Buck 112 increase in # of brass pins?

TAH

TAH

Joined
Jul 3, 2001
Messages
6,135
Back in the day, why did Buck feel it was necessary to go from 2 small brass pins to 3 large brass pins? Did they have trouble with the handle slabs coming loose?

Thanks!
 
I dont know the reason but I dont believe it was a fastening problem because they were glued as well at least at 1st
 
Good Question! I have always liked the cleaner look of the small two pin 110's...

I wonder if it was simply an appearance thing. Don't recollect having ever seen a reason.
 
Last edited:
I believe that at the twenty year event, that subject was talked about. If memorie serves me correct, it was because several people would toss one in a tackel box, and the water that managed to get in the box would warp the wood. Buck got tired of replacing the wood, so they changed the process of how it was installed. Anybody with more knowledge please chime in. HL
 
Tah, Boy you ask a difficult question to answer in a short post. I'll answer from what I found from research in print and not comment on a unverifiable fishing stories. First Buck's 112 did not increase the number of handle pins as your post asserts, the opposite is true it was a decrease in handle pins. I've never found a 'loose' handle or a warped one. I have noticed dry weather cracks from the climate of the SW. Now for the history: right after the time of your 112 (I reread the history of your questions from above in the 112 data sheets) we enter the 2 dots, 1974-80. IN 1974 many changes occured to this model in rapid succession, the two small headed 1/16" pins went to 3 then to 4. This occured not because of slab holding problems but as a result of manufacturing process. When Buck recieved those frames the holes were already present in the brass frame so why not put a pin in it. Then they went to the 3-- 1/8" pins in late 74 and it remains in this configuration today. One will see many more of these models in this configuration. These probably hold better. Also, at this time the use of adhesive to hold the slabs was discontinued. Now, had there been a problem with holding them on I doubt this would have been discontinued. There have been pictures posted here of all these variations by Scott Hartman, I have them in my collection as well. Hope this answers your question. DM
 
David Martin said:
. IN 1974 many changes occured to this model in rapid succession, the two small headed 1/16" pins went to 3 then to 4. DM
Click to expand...

DM could you please clarify this statement? As I was under the impression that they went from two to four to three, because they had the holes for the two pin frame when they transitioned to the three, and that is the reason for the four pin frames. HL
 
Take it however you want as I've heard both. The main point being it did occur the order I'll leave to an employee or someone well studied. Or you can stick with you tackle box theory. DM
 
Last edited:
No I/we are refering to George Stinzel's DVD obtained from the 20yr. Reunion. I did go back and watch it again and he said water had an influence on the wood so Buck thought filling in the holes with pins would help.
Then in his photo he showed the progression of pins being 2,4,3 (small) to 3 large. DM
 
Also, on a different note George showed and talked about the stamped 110 blades of 1964 being thin and would fracture so in 65 Buck went to etching the bladed. So, this was happening way back then. You can obtain this DVD from the collectors club for your viewing pleasure. DM
 
Last edited:
Then they went to progressively thicker blades so they could stamp them for forty-some years until they found laser engraving would save some money over stamping.

And he said water harmed the slabs, you say? So the unverified fish story is now verified?

Gotta love how we usually do manage to get these questions answered. If it ain't in the archives of the Buck forum or in somebody's notes, we can find it on a DVD.
 
Yes and I took the time to go back and verify, not just going by memory.The holes being present in the frame is half the reason. But reasoning would offer a stance, that if it fractured the thin blade it could do the same to a little thicker blade. Still, what the hey if they want to etch I have no problem with it. DM ;)
 
Well, I don't buy knives unless they're stamped, so I guess I don't have a problem with it either.

:D

If I ain't buying, it's their problem.

Gotta get me one of them DVDs, though. Sounds interesting.
 
Get one you'll be glad you did. He also stated the 2 dots came out in 76 and went to 80. Then the 3 dots in 81 and four dots 82-85. Which this time line makes much sense to me on 110's. The 112's were the same as stated in the time sheets. DM
 
You must mean "up to" and maybe slopping over into 80, with Three-Dotters coming out in early 80 and maybe part of 81 and then Four-Dotters in 81.

At least, that seems to be the popular timeline. Or are you saying George contradicts the established timeline?

Did he mention the BOS heat treat timeline in relation to this? Longstanding rumor has it that it started in 80 with the Three-Dotters that were the last of the 440C.
 
TAH, I'm clueless as to why the transition occured from 2 to 3, but someone at Buck had a good reason. The transition from 2 to 4, was to use up the pre-drilled inlays for 2 pins on the newer brass frames pre-drilled for 3 inlay pins.

Just act like this red micarta is wood,it was easier for me to grab
001a.jpg

002b.jpg

003c.jpg
 
Scott, Thank you as this is exactly what Joe H. told me (and I wrote it down). Yet, since George Stinzel mentioned about the water warping I felt obligated to include this for the sake of educational information as he has a high standing among collectors. Did Joe not remember this detail? Who knows. Since, George is good friends with Leroy perhaps that came from this association. TAH, you should comment as we've tried to cover all the important points in answering your question. DM
 
Joe mentioned [in a old thread?] there were apox 2 pails of the 4 pin scales that was made so as not to waste them...I bought a 4 pin with NOS scales at the 2009 Blade show BCCI sale for my collection.I have never seen a 4 pin NIB..
 
TAH said:
Back in the day, why did Buck feel it was necessary to go from 2 small brass pins to 3 large brass pins? Did they have trouble with the handle slabs coming loose?

Thanks!
Click to expand...

I'm gonna have to say yes. I think all the '74-'75 pin changes were at least partly related to transitioning from glue--and then the move to the three large pins was the final step in that transition. Based on what I've seen and heard in the past, the change to four small brass pins was short-lived and coincidental (although it very well may have had some relation to loose slabs) and the use of three small brass pins and the change to the larger 1/8 pins were definitely related to keeping the slabs on good and tight.

A recent post from Bertl contained this info (which I also have somewhere in my notes).

Bill Keys on 09-15-2010, "In early 1975 we began a conversion to the sintered brass, from Pacific Sintered Metals, which is what we still use today. for the first few months of using the new sintered brass, we glued the wood to the brass, but by mid year had transitioned to only riveting the wood to the brass. I am very familiar with this as I was the first operator on teh "inlay" riveter for the 110's to only rivet the wood on. I also still have the scar on the bottom of my left index finger where the removed a rivet from my finger after i drove it into my finger from the top (we didn't need no stinkin guards back then. At that time, we were still using only 2 inlay rivets, one at the front and one at the back, plus the rocker rivet/pin. ." Another is from the 110 seminars by George Stinzel where he mentions that the reason for the 3-pin and 4-pin 2-dots is that when they stopped using adhesive, there was a problem with the scales coming loose; therefore, they went to more scale pins. Also, I have looked at several 2-dot knives, and this is the only one I have found with adhesive, which makes me think it is an early 2-dot.
Click to expand...

So, I think your hunch about some scales loosening is probably correct.

Good question that stirred a lot of us to research!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top