Matthew,
I didn't mean to put Newt on the spot! Anyone else might hazard an answer too. Maybe the answer is "no difference in mission parameters", Newt is simply offering his customers alternatives for the same mission, or "if you're over 6'2" and have a palm span of 3" or more, choose the larger knife, otherwise choose the smaller one." Seems like the AK would do better with harder woods than the RCM. Perhaps it is the wood type that would favor one over another, etc.
Matthew as I said in a earlier post, you did not put me on a spot with the question. After reading about 300 emails your eyes get tired, and start to burn and your fingers also start to get a little fat. I am just so covered up with work I was not able to answer until now. I tried not to even look at the internet or an e-mail all weekend long.
Now about why anyone would pick the LAK4 AK Machete-Camp Knife & Survival Tool over the RCM is beyond me. Now let me explain what I mean by that by asking you a question. Why would you or anyone else pick a combat style tactical folder as a everyday carry piece over a three bladed stockman if you only use a knife for normal house and office chores or just as a everyday carry? The 3-bladed stockman would have three blades compared to most tactical knives that have only one blade, so the logic is that you can carry a knife that will have a blade that is sharp at least 200% more than the single blade. Now to me that makes sense if you are carrying a knife to use as a everyday tool. Would you not have more blades to use when one goes dull, and wouldnt the chances of you getting in trouble be lessened because the stockman is by far less aggressive looking. I guess what I am saying is that we all are looking for or wanting too try something different once in a while.
So why would anyone pick a AK over a RCM? Well I am going to go into a little bit of a history lesson on these knives if I may. So here is the first of a two part post.
Jeff Randall once said "that the RCM is an excellent piece and will out-chop a thinner 'cheap machete' on larger and harder material, but it's no match for typical tropical vegetation when cutting trail or slashing vines along tributaries out of a moving boat."
I would also say that the Recon Combat Machete is an excellent knife when you need a good knife to put through its paces in either the jungle or a hard wood forest. They question that is always being asked by some one is if you were given a choice of only one knife to carry what would it be? I have always said that it would be a machete, and I agreed with Jeffs choice for a long time on the Machete knife that I would have carried. Jeffs quote; Again, with a choice of one (1) blade, I will choose the RCM. With the advent of the Randall RTAK in early 1999 which was a combination of a working machetes (RCM), and other knives my likes, and I am sure Jeffs likes changed some. The RCM served, and still does serve a notch in my knife line that many personnel like, and use.
WHY? Well in my opinion it is a tried and true design that has proven its self over the years as a good utility blade with the drug task force people, military personnel, and just plain good folks who want a camp knife to cut a trail or gut a deer.
As a young man I owned a number of French Machetes that were made for their military. Most were one-quarter inch thick carbon blades with thick wooden handles, and the machete came housed in heavy horsehide sheaths. These knives for many years could be had all over South East Asia for about $1.00. I loved this knife, and carried an used a number of them in my early years. I loved two other knives also, and they were the Western Bowie, and the Western Big Eight. Now to me what else could be better than to combine these three knives to make a all around utility knife. In late 1989 the first of the RCM machetes came into being. Early RCM machete had a slightly thicker handle than the present knives do, and also a birds pommel which was some of the Western Bowie influence.
Early RCM machetes were made with .250 inch 1095 high carbon tool steel also. This heavier blade was idea for the hard wood forest that the Drug Task Force people were working in. Also the bigger knife with its re-enforced tip grind would hold up better, and cause less arm fatigue over the lighter Ontario Machetes they were being used. Quoting Randall again, The RCM is an excellent piece and will out-chop a thinner 'cheap machete' on larger and harder material, but it's no match for typical tropical vegetation when cutting trail or slashing vines along tributaries out of a moving boat. Ok most of the work that the RCM is seeing is heavy hard wood covered terrain, and it is chopping thick hard fibrous Marijuana plants. As an example I have been on raids where we were cutting plants that were over ten feet tall, and three to four inches in diameter at the ground. We would cut the plants off near the ground, and then used the tip or blade of the RCM to literally pry the root ball out of the ground. In other words we didnt leave anything there for the dopers but the raider's death card for those in the know. The thin Ontario Machete knives did not hold up as well too the heavy cutting, and prying. Thickness of the blade is one thing, but the heat treat is the major factor on any knifes over all performance. The RTAK that I made was another knife that most found to be a excellent dope cutter. Dropping the thickness of the metal stock used on the RCM from .214 inch too .204 inches for the RTAK, and now the AK doesnt effect the strength of the blades to any noticeable degree.
About the fatigue factor for heavy blades compared to thin blades? Well I will admit that a thinner lighter blade isnt gong to be as apt to cause fatigue as fast as a heavy blade. However one of the problems that has always been a concern and factor when using thinner, lighter blades is the shock transference into the users hands, wrist, arms, and joints. The symptoms are similar to what was at one time known as tennis elbow. We call some of these problems "CTS" now, and this leads to the burning in the hands, and forearm from the shock transference. It is fierce for the plastic handled cheaper machetes, and the really thin knives. Personnel that were using these knives in everyday operations were not happy at all. One thing about the heavier blades they do tend to absorb some of the shock from blade impact, and the better handle materials, and designs cause less blisters from hot spots, and/or from the smooth plastic composites. Some of the cheaper machetes that are floating around have wooden handle that are coated with clear Shellac that is strictly for show. Just as inferior shovel handles, hammer handles, rake or axe handles are fire-streaked, and Shellacked so are the cheap machete handles. They look pretty, but they will cause severe blistering of the hands with any prolonged usage.
So with that here is what Cliff Stamp said about the fatigue rate, "In regards to design, wider blades (with the same stock thickness), can offer slimmer profiles, and thus give better cutting performance. They are also stiffer, which has advantages for thick wood work, and are heavier and thus offer more potential power.
However the extra weight makes the fatigue rate much greater for lighter vegetation,
"
I don't under stand the "lighter vegetation" quote, but I am sure Cliff will enlighten us on this.
end of part one........thank goodness!
