Oh Neale..."AMEN"!!
As much as I hate to disagree with the "Crutch" (and "others") I find the #16-7" Special Fighter a great addition to the catalog (and non-catalog...It's one of very few in "both") line-up! The arguements I've seen posted against it hold no water for me. What's the difference between arguing that the standard Model #1 design is the only way we should accept that blade design, and yet accepting the #14 and #15 "CDT" as being just fine? No Crutch: I know you didn't say that, but the point and question are both valid.
The #1 is exactly that, the
#1. With options and blade lengths, using the RMK logic to disuade custom orders years ago, there is a million combinations for the model.
The CDT versions of the 14 and 15 still maintian the integrity of the original design to a certain degree. They maintain some proportion and aesthetics, most important.
A Spl. Fighter carries less weight than a #14 and offers full, exposed tang construction. The most perfect fighting Bowie design ever, cloned with the most popular VietNam era design...Sounds like a "win-win" to me!...Just sayin'
Best, Capt. Chris
PS: I ain't real wild about it in the standard (4 finger) configuration..."FOR ME"!!...CCS
A #16 fighter also carries less weight than a #14 and offers full exposed tang construction. Referencing my photos above, what does the SF offer that a 16 doesn't? Those examples are much more aesthically pleasing than any SF model. In fact, again in my opinion, the SF leaves something to be desired. I don't want anyone to take offense to this, as everyone has their own tastes. I keep going back to the bastard analogy and a solution to a problem that didn't exist. Just sayin'.
I will give you this, it is
slightly more palatable in the border patrol handle.