Buck reaper ***NEW AND IMPROVED*** back from StoneKnifeWorks

Looks like you made a wise choice sending that knife into Heath. Beautiful transformation of your knife from back when this thread was started to the finished version. :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:
 
The Reaper is a bit deceiving when you look at it. It appears to be a heavy work horse, but It is extremely light and feel a bit odd.

This made me curious, so I whipped out the trusty digital scales to check a couple of knives for comparison.

The stock Reaper weighs in at 7.5 oz. compaired to 7.36 oz. for a standard 1988 110, so it's only about 1/8 oz. heavier. It's almost the same weight as a standard 119 from 2003 which weighs in at 7.56 oz.

I like the looks of the mods Heath's done to it, a thumbs up in that department.
 
This made me curious, so I whipped out the trusty digital scales to check a couple of knives for comparison.

The stock Reaper weighs in at 7.5 oz. compared to 7.36 oz. for a standard 1988 110, so it's only about 1/8 oz. heavier. It's almost the same weight as a standard 119 from 2003 which weighs in at 7.56 oz.

The impression I get when I look at this knife, is that it looks like it would be similar in weight or in the same family as the Punk or Hoodlum. Both the Hoodlum and Punk feel substantial and could hold up to heavy camp site chores or Buck craft work. I don't see that with this knife. Guess I will use this one for cutting apples in the kitchen.:confused:
 
It should do a great job chopping those apples!

I just noticed that Buck's catalog lists them at 8.5 oz. but that has to be a typo. I double checked my scale by weighing a few other models and all come within a couple of hundredths of an oz. matching their listed weight in the catalog. It is the same overall length and weight as the Hood Punk though, so the Punks no heavyweight either.
 
Last edited:
The impression I get when I look at this knife, is that it looks like it would be similar in weight or in the same family as the Punk or Hoodlum. Both the Hoodlum and Punk feel substantial and could hold up to heavy camp site chores or Buck craft work. I don't see that with this knife. Guess I will use this one for cutting apples in the kitchen.:confused:

The Punk has a 5 5/8" blade (flat ground, carbon steel, .185" thick) and is specced at 7.4 oz.
The Thug has a 7" blade (hollow ground, carbon steel, .185" thick) and is specced at 11.6 oz. (Was this actually designed by Ron Hood?)
The Hoodlum has a 10" blade (flat ground, carbon steel, .22) and is specced 14.6 oz.
The Reaper has a 6 3/4" blade (hollow ground, 420HC, .15") is specced at 8.5 oz.

It would appear that the Reaper is designed to be a less expensive, stainless alternative to the Thug.

A notable difference is the thickness of the blades.

What sort of heavy/bushcrafty type uses do you have in mind? Working on my property, I generally just jump up to a machete for chopping out brush. In the times I've pressed long fixed blades into that sort of work (not often), I find that balance is as important as heft. Would rather have a lighter knife with the right balance that allows me to snap my wrist into the wood than a heavy knife that is too handle heavy. Weight figures alone are enough. I know my grandfathers old 6.5" bowie works well though!

For batonning/splitting, I think I would pick the Punk over the Thug or Reaper due to the grind.

The Buck literature describes the Reaper as being good for "protection". That and the top/back edge along the spine makes me think that the Reaper is more in line with being a quasi-tactical (or hunting) knife and less of a real bushcraft/woods knife.

That said, I'll bet you'ld have to work pretty darn hard to break that Reaper. Lotta people get by with comparatively anemic Moras just fine.
 
Last edited:
Why would anyone strip the coating? It extends the life of the blade, and it's "subdued", so that no one sees the blade in a matter of self defense, hence the "Reaper" name.
 
Back
Top