I find it rather ironic that "I" am charged with insulting Scott, where the exact opposite can be judged from his initial post in this thread and subsequent later ones. I believe any fair minded reader through the posts would find the same. I fully expected contrary opinions and even some light hearted abuse, or else I wouldn't have posted the modifications. But some of the viciousness thrown my way was uncalled for,...and yet I can deal with it.

Maybe Scott is acting out of some "defensive" posture,.....that somehow my Randall wasn't up to some mythical standard expected of a Randall. Perhaps he felt insulted,....and that was not my intent.

In all fairness, I do understand Randall is a small company, and can't be expected to have unlimited models and choices. But I will never understand the logic behind minor changes in a "hand made" knife on models they already make. The fact that even leaving off a labor step (thumb notches for instance) is a "NO" only adds to my frustration.

There should be legitimate reasons for a business ever saying "NO" to a customer, especially one willing to wait FIVE freaking years for delivery! Without a reasonable explanation, just not feeling like it doesn't make sense. (or "cents" either for what could be add on charges) I'm not surprised RMK doesn't need the extra money. With the heavy workload, several years out order bookings, and premium pricing in the marketplace, .....that DOES make sense.

The fact is that EVERY knife is a compromise in some way, and not one made anywhere will be the perfect knife in every situation.

Randall's have a well earned reputation for quality and toughness, and I don't disagree with that. But that toughness is achieved primarily through being a bit overbuilt on some knives, if you will.

Sportsman's knives are my main interest, and I honestly think it is one area of the Randall line that would be made more "useful" with a less than 3/16" blade stock thickness. While I'd prefer a bit thinner stock (5/32" maybe making for a little lighter knife overall on the sportsman models),.... I think thinning the blade forward of the hilt would do as well on the 3/16" stock sportsman knives.

As has been pointed out with all the "NO's", that isn't going to happen any time soon. So I make changes to get close to what I need or want. (and I venture a guess others have also, as I was informed of one from many years ago) Several of my dedicated bushcrafer knives are quite close, so the geometry of what works best is no trade secret.

Most sportsman don't need a knife thick enough to break into a car's door,.......but getting through a bunch of cucumbers or carrots shouldn't be an effort either with something like the model 26 Pathfinder. It does the job,....but not as easy as my forged 1/8" thick Billy Watson period style flat ground blade.

Cleaning game and fish also doesn't require a thick blade, but other than the Model 10 series of knives there is little offered in the line for an optimum slicing tool, or optimum for woodcrafting and bushcraft duties. The handles are a bit thin there for me also, but could be re-handled of course.



Anyway,....lets see some of your other "mods" out there.....