Buck 119 vs SOG Tech Bowie

[BG42EDGE]

David Martin said:

These knives (big bowies) are not poor choices for the job I described (gutting whitetail deer).
I've seen some guys use the wrong knife and still do a good job.

Dave......what you just said is that the wrong knife is not a poor choice.

The wrong knife is not a poor choice?????????

Not making much sense there, Dave.

Using the wrong knife is always a poor choice, is it not?

Dave goes on:

Then I've noticed other guys which were given a decent knife and were unable to accomplish the task.
It helps if a guy actually knows how to use his tools to provide a meal for his family.

A big bowie may be "a decent knife," but that doesn't mean it's the best knife for the task.

Are you saying that if we want to use the correct knife for the job we don't know how to gut a deer? LOL!

What I said was knives like the big SOG Bowie and the 119 and 120 are better suited for killing
grizzlies (or just looking cool) than normal hunting use.

You seem to want to use them (even for gutting your huge numbers of whitetails).

That's fine. Use any knife you want, but don't cast negative aspersions on the abilities of others because they choose to
use a knife better suited to the task.

Use a 120 or a 119 or a SOG Bowie or a big, sharp ROCK or a Samurai sword to gut a deer if you wish, but there are
more suitable knives available--and using them shows good judgment--not a lack of ability.

 

[David Martin]

If you can't understand what I'm saying, I can't help you . But don't rant and expose this all together . DM

 

[t1mpani]

Now now...

I can take a quarter, grind an edge onto it that'll cut flesh, and skin a deer with it. The Buck 119 is, oh I'd say about five hundred times better for that application than the sharpened quarter is. Ergo, it's a perfectly capable tool, toughly built and well made.

Progressives always must resist the temptation to dismiss older designs/materials simply because there are newer ideas. Likewise, traditionalists must resist the temptation to be Luddite and get too riled up in a "I've ALWAYS used this and you can't tell me anything's better!! " kind of way.

I've used a 120 to quarter/skin an elk before. I've also used a Dozier drop point and (my favorite of all time) my Phillilp Patton hunter in M4, and I'll tell you right now that the latter two spanked the 120 in that application just in terms of ease of use. That said, there wasn't one time when I was using that Buck that the words, "Man, I wish I had another knife" ever came out of my mouth, and sometimes I still strap it on when I head out to the scrub. Same way, I have taken plenty of deer with my old '94 32 WCF, even though there are far more accurate, ass-kicking rounds and rifles that I could pull out of the safe. Usually, good-enough is more than good enough.

 

[David Martin]

T1m, Well put and nicely diplomatic . Thru, the 90's I did a lot of processing of larger game and livestock for the freezer (800lbs+ and 2 each year). The best skinner I came across was Buck's V52 Selector skinner blade and its still the standard I measure other skinners by . A 3 7/8" blade with deep hollow grind, good belly of 425 steel . My quartering/boning knife was the 120 as I didn't have any other . Which worked fine and I wouldn't want it any shorter just the edge thinned out more . Since, in 2007 I've given the Empress Trio a test drive (the 121 being in the mix)and they did work more efficient for home use . Though I wonder about rougher use of camping whether a stouter blade would come in handy . So, we compromise on a field use knife as its different from a kitchen use knife and where one draws that line . DM

 

[BG42EDGE]

Yes, I remember it well. My cousin and I were drinking coffee, eating ham sandwiches and chocolate cake and warming up after a cold morning on the deer stand and we got a frantic call from an in-law (and his son) who had shot a deer. They badly needed somebody to show them how to separate the unfortunate deer from its guts. (Brand new deer hunters.) We mobilized.

So, we get over there and, lo and behold, they're standing by this huge whitetail with a massive, 10-point typical rack......about 250 pounds of deer. So the Dad tells us how they came to shoot the monster and we gradually get around to the gutting out issue and he says, "Use my knife."

And he proudly pulls out a brand-spankin' new Buck 119 (which looks huge, even next to a really big deer).

So I say, "Wow......that's some knife if you're going to war (he was in the National Guard) but, luckily......I have a deer gutting knife right here."

Ignoring his confused protests, I pulled a 2 and 3/4 inch Buck 444 out of the vest pocket of my old Woolrich hunting coat and proceeded to separate deer from insides rather quickly.

Now.......I DID have a 110 on me (the 444 was a spare that I always kept in my hunting coat) but I was teaching.....and wanted to make a point so the poor dub would get it.

I did use the saw blade of my Leatherman to split the pelvis and sternum, but I'd do that no matter what knife I was using.

So he says, "Wow......all with such a little pocketknife."

And I said, "Yeah......you'll find that the more experience the deer hunter gets.......the smaller the knife gets."

Never saw him carry that damned 119 again.

 

[orca8589]

But I don't care.

Same way, I have taken plenty of deer with my old '94 32 WCF

I assume you mean the .32 Winchester Special? The .32 WCF is the old .32-20 chambered in the Winchester model 92.

Props to the '94 in .32 WS! :thumbup:

~Chris

 

[t1mpani]

Holy crap, yes I DO mean the WS rather than the WCF, and the worst part is that I knew the difference!

 

[BG42EDGE]

Well, the good old 30-30 Winchester used to be called the .30 WCF and was chambered in the well-known Model 94 along with the good old .32 Special......so that probably adds to the confusion on this matter.

Actually, it gets worse. I knew a couple of old guys who swore they carried bolt-action 30-30s in the military. This confusion came from the fact that the 30-06 Springfield started off early in the last Century as the 30-03 and some people didn't read well and jumbled the numbers into 30-30.

So it goes....

 

[t1mpani]

30-06 was also, for a time, referred to as the "30 military" which, of course, is very similar to the "30 military carbine" markings that some original ammo crates were marked with during WW2, especially since both rounds were at that time chambered for rifles that had the name M1. Ahhhh....ammo lore.