Ouch. The SRKC HCLE is one of the few from them I own and don't like much. That blade should have/could have been 4". Eric produced a few 4" HCLE's that sold at Blade, but I could not get ahold of one. Maybe one day I'll sell the 3.5" HC, but it's tough for me to part with any steel. Not counting the metallurgy (154CM), it's the knife that should have...for it's given purpose.

I have both the 3.5" and 4.0" HCLE's and I do prefer the 4.0". But, I think they are both good as far as "blades" go.

My issue with the HCLE is the handle. It is just too short for me and doesn't quite fit my hand or feel good in my hand. Also, neither the 3.5" or 4.0" HCLE need a choil. They both would be WAY better with a longer better fitting handle and no choil..... That is what the Vex offers! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbup.gif" alt="" />

The Vex has about the same blade length as the HCLE 4.0 - the Vex actually has about a 3/32" longer blade (just under 1/8"). But, without the choil, even with more blade, the Vex offers a much better fitting handle length while still being shorter oal.

Outside of the handle, it is actually amazing how close the 4.0" HCLE to the SS4. There are a LOT of similarities between the HCLE's blade and the SS4's blade. Same length from choil to tip, same edge shape/curve and just small differences in grind height and spine shape that are less a factor.
So, I can't bash the HCLE's blade and I actually feel the choil on the HCLE is even a bit better than the SS4's. Further, the HCLE was satin, which I WAY prefer (although, my SS4 is now satin after a LOT of work.)

But, the SS4 has a handle that FITS!!!!... feels good, balances well, etc.

And without a handle that fits or feels right, the HCLE in either sized blade just can't do it for me. And I don't see a worthwhile solution for fixing either handle. I would have to grind the tang down to make it hiden or partially hidden and completely rebuild the scales.... which isn't going to happen.

For some reason, I can't sell my HCLE's either. But, neither is a user and I don't see either being used. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />


The HCLE reminds me of the Fehrman Peace Maker (which I sold one I had) - Great build quality and finish, good blade shape and design, great steel (I might slightly prefer 3V over 154CM for some reasons), but Fehrman's small handles doen't fit me worth a FLIP!
Conversely, Fehrman's Last Chance (which I also sold the one I had) has a very nice and comfortable handle, but REDICULOUSLY big and chunky for it's blade length. And VERY handle heavy - which I personally hated in the Swamp Rat M6. And NEVER was interested in the ASH1CG or BATACLE which are also to heavy/chunky vs. size for my preferences. IMO the handle on the Last Chance is suited for a VERY large chopper - such as the Final Judgement (probably - as I don't have the Final Judgement and have never handled. But, it seems like an ideal handle size for a large chopper - NOT for a 5.5" bladed CHUNKY-as-heck knife - IMO).


For comparison:

Fehrman Last Chance = 16.0 ounces; .25" thick; 5.5" blade; 11.0" oal

----------------

Similar Busse overly HEAVY "TANK"/Anchor knives:

BATAC-LE.......= 16.3 ounces; .25” thick; 5.00” blade; 10.75” oal
M6.............= 16.2 ounces; .235" thick; 6" blade; 11.68" oal
ASH1 – CG......= 21.0 ounces; 0.320” thick; 6.4” blade; 12.0” oal

---------------

Other much more reasonable proportioned knives:

S5CG................. = 6.75 ounces; .185” thick; 5.125” blade; 10.125” oal
Ratmandu (G10)........= 11.0 ounces; .189" thick; 5.3125" blade; 10.5" oal
Ratmandu (micarta)....= 10.0 ounces; .189" thick; 5.3125" blade; 10.5" oal

SAR5................. = 11.0 ounces; 0.200” thick, 5.0” blade; 10.0” oal

Desert Jack (stripped)= 10.0 ounces; .175” thick; 6.0” blade; 11.25” oal

DMCG..................= 9.0 ounces; .270" thick; 5.25" blade; 9.75" oal

Scrapper 6 LE.........= 12.7 ounces; .268" thick; 6.25" blade; 11.44" oal

SJTAC(stripped)...... = 13.0 ounces; .187” thick; 6.375” blade; 11.875” oal

Skinny ASH (ASH1).....= 15.25 ounces; .1875” thick; 6.4” blade; 12.0” oal



IMO, Fehrman would make great knives if he could get his handle sized and general proportions sized right. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" /> - and the HCLE is an unfortunate casualty of an undersized handle that just does NOT work for me.

