Why don't companies like Randall and and Mercworx make coated blades?

Walking Man

Walking Man

BANNED
Joined
May 28, 2003
Messages
9,606
If you've been here any time at all, I'm sure you've heard about the Army's, or marines, or any military's requirements (or at least commanded by certain officers) that the blades carried MUST be of a non reflective nature, which REALLY makes me wonder why companies that make fighting knives do not make them with non reflective coatings?
Ideas, anyone?
 
I have never heard of a requirement that "fighting" knives have a non-reflective coating. If there were such a requirement, it would apply primarily to the less expensive, issue type of knives, like the generic Ka-Bar.

Companies that make high-dollar knives are not targeting the mass market and will rarely be taken in harm's way, anyway. Why beat up a Randall or lose a Mercworx when you can pick up a replacement SRK for pocket change?
 
Esav Benyamin said:
I have never heard of a requirement that "fighting" knives have a non-reflective coating. If there were such a requirement, it would apply primarily to the less expensive, issue type of knives, like the generic Ka-Bar.
Click to expand...
A number of people who claim that they are military personal say that non reflective knife are often, if not mostly required. This may not be as much of a hard and fast rule and is probably not even "on the record", rather these are orders made by military officers, or whoever is in charge.
 
Esav Benyamin said:
Why beat up a Randall or lose a Mercworx when you can pick up a replacement SRK for pocket change?
Click to expand...
Answer: reliabililty! I truly believe that a Randall (or most high quality knives) have a much higher QC when it comes to heat treating, and making sure that the knives will live up to their namesake.
 
The officers may be following the example of what they've seen, since the older, high carbon blades were generally parkerized or coated to prevent corrosion. Uncoated stainless blades can be bead-blasted to reduce reflection, but this wouldn't occur to non-knife people who aren't familiar with the real requirements.

Once it gets to be a habit, seeing coated blades, urban legendry takes over and provides as many rationales as possible. :)

But it would still apply to the blades people take into a war zone, and I just don't believe many really expensive knives are affordable on military pay scales. Companies like CRK and Strider may be something of an exception, since they target the military with expensive offerings, but I don't know how many they actually sell to the lower ranks.
 
Walking Man said:
Answer: reliabililty!
Click to expand...
Becker, Cold Steel, Ranger Knives, Ontario, Ka-Bar. Maybe not up to CRK or Strider or Randall or Mercworx but ... close enough for government work.

What do you think most soldiers do with big fixed blades? Leave them behind when they're already carrying too much weight. That's why folders and mutitools and SAKs sell so well.
 
Walking Man said:
A number of people who claim that they are military personal say that non reflective knife are often, if not mostly required. This may not be as much of a hard and fast rule and is probably not even "on the record", rather these are orders made by military officers, or whoever is in charge.
Click to expand...

There is no requirement that military personnel carry non-reflective blades. Whoever told you that is undoubtedly wrong. I carried whatever knife I was able to, coated or not. I have never even heard of unit commanders making that a requirement. In truth most units discourage the carrying of a large fixed blade.
 
K.V.C. not necessarily true that "no" commanders require non-reflective. Some do.

My experience is that with the Randall #1, the brass hilt usually "subdued" itself over time with tarnish. If not, one of the companies providing "cold blue" for firearms also had a brass subduing liquid. Cold blue would always work on a non-stainless blade. The aluminum buttcap was the tricky one. I used to use a piece of electrician's tape, or even a piece of "hundred mile an hour" tape (the better, military version of duct tape). I never cold blued the blade because most of the concern about shiney stuff occured when carrying the knife, not when using it.

...but the answer to Walking Man's question as to why the manufacturers don't subdue their knives is there is not a universal requirement to have a subdued knife, and there are as many ways to do so as there are knives.
 
There's only so much weight you want to carry when you're loaded like a pack mule with equipment based on the worse case scenario from a supply and acquisition system historically biased to over do it. Then you move out to the field where the chance of encountering artillery fire is remote, NBC even less, and you can't leave anything in a vehicle. Then the commander ( I've done this at the Co. and squad level ) knows he can't have soldiers drop the gear they don't need before deployment because we train like we fight.

