You can also add fingergrips to many models

Tom Flynn

AND, those also are the roomiest/longest handles offered, correct?

I am asking, as I ignore any finger scallops, as majority never fit me, so am fuzzy on details regarding Ruana.

They only do the one size of fingergrips and will apply them to appropriate handled knives; call the shop and discuss, if interested.

Tom Flynn

Regarding the M stamp; from the Ruana book, "Hear The Hammer", on page 96, "From 1938 to 1962, Ruana knives were made from Studebaker car springs. In 1962, a high carbon steel became available that was the thickness and weight needed for knife making. When Ruana changed to high carbon steel, the stamp changed from a knife to the M stamp". The M stamp was used from 1962-1983, then R.H. Ruana, but no M stamp from 1983-1984.

Pap

I appreciate the dating info on those "sleepers" you mentioned. I had read elsewhere, and from quotes of who was there at the time, that Studebaker springs were getting thinner and thinner local, and saw steel also used, then the switch to some manner of 1095. But, will stick with printed book as primary.

Back to that "why" question on the M. I can see doing so if selling both types, so the end user knows which knife for what job...but, if only steel used from then on, it would only serve either the shop folk in knowing what steel was used on a knife later on, or a non-existent at the time collector market in telling them apart.

So, why would shop want to be able to tell newer from older at that time? And keep doing so for year after year. Some manner of tracking, either performance of old knives or new, is my guess, still. If local Studebaker supply held out all the way until 1962, then perhaps to see if new knives held up as long as old?

Thing is, this predates Vic Hangas, by Vic's time Rudy could have simplified any answer to a query to something as curt as, "because I changed steel," and the reasoning behind it lost in mists of time.

Am hoping those with more resources can answer.

Years ago I had an opportunity to stop at the Ruana Shop, after Rudy passed, and at that time I had an old knife marked 12B sticker,and asked about the Studebaker leaf springs. Apparently it was the carbon content in the steel that Rudy liked. Those springs were becoming harder to find in the Missoula area, so Rudy looked elsewhere. A "medium" temper was the thought behind the M stamp. More rare are an S stamp, for salt water temper, and a T stamp for a "razor" temper.

Pap

The salt water "temper" was stainless? I knew about that S but thanks for info on the other, new to me. Still leaves me wondering why whoever would want to know whatever, aside from filling orders. But it went on and on, when only steel in town. Stamping every knife with a separate M extra operation makes no sense when only steel offered, especially right after others discontinued, as for "it's a tradition" argument.

The Studebaker springs were and are popular for forging purposes. I wonder if anyone ever ran an analysis on them, or traced to maker for alloy. And, wonder what is closest, today. My guess would be 80CrV2, aka 1085 Improved, aka 5160 Improved, some cro-moly-vanadium spring steel for heavier purposes.

PS- this all assumes a separate M stamp, every bit of it. If he had an old stamp where he added separate S and T, and also bought a new stamp circa 1962 with added M, then the plain answer is, "because it's the new stamp, and the old one about slap wore out," too simple, Private, long after differences in filling orders needed to be noted. It is what it is.

Pappy, or anyone else, who owns several M stamp blades, a comparison between them would give an answer right quick. I only have the old Smokejumper. If all the Ms are in precisely same place, as in part of one name/temper stamp, then they kept stamping M for that easy reason. It was what they had.

This is all very useful and interesting information, thank you Lofty and Pap!

There is a very useful modern technology - ultrasonic
hardness tester UCI (Ultrasonic Contact Impedance).
It would be nice to measure the hardness of old
and new knives in this manner. The usual mechanical method
is not applicable (indentation of a diamond cone into
a metal), since it requires an even surface, that is,
it is only possible in the area of the spine of the knife.
As far as we know, Ruana used zone hardening,
cutting edge harder than the spine.
The UCI makes it possible to measure the hardness
on curvilinear surfaces.

I knew about micro testing, but not the ultasonic. It causes me to wonder though, if we are entering same as with pressure testing, copper and lead crusher units, measured physical deformation against a scale, vs piezo strain gauge electronic method of psi or metric equiv...no direct correlation.

And since ultrasonic is obviously not attempting to dimple a sample under a known pressure, and then deformation measured against a scale, it will only be approximate to original method, and truly valid only in reference to other results obtained with same technology....just as with pressure measurments...only valid when relative to results obtained the same way.

As an fyi, zone hardening is a misnomer, applicable perhaps to Japanese method and layers of clay during hardening. But, generally, here, knives are fully hardened, and then selectively softened after temper, in handmade by using a torch, and in factory setting via induction heating, to anneal tang/ricasso area, and more selectively in handmade to soften back and tip, as well.

And still hoping someone with several M stamped blades can chime in as to whether the M appears to be part of same stamp as name and all unitized, or a separate stamp. Cannot even begin to guess, based on my sample of one.

My assumption is that the M stamp is separate from the RH stamp. Only from looking at the pressure of each stamp is not consistent one to the other in different models. Some look really close, while others are obviously different. Great question however.

Pap