Buck 120b01 charcoal handled custom

L

Lawrence Helm

Joined
Jul 24, 2014
Messages
328
In my never-ending quest for the perfect hiking knife I have most often been carrying the standard Buck 120 (2014 version) in a Buck sheath. It fits nicely in front of my camera case on my belt. Strangely enough the Buck 119 & 124 didn't ride as well -- probably just my personal preference. Anyway, my only doubt about the 120 had to do with its "seeming" flimsiness. I read the Buck data when I first got a 120 (back in the 80s). It is probably as stoutly built as a Marine Corps KaBar (another knife I sometimes carry on a hike) but it doesn't have the appearance of being strong. I bought a cocobolo version and while it seemed a bit more solid in the hand, the blade was the same (as far as I could tell) as the basic 120.

Then, just this last month I ran across someone selling Buck 120 custom knives. I subsequently learned that Axxxxx.com is also selling them. I bought a 120bo1. You can see photos of it on eBay and on Axxxxx.com. I bought one and was impressed. The weight is virtually identical to the cocobolo version but most significantly it has no blood grooves; so the blade looks and probably is stronger than either the standard or the cocobolo version of the 120. In comparing the knives one can see that the 120bo1 has a smaller grip than the cocobolo version -- closer to the standard version.

Buck called the 120 the General but it always struck me as looking a bit dainty -- the cocobolo version not so much. The Charcoal 120b01 doesn't seem at all dainty. I see Buck has some other Custom 120s out there for more money; which suggests to me that they made a larger run of the 120b01, perhaps to test the waters and so could sell the 120b01 for less money than the others. But maybe this made-in-2015 120b01 will be one run and done. I like the knife a lot and bought second. It is a stouter more efficient knife than either the standard or cocobolo versions (IMO) and when I hold it up next to my USMC KaBar I can feel as confident with the one as with the other.

Lawrence
 
Interesting, thanks for pointing this one out. Any other difference aside for the missing blood grooves? Same blade length? Will it fit into a std 120 sheath?
 
ohen cepel said:
Interesting, thanks for pointing this one out. Any other difference aside for the missing blood grooves? Same blade length? Will it fit into a std 120 sheath?
Click to expand...

Same blade length and it will fit into a standard 120 sheath. In fact it came with a brown sheath but since it has a charcoal grip I use it with a black sheath.

Lawrence
 
Can you post some photos of them all side by side?

BTW, I have had a 120 since the early 80's and never thought it was 'dainty'.
 
DocT said:
Can you post some photos of them all side by side?

BTW, I have had a 120 since the early 80's and never thought it was 'dainty'.
Click to expand...

Okay, when I get a chance I'll do the photos. As to my thinking it dainty and you not, I'm sure more people agree with you than me. I've got a lot of knives and one usually (at least I have over the years) finds the 120 being classed with the bowies, the 120 (just my opinion) has always seemed the daintiest bowie of them all. I don't mean to insult the 120. My primary objection in the past was the sheath. The 120 would rattle on hikes so I gave up using it, but the new sheath is much better. I have been using a 2014 version of the 120 in a black sheath and have been happy to take it on hikes.

Lawrence
 
The 120 to me is not dainty.The first one I procured was a 1981 model which I used and carried a lot. The rattle in the sheath while carrying it is sooo easy to fix. DM
 
Last edited:
David Martin said:
The 120 to me is not dainty.The first one I procured was a 1981 model which I used and carried a lot. The rattle in the sheath while carrying it is sooo easy to fix. DM
Click to expand...

Perhaps back in the 80s Buck (if I remember rightly) performed a test on the 120. They held some portion of the tip in a device and then bent the knife to see how far it would go before it broke -- and they were able to bend it to some improbable extent without a break. Thus they were able to assure those who looked at the knife and thought it relatively "fragile" (I'm avoiding the word "dainty" now). So if we use the word "fragile," that one test (assuming that any 120 would do as well) demonstrates that the 120 is not fragile, "fragile" here means that it would not break as readily as some people thought that it might.

I have a lot of Becker knives as well, knives known for their ruggedness, but Ethan Becker said that he could break any knife. the USMC KaBar is more "fragile" than the becker BK7, a knife Ethan Becker thought more suitable for USMC use but the USMC continued on with their relatively more fragile KaBar. Why? I have both the USMC KaBar and the Becker BK7 and would give the win to the BK7 if camping chores were they the only consideration. But the KaBar has a guard and the BK7 doesn't. The butt of the KaBar is stong enough for pounding and while the BK7 has a ridge of metal (being a full-tang knife) capable of pounding, the KaBar seems a bit more sutable for routine pounding tasks. Also the kaBar weighs 10 ounces to the BK7s 13. Maybe it is no longer true but when I was in the USMC we had to carry a lot of weight so lighter is better as long as it does the job.

