naive questions about randall

K

kostas tamb/is

Joined
Jun 8, 2003
Messages
69
I am a new member and I would liek to ask a very naive question. I would like to know why randall knives are considered a standard when they do not use the "best steel" available for their knives. I do not ask in order to discredit this famous company, I only ask out of ignorance. Why aen't falkniven knives such as the NL series better that Randall knives?
I hope my ignorance does not offend anyone...:confused:
 
Welcome, mate. No your question is fair one.

Randall knives were among the very first to offer
in premium knives to the general public way back
in the 1940's. As such they have held a highly
regarded spot in the non-production market.

While what you say about there being "better" made
knives today is somewhat true Randall is still the
"Rembrandt" of the knifeworld.:)
 
Perhaps because Randall has been around for over fifty years and sell well enough to have a considerable backlog. There aren't many that can say the same. No they don't use the latest blade steel of the month or synthetic handle materials. However, Randalls are well made well designed blades that will get the job done. As to the Fallkniven Northern Light series - they seem to be very well made and attractive knives. I happen to like the laminate steel. They have a very "Randall" look - let's see if they're still sold in 2053. ;)
 
The choice of steel is only a single element of what makes a good knife. Blade shape, edge geometry, balance, ergonomic handles, heat treatment, sheaths, and finishes, are all equally significant. Knife magazines like to over emphasize the various steel formulas because it is probably one of the few concrete factual items of description that they can provide. The rest of the variables are far more subjective. They may be useful or detremental depending on the user's specific tasks, using style, hand size, environment, experience, and personal preference.

Randall knives are well proven designs, made from good solid steels. They don't cater to the latest and greatest steel fads, and that is probably a good thing. If you buy a Randall today to replace the knife you purchased ten years ago, you know how it is going to perform, how it will feel, and what you need to do to maintain it. There is a certain amount of comfort in having that level consistency. That quality has been Randall's strength, and it is why the knives remain so popular today.

n2s
 
Something else needs to be said about Randall knives.A fact which is barely mentioned considering their reputation and high price. I have no problems with 0-1 steel (which an excellent steel for knives -this steel really bites into flesh) however 0-1 used in Randall knives is hardened to low 50's RC (somewhere I read they're hardened to 52 RC) which is like wasting that steel. Years ago I bought myself a Randall knife,and then I found out I made a big mistake.because of above reason.With their low RC hardness in my mind they are definetely overpriced.
 
The last time I called Gary Randall, I asked about Rc testing. He told me their O1 would test about Rc 57. Your statement of Rc52 is too low.
 
Originally posted by bruce
The last time I called Gary Randall, I asked about Rc testing. He told me their O1 would test about Rc 57. Your statement of Rc52 is too low.
Click to expand...


Do you own a Randall knife? I do, and I know my Randall blade is not even close to 57 RC because it's too soft-once I slightly struck a small rivet with the knife's spine and it was easily dented (nick in the spine's edge). I was told the same thing about hardness( RC 57) and after I had experienced their "hardness" I knew they were not hardened to 57 RC.They're definetely in low 50's.
My advice to all who consider buying a Randall knife is to think twice.Buying a Randall you pay for the brand and not for the real quality.
 
this is a passage from ABC's of Steel Selection for Cutlery
by Kevin McClung :


"Oil hardening steel, specifically O1, is my personal favorite. It is what we use to make the SEAL A.T.A.K., which has so far bested all of its competitors in field trials. To overcome the corrosion problem, we hard chrome the blades.Randall Knives uses O1 extensively, hardened to 52-54 HRC. "

I read (and saved it on hard disc) the article the same time of year I bought a Randall made knife.Initially it seemed almost incredible that they are hardened to 52-54 RC only,but as practice showed,it was true.
Randall knives are unfortunately primarily expensive show items and dust colectors.
 
With thick spined knives (1/4") or so, you may seem some loss of hardness due to the massive difference in cross section between the edge and the spine which can effect the quenching rate. This has been mentioned from some abs guys as accounting for differences in blades not specifically differentially hardened.

As well, though I would not want a knife that soft at the edge, there are those that do. Fisk for example has commented that on his personal using knives he likes the hardness in the low fifties. It would be hard to argue against the "value" of his knives.

I would be surprised if the blades were that soft though based on some of the reports I have read about them breaking (Robertson and Hood) as well as edge chipping from bone contacts and such. Maybe it is a QC issue.

With the hardness that low they should be fairly flexible. What is the edge retention like compared to a ~60 HRC knife. There should be a pretty large difference with a hardness variance of ~8 HRC points?

-Cliff
 
Heat treat is a very touchy process. Its possible that your randall had something go wrong. RC57-58 would make for a pretty tough knife that sharpens easily,and I would beleive that that is what randall aims for. Its possible that its a differential temper, or just variation due to the geometry of the blade. When you have to quench the steel in oil, its pretty easy to get variation. The oil has to be preheated to the right temperature, and you can't necessarily get the blade into the oil exactly the same way every time. Close, but not exactly.
They wouldn't have lasted this long if they were turning out blades at RC52.

