Buck 117 Small Brahma

Halfneck

Halfneck

Joined
Jun 30, 2005
Messages
4,244
I've always liked the size of the Buck Woodsman, but the handle length was always just a tad short for my hand. Saw it posted somewhere on here that the handle on the Buck 117 Small Brahma was similar to the Buck 118 Personal. Any confirmation to this?
 
The handle on the 102 Woodsman is about 3.5". The new 117 Small Brahma is approximately 4.3". The 118 is right at 4". I based these measurements on the overall length minus the blade length. I've got the 117 on order and like yourself I like the Woodsman but the handle is a tad short for me. I'm expecting the 117 be just about right. HTH
 
Oh, this knife is exactly what I want. Slightly bigger 102, neat look, neat sheath. I still want Papa Brahma though! And a 120, and a 124... *sigh* soon..

I have big hands. Very big hands. But I find the 102 handle to be perfectly adequate for the blade. Do people that say it's too small just like to be able to get their hands in a full fist grip on the handle? Genuinely curious. I see a *lot* of people say a lot of knives' handles are too small, and I can't help but wonder what they say when they have to write with a pencil? (Just pokin' fun :) )
 
You guys have echoed my feelings as well - I like my little Buck 102, it has a very nice blade size and shape - but I don't use it as a big game knife any longer due to the smallish handle (G-III for me the issue with a small handle is it becomes way too fatiguing on my gripping for cleaning a deer, but it is okay for breasting waterfowl). I want to try one with a bigger handle and the Brahma style is just "cool" to me - a win-win on this one! OH
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top