Ratweiler CG: thick or thin?

Thick or thin?

  • 1/4"

    Votes: 1 50.0%

  • 3/16"

    Votes: 1 50.0%
  • Total voters
    2
I have a Terror Monkey version (thhhhiiin) and a thick plus I had the 3/16th at home for a bit till its forever father collected it from me. I MUCH prefer the thick stock version, it both fills the hand better and seems more natural in action *to me*. But I prefer my blades a bit chunky.
 
I like the skinny one the most.
I own the original, 1/4 and 3/16 versions, plus I got to extensively handle the TM version which is quite a bit thinner than 3/16.

I think that the 3/16 is just about perfect for the 'one knife carry' option. It's light enough to lag around for days on end, long enough to do some chopping, light and nimble enough to do the small tasks, will make a good slicer with some edge work, and if RMD could have been used as a climbing aid at 3/16 then I don't have any doubts that Ratweiler at the same thickness will be plenty strong.
 
Interesting, so it seems like those who have experience with both prefer the 3/16" version and think it chops as well, if not even better than the thicker one!

One thing I will say, is that I do like the penetrator tip of the original!
 
That's not what I said mate. I MUCH prefer the 1/4 over all three versions I have handled.
 
Not to start an argument, Andy, but I read your first post above to mean you preferred the feel of the 1/4. Not that it necessarily performed better.
 
I take you point 'Spyder (maaaate I CAN'T call you rockspyder I just can't.... that is one of the WORST things you can call a man here...but I digress), I have not used the hell out of one of mine to comment or assess properly but *for me* it will be a tough ask already to change my view... ;) This is why choice is good.... ;) ;) we all have very different tastes ! My first was the TM version and to say that I was truly unimpressed when I first held it is an understatement. The 3/16th was better and the 1/4 just tight *in hand* and *for me*.
 
Andy the Aussie said:
I take you point 'Spyder (maaaate I CAN'T call you rockspyder I just can't.... that is one of the WORST things you can call a man here...but I digress), I have not used the hell out of one of mine to comment or assess properly but *for me* it will be a tough ask already to change my view... ;) This is why choice is good.... ;) ;) we all have very different tastes ! My first was the TM version and to say that I was truly unimpressed when I first held it is an understatement. The 3/16th was better and the 1/4 just tight *in hand* and *for me*.
Click to expand...

Something lost in translation, I'm sure, on the handle. I'm surprised there is even a term down there that is similar. But although I'd call any Aussie a mate, unless he is a total arse, I'd have to say I had a hard time discerning some of your terminology while I was down there. Love the place though. I'll have to look to see if I can figure out the rockspyder term though. In my case, at the time I signed up, I was big into rockclimbing and Spyderco. Now, not so much on either. Anyway, big digression there.

I think I can actually say that I agree with you on the feel in the hand, regarding the 3/16 vs the 1/4. For me, probably the ideal setup would be magnum scales on a 3/16 Ratweiler. Best of both worlds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top