RAT Rc-5 reviewed.

man, thank you for your sharing !
but i do not like the way of reviewing , too soft to me .
i like D-tests ,man.

dingy
 
Sorry to say it but not much of a review.

I have one of the first RC5's to come out. #126.

My very first impression regarded the weight. It did seem a bit heavy. But then I noticed the balance, absolutely neutral. This makes it veryeasy to manipulate the knife and to work with it. It does take time and a little effort to become familiar with the knife and have it become an extension of the hand.

The cutting geometry would be improved if the knife was a full flat grind. However it wouldn't be as strong either. I convexed the edge on mine and it improved it's cutting performance a good bit. However the RC5 will never be as good a slicer as a thinner knife. However it will slice and cut.

The 5" blade length was a compromise allowing the knife to be compact enough to be comfortably carried on ones gear in an aircraft. The standard 7" military blades dont allow one to easily sit on most seats. The 5" blade length gives enough utility without unneeded length. It is not intended for combat except as an absolute last resort. The focus of downed aircrew members being escape and evasion till rescue.

Your review would have been significantly improved, as would your enjoyment of the RC5 if you had engaged in a bit of actual survival oriented bladework. Such as shelter building, trap and deadfall manufacture, firebuilding etc.

Myself and many others included can vouch for this knifes more than adequate performance in all these areas and more.

rat pack #103
 
wildmike said:
Sorry to say it but not much of a review.

I have one of the first RC5's to come out. #126.

My very first impression regarded the weight. It did seem a bit heavy. But then I noticed the balance, absolutely neutral. This makes it veryeasy to manipulate the knife and to work with it. It does take time and a little effort to become familiar with the knife and have it become an extension of the hand.

The cutting geometry would be improved if the knife was a full flat grind. However it wouldn't be as strong either. I convexed the edge on mine and it improved it's cutting performance a good bit. However the RC5 will never be as good a slicer as a thinner knife. However it will slice and cut.

The 5" blade length was a compromise allowing the knife to be compact enough to be comfortably carried on ones gear in an aircraft. The standard 7" military blades dont allow one to easily sit on most seats. The 5" blade length gives enough utility without unneeded length. It is not intended for combat except as an absolute last resort. The focus of downed aircrew members being escape and evasion till rescue.

Your review would have been significantly improved, as would your enjoyment of the RC5 if you had engaged in a bit of actual survival oriented bladework. Such as shelter building, trap and deadfall manufacture, firebuilding etc.

Myself and many others included can vouch for this knifes more than adequate performance in all these areas and more.

rat pack #103
Click to expand...
You didn't like the review....or you didn't like my opinion? I.E. you don't agree?

It seems the only thing you got from my review was that I didn't like it much. I understand from this reply that you do. That's fine many different opinions make it more interesting.

I never said the RC-5 was bad. I said it was functional and that it's understandable that compromises had to be made in a "do it all" type design.

However I don't like compromises. I think that for the majority of it's tasks a smaller knife would do just as well.

I'm not knocking the knife OR the company, all I'm saying is that it isn't my type of knife. And getting to handle it for a while confirmed that for me.

If you feel it should be corrected then please write a review and it'll be placed next to mine for a contrast.

Regards
LX
 
You'll also notice that despite it not being my kind of knife I gave it fairly good grades on almost every point.
 
I enjoy reading knife reviews, I don't put much weight in them, unless there is an extremely obvious flaw with the knife or design. I don't like when things get personal, when the reviewer puts his/her feelings into it. I would rather see a review based on use alone. What is this particular knife made for? How well does it accomplish those tasks? Specifications without personal opinions. Then I can decide for myself based on the presented data whether or not this knife will fill my needs. I think that when one interjects their personal opinion, by human nature, the reader takes that to heart and somehow sways his/her opinion toward the reviewers. Most of us have this uncanny desire to give our personal opinions on things, and find it hard to present a completely unbiased review. Just my 2cents worth.
 
