- Joined
- Aug 30, 2008
- Messages
- 3,214
I finally got a chance to read the TK article. Sorry guys, but I'm going to be the voice of dissent here. I thought the article was pretty weak.
Let me caveat my ensuing comments by saying that I don't own an RC-5. I'm not criticizing the RC-5--which I've never even held--but rather the quality of the article. I have no opinion about the RC-5. I do have a great deal of respect for SERE instructors (I've met more than a few).
Mr Dick does a nice job of explaining the rationale for developing a better E&E knife. After the history lesson, he then gives the dimensions and weight of the knife and points out the various features, e.g. "glass breaker" pommel. Good information, especially if you don't have access to the internet.
After that, however, Mr. Dick goes on to say the knife is fairly mediocre at every task he used it for.
1. Batoning: he doesn't like batoning, but acknowledged that the RC-5 was a strong enough to have "wedged the chunks [of cherry] apart with ease." This is probably his most positive comment about the RC-5 and it's a backhanded compliment at best.
2. Carving: He uses the RC-5 to carve an axe handle for a hatchet--the philosophy being that one should have an axe head in one's survival kit, the handle to be fabricated as needed. (Actually he doesn't even endorse this strategy, just attributes it to a nameless British survival expert.) His comment is that the "RC-5 is not exactly a wood carving knife", but "it got the job done."
3. Food Prep: He made stew using the RC-5 and says, "I do have to admit the .25-inch thick blade is something less than ideal for slicing onions and potatoes". I've never been in a survival situation where slicing onions was a big priority, but I suppose that's good to know.
4. Fire making: he comments on the fire bow spindle socket in the handle. He says he was able to use the socket and a bow to start a fire. Cool. He doesn't really offer an opinion about this feature.
5. Chopping: He says the RC-5 chops well for a 5" bladed knife, but is "a poor substitute for a real hatchet or machete but it is certainly better than no chopper at all." Anyone surprised by this meaningless comment?
6. Self-defense: "I don't consider the RC-5 very suitable for close combat use as the point is too blunt." This comment surprised me. The pictures accompanying the article make the RC-5 look pretty damn pointy. Rowen has shipped all my RC knives hair-cutting sharp. I'm no knife fighting expert, but I bet I could stick the RC-5 clear through a beef rib cage. Most knife wounds in an ED are sustained from kitchen knives or steak knives. Many are leathal. Is Mr Dick suggesting that the RC-5 is inferior to a steak knife?
Overall, I was frustrated by the lack of substance in this article; it's anemic and has no real views. Like so many review article authors, Mr. Dick plays it safe and sticks to making superficial and meaningless comments about the RC-5. The comments he does make are guarded and often seem negative. He avoids giving his opinion about the knife or it's suitability for it's purpose. And frankly, making a fire in one's backyard and cooking "Boer-style beef stew" is hardly a test of an aircrew survival knife.
I would have liked to see some comments from some SERE instructors about why they like (or don't like) the RC-5. Interview a real expert! Or interview a SERE student who used the knife in SERE school.
I would have liked to see the knife used in an austere environment over a period of time. Reading between the lines, I got the sense Mr. Dick didn't really like the RC-5. Fair enough; but if that's the case, he should say so and suggest some improvements.
He belittles the combat capability of the RC-5, but never conducts any kind of weapons testing. Is Mr. Dick a knife-fighting 'expert' we should just believe? (I've never met anyone who was a real knife fighting expert and I take all the mall-ninja stuff with a big grain of saltpeter.)
A weak article, not worth reading: it doesn't say anything! I'd like to get paid for doing this quality of work. In fact, somebody send me a free RC-5 and I'll write a real review article....
Let me caveat my ensuing comments by saying that I don't own an RC-5. I'm not criticizing the RC-5--which I've never even held--but rather the quality of the article. I have no opinion about the RC-5. I do have a great deal of respect for SERE instructors (I've met more than a few).
Mr Dick does a nice job of explaining the rationale for developing a better E&E knife. After the history lesson, he then gives the dimensions and weight of the knife and points out the various features, e.g. "glass breaker" pommel. Good information, especially if you don't have access to the internet.
After that, however, Mr. Dick goes on to say the knife is fairly mediocre at every task he used it for.
1. Batoning: he doesn't like batoning, but acknowledged that the RC-5 was a strong enough to have "wedged the chunks [of cherry] apart with ease." This is probably his most positive comment about the RC-5 and it's a backhanded compliment at best.
2. Carving: He uses the RC-5 to carve an axe handle for a hatchet--the philosophy being that one should have an axe head in one's survival kit, the handle to be fabricated as needed. (Actually he doesn't even endorse this strategy, just attributes it to a nameless British survival expert.) His comment is that the "RC-5 is not exactly a wood carving knife", but "it got the job done."
3. Food Prep: He made stew using the RC-5 and says, "I do have to admit the .25-inch thick blade is something less than ideal for slicing onions and potatoes". I've never been in a survival situation where slicing onions was a big priority, but I suppose that's good to know.
4. Fire making: he comments on the fire bow spindle socket in the handle. He says he was able to use the socket and a bow to start a fire. Cool. He doesn't really offer an opinion about this feature.
5. Chopping: He says the RC-5 chops well for a 5" bladed knife, but is "a poor substitute for a real hatchet or machete but it is certainly better than no chopper at all." Anyone surprised by this meaningless comment?
6. Self-defense: "I don't consider the RC-5 very suitable for close combat use as the point is too blunt." This comment surprised me. The pictures accompanying the article make the RC-5 look pretty damn pointy. Rowen has shipped all my RC knives hair-cutting sharp. I'm no knife fighting expert, but I bet I could stick the RC-5 clear through a beef rib cage. Most knife wounds in an ED are sustained from kitchen knives or steak knives. Many are leathal. Is Mr Dick suggesting that the RC-5 is inferior to a steak knife?
Overall, I was frustrated by the lack of substance in this article; it's anemic and has no real views. Like so many review article authors, Mr. Dick plays it safe and sticks to making superficial and meaningless comments about the RC-5. The comments he does make are guarded and often seem negative. He avoids giving his opinion about the knife or it's suitability for it's purpose. And frankly, making a fire in one's backyard and cooking "Boer-style beef stew" is hardly a test of an aircrew survival knife.
I would have liked to see some comments from some SERE instructors about why they like (or don't like) the RC-5. Interview a real expert! Or interview a SERE student who used the knife in SERE school.
I would have liked to see the knife used in an austere environment over a period of time. Reading between the lines, I got the sense Mr. Dick didn't really like the RC-5. Fair enough; but if that's the case, he should say so and suggest some improvements.
He belittles the combat capability of the RC-5, but never conducts any kind of weapons testing. Is Mr. Dick a knife-fighting 'expert' we should just believe? (I've never met anyone who was a real knife fighting expert and I take all the mall-ninja stuff with a big grain of saltpeter.)
A weak article, not worth reading: it doesn't say anything! I'd like to get paid for doing this quality of work. In fact, somebody send me a free RC-5 and I'll write a real review article....
Last edited:
