Orca 2.0 Vs iMamba (vs OG Orca in Addendum)

Tsujigiri

Tsujigiri

Gold Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
3,036
I couldn't find much info comparing these two, so when an opportunity popped up on the forum to add a complement to my iMamba, I jumped on it. My understanding is that the Orca 2.0 is made in very small batches by Arno Sr., whereas the iMamba is made by his sons. The iMamba is an iteration that draws from the original Orca, and the Orca 2.0 seems to draw from both the first Orca and the iMamba.

The most obvious difference between these concurrent models is the swell at the end of the Orca 2.0's handle. In a regular grip, the knife feels noticeably more "locked-in." The iMamba, on the other hand, works better in reverse grips for push cuts.

The Orca 2.0 also has a shorter blade groove paired with a milled fuller that extends all the way to the tang. I haven't found a purpose for this feature other than filling the negative space on the closed blade and looking good; it doesn't work for thumb opening. The iMamba hole is also positioned better to middle finger flick the knife open, whereas on the Orca 2.0 I have to adjust a bit since it's shorter.

Another notable difference is that the Orca 2.0 has a finger choil. My fingers are pretty slim and the choil fits me perfectly, but YMMV if you have thicker fingers. The flipper on the Orca 2.0 is also much lower profile and angled differently. If you push into the handle when pushing the flipper, they both work well but the O2 is less likely to snag in the pocket. The O2 also has additional bevelling on the inside of the handles just before the thumb ramp, which works as both a landing pad for your finger when you use the flipper and as a place to put your thumb.

The iMamba has something like T20 screws on the pivot, which is a bit of an annoyance since you need two of these drivers to open the knife. The Orca 2.0 fixes that issue, but I do prefer the look of the iMamba pivot. I haven't disassembled the Orca yet, but when I did with the iMamba it made me really appreciate the tolerances.

They did something a little different for the lanyard on the Orca 2.0, instead of a hole in the handles you have a backspacer with a recessed path for the lanyard. If you don't use a lanyard, the lines of the iMamba are cleaner, but if you do the Orca 2.0 has a better system IMO.

Finally, the lockbar cutout is very rounded on the iMamba, something that I really liked. This takes a lot more machining time and ensures there are no snags around the clip. The Orca 2.0 isn't as nicely rounded, but enough to prevent snags.

Overall, these are much more similar than I thought they would be, and the action feels about the same. I'd say the iMamba is a little sleeker and more minimalist, but the Orca 2.0 has a few usability features that I really appreciate. My particular iMamba is also polished RWL34, which is a more elegant counterpoint to the Orca 2.0's harder wearing stonewashed M390. The Orca 2.0, then, will probably be more of my daily user and the iMamba can be a more dressy knife for special occasions.

20250226_163813.jpg20250226_163708.jpg
 
Last edited:
madcap_magician said:
Thanks for the comparison! I had it in my head that the Orca was a lot bigger than the iMamba for some reason.

To me these look exactly like the mythical CRK flipper if CRK every made one, and I'm totally here for it.
Click to expand...

I just looked it up and you're right, apparently the first Orca was a little bigger. It would have been nice if they continued that trend to differentiate it more, but honestly the size of these knives is kind of perfect for a gentleman's folder. It's about as compact as you can get while still able to perform regular tasks without feeling at all cramped.
 
One side note, for the iMamba, they red loctite one side, so you should only have to unscrew one side of the pivot. I've never needed multiple buts at the same time to take mine down.
 
Tsujigiri said:
I couldn't find much info comparing these two, so when an opportunity popped up on the forum to add a complement to my iMamba, I jumped on it. My understanding is that the Orca 2.0 is made in very small batches by Arno Sr., whereas the iMamba is made by his sons. The iMamba is an iteration that draws from the original Orca, and the Orca 2.0 seems to draw from both the first Orca and the iMamba.

The most obvious difference between these concurrent models is the swell at the end of the Orca 2.0's handle. In a regular grip, the knife feels noticeably more "locked-in." The iMamba, on the other hand, works better in reverse grips for push cuts.

The Orca 2.0 also has a shorter blade groove paired with a milled fuller that extends all the way to the tang. I haven't found a purpose for this feature other than filling the negative space on the closed blade and looking good; it doesn't work for thumb opening. The iMamba hole is also positioned better to middle finger flick the knife open, whereas on the Orca 2.0 I have to adjust a bit since it's shorter.

Another notable difference is that the Orca 2.0 has a finger choil. My fingers are pretty slim and the choil fits me perfectly, but YMMV if you have thicker fingers. The flipper on the Orca 2.0 is also much lower profile and angled differently. If you push into the handle when pushing the flipper, they both work well but the O2 is less likely to snag in the pocket. The O2 also has additional bevelling on the inside of the handles just before the thumb ramp, which works as both a landing pad for your finger when you use the flipper and as a place to put your thumb.

