Why the change in size from RAT 7 to RC-6

A

ACHË

Joined
May 17, 2009
Messages
20
I'm still new here at ESEE knives forum, but have extensively used ontario made RAT knives and LOVED THE DESIGN.

While I have no experience with the new RC-6 yet(it's still in the mail), I really liked the RC 7. Although I did want the 7 to be a tad shorter, after watching a video of the RC-6 being used to chop, I cant help but think that the RAT 7 while only slightly longer, was a pretty impressive chopper for its size & weight.

Why was it shortened?
 
I don't know why, but I know I love my six. It's just about perfect without being too large
 
I don't think the RC-(ESEE)-6 was ever intended to be a direct copy of the Ontario rat-7. Rat Cutlery began with the RC-3 which was an incremental improvement in handle, fit and fitness and sheath system over the original design. The RC-4 was a completely new entry point, developed to satisfy the wilderness survival crowd with its longer length for batoning and thicker steel. The RC-4 was more an extension of the RC-3 platform and has little resemblance to the RC-5. Likewise, the RC-6 was developed to be a product that stood apart from RC-3, 4. A mid-size blade with superb balance to produce an incredibly lively blade that was still light weight and feels good on the hips. Again, a copy of the Rat-7 wasn't part of the impetus for its design.

While, chopping is not the RC-6's forte, it is more adept at controlled work with the point, carving and game processing while having sufficient length to baton wood. Designing a knife to be a good chopper always involves a lot of compromises. I'll take my scrapyard SOD for example. Here is a 7.5" blade that beats the pants off my longer and equally thick RD-9 at chopping. However, what makes it so good at chopping really destroys it for other tasks. The detail control of the SOD is horrid, it is sloppy and slow in the hand and brutish on the hips. For myself personally, I rarely actually chop with a knife when in the woods. I either baton them or far prefer to use a little folding saw. But that is just my perosnal style of things and probably one of the reasons why the RC-6 is one of my favorites as a camp knife.
 
Probably because knives of that size are crappy as choppers, so it was better to improve the balance and controllability.
 
Let's keep guessing, and getting more and more outlandish until Jeff can't take it, and tells us the real reason.


It's more fun that way. :D
 
R.A.T. said:
Because we wanted to???
Click to expand...

I love your design process. Don't change it. :D:thumbup:

I agree with Cpl Punishment. If you want a chopper, get a bona-fide chopper. The 6 is designed as an all-rounder that's able to do both rough and fine work reasonably well. Works for me. :)
 
I had a RAT 7 for a long time and liked it..... but I see the RAT7 as the Rough Draft version of the ESEE6 LOL
the ESEE6 is Great in Ergo's and size....etc. to many variables to compare ; both good designs but the ESEE6 is the better of the two
 
Last edited:
I think the balance in the hand is better on the 6
 
I tend to think of the ESEE-6 as more of a variation on the RAT-5. Kind of splits the difference between the RAT-7 and RAT-5, but when I look at the design, it seems to perfect the RAT-5 design which was kind of a stubby looking thing. The RAT-7 is almost an art knife design with more of a Brancusi look to it.
 
I agree that the RC-6 feels better balanced than the RAT-7. Seven inch blades tend to be marginal choppers anyway. That's why we must have the Junglas!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top