Rangers and Rats?

Don Rearic

Don Rearic

Joined
Oct 8, 1998
Messages
8,917
Which is "better" and why? Ranger Knives being discussed in this forum or the Ontario Rat Series...

I was looking on the Ranger Knives website and the knives appear to be a whole lot thicker, are they as sharp as the Ontario, tells me all abouts them please. :D

Also, the little 'Hawk on the Ranger site really looks like an awesome little tool as well, anyone have one? Please chime in.

TIA, CIAO
 
I dont own any of either but I am about 99% sure that Ranger knives are far supeior to Ontario Rat knives. The stats and user feedback would lead me to believ this.
 
Never picked up a ranger but they are custom and very well reviewed. I do own a Rat and IMHO it would be very hard to beat one for the price. Chris
 
I've got a RAT-3 D2 and RTAK-II and both are great. I got the RTAK-II but I really wanted a RD-9 but never gotta a response to my e-mail from RD so I went with the RTAK and let me tell you this knife is very impressive. I've heard only good things about Ranger knives and Justin. Some say that 5160 is thougher than 1095 wich is probably true but if you get through a RAT you don't need a RD you need a chain saw...:) Still I'll like to get a RD some day in the near future of course...Cheers!!!
 
I have a Rat-7 and a 3/16" RD-5. I like them both, but I honestly prefer the Rat. The two big problems I have with the RD-5 are the weight and the choil. I'm sure with a larger blade the weight wouldn't be an issue, but for a five inch blade or less it is really heavy. The choil just serves to put the blade further out of reach and gives you less edge to work with. Overall the knife is built like a tank, but it isn't the one I reach for first. I think with the larger blades the weight factor would be a great benefit. I have a Ranger Shiv in 5/32" with micarta scales that is an awesome little knife.

The Rat has a choil as well, but it is a lot smaller. The scales on the Rat needed to be sanded to fit my hand, but overall I think it is a great knife for the money.

One benefit of the Rangers is that you can have it made any way you want. With hindsight I would have done mine a little differently.

I guess it really depends also on what your end use is. I'd say that the larger Rangers would probably surpass the larger Rats.
 
It seems these two brands are often compared against each other. I have an RD9, and a RAT-5 and RAT-7, and I've compared them before. The Ranger is a big chopper, the RATs are more "knife-like". I prefer the RATs for that reason.

As big choppers go, the Rangers are fine, and come at an affordable price point, but from my observation of forum posts, they're generally not too sharp out of the box. The edges are thick. My own RD9 bears this out. The scales and finger guard also have some sharp edges that I don't like. With rebeveling and dehorning, I think the Ready Detachment series do well enough at knife tasks to split the difference between chopper and general purpose bush/camp/survival knife, though.

What can't be fixed, short of a custom order from Justin, is the shortness of the handle, and the style and location of the jimping, which isn't optimised for use with the finger choil. I find the RATs to be much more versatile in these areas, as well as being significantly sharper out of the box. The RAT grinds are notoriously uneven, and mine were no exception. My 5" Ontario was much better than my 7", but expect a lot of variation from sample to sample.

Rangers are as indestructible as you could want a knife to be. Customer service from both makers is top notch, as proven on this forum, and others. I favor the RAT-5 for now, but ask me again tomorrow and I might have a different answer. :D
 
I have owned RAT3's, a TAK1, and now own a RAT7. Never used or handled a Ranger knife, but from what I've heard, they are far superior.
 
Far superior how? Take an edge better, cut better, ergonomics, materials, it comes down to something we have talked about before, knives are very subjective and very hard to compare. I kinda think a lot of what people talk about as superiority comes down to what cost more and has more flash appeal and is thought to be cooler at that particular time. Chris
 
runningboar said:
Far superior how? Take an edge better, cut better, ergonomics, materials, it comes down to something we have talked about before, knives are very subjective and very hard to compare. I kinda think a lot of what people talk about as superiority comes down to what cost more and has more flash appeal and is thought to be cooler at that particular time. Chris
Click to expand...

Well as you can see the two opinions that favor the Rats are from people that own both. And those that favor the Rangers don't own them. :D
 
Like I said, I don't own any Rangers. My TAK1 was okay, not what I was after though. I would like to take the blade of my RAT3 1095 and match it with the handle of my RAT3 D2. I really like my RAT7, top performer, but that coating is coming off.
 
OK, I guess I'll be the exception here. I had a RDS 6, which I got in a trade, beat the crap out of it and gave to a buddy who deployed. I thought the edge geometry was a tad to obtuse and reprofiled a much thinner convex edge. I thought it was an excellent knife all around once the edge was reprofiled. I just preferred my Scrapper 6 to it for field work. So.....once again I am not adding any thing because I've never owned a RAT series knife. But my opinion was high of the RDS 6. MY .02.
 
And I'd like to reiterate that I prefer a more general purpose type knife. The Rangers, IMO, are more of a niche design that sends any Ontario RAT screaming for it's mommy.

There is no "superior", only "better suited for [blank]".

I like having both. :)
 
I own Rangers, and in my experience, the Rangers seem to have a better heat treatment (hold an edge better) and are definitely more stout. Also you are comparing 1/8in. thick D2 or 1095 to 1/4in. thick 5160. D2 is nowhere near as tough or strong as 5160, and 1095 isn't either. Add twice the thickness, and it's an entirely different animal. RATs are sharper from the factory no question, as the Rangers are sharpened like choppers (25-50 deg). If you don't like to sharpen, or if you like your knives light, don't bother with a Ranger. But if you like your knife to be brutal tough, and stand through anything a SRKW or Busse could,(at 1/4 to 1/2 the price)and don't mind sharpening some, Rangers the way to go.
 
ilbruche said:
Well as you can see the two opinions that favor the Rats are from people that own both. And those that favor the Rangers don't own them. :D
Click to expand...

I don't favor the RATs, I have never had a ranger but I haven't heard why the rangers are superior. If the rangers are in some way, I will buy one. Chris
 
From what samhain just said I will stick to my Rat. I do like my knives thinner, lighter and easier to sharpen. :thumbup: Chris
 
Steel: Only the RAT-3 is 1/8" thick, the other Ontarios are 3/16". I don't know enough to know, but my impression is that 5160 will take abuse that 1095 will not, without argument. But when you get to 1/4" thick blade stock, it seems like it doesn't much matter: If you break a 1/4" piece of 1095, then you have truly used the "wrong tool". And I say that as someone who has come to love sharpened prybars.
 
I own the RD-9, RD-6, and the RAT-7 in 1095

Though I'm sure the metal in the RD's is better, and not to talk against them in the slightest,
I find myself reaching for the RAT-7 far more often.
It just feels more usable in my hand.
 
both seem like quality to me. i have a rat3 and 7 and like them alot, especially the rat3. i'd like to get the RD 4 some time.
 
After dealing with Justin I'd have to say Ranger Knives are a great choice. The customer service is great and it doesn't cost a fortune little for blade or handle customizations. The RD-7 is built like a tank and holds an edge well, its definitely my go-to camp knife.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top