RTAK Type knife

+1 sounds perfect. Except that I would like the handles to be a little more rounded than the rc-6 handle. The rc-6 handles are really nice and comfortable except that they feel a little boxy to me and could use a little rounding off. Just a thought based on how they feel to me. I'm really excited about an RTAK style knife. I don't have the original but I've been waiting on the RC version. :thumbup:

FortyTwoBlades said:
I agree with making it lighter. A good forward balance and a thin edge will overcome lack of mass in a sizable chopper, and if anything extreme thickness can prevent the blade from biting as deeply.

I also think that the slight forward cant in the handle sounds good, but make it incredibly subtle or else it would interfere with general utility. And RC-6-type handle (with round pommel) also sounds good, but let's see it in canvas, maybe with a divot like the RC-5! :D Another point of note would be a little bit of taper to the "bolster" area of the handle, much like on the RC-3/4 for thumb placement when using it as a draw/push knife.

I would also like to see a molded sheath, but perhaps with the option of an Eagle one as well? I think they both excel for different modes of carry, both of which would be handy for this style of blade.

Make sure it keeps a nice point to it for versatility! As much as a lot of folks enjoy goloks, I think that a decent tip is important in an OPM, since it's able to function both as a small and large blade if done properly. I don't object to the idea of a choil, for instance.
Click to expand...
 
Here's a quick design inspiration/ suggestion:

immagine578c.jpg


Check that beast out! (not the FFBM, the huge one above it). Shamelessly ripped from this thread:

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6856150#post6856150

What a monster! I want one!
 
How wide is the blade on the RTAK? I'm thinkin' 2'' wide on the RC blade, but not sure if a little less wide might be better...perhaps 1.75"?

EDIT: Yeah, now that I think about it the width should be 2" or maybe a bit more on this one. To help it chop and slice vegetation.
 
Last edited:
That really looks like someone took one of those super wide machetes and cut out what they wanted with a band saw and made a handle on it. I'm sure it's more in depth than that, but thats what it looks like.

Edit: hmmmmmmm. I wonder if I could do that.
smiley_thinking.gif
 
The guy who posted that thing up said that it was a German butcher knife. It kind of reminds me of some of the huge sushi knives I saw in the giant fish market in Busan. The ones they use all day to chop up 600# tuna and such. Whatever it is, it's awesome, and I want it.

Kind of like these "maguro kiri"- but with wider blades, and neoprene handles.

http://www.watanabeblade.com/english/pro/pro.htm
 
Last edited:
moonwilson said:
The guy who posted that thing up said that it was a German butcher knife. It kind of reminds me of some of the huge sushi knives I saw in the giant fish market in Busan. The ones they use all day to chop up 600# tuna and such. Whatever it is, it's awesome, and I want it.
Click to expand...

Just found it here Also HERE. :D
 
Last edited:
Here is an idea...
Since opinions are 50-50 why not make a regular thickness and a fat version (.25'') of the future chopper ?
I would buy both for sure and test them :D
 
Dylside said:
It's true that a 1/4" thick blade will have more strength than a 3/16" blade, but the question becomes, "is it necessary?" The answer is no. What is the purpose of the big chopper? It's purpose is to chop wood and other like materials, cut though brush and vine, and to turn my chicken over on the campfire grill. If I want to cut and pry my way out of a downed airplane, I'll reach for my RC-5, Busse, bla bla bla. If I want to cut through jungle brush, kudzu, and make camp shelters for the rest of my life with what boils down to a really durable machete/camp knife, I'll reach for my (soon to be created) RAT RC-10 with its 10" long x 3/16" thick x 2.25" wide blade and feel happy knowing that 3/16" is more than substantial for a good machete/camp knife.
Click to expand...

IMO a large survival knife should be thick enough to chop through animal bone without any damage to the blade.
 
Living bone is still relatively soft, however. It's only dead bone that gets hard as a rock. And look at all the old-timers that have split pelvic bones with Buck 110s. Can't be that bad if you do it right. :)
 
Chopping soft bone tonight anyone? I am a sicko ignore me. I havent stopped laughing since I posted this and I don't know why.
 
I am not a fan of 1/4" thick RTAK knives. Then you may as well pick up an axe for the job. Remember the fatigue that sets in with protracted use even on a thin blade so let's keep thickness to 3/16" or less.:) Mike
 
MikePerrin said:
I am not a fan of 1/4" thick RTAK knives. Then you may as well pick up an axe for the job. Remember the fatigue that sets in with protracted use even on a thin blade so let's keep thickness to 3/16" or less.:) Mike
Click to expand...

Mike, you're my hero. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top