Chris Reeve Fixed Blade Hollow Handle Knives

I was looking into Chris Reeve fixed blade knives. I like the one piece design of them, the steel used, the hollow handle that can be used to hold basic survival supplies, the quality Chris puts into his knives, and even the look of the sheaths.
In particular I was looking at the Chris Reeve Shadow III and the Chris Reeve Aviator. They look the same, but the Aviator has serrated spine. What do you guys think of these knives? I was thinking of getting one of those two, but I can't decide which. Having the serrated part is nice, but would it really be worth it to have? Do you think it (the serrades) would be pretty useful to have? Will the serrades tear up the sheath when I sheath/un-sheath the knife? Anyone here have either of these knives? If so, what do you think? Thanks <img src="images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Oh, and what survival supplies would you put in a knife handle kit like this? Keep in mind I have a regular altoids can kit I carry, this would just be some handy spare supplies to keep inside. <img src="images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

I can't speak for those particular knives but I have a Cold Steel Bushman and I found that the most useful thing I could fill the handle with is ParaCord. I cord-wrapped the handle and then stuffed a hank of cord (still attached to the cord wrapping the handle) into the handle. I, too, carry an altiods PSK with all the fixin's so I wasn't trying to re-package those supplies. Having a spare bit of room in the handle of the Bushman presented a way to carry a bit of extra cordage. I believe that the handle space is about the same between these knives. The Chris-Reeves knives handles form closed water-tight containers which presents some options That I didn't have with the Bushman so I might have packed it with something else...

Just my $.02

i have seen the CS bushman in the store's and i wonder what the coating is ? it looks very shiny compared to other knife's that are coated with exposy powder or teflon. And i don't expect that CS usses paint. and a second question: is there a butt cap for the hollow handle so you can close it ? the one i have seen in the store's don't have caps...

i read a review years ago on the chris reeve aviator, in a uk mag called "survival and outdoor techniques" its no longer in print,in fact hasnt been since about 1995! hmm back to the point, the reviewer pointed out that the saw back has a bevel, this meaning that as the teath are in a straight line they don't cut very deep before the saw jams in its own cut. also if you wanted to use the knife to split small logs, the batton would end up mashed. just my two pennyworth.
stevec

I'm not sure what the coating is. Doesn't scratch off too easily tho. No butt cap and nothing plugging the opening at the front where the handle meets the blade. The paracord I have jammed in there stays because of the way I wrapped the handle with it. I suppose if there were a butt-cap I might have been tempted to fit a small fishing kit or other items that would have fallen out otherwise. As I have been moving to a more modular approach I have been considering establishing wilderness / urban microkit modules and a large fixed blade with a fishing kit in the handle might be just the thing to grap when heading into the wilderness that could be left at home during a walk to the convenience store. (I live where the walk to the convenience store doesn't require the large fixed blade for protection and the .45 is adequate anyway)

I'd go without the serations. I've never needed them, but i've often needed more force on my blades, and i'd rather push on the spine than have to use the knife to 'chop' things up.

Why not put a wire saw in the hollow handle? I'm sure it is more efficient at sawing wood than serations on the jknife.

BTW, I've never handled either knife, but i have used fixed blades with and without serrations. they are also of a lesser quality than Chris Reeves or Cold Steel, so it may be a different situation.

I have the Shadow III and think it is just about an ideal knife in all respects. 4" blade is just what I like, the design of the hollow handle is without peer IMO, and sheath (pancake style) is perfect. Mine was made in 1988, and the sheath is an El Paso Saddlery, which is not who Chris uses now, but still a fine design.

The hollow handle is small. Mine is packed with 3 vaseline/cotton straws and a BSA hot spark and a bit of heavy thread and a sailmakers needle only. Too small for much else.

The knife was and is sharp as hell, it handles very well, and the coating has stood up to use.

I recommend this knife fully. As far as the Aviator version is concerned I have not handled it but Chris states the saw teeth on the spine are marginal at best. I would go for the Shadow III or the Mountaineer again in a heartbeat.

The round handle and knurling bug some people but I find them to be fine.

Worth the money.

You may want to take a look at the Randall mod.#18. I've had one since 1976 and has served me well. I've yet to find a knife that holds an edge and is also easy to sharpen. It can take all the knocks you can give it short of out and out abuse. the serrations are quite sharp and chew through rope like no tomorrow. Not always needed, but real useful when you do. Not cheap, but for a lifetime investment you'd be hard pressed to beat the quality and durability. Check out randallknives.com

Is the handle of the Randall knife one-piece with the blade as the Chris Reeves knives are or is it screwed / welded onto the blade? The experience of others is that the attachment point between the blade and the handle is weak if they are not of a piece. I have avoided all knives that are not "full tang" type knives which is why I went with the Bushman. I also don't have an exceeding large budget which is why I chose the bushman over the Chris Reeves knives.

I had a Randall #18 for some years. The early ones (through the era of the American presence in Viet Nam) had the tang bent to one side inside the handle and silver soldered against the inside of the tube. Later ones have a two-inch or longer section of the handle that is left as a solid billet, with a fairly wide tang threaded into that. I've never heard of one failing, and I'm certain that if Randall had, they would have changed the design. There are many cheap imitations where this is a serious problem, but I would be amazed if it were a concern with either Randall or Reeve. They are both excellent products, and worthy of extreme trust.

