Russian Shovel Comparison: Cold Steel vs. Original

Cooldill

BANNED
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
20
Hello all! :)

The following is a comparison of an original 1984 dated Soviet entrenching tool, and the Cold Steel Special Forces Shovel. This style of shovel has been used for decades by the Russian military, and takes the form of a short symmetrical shovel with a fixed blade attached to a wooden handle. They are an extremely useful piece of kit, not only usable in the primary role as an entrenching tool, but also capable of being a ferocious hand to hand melee weapon.

Let's look at these two designs sheathed, and discuss the sheaths:

20160324_154727.jpg


The Cold Steel version comes with a simple nylon sheath that is thick and strong, securing the shovel with two nylon straps that go over the shoulders of the shovel, held by snaps. It hols the shovel very well, and the shovel fits snugly inside. The edges are riveted and heavily built. A belt loop is attached at the bottom of the sheath.

The Russian variant in made from the typical greenish brown canvas that has been used for many years. A small black leather strap with buckle secures the shovel. The strap has three holes, and a metal retaining ring for the slack. The mouth of the sheath is reinforced with extra canvas. The Russian sheath has two belt loops made of heavy cotton webbing.

Of the two sheaths, both are very serviceable. I prefer the closure method of the Cold Steel variant but prefer the placement of the belt loops on the Russian sheath.

Now, let's check out the shovels themselves (front and back):

20160324_154949.jpg


20160324_155037.jpg


Cold Steel's shovel (unsheathed) measures in at a total length of 20.5"/52cm. The width at the widest point of the blade is just under 6"/15cm. The blade is sharpened from the factory and has quite a sharp edge, and is painted glossy black. The thickness of the blade is .082"/2mm. The handle is some kind of hardwood, with a straight even grain. It is 16"/40.6cm long and attaches to the blade with two large flat head Phillips wood screws. The handle is finished with what appears to be clear polyurethane, and has a swell near the bottom. Replacement handles are available if needed.

The original 1984 dated Soviet shovel (unsheathed) measures in at a total length of 20.25"/51.4cm, just under the Cold Steel shovel. The width of the blade at it's widest point measures just under 6"/15cm, identical to Cold Steel. The Russian blade is not sharpened and is painted matte black. The thickness of the blade is also right at .082"/2mm, identical to Cold Steel's product. It should be noted than in it's advertising, Cold Steel claims there blade is "twice as thick" as an original Russian variant, which may be true of some production runs but not this 1984 dated one. The handle is 15.275"/39mm long. made of an unknown wood, perhaps teak, and seems to be oil stained. It uses smaller wood screws to attach to the blade. Also, the swell at the bottom of the handle is more pronounced than Cold Steel's.

Compared, both shovels seem to be of the same weight and balance the same in the hand. I prefer the feel of the handle on the Russian variant. It is rougher, and the swell near the bottom of the handle allows for a more positive grip. The slick polyurethane on the Cold Steel shovel doesn't offer as good of a grip but it's not bad. The Cold Steel does have the benefit of a factory-sharpened blade that is quite good, but will chip and dent if abused on something other than wood and dirt (guilty as charged :eek:). It makes chopping and cutting tasks much easier as you can imagine, and is beneficial for defensive use.

Really, you can't go wrong with either of these great shovels. The Cold Steel shovel can be had for less than $20 USD without the sheath. With the sheath, expect to pay as little as $25 if you shop around. Original Russian issue shovels are more expensive, but still affordable. eBay is a great source and you can get unissued examples in the $50-$60 range or even quite a bit less if you catch a deal. If think it's worth it for the collector's value and "cool factor", but as a used the Cold Steel is every bit as good.

Both of these shovels are extremely well constructed, and are incredibly tough. This design is very practical, both as a tool and a weapon. They are useful for everything from chopping down small trees and clearing light brush, digging yourself a slit trench, to defending yourself from attack. They are ideal to throw in the trunk or in a backpack. If you don't own one of these, I highly recommend getting one.

