112 Bolster Design?

TAH

TAH

Joined
Jul 3, 2001
Messages
6,135
I've searched, but can't find the answer. What's the story on the 112 front bolster being different than the 110 and 55? Why isn't the 112 an exact smaller version of the 110? Did it have to do with keeping the blade wide, which raised the tang corner when closed, therefore, the 112 bolster had to be redesigned to eliminate the exposed corner? Or...did Buck simply decide to make the 112 a little different from the start and give the Ranger its own identity?

Here are quick internet photos for reference.


0_0_0_0_664_443_csupload_61093130.jpg


0_0_0_0_664_443_csupload_61093064.jpg
 
Well, TAH, I know an answer, but it is hard for me to describe it in English. The construction of the 112 follows the 110. But the shorter handle reqires the other front bolster. The specification book from 110 and 112 reqires the same handling. But because of the shorter 112 handle the front end of the 112 is more compact than the bolster of the 110. Is it half way to understand? Always my b...f... bad school English ...
Haebbie
 
Last edited:
Haebbie said:
But the shorter handle reqires the other front bolster.
Click to expand...

Thanks Haebbie. I understand this reasoning, but why not just reduce all of the dimensions and end up with an exact replica of the 110? Buck pretty much did this with the 55, although it is even smaller than the 112.
 
Great question TAH.

I would follow Haebbie's logic (and yours) in that a true scaled down version of the 110 would require a lesser blade height and eliminate the need for a bolster. Since the blade height is the same as the 110, the bolster is needed to cover the locking notch and bridge that gap in the blade while closed. The effect of the bolster is handy when the blade is open but I think it's merely a coincidence that it works that way.

(plagiarized photo)

 
Thanks for the photos, Pokt and Haebbie. It sounds like Buck's intentions were to make a smaller knife without losing blade height or losing all of the heft of the 110.

MT_Pokt said:
The effect of the bolster is handy when the blade is open but I think it's merely a coincidence that it works that way.
Click to expand...

Not just handy, but aesthetically pleasing as well.
 
Eliminates a sharp corner and a pinch point when opening. Works for me. :)
Or, it easily identifies a 112 when spotting them at flea markets or scrolling through auction sites.
 
I have always liked the 112 better than the 110... The 112 is really comfortable, and I think part of the "feel" is because of the way the bolster is shaped.

I would be curious to see how it would change the feel of the 110, if they did a similar bolster
 
I would be surprised to learn the bolster design was a functional necessity.

When you put a 112 and a 500 side by each, it's pretty easy to see they could replicated the basic shape of the 110 or 500 easily enough and still covered the tang when closed. It would be a bit taller than the 500, but not by much. In terms of looks, it's a stroke of genius. When working with wood or in the shop, my hand prefers the 500 or 110 though. Less restricting to my hands and moves to different holds with ease.
 
338375 said:
I have always liked the 112 better than the 110... The 112 is really comfortable, and I think part of the "feel" is because of the way the bolster is shaped.

I would be curious to see how it would change the feel of the 110, if they did a similar bolster
Click to expand...

Exactly what I was thinking. I like the feel of the 112 better too and I would love to see the 110 with that front bolster....
 
The 112 is certainly the more secure when working inside an animal cleaning. That finger guard is a great accessory that I wish the 110 had.
 
pinnah said:
I would be surprised to learn the bolster design was a functional necessity.

When you put a 112 and a 500 side by each, it's pretty easy to see they could replicated the basic shape of the 110 or 500 easily enough and still covered the tang when closed. It would be a bit taller than the 500, but not by much. In terms of looks, it's a stroke of genius. When working with wood or in the shop, my hand prefers the 500 or 110 though. Less restricting to my hands and moves to different holds with ease.
Click to expand...

I'll continue to speculate... After all, unless someone with official knowledge chimes in (which I doubt will happen), that's all we can do; right?

So...
The drop point blade of the 500 has more room for the nail tick which allows for a wider handle. It also looks like the blade height of the 500 is a slightly smaller than that of the 112.

The original design of the 112 had no nail tick on the clip point blade, so the handle/frame had to be clearance so that the user could pinch the blade to open it. Since they had to both make clearance on the handle for the user to pinch the blade and they needed the taller handle at the blade pivot to cover the pinch-point (locking notch in the blade), they needed to shape the handle so both issues could be resolved. What they ended up with is a design that resolves both "closed" position issues and fortuitously provides a front bolster in the "open" position.

I'm not arguing or trying to pick a fight... simply using my deductive reasoning to speculate as to why the design of the 112 is what it is. :thumbup:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top