That having been said, I eventually sold mine. It's weight and bulk, the roundness of it's handle (and it's symmetry, with an asymetrical blade.. though it is angled slightly, and that helps a bit), and the fact that the balance changed a lot depending on what was in the handle, finally started to bug me. I found as time went by that it was more and more seldom with me.

It's worth noting that on the Randall #18, the sawteeth on the back are explicitly NOT for wood, but for sawing out of the aluminum skin of a downed aircraft. The fact that the Chris Reeve knife is called the "aviator" makes me suspect that he may have had the same use in mind.

Both are very well-made knives, and in your position, I wouldn't worry a bit about durability, but I'd be more concerned with whether the weight, bulk and design is what I want for real use. Of course, no one can answer that for you- but both are almost legendary for being well made, durable knives. If I had to choose between them today, I'd go with the Reeve, mostly because the much-less-cumbersome guard should make it less of a pain to carry, but neither would be my first choice.

My cousin has an old Randall knife (
I don't know the number) it has a rat-tail style tang. I know the 18 woulden't have this, but on Randall's web site they mention "silver soldered." I don't know what exactly is soldered, but I know there isn't any at all on the Chris Reeve. That is one of the things I liked about it, All one piece. I also like the steel and the coating. But, the main thing is it's size. In NJ I can't carry anything over 5" legally, and 4" is usually "pushing it." I have heard of a lot of cops here who will take a knife away if the blade is longer then the width of their open palm. <img src="images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" /> <img src="images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />

(whoops, Presumed_Lost beat me to the post <img src="images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />)
By the way presumed what would be your first choice if not Randal or Reeve? Just wondering <img src="images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

>>By the way presumed what would be your first choice if not Randal or Reeve? Just wondering<<

I didn't really mean to say that my first choice wouldn't be either a Randall (well... unlikely) or a Reeve knife, just that it probably wouldn't be a hollow-handle knife. For the reasons stated, I'm not that fond of the idea.

As to what I would choose- gee, I wish I had a good answer for that. You have to understand, I've been a "knife nut" since I was about 9 years old, and there are probably a couple of hundred blades around here, mostly in drawers... everything from the tiny scalpel-like blade on the Leatherman Micra up to... well, the longest blade I own is probably a basket-hilted broadsword. A LOT of these seemed like "just the ticket" when I bought them over the decades, but amazingly few got used for very long.

There is no universal "best" knife, for sure, and every decision depends A LOT on what conditions you expect to face. What works for a weapon is often at odds with what works as a tool, and what works for sailing in salt water is often at odds with what works for backpacking in the mountains.

I will, however, offer a few opinions, apparently NOT widely shared, that I've evolved into over the years:
______________________
CAUTION- those offended by other's opinions, any opinions, should quit reading now.
You know who you are.

Or maybe not...
______________________

I think that every knife should be considered ONLY together with it's sheath or "carry". They work together as an integral system, each pretty useless without the other. A "neat" knife that can't be carried well is useless. It doesn't matter how nice it would be to have it in your hand when facing the need, if it just won't get carried that far.

Along those lines: WEIGHT MATTERS. In a weapon, light weight is speed, timing, dexterity. For travelling on foot (hiking or backpacking), the value is obvious. If you're solo in the wilderness, you should probably have multiple knives, which compounds the weight issue. On a diver's leg, weight is inertia and momentum that must be overcome with every stroke. Even for city or vehicle use, weight sags pockets and pulls on belts, is constantly annoying, and makes it less likely for a knife to be carried and more likely that it will end up in a drawer at home. The classic Buck 110 folder, for example, with it's huge brass bolsters, weighed twice as much as a Buck General with a seven-inch blade, yet people carried them backpacking. Amazing.

I think that edge-holding, by and large, is overrated. I'd much rather spend five minutes touching up an edge twice as often, than spend an hour trying to sharpen a knife that's too hard, and have to worry about the brittleness of the point, and even chipping of the edge. I've had points break (without prying) and chunks come off of edges in normal use (cutting pine!), and when it happened, I didn't care at all, anymore, how sharp it was. This goes double for knives as weapons, which will probably never be used enough to dull in one engagement (how?), but where reliability and ability to take punishment is absolutely crucial.

I think corrosion-resistance, by and large, is underrated. The knife exists to support the edge, and pulling a knife from a kit or sheath to find the edge rusted means that it's an unreliable piece of equipment. Coatings on the blades just mean that the edge corrodes first, I don't see how that helps. Sea water, or having a leather sheath soaked in constant rain are just a couple of the many possible problems- blood and sweat are both mostly salt water, and if they're not possible factors, you're dead.

I don't much like darkened blades. I've had remarkably few opportunities in life to take out a sentry from behind in a ninja-like night attack where the gleam of a blade might have given me away. I have, however, without seeking such situations, confronted assailants at least twice, in relative dark, where a flashy blade convinced them to leave me alone and solved the problem. In both cases, if the blade had been dark, I think I might have had to use it. If I end up behind enemy lines my priorities might change, but until then, I remember those two instances every time I look at a darkened blade.

I don't much care for round or symmetrical handles. I think that a knife should be designed so that when you have it in your hand, you know instantly, without looking or thinking, where the edge is. On a really good design, I think you should be able to pull the knife with your eyes closed and touch the point to the index fingertip of your other hand, first try. The most ignored function of a knife's handle is to convey information- the information of where the edge and point are. Dedicated skinners might be an exception with regard to the point- "belly" may outweigh this consideration. I haven't done enough skinning to have a qualified opinion.

That should stir things up... <img src="images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />