Buck Strider vs. Strider

[longbeachguy]

Hello all, first time poster here.

I would love to see a knowlegable comparison between the Buck Strider knives and their straight Strider counterparts. Some of the Buck models are very similar to non-Buck Striders, in appearance anyway. Some examples are:

Buck Strider Tarani 882 Police and Strider SnG Spearpoint

Buck Strider Solution and Strider EBS.

There are some obvious differences, like in the first example the Buck Tarani 882 has ATS 34 steel and uses a linerlock, while the Stridier has S30V steel and is a framelock. Some of the similarities are G10 handles and heat treat by BOS.

In the second example I'm hard pressed to find a significant difference as both have ATS 34 with BOS heat treat, and G10 handles.

In both these instances the Buck verstion is about 1/3 the price of the Strider model.

Does anyone whose used both have any thoughts on whether the Bucks are as great a deal as they seem, i.e. with similar performance and durability to the Striders? Or, are the Bucks really no substitute for the Striders, and if so, why not?

Thanks! I love these forums!

Jim

 

[t1mpani]

Welcome to Bladeforums,

I won't comment on the folders because I don't have the experience with them, however I will say that for the Solution vs. other Strider fixed blades your instincts in regards to the quality of the materials being used are absolutely dead on. Paul Bos doing the heat treatment all way around, and there isn't nearly so much difference in the performance of ATS-34, BG-42, and S30V as manufacturers (and many forumites) like to think. Heat treated to comparable hardness, they're all suited for about the same range of tasks, use and abuse. Not even close to being the hardiest steels in the world but all very stain resistant and hold a great edge.

What you are definitely getting with Striders (vs. the Buck models) is higher resale value and more prestige in ownership. Beyond that, you have to look at the designs offered and see what will suit your needs best. I have one of the older Solutions and like it very much for general utility.

 

[USAFSP]

I can comment on the Tarani Vs. SNG. I had a Tarani Police model in ATS-34 and currently have been EDC'ing a SNG for a year. The only similarities between the two are the basic shape. The SNG has a blade made of S30V and the Tarani has ATS-34. Both are up till now BOS heat treated (the new SNG's no longer have the BOS heat treat, but that doesn't hinder performance). The SNG is flat ground and the Tarani isn't ground the same. You can see the Strider's grind starts way up near the blade spine, whereas the Tarani's starts mid blade. The Strider is a better slicer overall

Of course there are the stripes, but that is purely asthetic. The thumb studs on the Buck are riveted in and the ones on the SNG are pressed in and look cleaner. Both are available with G-10 handles, but the SNG has a Titanuim frame lock of significant thickness and strength, while the Tarani has a very, very thin liner. (Pic of my SNG lock)

The SNG has the "Hinderer" device that stabalizes the lockbar from up and down torquing, and over extending when opening. See the disk above the lock on the photo below (that is my SNG, I took off the flame stripes)

The Tarani doesn't have the "Hinderer". Also there is the question of pivot strength. This is where there is no comparison. Look here at the pivot of my SNG.

It is called a "Bull Pivot". The pivot is actually the size of the barrel all the way through the blade. The one on the Tarani is just a steel pin. It is a little thick, but nowhere near the size of the one on the Strider. This along with the super strong lock, and the "Hinderer" make for a very secure knife when open. There is also a large degree of hand work that goes into each SNG whereas the Tarani's are mass produced. Both are production knives, but the Strider is hand fitted. Not to say that every one is perfect, but the Striders are much, much, much more consistant. Also there is the warantee. I had a problem with my Buck, and called them. They had no problem saying that they would fix it, but they said it would take up to 8 weeks before they even got to it. I have called and talked to Josh at Strider, and turnaround time is WAY shorter. I have met Dwane D. at a knife show and he is a great guy. I know the Strider is 3 times the price, but you are getting that much more knife. To compare them in layman's terms, it is like buying a Scion as opposed to a Lexus. Both are made by Toyota, but there is a definate difference. Good luck with whatever you choose and welcome to the BFC.

 

[longbeachguy]

Thanks you guys!

It makes perfect sense that the Strider Strider vs. Buck Strider issue would make more difference with the folders than the fixed blades, and I probably would have gone with that assumption. However I sure do appreciate all the great detail you provided.

Regards,

Jim

 

[USAFSP]

No problem Jim. There are many different Strider knives that can be had too. Buck is just making the general line. I hate to cross reference forums, but www.badlandsforums.com is an amazing place to go to learn a lot about Strider knives, and see all that they really have to offer.

