The older knife is closer to the flown version. I asked why the changes were made and I was told it was because the shop was just making improvements. I really like the hump on the blade, but the thinner handle is inconvenient.

David the original 17's had a hump. These newer Have what I refer to as a breast or a tit. They look, to me, goofy as hell. I don't understand why they made this change. I have asked that question on many occasions and have never received the first reply. The catalog compares this current knife to the original 17's. There is no comparison. They are 2 different knives. Blade, handle, and the guard are all different. Personally I would like to see them made the old way with the gentle slope or hump. However to this day nobody from RMK has called me and asked my opinion and I don't think that is likely to happen.
I was planning on getting in on the bidding on the astro tune fink posted but today I ran across an original and incredibly rare WWII USMC Para Marine Knife and purchased it. So I'm out of the race for this remarkable 17.

Info is appreciated greatly.
I agree, the look and feel is completely different.
While the hump and hilt are more cosmetic differences, imho, the thicker handle gives the knife a much more solid feel as a user.
I have big hands and the grip is much better to hold onto. If I put it to heavy use, would be much better to handle heavier chores.
Fascinating history/changes.
Again, any idea how old the earlier version is and when did they re-design the 17?

Doc I believe the change on the blade came about in the early maybe mid 90's. The handle just sort of morphed into what we now see. As always there is someone here with much more knowledge and keeps up with those changes. When the blade shape changed on the 17's I lost interest in any new 17's. I am always looking for an astro but I want a carbon blade late 60's knife and that's gonna cost me.

I actually like the newer hump on the top of the blade. It is very useful for prying.

On the other hand, the thinner handle doesn't give you much leverage and it's not practical for holding much for survival. I find this very frustrating. I own a Model 18 5.5' and it is my least favorite Randall knife. The balance between the handle and blade is way off and the blade feels stubby compared to the handle. A thicker handled Model 17 would be the best of both worlds.

I love the Astro, but unfortunately, the thin, narrow handle has always been a deal breaker for me.

Tom, try to find an older, thick-handled 17..it really makes a big difference, imho, in the utility and feel of the knife.
It needs a thicker handle for any real use...and the extra "bearing surface" makes it better for heavier use by anyone with larger hands.

It was made for outerspace where weight is a serious concern. I forget how much it cost to put each pound into space but it was a alot.

With that being said I also have no interest in the model 17. In fact I only have interest in a few Randall models, the model 5 and 14 and the 16 SF

"It was made for outerspace where weight is a serious concern"

Then why was the heavier-handled one flight=spec'd by Nasa and why were they thinned out after the Mercury program was well-over? Did they think if they thinned the handle, it might make it on Apollo or the Space Shuttle?

By the time they thinned it, was NASA even considering re-authorizing it's use on new missions?

The "17" is an icon and obviously not for everybody.

Having covered the space program and Nasa, it's a great piece of history for me.

Is the Astro's tang the same width as the #14? 7/8"? Too bad it isn't the same width as its own ricasso, which could equate to greater comfortable and more storage.