Buck 105 vs 117?

I did get the chance to use that old Western F39 on a good sized walleye today, while it was a little more awkward to use than an actual fillet knife the results were just as good. The 105 looks to be closer in design to a fillet/ boning knife than the F39, so I think its safe to assume it will work at least as well for me. I'll be ordering one ASAP, thanks for the help guys.
 
Last edited:
As an added endorsement, I'm pretty sure Hal Blood did and/or does carry one. What very much looks like a 105 can be seen in some of the pictures in his book. Too, the great Bill Mason religiously carried something very similar. You can tell by the pictures in his books that it isnt a Buck, but the dimensions and blade shape look very close to the 105.
 
GPyro said:
Marbles had a knife like that.

View attachment 2910520
Click to expand...

The handle looks very similar to what Bill used, so it very well could have been a Marbles, but the blade on Bill's knife looked much more like the Pathfinder.

Yesterday I tried using my favorite hunting knife, a Grohmann No1 to fillet a smaller walleye. I had also concidered trying the Grohmann "Large Skinner" modela since I'm a huge Grohmann fan, and I'm certain it would perform better as a hunting knife. As I expected though, the more curved blade made the job more difficult, especially cleanly removing the skin. I guess the same design features that make for a great hunting knife, also make for a rather poor general use knife. Definately seems like the 105 might be about as good as it gets in that department.
 
Last edited:
Lesknife said:
I have both and have used both for fish fillets and cleaning on smaller fish like crappie bass and trout. For larger fush I would recommend a longer blade like the 121 or if you can find one of the filet knives they used to make. Either one works great on smaller fish but the 105 is a good all around option.
Click to expand...
Just curious, is the handle on the 105 the same as the 117? I got the chance to handle a 117 today and the handle felt a bit small to me, hoping the 105 might be a little bigger.
 
Bushleague270 said:
Just curious, is the handle on the 105 the same as the 117? I got the chance to handle a 117 today and the handle felt a bit small to me, hoping the 105 might be a little bigger.
Click to expand...
The standard model 117 is the same size as the 105. There was a limited edition 117 that had the smaller 102 handle and it really seems small.
 
I guess the next size up for handle would be the 119 but thats probably not the blade you're looking for.
 
BuckShack said:
I guess the next size up for handle would be the 119 but thats probably not the blade you're looking for.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I find it weird that I found a regular sized 117 handle to be short, since I quite like the 112 handle which many seem to think is small. I wear a L-XL glove but I've got big palms and somewhat short fingers. If I get to handle a 105 and find the grip doesnt suit me, I guess I'll just stick with the Western... or shop around for another nice one that has less sentimental value.

RIMG0164 by https://www.flickr.com/photos/153108294@N08/, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Made it to the city and got myself a 105. In-hand the difference between it and the Western seem much greater than pictures made it appear. The 105 is much closer to a fillet knife with a blade that is noticeably slimmer and straighter, much less belly, and the tip about where you'd want it for a general purpose knife. Hopefully the wind lets up and I can procure some test subjects in the next few days ;)
 
Bushleague270 said:
Made it to the city and got myself a 105. In-hand the difference between it and the Western seem much greater than pictures made it appear. The 105 is much closer to a fillet knife with a blade that is noticeably slimmer and straighter, much less belly, and the tip about where you'd want it for a general purpose knife. Hopefully the wind lets up and I can procure some test subjects in the next few days ;)
Click to expand...
Good to hear.
I think you're going to like it even more with some use.
It really is a versatile knife.
 
GPyro said:
Good to hear.
I think you're going to like it even more with some use.
It really is a versatile knife.
Click to expand...

I gave it a good test run this morning, went out for a paddle, caught Walleye about 20" long, filleted and deboned it on my canoe paddle. Worked very well and turned out good fillets.

Too, I got to thinking about how good an idea it is, to have a good fixed blade on you while canoing, regardless. Guys far more experienced for me consider it essential, mainly to deal with possible entaglement while lining canoes through rapids. Even just out for a fish however, I've got an anchor in the canoe along with 20-30' of rope, and today I was also using a 5 gallon pail on 10' of rope as a drift anchor. In the event of an upset or swamping I'd be fighting both of these items, as well as dealing with a whole bunch of rope while righting the canoe, getting back in, and bailing it out. One actually has more loose rope kicking around in the boat on a fishing trip than they typically would on a wilderness trip. I'm thinking the Buck will become a regular part of my fishing tackle, and I'll be sure to dress out a deer or two with it this fall.
 
Last edited:
Bushleague270 said:
I gave it a good test run this morning, went out for a paddle, caught Walleye about 20" long, filleted and deboned it on my canoe paddle. Worked very well and turned out good fillets.

Too, I got to thinking about how good an idea it is, to have a good fixed blade on you while canoing, regardless. Guys for more experienced for me consider it essential, mainly to deal with possible entaglement while lining canoes through rapids. Even just out for a fish however, I've got an anchor in the canoe along with 20-30' of rope, and today I was also using a 5 gallon pail on 10' of rope as a drift anchor. In the event of an upset or swamping I'd be fighting both of these items, as well as dealing with a whole bunch of rope while righting the canoe, getting back in, and bailing it out. I'm thinking the Buck will become a regular part of my fishing tackle, and I'll be sure to dress out a deer or two with it this fall.
Click to expand...
Tough to beat Walleye. I'll bet you'll be eating good tonight!
 
I've used my 105 for crappie, bass, catfish, sheep, and deer. I don't know if that helps you make a decision or not, but there it is.

Plus the old ad showed it chopping a nail in two, so there's also that anytime I have need to chop nails. I always figure one day I might get a proper fillet knife, but never seem to get around to it. The 105 seems to be good enough for me for now.

 
Weiss said:
I've used my 105 for crappie, bass, catfish, sheep, and deer. I don't know if that helps you make a decision or not, but there it is.

Plus the old ad showed it chopping a nail in two, so there's also that anytime I have need to chop nails. I always figure one day I might get a proper fillet knife, but never seem to get around to it. The 105 seems to be good enough for me for now.

Click to expand...

Very cool. In the short time I've had mine its come on a number of fishing trips and a couple camping trips. I've used it on walleye and pike, taters and veggies for tinfoil pockets, and bunch of campfire bannock. I'll be heading into the northern rockies for 4 days of backpacking this week, and will be sure to find space for it.

Really loving this knife, on pretty much any sort of outdoors trip I toss it in the pack and I'm covered. Its the fixed blade equivilant of a Swiss Army knife.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top