 

[freddy1]

i have the Buck -strider tarani 882 but blade plain edge...
Unfortunately seems you have to choose between plain edge OR G10 scale..
So i have one with Taccom scale, as i don't like partialy serrated blade... :yawn:
Blade shape is nice, ATS34 (more or less same as 154CM) is a good steel, well heat-treated for what i have seen (and used)...

I found the "thin liner" to be really "agressive" and painfull to the finger, and honestly, i would really have appreciate something else than Taccom for the scales !! :foot:

 

[USAFSP]

The only thing I can say about the Buck Strider is the one with the TACCOM grips and the ATS 34 blade is one of the best buys out there for the price. I think I paid $99.00 for mine. The liner is too thin, but it did lock up rock solid. The guy I sold mine to is a friend of mine and he EDC's it now. He constantly comments on how nice of a foder it is, and that he can't believe that a folder with a liner that thin can lock up that strong. It's a good folder, but no where as good as a Strider SNG.

 

[STR]

I have the Buck 882 combo edge with the Bos heat treated ATS34 blade. First thing I noticed was how easy it was to open the blade. It flips right out without needing to use the opening hole or the thumb studs on the blade that also function as the blade stops. The blade is so tip heavy that it can be whipped out easily by a flick. In some regards the blade could function much as a cleaver could because it is good for chopping veges. I also used it for splitting small pieces of wood for kindling the other night for my first fire of the season and it performed quite well as was unaffected by batoning it through a smaller log to split it in half and then in half again. From what I can tell this is a very capable folder although I have not had it long enough to get into much more detail than this.

The second thing I noticed was how abrasive the handle scales were to my pants pocket because of the checkering and sharp edges. I thought I'd seen a good bit of wear from the Waved knives I've been using and carrying but the Buck Tarani really can tear up pants in it's own right. First mod I did to this knife was taking my 3m Cratex wheels to the glass filled nylon handle checkering to get rid of all the rough abrasive character it came with from the factory.

After that I took off the burr edge on the liners and there was plenty of that also. Then finally the lock grooves had to be sanded because they were almost borderline sharp edged enough to tear skin from your thumb when you closed the knife. To be honest I don't really buy into the Strider boys attitude that, "if you want it sanded do it yourself". That is just plain lazyness to send out a knife unfinished like that in my opinion. Buck should stand up to that guy and have no part in that attitude. When you pay for a premium working knife you don't expect to have to take it to your own shop to make it right before you can carry it. No knife would ever leave my shop with sharp edges like this one had on the liners or the lock. Now it is pocket worn and still tacky enough for grip but not near as hard on pants or fingers or skin from sharp rough edges.

The blade is razor sharp and I really like Bucks serration pattern on this knife. I also rather like the built in finger nail file type of abrasive area on the top part of the blade on both sides. It is almost identical in abrasiveness to the files on the Swiss Army knives.

I agree that the lock is a bit thin but based on my own tests of steel locks in my own handmade folders a .040 steel lock is plenty strong and can surprise you at the abuse it can take. If this were a titanium lock at that thinness in a knife this size it would be a recipe for trouble and easily bent but this Bos hardened steel lock is stronger than even a .060 ti lock and will most certainly wear better than any titanium lock where the lock meets the blade. Trust me.

The questions for me on the Strider knives is if there is a screw type support under the handle up toward the front of the knife body under the pivot like there is on the Buck that helps keep the body together during twisting torque types of tension. On my Buck 882 there is what looks to be at least a 1/8th" diameter stainless pin secured where the stop pin would normally be on other knives. The effectively helps the pivot pin to hold the front half of the body together during those stresses.

This additional screw down or pinned down support up front in conjunction with the pivot is very important with liner locks and frame lock type folders IMO. Having a second pin or screw down up front in conjunction with the pivot helps to keep a liner lock from defeating so easily during counter clockwise twisting stresses of torque. It is not full proof by any means but for sure a significant improvement by aiding to keep the body from allowing so much movement or flex. It does little to prevent the lock from moving though but it does make flexing the folder by twisting harder to do. I prefer to make the spacer bar and blade stop all one piece in my own liner locks so that the entire length of the folder body is tied in and held in place along the spacer bar nice and securely. It just makes for a much more reliable lock up you can trust a little better than one without this feature.

