Buck 186... model number reused.

caquino

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
417
Greetings... I landed here looking for info on a Buck 186 I acquired, date code indicates 1995.

JERmX3p.jpg


I saw in the 07/12/2020 Sunday Picture show thread, a posting of a 186... but it's a completely different knife.

So my curious question is... how common is/was it for Buck to reuse model numbers from discontinued models? I've been buying Buck knives since around 1969, I just don't remember running into that....

Thanks for your consideration. Yeah... my forum registration date shows 2007, and this is my first post, I had completely forgotten about registering here back when I bought my Buck 184, and was looking for info. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
To answer your question, yes, Buck has reused model numbers, not common.. Your example of the 186, the 110 was used as the model number for the skinner, now the 103. If you look at farm's post in the Sunday Picture Show you'll see an early example of the 117 that was an early folding knife put together with a blade from Buck and parts from a naval knife. The 117 is now used for a fixed blade sized between the 119 and the 102. There may be others but these are the ones I recall.
 
The date code is 1999, not 1995. (squared C vs rounded C).
Welcome to the Buck forum. Great picture. 1st timers rarely figure that out.
You should also post that picture over on the "Sunday Picture Show" today.
 
Last edited:
One of the twin sets paired the 116caper with 103 skinner. To become the 117 Trophy.

So the 117 model number was reused twice.
 
So many 3 digit numbers to choose from. You wouldn’t think they’d reuse any retired numbers.
But when they do.. it adds a new level to Buck collecting. Just like when they use marked blades in a different model.
 
The date code is 1999, not 1995. (squared C vs rounded C).
Welcome to the Buck forum. Great picture. 1st timers rarely figure that out.
You should also post that picture over on the "Sunday Picture Show" today.

Thanks, I bet that is a common nuance missed by us rookies...
 
Back
Top