In my view the 120 is closer to the KaBar than to the BK7. Neither the KaBar nor the 120 is as rugged as the BK7; so if you are interested in camping, then the BK7 is the knife to get. If you are a Marine then the KaBar is still hard to beat. How does the 120 compare to the KaBar? The 120 has a guard made out of aluminum. The KaBar's guard is made out of steel. The aforementioned butt of the KaBar is steel. The butt of the 120 is aluminum. As to the blades, the KaBar is thinner but deeper and perhaps half an inch shorter. In terms of the steel used in the blades, they are different but both excellent from everything I've read. The grip on the 120 is much shorter than the KaBar. Also, if one is out in the elements and one's knife is wet, the slick 120 might be tougher to hold than the KaBar (I've never put this to the test). Both knives have blood grooves. The 120 weighs 8 ounces and the KaBar 10 ounces.

Looking now at the 120b01 the "appearance" of the blade is that it is stronger than the old 120 (as it must be because it has no blood groves) and is more likely to be stronger than the KaBar than the old 120. The weight of the old 120 was 8 ounces, the KaBar 10 ounces and the 120b01 11 ounces.

As to fragility (as opposed to "daintiness" which I now regret), the KaBar has been accused of it as well -- as a result no doubt of some having been snapped off at the guard. But, we suspect, it would take quite a lot to break a KaBar and the 120 and 120b01 would be hard to break as well. Even Becker knives have been broken

A knife I bought at about the same time I bought my first 120 was the Western W49 Bowie, more than 20 ounces, full tang and with an elaborate guard. In thinking back I believe I took it on an experimental hike or two but it was too heavy, too cumbersome and I didn't like the swinging sheath. When weight was a consideration I preferred to carry a light knife. It was the sheath rather than the knife that caused me to leave the 120 at home. For years I most often carried a Buck 639 on hikes. It was easier to grip than the 119 or 120, kept a good edge and had something as good as a sharpened back-edge for 2 1/2 inches. The 639 in its canvas sheath weighs 9 1/2 ounces. In recent times I've been carrying the 120 (old style) in a new-style sheath: weight 11 1/2 ounces. If as I plan to I continue carrying the 120b01, I will be carrying 14 1/2 ounces. Non-hikers tend to think these matters inconsequential, but it isn't just the weight of an individual item, it is the aggregate weight of everything you will be carrying; so lighter is always better and if I had a really serious hike planned even today I'd probably go back to my 639.

Lawrence
 
While not an unattractive knife the 1200b01 just looks wrong without the blood grooves/fullers which is pretty classic for the 119 and 120 models. Not being able to recall any reports of a 120 breaking a blade due to the fuller I suspect the lack of a fuller would be preventing something that isn't happening in the first place. A little more weight, probably very little and a different look doesn't significantly change the overall characteristics of the knife.
 
Badhammer said:
While not an unattractive knife the 1200b01 just looks wrong without the blood grooves/fullers which is pretty classic for the 119 and 120 models. Not being able to recall any reports of a 120 breaking a blade due to the fuller I suspect the lack of a fuller would be preventing something that isn't happening in the first place. A little more weight, probably very little and a different look doesn't significantly change the overall characteristics of the knife.
Click to expand...

You could be right about the 120 blade with fullers being as strong as the 120b01 without them. I know in structural designers are always playing with shape changes to reduce weight without compromising strength. I hadn't thought about that.

In regard to reports of blade failure, I haven't heard about any either; however, Buck has made their 119s, 120s, and 124s so pretty that a lot of people (of whom I am one) have been reluctant to take them out and risk scratching them. I've seen a number of comments on the Buck forum to that effect, a knife being too pretty to take out. I did take my 80s version 124 on a number of hikes but after accidentally scratching the pommel somehow, probably when tossing my gear into the trunk, I became more and more reluctant to take it out.

I resolved to buy a used 124 with wood composite, polish the blade, handle, guard and pommel and be prepared to take it on hikes and beat it up if necessary. However, if I got a 124 looking especially nice I found myself reluctant to beat it up.

I bought a 2014 version of the 120 and noticed that with the new sheath it rode especially well on my belt -- rattle was minimal; so I resolved to carry it on hikes and risk beating it up, and that is what I was doing, carrying it and risking beating it up, but I did not actually beat it up.

Meanwhile over on the Becker forum, you are not a true Beckerhead unless you beat up your knives, beat them through so much wood that you wear the protective coating off. You then proudly take photos of what you have done to your knifes -- rarely does one break, and they keep trying. So not only have I never heard of anyone breaking a 120, I have never heard of anyone beating up a 120 the way the Becker people beat up their knives. BTW, even though I have Becker knives, since I'm a hiker and not a camper, I have never beaten off the protective coating of any of my Becker knives. I did really ding up a Becker pry bar but that's been it. Which is to say that even though I have never heard of anyone breaking a 120 blade, neither have I heard of anyone beating up a 120 the way Becker people (most of them according to their forum) beat up their knives.

Lawrence
 
The "blood groove" is actually a lightening cut to reduce weight. It also serves like an I beam and increases strength, if I recall correctly. Knives and swords have used these fullers for a thousand years for just this reason.
 
I don't think it would bother me not having a Fullers groove on a model 120. I wonder which would prove stronger. DM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top