Randall knives

[dustin]

.

[dustin]

.

[dustin]

.

[dustin]

.

[dustin]

.

[dustin]

.

[doyler]

Great documents and a good insight as to how the manufacturers submitted bids and materials.

Thanks for posting.

[White Walker]

Isn't it interesting how the military turned down a Superior Quality knife for another of adequate but somewhat lessor quality in order to save some money?

 

Fred

[doyler]

Isn't it interesting how the military turned down a Superior Quality knife for another of adequate but somewhat lessor quality in order to save some money?

 

Fred

Some things never change....

[dustin]

Fred, how do you know the other knife is inferior? We don't know exactly what knife the BuOrd decided on.... Maybe it was the M3?

[White Walker]

Perhaps my use of the term "inferior" is thought to suggest that I think the M3 wasn't a good knife for its intended purpose. It certainly wasn't inferior as a combat knife and every day tool for the soldier. It functioned well and took a lot of abuse without failing.

Randall knives are hand forged, ground, polished and assembled with a fit and finish that exceeded what the military was looking for and needed. If you've ever handled a Randall Model 1 or a Model 2, you've seen how well they're made. A model 2 or 1 can chip at the edge if they're used to open a beer bottle though. The Sweedish Tool Steel used in them makes them a bit weak in that respect in my opinion. I'M left wondering how else a Randall might fail if tasked with being used as a prying implement in the field. Not having blades that are machine stamped, Randall knives however are certainly better made and are prided for their superior fit and finnish, which makes them highly prized and collectable. I just don't think that I would want to carry one into combat or anywhere in the field where a knife might be needed as an immediate tool to open up a 55 gallon drum or cut through the door of a vehicle.

A U.S. 1903 Sprinfield rifle is also built much better than a Russian Moisen Nagant, but I think that the Nagant is less liable to have problems in the field in a combat environment.

 

Fred

[Frank Trzaska]

The price difference was too high to compete with the Mark 2 at about $1.25 or so each.

 

They did the same thing in the early 1950's with the Model 14 and 15. It was turned down as it cost too much. They selected the Marbles Jet Pilots Knife.

[blitzkrieg gsd]

The Randal model 1 is the finest fighting knife ever built in my opinion. They are very capable of cutting threw tough objects but I do agree the edge will chip if abused. That I can tell you from experience because I have chipped one granted I was abusing it by using it ti chop wood. It's not what the regular front soldier would be best served with because it's not a tool. As a fighting knife for someone who needs it there is no equal. My father carried a model 1 with a saw back while serving in a recon unit in Vietnam. He said he knew the saw back made the blade weaker. His idea was if a chopper he was in went down he may have to use it to cut his self free of the wreckage. The main reason for the above decision would boil down to price Randles are just to expensive for a issue knife. It's amazing to see how cheap he was willing to sell them back then. If any of you guys know how much it cost to have one made you know what I'm saying.

[dustin]

If you look at post #4 and on the left margin is a price for each knife...$18.90. That is a lot of money in 1944 considering an average base pay for an enlisted man was $50 a month.

This is were researching can be frustrated. At the start of 1944 the BuOrd was looking for a "Commando" knife with at least another half dozen companies submitting designs, letters very much like the ones posted here and replies like that in post #5 and that's were it stops. It's like jumping into the middle of a book reading half of it without every knowing the beginning or the end. I was under the impression this is post MK-2/1219c knives and if so what were they looking for and the knife they opted for?

[sactroop]

It's hard to put the difference in buying power of the currency into context from today compared to 70 years ago. Yes it's a better quality item, but is it around 15X's better? With all the things necessary for the War effort I don't see someone explaining to a superior why they spent almost 2 million dollars for 100,000 knives back then.

 

Dustin, again your work is much appreciated.

[blitzkrieg gsd]

A Randle is a hundred times better then any knife the US military has ever issued. Was it worth the money to the government at that time I would say no. At the time there was a lot of things that needed to be funded and a new fighting knife was not one. To bad they didn't go for it can you imagine how cool a US issue Randle would be? And what one would be worth today as a collectors piece.

[White Walker]

Especially if only 100 prototypes had been made and submitted to the Govt. for field trials by Randall before the Govt. decided not to go with Randall.

 

What model of Randall knife would you guy's want to carry?

[dustin]

More to the mystery of the "Commando" knife

 

[dustin]

Here is what is puzzling, Camillus referred Randall to the BuOrd for a "design"......a design of what? I think these next two documents rule out the MK-2 and 1219c.