I'm not certain on this, but I was under the impression that Randalls are still forged, or at least partially forged to shape? If so that is another reason that they don't get sucked into all the new wonder steels. Not all of them can be forged successfully or at least productively.
There is nothing wrong with old alloys like O1, they were once considered the best thing going, I'm using it currently and find the performance surprising. And if you pick one steel and specialize, and try to learn as you go, you will be much more successful. Look at Ed Fowler with 52100, or the reputation Dozier has for his treatment of D2. There's something to be said for not switching to the new whizbang idea on the market when you already have something good going.
There is also nothing wrong with trying to develop new materials. They both have their place.
 
I would also imagine that something went wrong on the heat treat of your blade. I have owned many Randalls, and have found them not that easy to sharpen. Something that would seem to indicate a much harder Rockwell than 52. Even the magazine writers who tested the Blackjack copy of the Randall model 1 made comments to the fact that the Blackjack is much easier to sharpen than a genuine Randall.
 
Danbo,

I will certainly be more wary of slapping tobacco chewers from now on. Thanks for the warning. You have probably saved me a huge dry cleaning bill.

The appeal of Randall Made knives to me is their design. I like the traditional designs - especially the excellent guards, which many more modern brands lack.
 
Scyth, do you, or have you, owned over 30 Randall's? I have. Please be careful with your challenges, not everyone on the forums is inexperienced.

That said, now, why are you categorizing Randall knives based on one little nick on the "spine" of the knife. How is the cutting edge? Don't know, do ya?

I would be happy with a Rc52 spine and a Rc57-58 cutting edge.

Bruce
 
my Randall blade is not even close to 57 RC because it's too soft-once I slightly struck a small rivet with the knife's spine and it was easily dented
Click to expand...

Did you ever send the knife back to Randall to have them test it?

BTW, Kevin has been known to be factually challenged on occasion. You may want to run a search on these forums to read some history on this guy. 52-54 RC(?)- certainly not at the edge, perhaps along the spine.

n2s
 
Cliff wrote:

With the hardness that low they should be fairly flexible. What is the edge retention like compared to a ~60 HRC knife. There should be a pretty large difference with a hardness variance of ~8 HRC points?

My observation is that the edge retention is visibly poorer than on my Spyderco Endura (ATS-55 blade, ~60 RC).Randall blade sharpens easily (much easier than my Endura) and also loses its sharpness fairly quickly -however this depends on what kind of material I'm cutting.



bruce wrote:

Scyth, do you, or have you, owned over 30 Randall's? I have. Please be careful with your challenges, not everyone on the forums is inexperienced.


No,I have not owned over 30 Randalls. I'm not that foolish to buy that quantity of that expensive junk.


That said, now, why are you categorizing Randall knives based on one little nick on the "spine" of the knife. How is the cutting edge? Don't know, do ya?

I'm categorizing Randall knives based on several other opinions on degraded Randall knife quality,on my own experience and on my friend's experience who also owns a Randall knife (not good edge holding). The cutting edge is also soft.
Guess what I have just done (now I remember I already done this,right after I had nicked the spine).I took my Randall and run the edge (initial 5-7 mm) across the same pin twice.I used slight pressure. The result-a f@cking light reflection (it also feels dull) on that small part of the blade-this mean's it has got effectively dulled,in three f@cking seconds.Now, I KNOW the cutting edge is crap, don't I?



I would be happy with a Rc52 spine and a Rc57-58 cutting edge.[/i]

yeah, you better be happy with your 30 Randalls,because you were sucked 30 times more than me



not2sharp wrote:

Did you ever send the knife back to Randall to have them test it?


No,after I had nicked the spine I just put away the knife (into thecloset,where it still lies) in disgust. Do you think Randall company would send me a new one?



On a final note,honestly I 'm not sure know whether I have got a bad Randall or their whole line sucks-bottom line is- CQ problems should not ever happen with knives that cost that much money and of such reputation. Every single Randall knife should have been individually RC tested to assure its hardness .
 
No need to get pissed and start acting like that, then we really won't care/beleive what you say.
You might have handled 2 randalls and not been impressed, but that doesn't negate the experience of all these other folks who like randalls.

Randall has been around a long time, and has a lot of happy customers. I'm sure they would stand behind thier product, if you would give them the chance. They're going to want that one back, and time to evaluate it though.

As far as QC problems, it happens to EVERYBODY! Every single knife manufacturer has had at least one problem along the line, I garauntee it. You don't know for sure that Randall didn't RC test your knife. Have you ever seen a Rockwell tester? It basically punches a diamond pin into the blade, and then hardness is correlated to the depth of the mark. It could have tested fine where they punched it and still be soft at the edge or spine.
You really shouldn't go badmouthing randall so vehemently until you've given them a chance to fix things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top