If the HCLE had the handle length of the HRLM, but slimmed down a bit in width and height, the HCLE would have been great.

As is, the Vex BLOWS the HCLE away for me. The Vex's handle fits and feel great even if slender in width. The Vex is veyr confortable. And I actually prefer the Vex's blade shape and more dropped point / shallower bellied edge. The Vex just works: Great design, GREAT Fit, Feel Finish and ergos, great balance, nice weight, good steel and it is "ALL knife", no waste. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbup.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/bowdown.gif" alt="" />

For a smaller Busse and kin knife, I have not seen any better than the Vex. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbup.gif" alt="" />

But, for the next size up and a bit more all-rounder, I think the S5 might be the new champ! .... until Jerry makes a skeletonized handled RMD in SR-101 with more dropped point. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbup.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crossfingers.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crossfingers.gif" alt="" />


..... or make the SHBA with-OUT a choil and with a skeletonized tang!!! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ooo.gif" alt="" />

Normal choil at top and IMPROVED/Fixed version at bottom. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbup.gif" alt="" />




.... The SHBA concept without choil and skeletonized tange and the RMD with skeletonized tang and dropped point (both in SATIN) are two Grail knives HIGH on my list. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crossfingers.gif" alt="" />

.

Rat Jack and Bog Dog II look SUPER! Those are great concepts. Your like reading my mind! Yes, skeletonize - even simplified holes could work well.

I never really got to see any good pics of the vex so I stayed away from it, now after seeing your pics KG. that looks like the blade I'm after, so I guess my search is on, I had a chance at the ganza but didn't take it from what I saw of it before, I have the 3.5 HC and want just a little bit more blade. So thanks for the pics. I do want a vex now!

SR-77 is better for that...try making a hole like this with the S5. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

KnifeGuy, both of those blades pictured remind me a bit of the SAR4s. Personally, I am not big on choils. I do see how they "can" make sharpening easier.

The reason I sold my Game Warden is because the choil was always snagging on tissue when cleaning deer. The year I had the GW, it was used on around 10-15 deer and when you're cold bloody and tired the little things like snagging kinda grate on you.

I wish maybe I would have just kept it for an EDC though sometimes. But again, a folder works for most my day-to-day GW sized tasks. The SAR4 would be about the best all around hunter Busse has made IMHO. We will see...

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> ... Which "Both"????? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />


Are you talking about both SHBA's: one with choil as produced and my photo-chopped modified version without?


Seems like a small modification and they are pretty similar. But, the "Improvement" is HUGE IMO. I am not even sure if I would be interested in the SHBA at a GOOD price if it had the sharpening choil. Whereas I would be ALL OVER the SHBA with no choil. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbup.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crossfingers.gif" alt="" />




If so, I agree to some extent:

Not my pics, I don't own either, but somebody else (can't remember whom I harvested these pics from) thinks the SAR4 could be converted into something similar to the SHBA.






...... Only problem is that it looks like it would be hard to get rid of the choil. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

.... But, at least by removing a LOT of the handle, the mods would improve the weight and balance of the SAR4. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbup.gif" alt="" />

I personally WAY prefer the SHBA over the SAR4. But, STILL don't want the choil.





Hmmm, I must need therapy..... for me, just seeing that dang choil in pictures and "Thinking" about it GRATES on me. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />


Personally, I HATE small non-functioning choils that are only intended for sharpening and not big enough for a finger choil - ESPECIALLY on smaller knives.

I WISH Jerry would change his fixation on these sharpening choils on smaller knives. Just drop them period. And if a "Finger" choil is justified on "Larger" knives, fine, but make it functional and preferably closer into the handles. Many of the choils on larger knives have historically been pretty far out from the handle and eating into the functional blade - which is a double-negative. Too much reach when choked up doesn't feel as natural <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbdn.gif" alt="" /> and too much wasted blade. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbdn.gif" alt="" />

I guess if sharpening on a stone or similar, a sharpening choil might be something "Some" people want.