I never took my $300 Randall to the field just to chop tree roots - e-tools are better, and I'm grateful those were only available when I had to dig. I doesn't take a Randall to open an MRE, a stick will scrape mud off your boots, ammo crates can be opened by cutting the seals with pliers and unwired by fingers alone, the same pliers will fix the plastic locks on camo netting, mallets are available for pounding tent pegs, and a good pair of scissors on a SAK pretty much covers the rest.
The myth that "the commander requires this or that" comes from good NCO's who try to keep the newbies from hurting themselves with bad choices. My problem with commanders lies with the ones who micromanage so severely they don't let the troops have bolts in their weapons training in the field. I guess it's a conflict of interest in medical units - whose soldiers seemed to have some really nifty knives on them.
I've been criticized for having non-subdued keys on my 'biner . . . .
 
K.V. Collucci said:
There is no requirement that military personnel carry non-reflective blades. Whoever told you that is undoubtedly wrong. I carried whatever knife I was able to, coated or not. I have never even heard of unit commanders making that a requirement. In truth most units discourage the carrying of a large fixed blade.
Click to expand...


I agree thats utter bullshit.

I cant recall ever even hearing of anytihng where a reflective blade has done any harm. There are many thing son you that are shiny: scopes, watchfaces....ETC. The knife would be carried in a sheath anways so it wouldnt be out unless you where using it. Some-ones feeding you a load of bull.:barf:
 
Well, things change to be sure, and I've been out of the Army for many years (ETSed in 1992), but I have never heard of any commander requiring blades to be coated or subdued.

But if it were were required, then nothing would prevent the Soldier from simply painting the blade OD green or black or grey or whatever color was required.

A thin coating of paint will not affect the intended use of a knife in combat.
Besides, after alot of field use, especially in the desert, coatings get scratched and worn off rather quickly.

Allen.
 
Blade I have never heard about, but I have had commanders have us cover up any shiny metallic items on our persons with 100MPH tape.
 
Esav, you may be right that the price and the waiting list have driven Randalls out of the market where the GI can afford one. That is a damned shame when you consider the history of Randall Knives and how they were the choice of knowledgeable American soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen through three wars. They were even the choice for America's early spacemen. It's a damned shame that the colloectors have driven the market so high that the person for whom Bo Randall originalloy intended his knives cannot afford them.
 
FullerH said:
Esav, you may be right that the price and the waiting list have driven Randalls out of the market where the GI can afford one.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I have to disagree. How long does a serviceman spend in basic and advance training? 6 months? If they can't save enough during that time..... Say $600 bucks..... then they are doing something wrong.
 
It's not the price itself, it's the spending on a non-essential item. Randalls are priced as collectors, not users. There are too many much less expensive knives that will do a fine job in their own right, and can be replaced on loss or damage.
 
Walking Man said:
Sorry, I have to disagree. How long does a serviceman spend in basic and advance training? 6 months? If they can't save enough during that time..... Say $600 bucks..... then they are doing something wrong.
Click to expand...

Have you been in the military? As a new recruit you get paid squat. As a Senior Airman (3 years in) I was getting paid $438 a month. Can you imagine what I was making as an Airman Basic? $250 a month. I had car insurance, a car payment, and other bills from home. A Randall was out of the question. A Cold SRK was ballpark but I had to save for that. I agree that collectors have pretty much killed the chances of a serviceman getting a quality knife in a Randall.
 
In the army you can get by with a multitool, easily.
As a PVT, especially if you have a family, no way can you afford to spend 600 on a knife. Especially when they dont use one as much as you think they would. It just isnt worth it.

As an officer, I can afford alot more, but I still have to worry about rent, gas, utilities, car payments and gas. Granted its alot less to worry about then some people, but spending 600 on a knife is something I would definitely have to think about and cut corners on other expenditures.
 
The question I have is have is would a Randall for example serve a soldier better then a Cold steel? That seems like it might be true but is there any proof?
 
An interesting question. Begging the next, why even use a straight blade in the field when the average trooper is overequipped with other tools?

Unless your MOS requires serious bushcraft, a large field knife is redundant, as pointed out earlier. Most troops don't use theirs - ref: the Civil War comment on large bowies. Historians and accurate reenactors know that fad died once you hit the long march. Clasp knives and short 4" utility knives were much more predominant, and the today's soldier is no different.

Another point is that once the large knife was no longer a self defense tool, the experts at bushcraft shrank it down to a reasonable size and debated the use of the axe. leaving us the Nesmuk and others as an example of useful knives for the field.

I like and own a Randall and other camp knives, but they stayed home when I went to the field, especially when I had gained some experience, and that's what I saw others do, too.

I would like to hear from troops in Afghanistan what tasks they use their large knives for on a daily basis, coated blade or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top