Lightstryder said:
I enjoy reading knife reviews, I don't put much weight in them, unless there is an extremely obvious flaw with the knife or design. I don't like when things get personal, when the reviewer puts his/her feelings into it. I would rather see a review based on use alone. What is this particular knife made for? How well does it accomplish those tasks? Specifications without personal opinions. Then I can decide for myself based on the presented data whether or not this knife will fill my needs. I think that when one interjects their personal opinion, by human nature, the reader takes that to heart and somehow sways his/her opinion toward the reviewers. Most of us have this uncanny desire to give our personal opinions on things, and find it hard to present a completely unbiased review. Just my 2cents worth.
Click to expand...

There's no such thing as an unbiased review.

What you're talking about is testing and testing results. That can be done by simply presenting the facts alone.

A review is always someone's opinion on the reviewed object.
 
I think it's a good review.
Better quality pictures and more action (normal use, nothing extreme), written and photographed would improve it even more.
Just my 2 cents...
 
Thanks, the weather didn't really co-operate as far as pictures are concerned. Maybe I'll figure out how to polish em up though.
 
If you compare it to other's of it's genre, it will fare better.

IMG_3518.jpg


To 'escape' and 'survive', I feel it's a fine example - and better suited, in my mind, than some of the others pictured. I camped with a KaBar - and thought it appropriate - forty-odd years ago. Today, smaller 'bushcraft' knives are the 'norm' - perhaps jading the reviewer's view. No matter, it is highly subjective. I, personally, like mine - older Molle sheath and all - it will likely be here when the others in the picture are gone.

Stainz
 
Stainz said:
If you compare it to other's of it's genre, it will fare better.


To 'escape' and 'survive', I feel it's a fine example - and better suited, in my mind, than some of the others pictured. I camped with a KaBar - and thought it appropriate - forty-odd years ago. Today, smaller 'bushcraft' knives are the 'norm' - perhaps jading the reviewer's view. No matter, it is highly subjective. I, personally, like mine - older Molle sheath and all - it will likely be here when the others in the picture are gone.

Stainz
Click to expand...

That's very well possible. I think it's just not my class of knife. If you're willing to write a nice review about it then I'll gladly host it right beside mine. The more the merrier.
 
I have an RC-5 and like it for its intended use. Its a very, very versatile knife if used properly. Its a knife that can save your ass. However, for general bushcraft which you seem to want the RC-4 or even RC-3 would be a better choice.
 
I had been wondering about the practicality of this RAT knife and other similar knives like the Becker Campanion (which I now own). I thought this was a pretty good user review. I wish I had seen it earlier. You borrowed the knife, and so obviously you had to return it in good shape, ruling out destructive testing. My quest is for the perfect woodland survivial knife. Digging, chopping holes in ice, prying rocks, batoning into firewood, cutting shelter boughs, as well as finer work such as fish cleaning are expected of such a knife. I am coming to realize that the ONE perfect knife doesn't exist. I have also found that thicker, shorter knives are harder to baton through firewood, and because you have to baton it on both sides of the firewood with a pretty big club, you can repeatedly hit the skin between the thumb and forefinger of the hand holding the knife. I now carry three knives into the deepwoods; a 10" W-36 Western with cord wrapped sheath (many other options are just as good), a Leatherman Super Tool, and a little SAK Classic. Thanks for your review.
 
GRIM 62 said:
The RC5 and the BK2 match up really,really close.
Click to expand...
I have a Becker BK-2, and I like it, but it now stays in the Blazer as a backup. I extensively field tested it under Minnesota northwoods winter conditions. I expect the 'perfect' survivial knife to be good for digging, chopping holes in ice, prying up rocks, batoning into firewood, cutting shelter boughs, as well as finer work such as fish cleaning. I have found (the hard way) that coated, thicker, shorter blades like the BK-2 are harder to baton through firewood, and because it binds even in winter when wood splits easier, you have to baton it on both sides of the firewood with a pretty big club. You can (and I did) repeatedly hit the skin between the thumb and forefinger of the hand holding the knife. The knife performed well for chopping through branches up to 1/2 thick, digging, and prying. I keep the Kydex sheath cordwrapped with 440 paracord and keep an Allen wrench that fits the handle screws tucked in the cordwrap, so I can take off the handle scales in the field and make the BK-2 into a spear or a hatchet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top