Ranger RD-7 versus RD-9: Which is Better?

R

Return of the J.D.

Joined
Nov 29, 2005
Messages
887
Okay, everybody: which is the better all-around wilderness knife: Ranger RD-7, or RD-9?

Likely use would be general outdoor use--some camp stuff, occasional chopping. I don't foresee trying to build a log cabin with it, but would like something that can chop respectably in a pinch.

Is nine inches going to turn it into a safe queen?

A related question, for those of you who know: I may have heard somewhere a while back that the same scabbard is used for the RD-7 as for the RD-9--leaving an extra 2 inches or so of unused space in the sheath of the RD-7. Did I mis-hear, or misunderstand, or is this true?

Anything else I ought to think about in this regard?
 
My RD9 is more of a machete then a knife, it's freakin long.
I would go for the RD7, better for all around use and it can still chop very well I bet.
 
I have a RD7 and its a big knife; I can't imagine needing a 9. BTW the sheath on my 7 doesn't have two extra inches.
 
I have both and the sheath for the 9 is longer. okay the 9 is the better chopper but the 7 is the best chopper i have used in this blade length so if you are not used to toting a big knife the 7 might serve you better. My guess though is that after buying one you will eventually end up with the other also.
 
After re-reading the original post, for a "wilderness" knife I'd go with the RD9.
 
I have an RD7 and an RD9, and I have to say I like the RD9 better. The sheaths are the same design, but not the same size, the RD9 sheath is much longer to fit the larger blade better. I tend to favour the RD9 simply because it does all the rough type of tasks much better than the smaller RD7 (the difference in things like chopping is a large one), and since these aren't exactly small knives for precise work, then the rough use performance is the deciding factor for me. With a knife as big and toughly built as the RDs, you'd practically have to bring a smaller knife with you anyway to do the work that requires some precision, and if you've got a smaller knife with you, then there's no reason why you'd need an all-rounder anymore.

But sure, the RD7 is a better "compromise", do-it-all knife than the RD9. It's somewhat lighter, and not quite as long, so it's less unwieldy in precision work, and it still chops respectably. But it's still far too unwieldy to do the smaller work comfortably, at least to anyone used to smaller knives. I'm not saying that you can't do a lot of small work with the RD7, because you can - it just requires an incredible amount of pain and effort compared to a smaller knife better designed for such use. Justin makes these RDs tanks so they won't fail when they're needed. The downside to building such a tough, large knife is always the loss of performance in small work, there really is no way to avoid that outcome. The sheath has a small pouch that could fit a multitool or a SAK. Bring at least a SAK along with that "all-around" knife, and you'll make any smaller work much more comfortable.
 
Elen, I think you nailed it. My old swamp combos always incuded a big knife, a SAK, and a good lockblade folder. A mora, which weighs very little would be even better. When it comes to hacking your way through brush and vines, a big knife is useful. And any chore that requires chopping is much easier with a big knife. The RD9 can funtion as a machete or axe. It's not that much heavier than the RD7, so I'd go with the longer one. Neither one is very good at precision cutting.
 
I have both. For what they are, big ass choppers, I prefer the 9. Neither of them are going to be a fine work widdling tool. They are built to be choppers. Get the big one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top