The iMamba has something like T20 screws on the pivot, which is a bit of an annoyance since you need two of these drivers to open the knife. The Orca 2.0 fixes that issue, but I do prefer the look of the iMamba pivot. I haven't disassembled the Orca yet, but when I did with the iMamba it made me really appreciate the tolerances.

They did something a little different for the lanyard on the Orca 2.0, instead of a hole in the handles you have a backspacer with a recessed path for the lanyard. If you don't use a lanyard, the lines of the iMamba are cleaner, but if you do the Orca 2.0 has a better system IMO.

Finally, the lockbar cutout is very rounded on the iMamba, something that I really liked. This takes a lot more machining time and ensures there are no snags around the clip. The Orca 2.0 isn't as nicely rounded, but enough to prevent snags.

Overall, these are much more similar than I thought they would be, and the action feels about the same. I'd say the iMamba is a little sleeker and more minimalist, but the Orca 2.0 has a few usability features that I really appreciate. My particular iMamba is also polished RWL34, which is a more elegant counterpoint to the Orca 2.0's harder wearing stonewashed M390. The Orca 2.0, then, will probably be more of my daily user and the iMamba can be a more dressy knife for special occasions.

View attachment 2803283View attachment 2803284
Click to expand...
Excellent detailed comparison/review
 
Ok so madcap_magician madcap_magician just had to tip me off to the fact that the original Orca was larger, which got me interested in finding one of these. I read somewhere that they only made about 200 of the original Orca, but I got lucky and was able to snap one up from a nice forum member here.

Now that I have the full trifecta, I'll cap off my comparison review. The OG Orca is certainly larger, more in feel than appearance. It has almost exactly the same blade and handle length as the CRK large Sebenza, but it feels larger in the hand and pocket since the blade and handle are taller and thicker. The newer AB knives are kind of a Goldilocks size for the most people, but I like the way the OG Orca feels in the hand. However, I don't prefer that the blade is significantly thicker than any of the others, including the large Sebenza.

I would say that the machining has come a long way on the newer AB knives. The OG Orca has noticeable machining marks in the fuller and on the clip, and more chatter on the bevels and lockbar cutout. It also doesn't have the small chamfers on the blade and the inside of the handles. I think with these earlier Orcas, they had to break edges and clean up a lot of things. For instance, the crowning on the spine doesn't have the crisp transition at the jimping seen on the newer AB's and CRK's, suggesting that the operation was done freehand. I wouldn't be surprised if these were more time-consuming to make, but only the Bernards would know that. I did note that this model has both the highly polished blade finish and the harder M390 steel, which must have been a lot of work.

The jimping on the OG all around is much coarser and more abrasive, and the fuller has a sharper edge than the blade cutout currently being used. Both work well for reverse flicking, but the fuller works a lot better for slow-rolling the blade open with your thumb (might also be because the taller blade protrudes from the handle more for easier access). I like that they took the extra effort to make the cutout on the newer knives, but less of a chamfer on the outer edge would give people more opening options.

The clip works well, but is much blockier than the design on the newer models. There's a little gap between the clip and the frame, and the base doesn't perfectly fit the pocket in the frame, so you can wiggle it up and down a little. The newer AB clips are, in my opinion, the best of both worlds between a milled and stamped clip.

One big negative for the OG Orca is that the lock face is pretty heavily radiused, which results in lock rock. It doesn't fail with light pressure on the spine, but I don't think it's the most secure framelock, and it does fail the spine whack test.

This model also has a different style of bearing. I'm not sure what they're called, but they're the caged ball bearings where the cage is thin stamped sheetmetal instead of a solid disc like on the newer knives. It's a lot more drop-shut and freer swinging, but also has kind of a rattle in the action that's typical for this style of bearing. The hydraulic close of the newer knives feels more premium IMO.

Overall, I would say that the OG Orca feels beefier and more handmade. The Bernards have made significant refinements on the newer knives, but the original has a lot of character and is something exclusive and special for an AB collector. I'd probably recommend the Orca 2.0 for people who use their knives for a lot of work, the iMamba for someone looking for something a little more refined, and the OG Orca for a collector who gravitates towards oddities and rarities.


20250611_170812.jpg20250611_171000.jpg
 
On a side note, since I realized it's not too apparent from the photos, the original Orca is more of a glass blast on the handle whereas the newer knives are sandblasted. Also, the finish on the OG Orca is actually noticeably more polished than on the iMamba, which is even more impressive considering that M390 is more difficult to work. Although I did state that I would have preferred the blade be thinner on the OG, I've used it a little on cardboard and the hollow grind slices very nicely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top