Rough Ryder Reserve: New Premium Rough Ryder Line

rje58 said:
I don't mean to be snarky, and I know there are a few folks - myself included - who actually use and carry their GEC knives, at least occasionally, but I'm not sure enough GEC knives actually get used often enough and in large enough numbers, to "prove" how well (or not) slipjoints without hold up to actual use, without washers. I heard a rumor that they might even start listing them on some the Precious Metals exchanges, for sale by the ounce. :D
Click to expand...
I am sure you are correct that many GEC knives do not get used. However, the point I was trying to make was not specific to GEC; I merely used them as one example. I own and use dozens of different good quality slipjoints from numerous manufacturers produced over the last 100 years, and none of them have washers between the tang and liner. None of my Case, Schrade, Camillus, Queen, Schatt Morgan, Robeson, Imperial, Hammer, and yes GEC brand knives are built on washers and they work great. I am a huge fan of the normal RR knives and use them as well, also not built on washers. I believe that we have over 100 years of proof-of-principle that it just isn't needed. I am expressing it here in the hopes that others will also speak up if they feel the same. Who knows, maybe RR will notice. I believe that if RR can deliver the RRR quality they have already demonstrated without the weird design choices that seem done only for the sake of trying to be different, then they would have a better chance of fulfilling the promise this line represents.
 
Rhinofly said:
I am sure you are correct that many GEC knives do not get used. However, the point I was trying to make was not specific to GEC; I merely used them as one example. I own and use dozens of different good quality slipjoints from numerous manufacturers produced over the last 100 years, and none of them have washers between the tang and liner. None of my Case, Schrade, Camillus, Queen, Schatt Morgan, Robeson, Imperial, Hammer, and yes GEC brand knives are built on washers and they work great. I am a huge fan of the normal RR knives and use them as well, also not built on washers. I believe that we have over 100 years of proof-of-principle that it just isn't needed. I am expressing it here in the hopes that others will also speak up if they feel the same. Who knows, maybe RR will notice. I believe that if RR can deliver the RRR quality they have already demonstrated without the weird design choices that seem done only for the sake of trying to be different, then they would have a better chance of fulfilling the promise this line represents.
Click to expand...
Excellent points! I can't disagree.
 
rje58 said:
I'm not sure enough GEC knives actually get used often enough and in large enough numbers, to "prove" how well (or not) slipjoints without hold up to actual use, without washers.
Click to expand...
I think the millions of Case, (US) Schrade & Family, Buck's 300 series, Colonial, Utica, Russell, Robeson, and other slipjoints sold and used over the last few centuries, (which were used a heck of a lot harder then people use a slipjoint today) is a pretty good indication that washerless slipjoints hold up quite well to actual use.

I think washers are nothing but a gimic that add nothing to the usability, durability, or longevity to/of a folding knife.
 
Last edited:
afishhunter said:
I think the millions of Case, (US) Schrade & Family, Buck's 300 series, Colonial, Utica, Russell, Robeson, and other slipjoints sold and used over the last few centuries, (which were used a heck of a lot harder then people use a slipjoint today) is a pretty good indication that washerless slipjoints hold up quite well to actual use.

I think washers are nothing but a gimic that add nothing to the usability, durability, or longevity to/of a folding knife.
Click to expand...

I have a custom slip-joint that has washers and one production designed by Loveless that has washers. Loveless wasn't into "gimics". Just 'cause it wasn't done in the past, doesn't mean nylatron washers, a modern material, isn't a goood thing.
 
The washers add some wiggle room for assembly. The tolerances don't need to be as tight because the difference is taken up by the washers. Also, in the multi-blade knives RR is using the washers as spacers instead of krinking the blades. All of this leads to a lower cost of production. Personally, I don't really care as long as it's put together well. My personal favorite are the Italian knives by Viper that have pockets milled out of the titanium liners for the washers. This gives a nice steel on brass action while hiding the washers and keeping the overall design as thin as a washer less frame. They might have to use washers though. I think I read somewhere that steel on titanium is bad and the titanium starts to gall and get "sticky".
 