*** BUT, Jerry's sharpening choils are WAY too large for just sharpening choil and yet still way too small for finger choils on certain knives like the AD, GW, Meaner, SAR4, SHBA and many others.

And "I" would STILL rather NOT have a sharpening choil and I personally don't find a need for a sharpening choil.

Sharpening choil pros:

1) Helps prevent rubbing stone, belt, strop or similar sharpening device up against guard. ... THAT IS IT! No other pros! ... Not even aesthetics IMO if designed well. I think my photo-chopped/modified concept of the SHBA looks WAY nicer than the actual knife with sharpening choil.
Similarly, I think my photo-chopped/modified concept of the AD without choil looks WAY better (AND more functional!!! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbup.gif" alt="" />)



But, I would MUCH Rather deal with some rubbing when sharpening and scratches caused by such. If I intend to use the knife (which is the "Idea"!! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" /> , the improved functionality of the knife is MUCH greater value than the annoyance of some rub marks on my guard on a "USER". I have a LOT of knives where the sharpened edge goes right to the plunge line. Over time, typically the edge at the plunge line gets a little sharpened radius at the plunge line. So what!..... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> - Still cuts GREAT!... and doesn't snag.

If the plunge line AND sharpened edge were to go right up to the guard (or Talon Hole) like on my photo-chopped SHBA, the guard/Talon Hole serves as a stop/guide for the material when push cutting and a stop that doesn't snag in most other cutting situations. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbup.gif" alt="" />

Sharpening choil cons (WAY more Cons than Pros and each cone individually outweighs the single pro of a sharpening choil IMO):
1) Snags material when slice cutting as it rides up and fall into choil
2) Or similarly, but still Snags material when you are push cutting up close to blade that falls into choil <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />
3) Wastes otherwise useful blade area
3) Pushes sharpened blade area too far away from grip - ESPECIALLY Jerry's over-sized sharpening choils! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/banghead.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/barf.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />



The GW, AD, Meaner and even the SAR4 should NOT have "Sharpening" choils AT ALL - IMO.

The GW and AD with their short blades should not have ANY choil period.

I personally feel the Meaner, SAR4 and SHBA would be better served without ANY type of choil at all, but I can appreciate where some people might like a useable finger choil to choke up on. The SAR4 is debatable. A finger choil might be fine if the Talon Hole were dropped (or considerably smaller) and it had a "Small" guard.

The SS4 is basically a Meaner with a usable finger choil (The SS4 is WAY BETTER than the Meaner IMO!)
And the SAR4 is jut about as long in blade as the S5 which has a finger choil.

The SHBA is 4.5" in blade and I think it would be better without a choil.

The RMD has a 5.25" blade. I think I might drop the point on my RMD to be more like my S5. When I drop my RMD's tip, I will loose right at about 0.25" and my modified RMD will have RIGHT at the same blade length as my S5.

I will take either the S5 or RMD ANY Day and EVERY day over the SAR4 or SHBA if those Busse's have the over-sized sharpening choil - which they do. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/banghead.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/barf.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

I passed on the SAR4 mainly because of the choil: too large for a sharpening choil and to small for a finger choil.
But, while I have not handled the SAR4, I am concerned about the handle size, weight and balance.
From comparing pics of the SAR4 to the RMD and knowing how well the RMD's handle feels and balances, I am quite concerned that the SAR4's handle will be too heavy for my preferences.

In comparing dimensions:

Ratmandu (micarta)....= 10.0 ounces; .189" thick; 5.3125" blade; 10.5" oal
Ratmandu (G10)........= 11.0 ounces; .189" thick; 5.3125" blade; 10.5" oal

SAR4 LE (micarta).....= 14.0 ounces; .220" thick; 4.875" blade; 10.75" oal
SAR4 LE (G10).........= 15.0 ounces; .220" thick; 4.875" blade; 10.75" oal

So, about a 1/2" shorter blade and still 0.25" longer oal. Some of that is RMD with "Functional" finger choil vs. SAR4 with worthless sharpening choil. But, most is LONG and HEAVY handle in the SAR4. Also, the .220" tang is going to add a lot of weight in the handle. Based on specs and pics, it seems obvious the SAR4's handle is WAY heavier than the RMD's.



