Tsujigiri
Gold Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2009
- Messages
- 3,016
I couldn't find much info comparing these two, so when an opportunity popped up on the forum to add a complement to my iMamba, I jumped on it. My understanding is that the Orca 2.0 is made in very small batches by Arno Sr., whereas the iMamba is made by his sons. The iMamba is an iteration that draws from the original Orca, and the Orca 2.0 seems to draw from both the first Orca and the iMamba.
The most obvious difference between these concurrent models is the swell at the end of the Orca 2.0's handle. In a regular grip, the knife feels noticeably more "locked-in." The iMamba, on the other hand, works better in reverse grips for push cuts.
The Orca 2.0 also has a shorter blade groove paired with a milled fuller that extends all the way to the tang. I haven't found a purpose for this feature other than filling the negative space on the closed blade and looking good; it doesn't work for thumb opening. The iMamba hole is also positioned better to middle finger flick the knife open, whereas on the Orca 2.0 I have to adjust a bit since it's shorter.
Another notable difference is that the Orca 2.0 has a finger choil. My fingers are pretty slim and the choil fits me perfectly, but YMMV if you have thicker fingers. The flipper on the Orca 2.0 is also much lower profile and angled differently. If you push into the handle when pushing the flipper, they both work well but the O2 is less likely to snag in the pocket. The O2 also has additional bevelling on the inside of the handles just before the thumb ramp, which works as both a landing pad for your finger when you use the flipper and as a place to put your thumb.
The iMamba has something like T20 screws on the pivot, which is a bit of an annoyance since you need two of these drivers to open the knife. The Orca 2.0 fixes that issue, but I do prefer the look of the iMamba pivot. I haven't disassembled the Orca yet, but when I did with the iMamba it made me really appreciate the tolerances.
They did something a little different for the lanyard on the Orca 2.0, instead of a hole in the handles you have a backspacer with a recessed path for the lanyard. If you don't use a lanyard, the lines of the iMamba are cleaner, but if you do the Orca 2.0 has a better system IMO.
Finally, the lockbar cutout is very rounded on the iMamba, something that I really liked. This takes a lot more machining time and ensures there are no snags around the clip. The Orca 2.0 isn't as nicely rounded, but enough to prevent snags.
Overall, these are much more similar than I thought they would be, and the action feels about the same. I'd say the iMamba is a little sleeker and more minimalist, but the Orca 2.0 has a few usability features that I really appreciate. My particular iMamba is also polished RWL34, which is a more elegant counterpoint to the Orca 2.0's harder wearing stonewashed M390. The Orca 2.0, then, will probably be more of my daily user and the iMamba can be a more dressy knife for special occasions.
The most obvious difference between these concurrent models is the swell at the end of the Orca 2.0's handle. In a regular grip, the knife feels noticeably more "locked-in." The iMamba, on the other hand, works better in reverse grips for push cuts.
The Orca 2.0 also has a shorter blade groove paired with a milled fuller that extends all the way to the tang. I haven't found a purpose for this feature other than filling the negative space on the closed blade and looking good; it doesn't work for thumb opening. The iMamba hole is also positioned better to middle finger flick the knife open, whereas on the Orca 2.0 I have to adjust a bit since it's shorter.
Another notable difference is that the Orca 2.0 has a finger choil. My fingers are pretty slim and the choil fits me perfectly, but YMMV if you have thicker fingers. The flipper on the Orca 2.0 is also much lower profile and angled differently. If you push into the handle when pushing the flipper, they both work well but the O2 is less likely to snag in the pocket. The O2 also has additional bevelling on the inside of the handles just before the thumb ramp, which works as both a landing pad for your finger when you use the flipper and as a place to put your thumb.
The iMamba has something like T20 screws on the pivot, which is a bit of an annoyance since you need two of these drivers to open the knife. The Orca 2.0 fixes that issue, but I do prefer the look of the iMamba pivot. I haven't disassembled the Orca yet, but when I did with the iMamba it made me really appreciate the tolerances.
They did something a little different for the lanyard on the Orca 2.0, instead of a hole in the handles you have a backspacer with a recessed path for the lanyard. If you don't use a lanyard, the lines of the iMamba are cleaner, but if you do the Orca 2.0 has a better system IMO.
Finally, the lockbar cutout is very rounded on the iMamba, something that I really liked. This takes a lot more machining time and ensures there are no snags around the clip. The Orca 2.0 isn't as nicely rounded, but enough to prevent snags.
Overall, these are much more similar than I thought they would be, and the action feels about the same. I'd say the iMamba is a little sleeker and more minimalist, but the Orca 2.0 has a few usability features that I really appreciate. My particular iMamba is also polished RWL34, which is a more elegant counterpoint to the Orca 2.0's harder wearing stonewashed M390. The Orca 2.0, then, will probably be more of my daily user and the iMamba can be a more dressy knife for special occasions.