 

[dustin]

Note also Camillus refers three other companies at the bottom of the page

.

[blitzkrieg gsd]

Especially if only 100 prototypes had been made and submitted to the Govt. for field trials by Randall before the Govt. decided not to go with Randall.

 

What model of Randall knife would you guy's want to carry?

We own 3 different model and I think the model 1 I show above is the best all around model. My father carried his threw two tours in Nam and it served him well. There are plenty of models that would be better for a specific purpose. As a multi purpose combat style blade you can't beat the original model 1.

[SFMike]

If you'd ever bothered to serve, you'd know a knife certainly is a tool.

You think GIs simply go about cutting throats all day? Or carry a variety of blades?

A troop is only a man and is constrained by the amount and weight of stuff he chooses to carry or drag about.

In the bush you run into all sorts of opportunities to use a knife and the absolete least likely is as a weapon.

Why didn't they issue Rolex's instead of the cheap plastic watches a few got?

In my 4 years SF us and VN, I never once had or heard of an issued fighting knife.

Most of us bought Buck knives or sometimes Gerbers. A very few had Randalls.

Lose that and you're out a months pay for something you could have had more reasonable that was just as good.

Chipping easily is not something to overlook. I knew a guy who gave away a Randall because of that serious weakness.

I always wonder about the so called fighting knives and where they came from and who actually got one. Most GIs had simple bayonets which also were generally serviceable.

Marines paid for their own beloved K Bars which were cheapo but hugely serviceable pieces.

[popcorn]

If you'd ever bothered to serve, you'd know a knife certainly is a tool.

You think GIs simply go about cutting throats all day? Or carry a variety of blades?

A troop is only a man and is constrained by the amount and weight of stuff he chooses to carry or drag about.

In the bush you run into all sorts of opportunities to use a knife and the absolete least likely is as a weapon.

Why didn't they issue Rolex's instead of the cheap plastic watches a few got?

In my 4 years SF us and VN, I never once had or heard of an issued fighting knife.

Most of us bought Buck knives or sometimes Gerbers. A very few had Randalls.

Lose that and you're out a months pay for something you could have had more reasonable that was just as good.

Chipping easily is not something to overlook. I knew a guy who gave away a Randall because of that serious weakness.

I always wonder about the so called fighting knives and where they came from and who actually got one. Most GIs had simple bayonets which also were generally serviceable.

Marines paid for their own beloved K Bars which were cheapo but hugely serviceable pieces.

 

This is a really good point. Why would the military spend more on a Randall when the knife/bayonet will do the same thing? When engaging the enemy the issued rifle would be used the majority of the time. If it came down to needing a blade to take down someone I doubt the enemy is going to know the difference between a "cheap" bayonet vs. an expensive hand forged knife being rammed in their chest. Randalls are really nice but have more of a collectors value than a practical military value.

[White Walker]

Yes Indeed. I personally wouldn't want to damage my Randall knife while using it in the field. I've owned several in years past and even took a SS blade Model 2 with me into the field for extensive times when in the Army. That was about 240 days a year. I'd bought it for just $80.00 and wanted to see how it functioned and held up. I never had any real use for it so I eventually sold it and ever afterwards carried and used a Buck folding knife that fit neatly into its leather pouch on my belt. That knife was pretty much the one tool I ever needed on active duty.

Although I served in an Armor unit, I had no use for anything with a long blade and certainly not a double edged Model 2 stiletto. I sure do like the looks and feel of a Smithsonian Bowie with a concave Walnut handle and brass scalloped collar and Coolie butt cap. It's a useless and very expensive tool to have swinging from ones belt however and I never wore any of the three such Randal's that I've owned. They are quite nice knives though and are my favorite Randall I think.

I've long been looking at the Bushmaster Randall and think that one of those would be a great knife to have when camping with the wife. Their size and dimensions seem perfect for camp use and the field. By The Field, I'm referring to my old job as an Archaeologist working and living in the Bush or I guess what people call The Jungles of the Central American countries of Belize and Guatemala for several months at a time while working on archaeological projects.

Anything longer than a short blade is a nuisance. About the only bladed tool that one absolutely needs down there in the back country is a machete and one can get along just fine with nothing else.

[blitzkrieg gsd]

Of course a knife is a tool so is a flat head screw driver. So why does a guy buy a snap on or Mac tool when he could buy one at k mart for a third of the price? Because it's a better tool if you make a livening going into harms way you should take the best tools you can get. That's my way of thinking anyway if I have to bet my life on something I'm going to bet on the best piece of gear I can get.