There is an improvement from the 001 to the 001BM. Namely a stop pin to eliminate blade rap.

eiYK9eAm.jpg
K56R4tfl.jpg
 
nickvnlr said:
There is an improvement from the 001 to the 001BM. Namely a stop pin to eliminate blade rap.

eiYK9eAm.jpg
K56R4tfl.jpg
Click to expand...
Good to see that they have rectified what is an annoying oversight with that pin.

The washers thing seems contentious. My biggest beef with the RRR designs, other than the ocassional mad renditions (that huge whittler) , is the lack of flow to design. They seem visually clunk, overly square edged and wider than is necessary in many orientations.
For me a desirable knife is one that can perform, has a considered balance between form and function and is inviting to handle.
I will concede the micarta sway back Wharncliffe Jeffsenpai posted on the previous page is a huge improvement, but the nail nick is all wrong imo.
 
ed_is_dead said:
My biggest beef with the RRR designs, other than the ocassional mad renditions (that huge whittler) , is the lack of flow to design. They seem visually clunk, overly square edged and wider than is necessary in many orientations.
For me a desirable knife is one that can perform, has a considered balance between form and function and is inviting to handle.
Click to expand...

Maybe they need to hire a U.S. designer or design team? Imagine you and me trying to design traditional Chinese knives for a Chinese market...
 
rje58 said:
Maybe they need to hire a U.S. designer or design team? Imagine you and me trying to design traditional Chinese knives for a Chinese market...
Click to expand...
That’s where all this started- some guy over at SMKW designing these things. Or “designing”… who knows how much say he sad in the actual nitty gritty.
 
EngrSorenson said:
That’s where all this started- some guy over at SMKW designing these things. Or “designing”… who knows how much say he sad in the actual nitty gritty.
Click to expand...
Well, if they just took one of the knife guys out of the Sales Dept. and had him sketch out some drawings on PhotoShop or CompuCad - then that explains it! :D
 
Last edited:
On my Common Stock the washers are only visible on the secondary blades. They sit opposite of each other and I believe they serve to create some offset so that they didnt have to bend the blades to make them fit into the handle.
 
nickvnlr said:
Well, a couple of new ones got tossed up. There is not much fanfare for these anymore without Andy around. The Tear Jerk is a little kooky, but the Heavy Trapper looks like money to me.
Click to expand...
the nail nicks in both of these are just... wrong.
I'm concerned that someone's toddler is making the technical drawings.
 
nickvnlr said:
The Tear Jerk is a little kooky, but the Heavy Trapper looks like mone
Click to expand...
I would have called it the other way around.
The Tear Drop looks interesting with an unusual handle shape but it's comfortable looking, and solid blade choices with proper orientation.
The Trapper has been done to death and there are many copies they could have followed. Typically the pulls would be on the same side if the Wharncliffe is in front. Even Case gets that right. And then there is the tiny nail nick as mentioned before by Mr. Sorenson. And why so many pins??? Seems odd they would copy a proven pattern yet stray from the formula that makes it so good.
 
These look interesting.....i wish they would get rid of the match strike nail nick!!!! On a long pull fine but a crescent nick no! There i said it now im going to go check these out.
 
You are both right regarding the nail nicks. I think the Tear Jerker is kooky because EO notch does not look functional at all. It's not like it enhances the pinchability of the spear blade since A) The notch is only on one side. B) It does not line up with the nail nick. C) There is another blade on the backside. It could have easily done without it.
rrr010_web5.jpg
rrr010_web6.jpg


The trapper nail nicks being on opposite sides really doesn't bother me since the spey is not really accessible with the wharncliffe closed. Agreed, the nick most certainly should be bigger.
rrr011_web7.jpg
rrr011_web8.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top