I've decided to purchase one of these as my EDC. The use will be primarily urban along with a Leatherman Wave, but it will also be the backup to my Becker BK10 and Buck PBS Crosslock while hunting/hiking. I did a search and found some old threads which discussed the various pros and cons of each, and I also read the lengthy (and informative) review thread at Bladeforums. Those of you that have one or the other, or both, which one would you recommend given these circumstances? And how has your selection performed for you?

I currently cannot afford both, alas.....

Regards, Vince

I've got both, and I find that the RSK is just a little too big to keep in my front pocket with my keys, but the mini-RSK does fine. So I always have my mini-RSK in my pocket. When I'm camping though, the keys get packed away, and I switch to the regular RSK.

The other issue is that many jurisdictions allow a maximum blade length of 3 inches, and the mini-RSK is just under that.

They are both great knives, you'll be happy with whichever one you get.

Goatrider, thanks for the reply. I should have mentioned that most of the time it will be belt-carried. For that reason I'm leaning towards the full size. But you make a good point about the blade length. I also like the yellow handles on the mini. Higher visibility and less "tactical" looking.

Vince

I'm a bit perplexed at the paucity of responses considering the percentage of forumites who own this knife, but be that as it may. I ordered the big one. I hopefully won't ever need it in a survival situation, but if I do, I have confidence it will do the job.

Regards, Vince

I only have the full sized model and can't compare it with his little brother...
I EDC it in my pants back pocket.
I use it daily for minor chores : opening boxes, cutting various materials...
Reactions from outsiders vary from "hey... what a great knife !" to "hey .. is not that dangerous ?" ....

I try to keep it sharp, as best as I can. It's sturdy. What more could I say .. ??... I like it and feel nake when I sometimes (not often) am without it.

Due to legal issues, the smaller RSK might be better for EDC.

I have both but EDC neither, partly for legal reasons. I don't know what advice I could add to the research you have already done. In an emergency the bigger knife is obviously better, but it's more cumbersome to carry every day and may have more legal problems in your area.

I have had both the large RSK and the mini RSK. I ended up selling the mini RSK to a fellow ETS forumite because it just wasn't enough knife for my purposes and thus it never got carried. Legally I can carry anything up to 5.5" here in the great state of Texas so there are no legal concerns with etiher knife. I was also carrying a large classic Sebenza for EDC until very recently when I decided to sell it and go back to my full size RSK for EDC and I wouldn't trade it for anything! I still always carry a fixed blade (CRK Shadow IV with water purification and storage gear and fire making gear in the handle) when camping and usually when day-hiking also. The RSK is my EDC and it is also the knife I carry (with a micro PSK) when day hiking on the (rare) occassions when I dont carry a fixed blade (usually when acompanied but PHRASECENSOREDPOSTERSHOULDKNOWBETTER.). I have given a lot of thought to what knife I would own if I could own only one knife for everything from urban EDC to deep wilderness survival. So far I am resolved to the belief that if I could own only one knife the RSK is the one I would want to own.

Your mention of Texas law got me to thinking. I looked up the blade size limitations for my state (Utah). This is the relevent passage from the Utah ciminal code:

(5) (a) "Dangerous weapon" means any item that in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury. The following factors shall be used in determining whether a knife, or any other item, object, or thing not commonly known as a dangerous weapon is a dangerous weapon:
(i) the character of the instrument, object, or thing;
(ii) the character of the wound produced, if any;
(iii) the manner in which the instrument, object, or thing was used; and
(iv) the other lawful purposes for which the instrument, object, or thing may be used.

That's it. No blade size mentioned at all! It seems to be saying that, unless I am walking around with Orcrist Goblin-Cleaver stuck down my trousers, then I am perfectly legal. I find it fascinating that they left it so deliberately vague. I would love to have a lawyer chime in on this.

Regards, Vince

Sounds like basically the Utah legislature has deferred to the judiciary on this one so as long as you're carrying what you can convince a jury is a tool and not a weapon then youre okay. Also sounds like it will never be an issue as long as youre not stabbing people. <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> I didn't go in to much detail earlier on TX law but since youre interested, heres a passage from our penal code which describes our law, just to give you something to compare to. Trust me I have been truely putting this law to the test repeatedly since I was a young boy so I'm pretty confident in what it means.<img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Reference - Official Source

(6) "Illegal knife" means a:
- (A) knife with a blade over five and one-half inches;
- (B) hand instrument designed to cut or stab another by being thrown;
- (C) dagger, including but not limited to a dirk, stilletto, and poniard;
- (D) bowie knife;
- (E) sword; or
- (F) spear.

In the cities in California that I live and work in, there is a 3 inch limit on knives (note: the state law is longer). I found carrying the small ETS Chris Reeve and a Leatherman Charge has worked well at my electronics job and my volunteer work with the city fire department.