully serrated (rare, coated only and no M-2) or combo. Militaries come plain or fully serrated, though the latter has nearly 1" of plain near the tip.
The giant blade hole on the Military is odd at first, but I've come to like it as I grow familiar. I think the "normal" hole on the AFCK is quite sufficient, though, unless you are wearing gloves. For fast deployment, both are in a tip-down position that allows "drop" opening by the hole, which I feel is faster than any method except eprhaps Emerson's "wave." Unfortunately, the pronounced grooved "hump" on the Military snags when drawn from some pockets. I chamfered mine and the problem went away, but I have to give the AFCK the nod in this area. Also an interesting note is that the open butt-end of the Military can snag the pocket between the scales when replacing the knife, a very minor concern.
The AFCK carries slightly lower than the AFCK, but its clip interferes some with the grip, cutting close to the finger-groove (or actually across it, in the Mini). AFCKs have black clips, but Militaries soon will, too. Both clips screw into metal liners. I think there is no clear winner here.
The lock on both knives are quite secure (mine pass spine-whacks with such reliability that I no longer use precaustions when demonstrating, to show my confidence), though I have read of folks who could release either with the proper grip. I can't - folks all have different hands. I'd say try both and see what your hands do. The AFCK has titanium liners, which will wear faster on the lock than steel. I don't feel this is a problem - I've carried mine four years with almost no shift in position when locked open. Ti definitely galls and sticks at first, but this stops with a few weeks' wear.The Military also has an eccentric pivot, so even if it wears, it can be adjusted to correct this. I feel the Military has the better lock, but both are quite good unless you can unlock them with your tightest grip.
The handle of the Military employs only a partial liner on one side, recessed in thick six-weave G-10. I find no handle flex and feel this is very strong and allows a slimmer knife, even with the thicker blade stock. This might make a more comfortable carry (though the mIlitary has a larger profile), but I still prefer the symmetry and thicker grip of the AFCK, which has twin Ti liners supporting G-10 scales. The Military handle shape supports a great choked-up grip, but lacks a substantial guard (the hump acts in a similar way to some degree). The Military also has a pinky-hook to keep the knife from being pulled forward from the hand, which the AFCK lacks (though its deep finger-groove compensates some). The AFCK has one of the best integral guards on any folder, but its area for choking up is too small, too shallow, and offers nothing to keep yur hands off the blade. Both are curved for a pronounced saber-grip, which some people dislike.
The construction of the Military is where it really stands out. Screws come in from both sides to thread into a steel stop-pin or steel inserts in its spacer (allowing it to be taken apart from either side first). The liner is perfectly recessed in a milled area that has a deeper milled slot to allow the lock to "overtravel" as the detent ball rides against the blade. It emplys incredibly thin washers to ensure smooth action with no lateral play. The AFCK has a similar threaded stop-pin (except on very old models), but uses a very flimsy Delrin spacer, and has steel inserts in the clip-side scale to hold its screw threads (just threads in G-10 on old models). The AFCK deals with lock overtravel by using very thick washers. These are compressible, so there is always slight lateral blade-play, even on well-tuned AFCKs. In short, I feel the AFCK is a fine way to build a high-tech knife that can be disassembled, but the Military's approach is even better, and makes fewer concessions to ease of production in favor of tiny performance gains. I will say that it is easier to disassemble, modify, and re-assemble an AFCK.
OK, that's a novel. Let's summarize the points you brought up:
Utility- Both are excellent. Military may have a better blade shape, better steel unless you choose M-2 and then it gets close, though you have the hassles of rust and coatings. I feel the Military's great choked-up grip is a big utility advantage.
Defense- Again, slight nod to the Military's blade shape. The AFCK deploys more reliably, though, and has a substantial guard to keep the hand from slipping in a committed thrust. To their credit, Spyderco did not design the Military as a defensive weapon. I think the AFCK has the advantage here, but personally I'll take a factory-sharp Civilian for this job.
Secure grip- The AFCK has a great guard, lousy choke-up area. The Military has less guard, a great choil, and a pinky-hook. Both want a saber-grip.
Lock- Both very secure and reliable for my hands. Your mileage may vary. Military less affected by wear.
Public acceptance - Neither is very PC. Don't open either fast or one-handed in public. I see no advantage to one or the other.
Overall fit & finish - I have had to send back several Benchmades and my first Military for factory defects. I feel that the QC on Benchmades is downright awful (though customer service/repair is good). On the Spydercos, I don't have enough of a sampling of US-made models to judge, but there are clearly some problems (I feel Japanese-made Spydercos show reliably excellent fit-and-finish). Suffice to say that neither has the QC it should, but when "right" I feel the Military and AFCK have similar fit-and-finish. Not excellent (like the clean, hand-ground lines and invisbly set pins of a steel Spyderco), but of a uniform standard for modern production folders that involve extensive machining or laser-cutting.
Speed of deployment - already covered. The AFCK is as fast as anything out there, the Military is likewise when the hump doesn't snag.
Comfort of carry - AFCK is slightly smaller, somewhat thicker. Miltary is slim and BIG. Both are very large folders, which some find uncomfortable. I believe the AFCK is a tad heavier.
OK, is this the longest post ever? One more thing to add. I prefer the AFCK, but to me it's like the competition between the YF-22 and YF-23; both are head-and-shoulders above everything else out there. I feel the AFCK is worlds prettier (something I avoided above) and, as mentioned, has a cleaner draw. I'm attempting to ignore the bias from the extensive modifications I've made to my AFCK (thick, contoured scales, less obtrusive clip, full-length spacer...) and just talk about the "stock" model. I cannot, however, erase the bias I have from carrying this knife for over four years.
-Drew