In my experience the liner locks that defeat quite easily from twisting torques are most always the ones with flopping loose stop pins held in place by nothing more than the pivot pin tension. (those type blade stops should be outlawed and/or boycotted IMO.) The question of the security of the lock during these twisting forces comes to mind with the Strider here because of the fact that the stop pin on both the Strider and Buck 882 are on the blade in the form of the thumb studs which leaves a big void for additional support in the form of support up front since the normal stop pin is effectively removed from the makeup of the folder design. If all that holds things together at the very front of the folder is the pivot pin tension I don't think the lock could be trusted too far if you were to twist it, particularly when the lock barely engages the blade when you open it.

Is there additional pinned or screwed down support up there closer to the pivot on the Strider? I can't tell from the pictures. It looks like the Strider pin is farther back toward the middle leaving a lot of the security to the 'bull pivot' for lateral stresses. In this one regard, funny as it may sound, the Buck may actually be harder to defeat the lock on from twisting side ways torques than the Strider. It would be interesting to find out.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

I agree that the lock is a bit thin ...

This really isn't significant, a lot of people promote lock thickness, but I have seen lots of thin locks be far more stable than thick ones and even see liners more resitant to torques than much thicker integrals. This really doesn't address the problems with the lock.

Having a second pin or screw down up front in conjunction with the pivot helps to keep a liner lock from defeating so easily during counter clockwise twisting stresses of torque. It is not full proof by any means but for sure a significant improvement by aiding to keep the body from allowing so much movement or flex. It does little to prevent the lock from moving though but it does make flexing the folder by twisting harder to do.

The body flexing doesn't really cause the lock to fail, I have seen very rigid knives like the Sebenza unlock on torques. What would be really nice would be some maker very familiar with liners examining problem locks and figuring out the problem, why did they disengage.

-Cliff

 

[STR]

The body flexing doesn't really cause the lock to fail,

Cliff the locks disengage because the body is being flexed and when flexed enough it takes the lock along with it. But it is more than this alone. The length of the lock or rather the length of the cut out may play a big roll in this also. In my mind the flexing is exactly why the locks fail. If counter clockwise twisting is applied it will in effect pull the lock back toward the butt or lanyard hole and allow the lock to travel clockwise so it goes back just the same as if it is pushed with the thumb to release it and if clockwise twists are applied it pulls the lock the other way, again from the but of the knife bascially being pulled back from flexing. Then the lock moves in tighter to where it will leave the blade on the opposite side if twisted enough.

Reduce the flex and reduce the risk of it happening in most knives and if it does happen it will be harder to make happen because it is harder to twist it far enough to make the lock pull backward and move off the blade if the body is less giving.

This really isn't significant,

The screw down blade stop does help to make the knife harder to flex but it is not full proof as I said, just a step in the right direction. Thicker liners (and lock) are harder to twist than thin ones just like a thicker piece of metal is harder to bend than a thin one is. So I don't know for absolute certainty that thickness doesn't matter somehow with regards to flexing. It is a puzzle with some knives because they do hold up and look to be nothing more than gents knives. But I believe that the length of the lock cut out or basically the length of the lock itself and where it is bent plays a large part in these failures. Testers need to note this when they do these tests. Was the lock a long cut or a short one.

My thoughts? The jury is still out on which would be better. A short lock minimum in length and perhaps a bit harder to push may be better because harder to push equates to harder to move. If a long lock cut 3/4 or more of the way down the knife is there it may be so much easier to bend and twist that it just fails easier. Again the shorter piece of metal would naturally be harder to bend. Same principle.

I agree with you about the lock thickness as far as normal use stability and it seems to matter very little as far as reliability because like others that have written about this I have thinner locks that are far more stable than some of the thicker ones. The material the lock is made of matters more IMO as well as the angle the blade has on it where it meets the lock. And it also helps to have the lock fully engage the blade and not just barely come into contact with it like so many frame locks I see. The less of the lock that is engaged to the blade, the less flex it will take counter clockwise to make it slide off the blade tang. A lock that goes in farther has farther to travel to leave the blade and should require more flexing to make it fail than one that is already hanging off the tang part way. This is all based on my own observations and experiments.