Then if that wasn't enough, I saw pics of the SAR4 compared to the Skinny ASH. And realized the SAR4 with a 4.875" blade weighs as much as my HR or Skinny ASH which are both PLENTY chunky IMO and offer WAY more function than the SAR4.

Hell Razor.......= 14.75 ounces; .1875” thick; 6.625” blade; 12.75” oal (est.)
Skinny ASH (ASH1)= 15.25 ounces; .1875” thick; 6.4” blade; 12.0” oal

Also, I have large hands and find the Skinny ASH's handle to be "Plenty" roomy.
But, the SAR4' handle appears like it would be more suitable to fit a SARSQUATCH! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ooo.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />







Hmmm.... to each their own. I still do NOT want a sharpening choil, but I think the SHBA is a better design than the SAR4 by a good margin in my book. Eliminate the choil on the SHBA like shown in my photo-chop and skeletonize the tang and re-release the SHBA with these modifications at a "Reasonable" price... or just sell it in SR-101 at half the price of INFI. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbup.gif" alt="" /> ... and I think you have a pretty good winner. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbup.gif" alt="" />

Also, the SAR4 costs WAY more than my RMD and I think the RMD is a WAY BETTER knife design. I "CAN" modify my RMD to have a bit more dropped point. And I might research into having the tang skeletonized by a local water-jet cutter if I can get it done cheap enough.. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

My RMD already blows the SAR4 away IMO, but with those Modifications and still way cheaper = No comparison IMO.


So, I passed on the SAR4 for MANY reasons.



I am a folder for EDC guy. Sure, some fixed bladed knives have better feel or proportions than many folders. But, I have some very nice folders that fit and feel fine. Sure, a fixed blade is tougher. But, I don't pry with my folders and have never had a folder break. I know their limits and haven't needed to surpass those limits. Whenever I can, I try to use the appropriate tool for a job. And folders are not meant for some of the things I see people use them for (prying, screwdrivers, etc. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/doh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />)

But, folders are VERY convenient for carry. They carry WAY more compact and easier. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbup.gif" alt="" /> And so many good folders open VERY easily with one hand these day. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbup.gif" alt="" /> So, folders are really a no brainer for EDC for me.


I never had a GW. But, I did have a Rat Warden and I couldn't stand the handle on the Rat Warden. I didn't like the skeleton frame without scales (*** although - I do SERIOUSLY wish some other knives had skeletonized tangs - under scales <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crossfingers.gif" alt="" />)
The Rat Warden handle just did not fit or feel worth a crap to my hands.
And from comparing pics, the GW and Rat Warden had very similar handle shape and size.



For me, if I want a small utility / Skinner knife, Busse just honestly doesn't have a good option smaller than the Vex - IMO.
Honestly, since I carry folders for EDC and prefer 4" blade or larger for trail and woods, I don't really carry much smaller than the Vex. But, I own a few.
And Bark River totally "Dominates" over Busse for design in this catagory. Sorry.

The Mini Skinner 6.375" oal and Mini Northstar 7.125" oal are both much better IMO than the GW at a small fraction of the price and come satin, full convex and with a sheath. I had to just slightly grind the index finger groove forward for a bit more room on my Mini Skinner. But, now a great fit for it's size and better fit in handle with similar sized cutting edge in a smaller package vs. the GW.

And even WAY better still (as much as I LOVE my Canadian Special) is my Lil Canadian which is a 7.125" version of my Canadian Special. The Lil Canadian is EASILY my favorite sub- 8" fixed bladed knife. Full four finger and VERY comfortable grip (much more secure and roomy than the GW), Great shaped 3.125" blade with more usable edge than the GW - again, full convex, satin, A2 blade and again with a sheath.

Considering the GW is about 7.0" vs. the Lil Canadian at 7.125", they compare and the Lil Canadian SPANKS the GW IMO. The Lil Canadian (as with the Canadian Special) is (like the Vex) ALL function! No wasted space frills like the smaller Busse blades with sharpening choils and Talon Holes. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Mini Northstar, MPLE and Lil Canadian:



Then for other 6.5" - 7.5" oal options, there is the Highland Special 7.625", Woodland Special 6.87", Imp 6.125", Kephart Companion 6.775", Mini Kephart 7.6", Custom Canadian Special (a bit larger at about 8.15", but great knife - I have 3 <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />), etc.

