Anyone prefer 112 over 110?

I prefer the 112, and mostly because of the shape of the bolster. :thumbup:
 
How about a little comparison shot...:thumbup:

2401.jpg
 
Hi TAH -

I prefer the slightly smaller Ranger over the Hunter, but love them both.

I still need to get a two-dot and older 110 to replace the one that I had back when they were new.

Here is a picture of my .112. and a 112+ that I traded away.

DSC_2798.JPG



best regards -

mqqn
 
Great photo, mqqn!

I still like the 112s from the 70s with no nail notch and square handle. Does anyone know why the 112 didn't have a nail notch the first 8 years and why one was added later?

1003.jpg
 
TAH said:
Great photo, mqqn!

I still like the 112s from the 70s with no nail notch and square handle. Does anyone know why the 112 didn't have a nail notch the first 8 years and why one was added later?
Click to expand...

In searching through old threads, I've found a reference or two regarding the lack of nail nick on pre-1980/81 112s. The common point seems to be that the nick was added at the request of a Buck salesman, thinking it might help increase sales. See the comments from Joe Houser (post #9) in the following thread:

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=321373

I haven't found any explanation as to why the earlier knives didn't have the nick to begin with. If I were to (purely) speculate, maybe it was just a practical manufacturing consideration? Something to do with the 440C blades being somewhat more challenging to grind/mill (tougher on the tools)? There's plenty of blade to 'pinch' when opening, so maybe they felt it wasn't needed?
 
Dave,

Thanks for hunting down that thread. It was helpful! :thumbup: Not sure about your 440-C theory because the 110 used the same material back then. Regardless of why, I still like the clean look of the no notch 112 blades. :)
 
TAH said:
Dave,

Thanks for hunting down that thread. It was helpful! :thumbup: Not sure about your 440-C theory because the 110 used the same material back then. Regardless of why, I still like the clean look of the no notch 112 blades. :)
Click to expand...

I wasn't sure about the 440C theory either (:p). Hence, the "If I were to (purely) speculate..." qualification to my comment.

Since the 112 was introduced some years after the 110, I still wonder if they 'tried it out' on the 'new' model, just to reduce the wear & tear on the tooling, if for no other specific reason. I've seen other references to why Buck transitioned away from 440C in the first place, and much of that seemed to center around the relative difficulty/expense in grinding/milling those blades, as well as complaints from customers who found it difficult to sharpen (back then). That's about the only practical reason I'd see for deliberately not including the notch.

I like the look of the 'no notch' blade too. :thumbup:
 
Last edited:
What the heck, let's just go with your 440-C theory. It's better than my "severe outbreak of fingernail biting in the early 70s that led to a direct decline of nail notches" theory. :D :thumbup:
 
i like the buck 110 more just because i would just end up carrying the 112 in the sheath anyway because it is still to big for my pocket. but i do like the buck 112 ecolite. that is basically a buck 112 with paperstone handels which greatly reduces the weight and price.

-stephen
 
My love for 'Collecting' 112's started when Dave gave me one..I knew it would be quicker for me to have a worthy display of rare/odd/1 of 1/proto 112's than any other model Buck..There are fewer blade cutouts,gold etch,LE's,build-outs,custom shop,ect. 112's than 110's or other models so a 50 to 75 knife display will have many important 112's..BUT,just considering the 112 as a EDC will cover 95% of common use you will ever ask of a belt or pocket knife.I like a finger groove drop point in any steel for every day carry.but truth be told a 422 might be better all around because it's lighter.
 
TAH said:
What the heck, let's just go with your 440-C theory. It's better than my "severe outbreak of fingernail biting in the early 70s that led to a direct decline of nail notches" theory. :D :thumbup:
Click to expand...

Hmmm...I think that I like your theory, TAH. :D

As I recall, a major reason for the transition from 440C to 425M, was that 425M was easier to fine blank, than the harder 440C. Of course, I could also be completely out to lunch. ;)
 
My cousin loves his 112. He wouldn't trade you it for any knife in the world. He has been using it to field dress all kinds of animals for well over 15 years.
 
GRIM 62 said:
Flatlander,I really like those sheaths!Who makes them?
Click to expand...

Same question! Come on, Flatlander. You can't just post good looking sheaths like those and walk away. It's Christmas season for pete's sake. :D
 
I don't have a 110 yet(blasphemy, I know). But I do have a 112. It's a perfect size for me. The finger grooves feel good, solid built. It also fits in my Jean pocket nicely. Maybe I'll treat myself to a custom 110 after Christmas. S30v, nickel bolsters, and buffalo horn would do the trick!
 
CoyotePhysics said:
I like the looks of the front bolster on the 112 better than the 110.
Click to expand...

I love the 112 but always prefer the big honkin folder. I agree with Coyote and would like to see a LE 110 come out with the 112 style front bolster:thumbup:(we need a mouthwatering smilie:D)


and s30v or damascus blade......hear that Santa
 
Its Personal preference.

But for me it is the 110.

Putting the 110 to work on the many many deer I have processed, well, the 112 just wouldn't have "cut" it. :D

110 fills up my hand, 112 doesn't.

Doesn't mean I don't have 3 or 6 of them.. :eek::D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top