Buck 120 variations

L

Lawrence Helm

Joined
Jul 24, 2014
Messages
328
A few days ago in a discussion about the 120 with and without fullers, someone asked to see them side by side. In the first two photos I have two of the custom versions, the charcoal and indigo blue along side cocobolo and standard models. Interestingly the charcoal weighs the same as the cocobolo: 11 ounces. The indigo blue weighs more: 11.5 ounces.

I have the standard version pictured. I meant to pick up a newer, 8.5 model, but picked up the older, 8 ounce model instead. I didn't actually use the older model, purchased in the 80s, because I didn't like the sheath. Consequently it looks about the same as the newer model. I do like the standard version with the new sheath and have taken it on hikes.

We, some of us, looked up the impact of the fuller on strength. A reference I found said that if the fuller was created during the forging, by moving metal about, it could be just as strong as a blade without the fuller. But if the fuller was ground in after the blade was forged it would be weaker than a blade without the fuller. The appearance of the blades with fullers is (to me) that they were ground in after the blades were forged, but I'm prepared to be corrected. Blade weakness, if the models with fullers is weaker than the ones without them would be relative. I'm sure the blades with fullers are strong enough for any task they were designed for.

Lawrence






 
Any discussion about fullers affecting strength or weight saving on a sheath knife is just plain overthinking. They are cosmetic in this size of knife. Strength and weight saving only become relevant with a long blade as in a sword.
 
That's why I didn't go that direction. I'd have to see some real hard data that proves some loss in strength. DM
 
gsea said:
Don't have a clue about the blade engineering but those are some pretty sweet knives.
Click to expand...

I was an aerospace engineer. If we were selling a piece of new structure to the Air Force they would either (1) want it tested to destruction (or an agreed upon number of life cycles) if it were a critical part, or (2) argue from similarity, i.e., showing some similar test from the past was sufficient.

At some point years ago the Air Force due to congressional encouragement began using "off the shelf" equipment. They would have us query a vendor to the extent that we were confident his equipment would perform as necessary. Hypothetically, If they decided to equip certain air force personnel with knives they might have a competition or they might take reputation into account. The KaBar might be the knife of choice because it was tested in the past and has a history of use (btw, the KaBar has fullers, but they look as though they were created during the forging process). However, the KaBar has a blue-collar look to it. If they wanted a formidable and better-looking Buck knife they might choose the conveniently sized 119 in cocobolo, brass being easier to polish than aluminum. If for some reason they chose the 120 for certain use, they might accept its reputation and might choose the cocobolo with fullers, but some Air Force engineers might argue for the 120 without fullers. A "cost versus effectiveness" analysis would then be performed. Even if the engineers who liked the knife without fullers could prove their case, i.e., that it was stronger than the knife with fullers, the bean counters might win if they could demonstrate that the knife with fullers could perform as needed, and it no doubt could.

I worked at Douglas which merged with McDonnell which was purchased by Boeing for 39 years. We were engaged primarily in final assemble but had overall responsibility for overseeing the approval of vendor equipment. Making parts was ultimately discouraged. If we wanted to make a part we would have to go through a "make or buy" analysis to show that making the part was preferable to buying it off the shelf or having a vendor make it.

The Air Force would establish what would satisfy them in the way of testing and we would typically oversee the vendor's tests or ask for proof of past tests. In the case of commercial aircraft the FAA would demand be the agency that needed to be satisfied.

Some of this discussion is interesting but it is unlikely that any tests will be performed for the academic purpose of finding out if the 120 without fullers is stronger than the 120 with fullers. The 120 has been around long enough to demonstrate that it can perform well in any likely scenario, and if the 120 without fuller is stronger, someone (me in this case) might ultimately decide he'd rather carry the 120 without fullers on serious hikes because it is lighter. On the other hand, this discussion reminds me of some of the discussions we had back in the McDonnell Douglas days with Air Force engineers.

Lawrence
 
But we haven't gone very far into this discussion. In terms of eye appeal, I like the 120 w/o the fuller groove. It has more continuous lines. DM
 
David Martin said:
But we haven't gone very far into this discussion. In terms of eye appeal, I like the 120 w/o the fuller groove. It has more continuous lines. DM
Click to expand...

Yeah, the aesthetics was a big part of it. I can't say that I like the look of the charcoal handle any better than I do the cocobolo handle, but taken altogether (meaning without the fuller groove) I like the look of the charcoal 120 better. Since the production run was limited, I bought two of them -- something like $130 for one and $135 for the other. After thinking it over I bought an Indigo blue as well. It was $180 (I'm assuming the production run was shorter). Those wouldn't be very good every-day prices but considering that when these are all sold there won't be any more -- unless comments like these convince Buck to make them on a regular basis -- I over-indulged.

PS, at present I like the look of the Indigo blue handle best of all -- can't see myself dinging it up on a hike however.

Lawrence
 
Anyone pick-up the burl handled 120 they released at the same time as the charcoal and blue? 120BO2 I believe?
 