The Spyderco Mule is a little larger and good general design, but build your own scales project blade. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />

The Greco Dangler at about 6.875" is a good design even if not as nicely finished as many others.

I am sure I could go on.....

I have TRIED to offer ideas and suggestions to help improve Busse and kin smaller knives (I would LOVE to see the AD/BAD without a choil!), but..... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/banghead.gif" alt="" />... I guess Jerry sees things differently. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

.

Quote:
The SAR4 would be about the best all around hunter Busse has made IMHO. We will see...


No way, its too bulky,, K.G. explained it real well

Well... I am just posting "My" opinion based on "My" perspective and logic.

I can't say that nobody else would think it is great - in fact many people have posted on the Busse forum how much they like it. Sometimes I don't understand other people... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />, but such is life.


Also, different people have different definitions of "Hunter" or hunting knife (????)
When I think hunting knife, I think of a knife that needs to be good at skinning and game processing "First" and other tasks and chores second.
For me, while I view many/most of my knives first as camping, trail, woods-bumming knives, I consider many of them "capable" of skinning and game processing in a pinch or secondarily. But, that isn't such a challenge IMO either. Most any knife that can cut could process game in a pinch. I can process game with a box cutter or a sharp machete if I needed to. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

But, I think certain knife designs "Excell" at skinning and Game processing. I consider a good skinning and game processing knife somewhat of of a specialist type blade that "can" do other things. But, excells at it's primary function first.


I think people get the INFI bug and loose reasoning. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/loopy.gif" alt="" />. On paper (computer monitor <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> ), the SAR4 has nice flowing lines and I could see where some might think it is sexy (if not always looking for functional flaws like myself.)

The SAR4 scales have "Appealing" style! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbup.gif" alt="" /> -

I can see where the SAR4's handle shape with it's flared butt might be comfortable, but I would always be thinking: "What a FAT, overly-long and HEAVY handle" (like the SAR5). And like the SAR5, I will always be thinking about how I need to chop and grind it down. - which I will do on my SAR5 some day. But, I was able to get the SAR5 at a "Reasonable" price..... what was it around $167 with micarta?... I will stop my price comparison considerations there.

The blade on the SAR4 "IS" at least convexed and satin. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbup.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbup.gif" alt="" />

And although I personally prefer more of a drop point on most of my knives, I prefer a dropped point because most of my knife use is for task, chore, woods-bumming uses (not terribly unlike SAR type uses <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> ) and I find a dropped point excels for my uses over a trailing point or similar designs with lots of belly and a high point.

But, for skinning, I think that blade shape with a trailing, sweeping high point and belly works well. Or even a tighter radiused belly than the SAR4. However, for skinning, I think the SAR4 is WAY heavy. I like a secure knife for game processing, but nimble and "Skinny" blade - not fat, chunky and cumbersome.
But, I also like a knife I can manuever my hand around in MANY different holds. I don't use a pinch grip hardly EVER in woodsbumming, but I use it often in skinning.

Personally, for skinning and game processing, I like a slender and lightweight knife - blade AND handle. Length can vary depending on game. But, I still prefer slender and light-weight.

I have to be honest again. While I am a HUGE fan of Busse and kin for toughness and field use blades, when it comes to game processing designs, Busse and kin doesn't excell so much. And while many woods-bumming knives can cross-over and do will for game processing/food prep, there really are not many Busse and kin blades that I feel "Excell" at "Dedicated" game prep. In all fairness, I am not sure that is Busse's target. They tend to target the military/EXTREME/survival audience a bit more. And also different people might have different preferences for such a knife.

In any event, I honestly think Bark River, Dozier and many other offer MANY choices better suited for game processing and skinning compared to Busse offerings.... unless you define hunting knife as a knife intented to stalk and kill your prey with. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

I think the Howling Rat I & II can both process game well - although a little tall for my preferences in a processing blade. I don't have the MUK, but it should be pretty good. The Vex should be pretty decent, but it's dropped point (which I prefer) is actually good for woodsbumming and "decent" at game processing IMO.

