RSK vs. mini-RSK

Posted by: norad45

RSK vs. mini-RSK - 04/29/05 07:36 PM

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
Posted by: GoatRider

Re: RSK vs. mini-RSK - 04/29/05 08:19 PM

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.
Posted by: norad45

Re: RSK vs. mini-RSK - 04/30/05 02:08 PM

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
Posted by: norad45

Re: RSK vs. mini-RSK - 05/02/05 12:20 AM

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
Posted by: frenchy

Re: RSK vs. mini-RSK - 05/02/05 06:29 AM

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.
Posted by: Brangdon

Re: RSK vs. mini-RSK - 05/02/05 02:19 PM

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.
Posted by: brian

Re: RSK vs. mini-RSK - 05/02/05 03:37 PM

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.
Posted by: norad45

RSK vs Mini-RSK: Blade size limitations - 05/02/05 05:25 PM

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



Posted by: brian

Re: RSK vs Mini-RSK: Blade size limitations - 05/02/05 07:29 PM

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.
Posted by: SheetBend

Re: RSK vs. mini-RSK - 05/02/05 07:43 PM

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.
Posted by: KenK

Re: RSK vs Mini-RSK: Blade size limitations - 05/02/05 08:26 PM

The law in the great state of Illinois appears to be pretty much the same way. They outlaw certain types of knifes - daggers, switchblades, gravity knifes - but don't limit the length. The focus is on the intent to commit a crime.

Keep in mind though that cities can - and do - add their own knife laws, so you need to know the laws in every city that you enter whilst carrying a knife. That can be a tough, if not impossible, thing to do.

I myself really like the full size Rittergrip, and if you're carrying on your belt, then certainly I'd recommend the full-size Rittergrip over the junior model. I myself do not like the feel of a large knife in my pocket and it wouldn't be proper to carry a sheath on my belt. I do not carry my Rittergrip on my person as an EDC.

In my own suburban jungle I only carry a Gerber Micro LST in my pocket and then the Rittergrip in a bag that I carry just about everywhere with me. It is almost always close, unless I go to the bathroom or downstairs to the cafeteria - then it stays in my office (I know, I know). My "manbag" carries my cell phone, Palm PDA, pens & a notepad, and my suburban jungle gear - Rittergrip, 55 gal. drum liner, orange bandana, lighter, flashlight, whistle, compass, map of county, a very simple first aid kit, a few, ziplock bags, micropur tabs, etc... all in a few ziplock bags so they are easy to transfer.

When I'm outdoors camping or hiking the same bag goes with, but I carry a Leatherman Micra in my pocket, the Rittergrip on my belt, and often a Leatherman Charge Ti in my bag. If I think I'll be cooking outdoors I'll make sure to have a Mora along, or if going into real back areas maybe a Becker Crewman.

For some reason I only carry fire starters when I'm going camping. I guess I figure I can always turn something into tinder. I probably should reconsider this thinking.

If I need to carry more, sometimes the "manbag" contents are moved to a daypack so I can add water bottles, rain/cold gear, metal cup - the kind that go on the bottom of the Nalgene water bottle, a Sparklite kit, a gps, sunscreen, bug goop, a complete first aid kit, and other gear.
Posted by: JOEGREEN

Re: RSK vs. mini-RSK - 05/02/05 08:39 PM

Norad45,

I have the full-size RSK, which sees mostly "suburban" duty. I take it to work everyday, which is in an office setting. It stays in my pocket, clipped to a safety pin, and I take care never to show it to anyone. I haven't tried the mini-RSK, but I'm happy with the size of my RSK, it doesn't feel "too big". HTH
Posted by: norad45

Re: RSK vs. Mini-RSK - 05/06/05 02:09 PM

I am glad I got the big one. This is my idea of the perfect size. Small enough to carry comfortably yet large enough to be useful.

Regards, Vince
Posted by: brian

Re: RSK vs. Mini-RSK - 05/06/05 03:04 PM

Glad you found the right knife for your wants and needs! Grats!
Posted by: johnbaker

Re: RSK vs Mini-RSK: Blade size limitations - 05/07/05 07:54 AM

Vince,

Obviously the best way to get a reliable legal opinion re knives is to hire your own experienced criminal lawyer in your own state. Assuming you do not want to pay for such an opinion, another fairly good way to get reliable advice would be to ask your local district attorney or public defender. Naturally you do not want to indicate that have in your possession/ownership a potentially illegal knife.

Incidentally I have been very pleased with my own full sized RSK.

Good luck,

John
Posted by: norad45

Re: RSK vs Mini-RSK: Blade size limitations - 05/07/05 12:05 PM

Thanks. I actually think I'm on pretty safe ground carrying the RSK as long as I don't use it on someone. Then I suppose things could get dicey. But self defense is not really why I'm carrying it. There are better tools than a knife for that. <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Regards, Vince
Posted by: bountyhunter

Re: RSK vs Mini-RSK: Blade size limitations - 05/07/05 04:09 PM

Norad45:

Being of Italian birthright, I have always been told a knife to the groin area is a great attitude adjuster and you don't have to actually follow through and hurt anyone. <img src="/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />

Bountyhunter <img src="/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />
Posted by: NAro

Re: RSK vs Mini-RSK: Blade size limitations - 05/09/05 01:16 PM

Bounty... you must be a heck of a guy!!
for me.. a knife to the groin area hurts whether or not you "follow thru". In fact, it hurts to write about it.
Posted by: norad45

Re: RSK vs Mini-RSK: Blade size limitations - 05/09/05 01:39 PM

I think you have a good point (ouch.) <img src="/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

Regards, Vince
Posted by: bountyhunter

Re: RSK vs Mini-RSK: Blade size limitations - 05/09/05 02:34 PM

NAro:

Yeah, I know what you mean. Guys seem to worry about the smallest things. I know when I look down from great heights (Anything over 12 foot high.) I feel like someone is pouring really sour lemon juice in my butt with the amount of puckering up it does.

Bountyhunter <img src="/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />