Randall knives--I just don't get it

Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh, and by the way, it's not strictly correct to say their stainless 440B. The carbon content is right on the borderline between 440B and 440C. Some are technically 440B, others are technically 440C, depending on the batch. Either way, it still holds its own against everything else out there (and I really mean everything).

And if you don't drool when you look at this, you have no soul:

picture.php
 
The "Astro" (now the model 17) went into space with all seven of the Mercury astronauts. It didn't go to the moon.
 
it's kinda like this--i was in my favorite gun stone in 1980 or so & was looking at the 20 gauge browning o/u used for 1200$. the owner said dennis look at this winchester o/us made in japan for 600$ they are brand new & a better gun than the browning was. i said well why do'nt i buy the used browning for 600$ & let someone else buy the winchester? the owner said people stand in line for a belgian browning & i replied that's why i was interested in the browning. many knives are slicker & perform better than randall but no other knife in the world is as desired & recoginized as a randall. in italy, germany, japan, norway, argentina, the congo etc every sportsman on earth knows the reputation of randall.
dennis
 
DennisStrickland said:
...i was in my favorite gun stone in 1980 or so & was looking at the 20 gauge browning o/u used for 1200$. the owner said dennis look at this winchester o/us made in japan for 600$ they are brand new & a better gun than the browning was.


...i said well why do'nt i buy the used browning for 600$ & let someone else buy the winchester?


...the owner said people stand in line for a belgian browning & i replied that's why i was interested in the browning.


... many knives are slicker & perform better than randall but no other knife in the world is as desired & recoginized as a randall. in italy, germany, japan, norway, argentina, the congo etc every sportsman on earth knows the reputation of randall...
Click to expand...




Very well stated my friend.








Big Mike
 
If I have to explain it, well you probaly would'nt understand anyways.
 
Randall knives are overpriced and the wait is just ridiculous. They remind me of the cheap pakistani knives sold at the swap meet, behind the times.
 
Samael said:
Oh, and by the way, it's not strictly correct to say their stainless 440B. The carbon content is right on the borderline between 440B and 440C. Some are technically 440B, others are technically 440C, depending on the batch. Either way, it still holds its own against everything else out there (and I really mean everything).

And if you don't drool when you look at this, you have no soul:

picture.php
Click to expand...

That's a great looking knife and I'm drooling for sure. I have no issues with 440x steels when properly done. I carry some older Kershaws (440a) and other brands in 440C regularly. However, to say even a very well done 440A or 440C steel will hold it's own against "everything" is wishful thinking at best.
 
These knives have a certain intangible "feel" to them that is lacking in the copies. I have several of the copies made in A-2 and I can feel the differences blindfolded (I've won more than one bet on this). I bought my first Mod. 1-7 in 1965 at the PX when in RVN.

The RC used to be about 56; yes that is soft by modern civilized standards, but when your life is on the line, a chipped or broken blade can cost you your life. It was also made that way to facilitate ease of sharpening, same reason.

These knives are no less reliable today; not everyone is enamored with the latest super steel. I have knives in VG-10, S30v, etc. and honestly they are more of a fad. You may notice that professional butchers, skinners, etc. use softer tempers on their knives for the same reasons. Other than rusting there is very little in improvement in steels over the likes of A-2, O-1 and 1095.

This edge holding business is interesting, so much work for so little results, it's been my experience that these super-steels hold their "hair-popping" edge very little longer than the older steels, but it takes so much longer to get it there.

So yes, the Randalls are worth it. I paid $75 for my first one.
Dan
 
Samael said:
Oh, and by the way, it's not strictly correct to say their stainless 440B. The carbon content is right on the borderline between 440B and 440C. Some are technically 440B, others are technically 440C, depending on the batch. Either way, it still holds its own against everything else out there (and I really mean everything).

And if you don't drool when you look at this, you have no soul:

picture.php
Click to expand...

They are no doubt some of the most beautiful knives ever made.
 
distinctive pieces of Americana and quality blades with excellent construction to boot.

The few in my collection are some of my most prized pieces.
 
ron_m80 said:
Handmade in America, by Americans. That $400 looks pretty cheap now doesn't it ;)
Click to expand...
not really
http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=754
http://www.dozierknives.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=frontpage&Itemid=1
http://www.burtfoster.com/hunters/hunter_04.htm
http://www.rakerknives.com/

etc.

Dan K said:
You may notice that professional butchers, skinners, etc. use softer tempers on their knives for the same reasons. Other than rusting there is very little in improvement in steels over the likes of A-2, O-1 and 1095.
Click to expand...
The steels commonly used do not achieve higher hardness, and most of the alloys were not developed for cutting edges to begin with. That includes A2, 1095, D2, 440 series, etc.

I think Randalls are like Harleys. They are not the best of the best, but they have good quality and a history. If you want something to use, you can save a lot of money and get the same or better performance. If you want something mass produced, but still collectible, they fit the bill.
 
H.H.
I beg to differ with you, 1095 is quite usable in Rc's from 45 to 62, for example.
I have no idea where you get your information, but there is much more to heat treat than hardness, if not done right in any given steel they can all chip or break at lower Rc's. The newer steels have a very narrow range. As for primary usages are concerned, BG-42, ATS-34 certainly were never intended for cutlery use. If a steel is hardenable at all, it can be hardened to Rc65 for example, how it will perform at that hardness is another matter.
Dan
 
Professional butchers these days don't use 1095, stainless is required. Gloves, hairnets, etc also come with the territory in most food handling environments. 420 and analogs in DIN, AFNOR, EN, et al don't get as hard as 1095 when quenched. Economy blades bought in bulk for mass processing are often left softer.

Hardness is the end goal for heat treating of martensitic steel. The blades are heat treated to created hardness by trapping the carbon atoms among the iron in a highly stressed body-centered tetragonal structure. Now, achieving that hardness without leaving carbides in the grain boundaries, blowing up the grain size, or other related issues is part of the science... but the end results is increasing the hardness of the steel over the annealed condition.

New alloys are developed to increase carbide fraction, impact toughness, usable hardness, etc. without significant sacrifices in other areas. 3V at 60 Rc scores about the same as 1095 at 50 Rc, except that is C-notch charpy for 3V and unnotched for 1095. Plus it is also several times more wear resistant.

1095 can be used at 62 Rc, but it has less wear and impact resistance at that hardness as compared to something like CPM-M4, Vanadis 4 Extra, PD #1, and others. It is absolutely true that how a steel performs at a given hardness is another matter. It is a matter addressed in industries much larger than sporting knives - with forces, pressures, speeds, and temperatures none of us can generate or withstand. What we need the steel in a knife to do is not so demanding compared to many other tool steel applications, but our blades are constructed from generally much thinner stock. The steels are absolutely better, but we don't necessarily need the improvements.
 
Samael said:
Oh, and by the way, it's not strictly correct to say their stainless 440B. The carbon content is right on the borderline between 440B and 440C. Some are technically 440B, others are technically 440C, depending on the batch. Either way, it still holds its own against everything else out there (and I really mean everything).

And if you don't drool when you look at this, you have no soul:

picture.php
Click to expand...

I guess I got soul. :cool:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top