I don't think those 120's were forged. The fullers are likely milled before heat treat. I have a 120 made from a new old stock blank. The fullered blade is 440 C and the handle is Lignum Vitae. I prefer the look of the groovy blade.
 
Considering that millions of bayonets have been made, in somewhat equivalent models, with and without fullers, for many different armies, I would GUESS that there is no undue increase in weakness by having a fuller present in the blade. I do notice that US issue bayonets that had fullers are wider (i.e., the M1905, M1917, M-1) while the narrower bayonets lack them (M-4, M-5, M-6, M-7). OH

Ps Nice collection of Buck 120 Generals!
 
STEELHEADBULLY said:
Anyone pick-up the burl handled 120 they released at the same time as the charcoal and blue? 120BO2 I believe?
Click to expand...

I strongly considered getting one, but in looking at the photos from Axxxxx and EBxx I see small crevasses in the wood. the prices I saw approached $260. The crevasses, cost and possible weight (I've seen no weight comparisons but it could be heavier than the charcoal or indigo blue -- don't know) I decided against it.

If anyone has gotten one I'd be interested in what they think after a detailed examination of the handle -- also, how much the knife actually weighs.

Lawrence
 
My 1981 425M 120 standard model weighs 8 1/4 oz. on digital scales. I can't tell if the fullers were ground in or not. If memory serves I paid $30 for it when new. I have no opinion on fullers. Mine has them so I accept it.
 
Who, I have the same knife you describe and the fuller grooves are ground.
Here is a 120 for our discussion made from 1968-71 and the fuller grooves are ground. DM
 
Does anyone else take pause that by eliminating a machining step (the fullers) and changing the dye color of the wood from brown to blue, the price of the knife doubles? ....... :confused:

That said, I'll probably add 1 or 2 fullerless knives to my 120 collection.... I like the look so I'm a sucker too.....
 
DeSotoSky said:
Does anyone else take pause that by eliminating a machining step (the fullers) and changing the dye color of the wood from brown to blue, the price of the knife doubles? ....... :confused:

That said, I'll probably add 1 or 2 fullerless knives to my 120 collection.... I like the look so I'm a sucker too.....
Click to expand...

Some interesting things to think about. From an engineering standpoint there would be tooling costs that would need to be spread over the number of units expected to be produced. I'm assuming that accounts for the fact that the Indigo handled 120 costs $50 more than the charcoal handled 120. I don't know if the indigo handle is inherently more costly to be produced but if there are fewer items to be manufactured (and that is my assumption) that would account for a cost difference.

The brass guard and pommel appear to be the same as the guard and pommel of the cocobolo 120 so there should be no additional tooling or manufacturing costs involved.

Even if the charcoal and indigo handles are inherently no more costly to produce than the cocobolo handle, the fact that they are different involves tooling and manufacturing costs that must be spread over fewer units.

I ran across this 120 knife review: The reviewer used this knife in some challenging circumstances. Also interesting is the little inset video, presumably produced by someone other than the reviewer who didn't like the black phenolic handle -- said it was too slippery for serious use. I compared a 2014 black phenolic with my cocobolo, charcoal an indigo handles and "maybe" the latter three were slightly less slick, but since I've had the former longer perhaps I've inadvertently rubbed something on it that makes a difference -- can't be sure. In any case, the reviewer used a 120 in harsh conditions and didn't have a problem with handle slipperiness; however the words of the review suggest that he used a cocobolo 120. The photo though shows a black phenolic 120. So "maybe" there is a "slipperiness element" in the differences between the black phenolic and the other variations. http://www.bestsurvivalknifeguide.us/buck-120-knife-review/

Notice the knives the reviewer recommends for heavy-duty use. I have the Becker BK9 but not the others. And if you can take only one knife into a certain situation, as the reviewer seems to have done, the reviewer was happy with the 120 for wet conditions. The Becker BK9 (as well as other BK models) will be better for camp chores like chopping, but BK knives are heavier and they will rust.

In terms of practicality, the black phenolic will do anything any of the other 120s will do. But I just got out my 120s to handle them for my subjective slipperiness test and spent some more time looking at them. The knives with brass pommels and guards look better and stay scratch resistant more effectively than the aluminum handled and guarded 120. In terms of handle beauty, the cocobolo seems much more pleasing. The charcoal-handled 120 has a no-nonsense look to it IMO. The reddish cocobolo by itself might seem more attractive than either the black phenolic or the charcoal but the charcoal without the fullers causes me to prefer the look of the charcoal 120. The indigo blue is by far IMO the best looking of the four. Would many people be willing to pay a lot more for the exceptionally good-looking 120 indigo blue 120? Certainly no one who was interested in practicality only. I can't "justify" buying one, but I sure like the look and feel of it.

Lawrence
 
I've owned and used a 120 for over 30 years. Until I watched the linked video above I never once thought of the handle as being slick, it just never crossed my mind. Where is your hand going to go with the guard & pommel?
 
Wow! Until I saw this thread, I never even knew the 120 came without a fuller. Was this only on special editions, or were there regular phenolic handled knives offered without a fuller?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top