Actually, while I have slammed the HCLE's handle, I have "Missed" the HCLE's calling. The 3.5" HCLE is actually a pretty darn good game processing knife IMO. And probably one of Busse's better options for that. I use the handle a LOT different for game processing and it's blade is well suited for it. But, I still think the handle could have been better and still be a better knife over-all with a better handle.
The HCLE fits and feels good in a pinch grip. I actually think the 3.5" blade HCLE is better for game processing compared to the 4.0". But, the 4.0" HCLE is better for more versatile uses.... if the handle was better.

Fastcamo, try holding that HCLE as you would for various skinning or game processing task - in multiple hand holds. In those types of uses, while I would still think the HCLE would be better served with a better handle, the feel of the HCLE improves. What do you think?

For the record, anything I like about the HCLE, I still prefer the VEX for all-round versatility use. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> But, the HCLE does have more belly and edge sweep with a higher point which is just a bit better blade profile for skinning IMO. - When you get to processing meat or food in general though, I still prefer the Vex. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbup.gif" alt="" />

And probably one of the BEST looking "skinning" blades I have seen from Busse is (ALMOST!) the recent HACK (not the pitiful Bear Cub. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbup.gif" alt="" />) But, the HACK is WAY to thick and chunky at 0.25" (or 0.22" ????) thick. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" /> That knife should have been about 0.15" thick <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />...... and I would have bought one. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> I liked the Hack's design and shape. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbup.gif" alt="" /> ... But, NOT it's thickness. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbdn.gif" alt="" />
The blade shape on the HACK does NOT benefit from being a fatty. And for it's size, it is a fatty. That knife should be more slender and a slicer. 0.15" thick INFI is "PLENTY" strong, tough and stout and no thin box cutter.

Back to the SAR4: I can sort of understand a "SAR" knife being heavy-duty and tank-like to a point - although generally still without having a lot of the weight wasted on so much extra handle that you don't need (like on the SAR5 as well), but I do not understand that sweeping curved edge on a "SAR" knife. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

"Conflicted" knife IMO. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />


-----------------

Most of the SAR guys offered their input and had ideas. I was honestly surprised that Jerry's SAR4 didn't look anything like what the SAR guys had been asking for.
Personally, considering the knife was intended for them, I wish Jerry had listened to the SAR guys a bit more. Jerry is obviously a genious at many aspects of knife-making and marketing.
But, the SAR guys "USE" knives like crazy and have a VERY good feel for what they want and need.
Personally, I think the SAR guys had it RIGHT!
I only know part of the story. I had a few discussions with some of the SAR guys back when Jerry was posting concepts and "Asking" for input - especially from the SAR guys.

In the end, I am not sure what caused SAR designs to go in different directions. I as honestly dissappointed. But, in the end, the SAR guys collaborated with Bill Seigle.

Hope it is OK to mention and post their knife and pics here.








<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbup.gif" alt="" /> Great design! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbup.gif" alt="" />


----------

Personally, I obviously think the RMD is better than the SAR4, but I would also take the SAR5 and HRLM easily as well. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbup.gif" alt="" /> .... not to mention, the "other" pure function SAR4 design. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbup.gif" alt="" />

.

Not a full blown or significantly large enough sampling to call scientific yet. But, over on the Busse forum, there is a thread with people comparing the SAR4 vs. the SAR5.

So far, 9 of 10 chose the SAR5 over the SAR4 . <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ooo.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

A FULL 90%!!!!

Again, not a significantly large sampling yet, but still a pretty staggering lop-sided vote so far. And that is without the SAR5 even being satin and the SAR5's scales are not nearly as pretty and fancy and no melt-down on the SAR5, and Jerry stating how much he hated the SAR5 <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />.... yeah right. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" /> , etc. etc.


See: SAR5?

.

I just typed a huge post that was lost...dang it.

Sigh, long story short...

The blade on the RMD is the same as the SAR4 length wise because of the larger choil on the RMD.

I had a Koster Muk in .25" 3v and it was a chunk, the weight didn't bother me much. It was great for skinning but bad for everything else. The cutting edge was right there by your finger kinda like on the SAR 5s and it looked like an accident waiting to happen.

Personally, I like a little point for my cleaning duties, too much is bad though.

I like the Seigle, SAR4 and HG55 handles styles because the work for any hand size. A finger groove or pomel in the wrong place is a pain. Handle sticking out the back still works if its shaped right.