- Joined
- Aug 7, 2003
- Messages
- 3,330
The "What's Missing From The ESEE Line-up?" thread got me to thinking about what folks find desirable about different knife designs and also to wonder how it is that Mike and Jeff came by their expressed design preferences going all the way back to the Newt Livesay days.
To my way of thinking, the most "controversial" feature on the standard RC/ESEE knives is the choil and its relation to the handle. Some people love the choil, others are indifferent, and some dislike/despise it.
So I was curious how Mike & Jeff came to this preference for a choil/jimping combo. Some would say that a "power thumb" on the spine with a finger in the choil is actually a weaker and possibly more dangerous grip than having all fingers on the handle, however, the "short" handles of the RC-3 and 4 kind of make it snug for a traditional "power grip" for many larger handed folks. Another criticism is that the jimping and choil possibly weaken the blade with theoretical stress points, which are also a common reason to reject serrations too.
People who have handled it have criticized my personal RC-4 for its handle feeling "short." I have this feeling personally about the RC-3, which I have never liked for its overall "abbreviated" feeling in that it feels a smidge shorter in the grip than even the RC-4, though I have never taken measurements of both. As you might be able to tell, I have larger sized hands than most folks.
OTOH, knives like the TAK-1, the RAT-5, RAT-7, RC-5 and RC-6 all have "full size handles" respective to their OAL blade length and which serve to make the choil/jimping grip way more "optional." It also seems to be the case that the larger knives of the RAT/RC/ESEE lineage do away with the "flattened" slabs of the RC-3 and RC-4, for a more hand filling fit, but why is that? Are the "flatter" slabs for ease of carry for the smaller knives, which might not be belt mounted?
Some find the thinner slabs of the RC-3 and 4 to be too narrow, which I have read to mean too "rectangular" in cross section, which can make the knife feel as if it is trying to squirm in one's grip or raises the possibility of developing "hot spots."
I guess my main question here is why hasn't the TAK-1 been resurrected by ESEE? I think that just like the original Ontario collaboration, it offers a different enough utility blade package from the 3 & 4 to justify its existence. If it could be updated without the choil and spine jimping it would really differentiate itself from the current 3 & 4 too.
To my way of thinking, the most "controversial" feature on the standard RC/ESEE knives is the choil and its relation to the handle. Some people love the choil, others are indifferent, and some dislike/despise it.
So I was curious how Mike & Jeff came to this preference for a choil/jimping combo. Some would say that a "power thumb" on the spine with a finger in the choil is actually a weaker and possibly more dangerous grip than having all fingers on the handle, however, the "short" handles of the RC-3 and 4 kind of make it snug for a traditional "power grip" for many larger handed folks. Another criticism is that the jimping and choil possibly weaken the blade with theoretical stress points, which are also a common reason to reject serrations too.
People who have handled it have criticized my personal RC-4 for its handle feeling "short." I have this feeling personally about the RC-3, which I have never liked for its overall "abbreviated" feeling in that it feels a smidge shorter in the grip than even the RC-4, though I have never taken measurements of both. As you might be able to tell, I have larger sized hands than most folks.
OTOH, knives like the TAK-1, the RAT-5, RAT-7, RC-5 and RC-6 all have "full size handles" respective to their OAL blade length and which serve to make the choil/jimping grip way more "optional." It also seems to be the case that the larger knives of the RAT/RC/ESEE lineage do away with the "flattened" slabs of the RC-3 and RC-4, for a more hand filling fit, but why is that? Are the "flatter" slabs for ease of carry for the smaller knives, which might not be belt mounted?
Some find the thinner slabs of the RC-3 and 4 to be too narrow, which I have read to mean too "rectangular" in cross section, which can make the knife feel as if it is trying to squirm in one's grip or raises the possibility of developing "hot spots."
I guess my main question here is why hasn't the TAK-1 been resurrected by ESEE? I think that just like the original Ontario collaboration, it offers a different enough utility blade package from the 3 & 4 to justify its existence. If it could be updated without the choil and spine jimping it would really differentiate itself from the current 3 & 4 too.