Thanks all! :D
 
Thank you! I had never considered a small shovel for any purpose other than digging. What's the weight of these?
 
I keep a folding US army shovel/pick behind the seat of my truck. But for hiking I want something much lighter than an entrenching tool.
 
I still think the rear-turned steps are a major shortcoming of the design. Forward turned steps or bust.
 
I still think the rear-turned steps are a major shortcoming of the design. Forward turned steps or bust.

Agreed. It's the only way.

The Russian unit has an overall look of quality that the Cold Steel unit lacks. And I would wager that it has better steel. The one thing the Soviets took seriously was equipping their military.
 
Nice review! I was going through an entrenching tool phase a while back (not sure if it ended really) and I picked up one of the Russian shovels from ebay. I have not used it yet but I like the feel of it. Shovels are like axes, before you know it there is a stack of them in the corner of the shop. :)
 
Russian surplus shovels can be had on ebay now for $15 + $15 shipping from several vendors.
 
Love these! I, too, have a Romanian military one, made in the 50s, wouldn't trade it with a Cold Steel one. It is a surprisingly versatile tool. I just need to put a better edge on it.
 
Got the CS with sheath for 15 bucks. It looks like the CS is welded and the rusky is folded. I'd choose Thompson over gorbachev any day haha.
 
I still think the rear-turned steps are a major shortcoming of the design. Forward turned steps or bust.

It can't happen due to 2 things.
1. That army shovel is supposed to be worn on belt, in the back, handle down. To have an edge toward you if you need to roll on your back - yes, infantry rolls - is pia.
2. The main reason to exist is to dig using your hands while laying down under fire or in a location where standing makes you a target. Try to do that with reverse rear and count the wounds on your wrists.
For peace time, yes, what you want might make sense - but not for what were created.
 
It can't happen due to 2 things.
1. That army shovel is supposed to be worn on belt, in the back, handle down. To have an edge toward you if you need to roll on your back - yes, infantry rolls - is pia.
2. The main reason to exist is to dig using your hands while laying down under fire or in a location where standing makes you a target. Try to do that with reverse rear and count the wounds on your wrists.
For peace time, yes, what you want might make sense - but not for what were created.

In that particular carry position I can understand the reasoning, but in use it causes big issues. Better to avoid steps at all in that circumstance--as described in your second point--because rear-turned steps cause clearance issues when digging any lower than the depth of the blade.
 
Try it without steps for 2nd point. Standard position is you on your side - you will see why a rolled edge toward rear is better than having no steps at all. Clearance is the last thing you think of.
PS If you dig 20cm deep for the whole body length you are OK most of the time. I don't talk about digging the hole and testing it with a Tank to see if it was deep enough.
 
Last edited:
In much of Europe shovels without steps are the norm, and if one is desired then they have ones that clamp to the neck of the tool. If you aren't up on your feet, though, as you've suggested, then there's little reason to have a step at all. In most circumstances rear-turned steps are done as a cost-cutting measure on account of it being able to be done in a single forming stage, while forward-turned require a second stage. Again, I can understand wanting to use rearward steps if the tool was carried in that specific location rather than on the pack at all, and if--additionally--any digging was to be done whilst standing. But in your second point you asserted that the user would not normally be standing, and so I'm saying that in such a circumstance the steps would be a nuisance with no perceivable benefit and one would be better off entirely without them if that were so.

Maybe I'm not understanding you, but if you're laying on your side, just how are you getting any benefit from the steps?
 
I've found the utility of a folding pick/shovel to be more useful. The pick is necessary for harder ground. And the ability to set the shovel at 90° and use it as a hoe is invaluable. Even the vintage Korean made pick/shovel is quite good. I'd take it in a heartbeat over the Russian or Cold Steel units.
 
I dug my fair share of hastys and foxholes with an E-tool. I agree with S Square_peg that the ability to make it a hoe is nice. It sucks when they (E-tool types) get "stuck" in position in the field.
 
Back
Top