Sent this PM to Capt. and he informs me I have #16!
I’m 99.9% sure the knife came to me from Perry, but it looks like he might have gotten some knives (and sheaths) mixed up – I guess it can happen to even the best of em!
(Capt. said to go ahead and post here).

............................
PM TO CAPT.:

Man, you have a good eye! Damn.

Hmm… It was sold to me as a #14 - 7 ½ Attack. (Perry or Treeman).

BUT… it *does* have a slightly shorter blade and a narrow blade.

The blade is 7 ¼ inches long, just over 1 ¼ “ wide at widest (and 1 1/8” at hilt) and exactly ¼” thick.

Maybe that’s why I always thought my #14 CDT was so massive. That blade is (without the sawteeth) 1 ½” wide and 7 ½” long, and just under ¼” thick.

My #18 by comparison (with the same blade profile/ grind lines) is 1 3/8” wide and 7 ½” long and just under ¼” thick.

So, the blade on the “#14 Attack” is shorter and significantly narrower than the #14 CDT. And shorter and slightly narrower than the #18. But a bit thicker than both.

After receiving the #14 CDT (direct from Randall) I always thought the #14 Attack had a narrower blade because of the sawteeth. I don’t have any other #14s to compare to. Have I been wrong all this time? Is this blade normally, even with sawteeth, closer to 1 ½” wide on a #14 Attack?

Did I just get a slightly narrower #14 Attack? Or did Perry or Jim miss it too? (It was def. one of those two).

But it’s crazy how good your eye is, what you see. I guess that comes with having seen so very very many Randall knives. Scary good eye.

I can take more pictures if you want and start a new thread.

But as ever, thanks for your assessment, Gary

............................

I never knew I had a Model 16. And now I know why my #14 CDT looks so massive to me. The education never ends.

Thanks again, to Capt. Chris.

Gary

...