 

[USAFSP]

Cliff, I think that the body flexing has got to do with the lock disengaging because it works iteslf loose. If the frame is rigid and the lock iteslf is designed properly, like the lock ramp angle properly designed, then the lock shouldn't disengage. I think as far as tourqe goes, most any type of lock designed will be defeatable with the proper amount of force. The lock on the Buck Strider Tarani Police is thin, but well executed to hold locked under normal use. Who knows what it would take to defeat it. I didn't wanna try to find out. As far as the SNG I carry, I have torqued and pryed, and rocked back and forth in some really bad situations, and the lock held tru with no issues at all. Like I said it is all in the design.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

I think as far as tourqe goes, most any type of lock designed will be defeatable with the proper amount of force.

It is the amount of force which is the issue, specifically lots of liners/integrals can be disengaged with forces vastly less than the blade can handle so the design is incoherent. It hardly makes sense to call a design "heavy duty" and tactical when it can't so what a Calypso Jr. can because of torque instability.

...the locks disengage because the body is being flexed and when flexed enough it takes the lock along with it.

As noted my Sebenza is very rigid, it still can be unlocked by torquing so this isn't the primary failure method. The Buck/Strider I used unlocked very easily, far more than the Rat Trap which both flexed easier through the main blade body and much more through the lock. The Rat trap lock flexes really easily, if you press on the blade you can see it flex, yet it is one of the most solid locks I have seen under torques and impacts.

Thicker liners (and lock) are harder to twist than thin ones just like a thicker piece of metal is harder to bend than a thin one is.

The liner isn't stressed that way during torque failures, they don't fail because of lack of stiffness of the lock. Joe has described in the past small gentleman folders which very slim locks that were very stable under torques, they didn't have the huge overbuilt pins on the Strider nor any of the other features of such tacticals but still the locks were very solid.

The main reason it is a puzzle is because makers using liners/integrals refuse to admit the lock has a problem with torques and impacts and the problem will persist until this attitude changes and some maker admits there is a real issue and deals with it. Of course as long as people are willing to buy the knives there is no real monetary incentive for the makers, plus there are already better locks anyway.

-Cliff

 

[USAFSP]

So then it is possible that a flexable lock may be more secure because it is able to stay put while the rest of the knife flexes? That is an interesting thought.

 

[STR]

I knew this could end up into the liner lock bash so lets not go there again please. Many people don't drive Jeeps because they can roll but I do and have not had a problem with them.

Funny how you talk so highly of the Rat Trap. What a shock Cliff. I cannot imagine you saying anything too harsh about any Busse knife so coming from the source I have to wonder. The lock on the Buck/Strider is the same thickness as the one on the Rat Trap and can easily be seen to flex also but I'll bite my tonque now.

I believe I covered much the same thing as you said again but really. I've not had near the issues with liner locks that only a few seem to be bringing up. I've read that 'scores' of reports are out there of liner lock failures. Well, I'm on this forum and many others everyday and I have not seen them. Show me links to these so called scores of failures.

Recently I saw a video of an axis lock miserably failing a spine whack as well as several so called heavy duty lock backs. One or even ten knives that fail these tests does not mean that the locks are a bad design or having inherent problems. So, why should it be any different for a liner lock or frame lock folder?

It is an interesting thought that a more flexible lock could be better. More flex may equate to more independence. In other words the lock may not be so influenced by the movement of the rest of the body when it flexes which could certainly explain the easy failures of very rigidly built knives like your Sebenza. This could be the key right there if it can be tested out.

 

[STR]

Cliff. What were you doing when you say the lock failed on the Strider Buck?

Because I just hammered my 882 into a log and really twisted on it trying to make it fail. It held up and did so admirably and I even twisted it nearly sideways giving it a real twist while pushing down to see if the lock would give. It loosened during the twist but is fine now.

STR.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

Cliff. What were you doing when you say the lock failed on the Strider Buck?

It was in a piece of wood, I rotated my wrist and the lock disengaged readily. It was one of the most instable liner locks I have seen, very low force. The Sebenza is among the highest, but functionally is fairly unstable because of contact with the hand which induces a white knuckle type release.

When the Buck/Strider lock disengaged to the extent it was partially making contact I pressed down on the handle and the shear force readily cracked the lock face, again not a serious amount of force, I use the Vapor much heavier all the time.

I asked about this behavior to both Buck and Mick, Strider commented directly on the forum this was the expected behavior of the lock.

I cannot imagine you saying anything too harsh about any Busse knife ...

I do all the time, I have in fact recommended other knives over the Rat Trap, and over Busse and Swamp Rat knives on lots of occasions, the reviews always contain references to knives that outperform them and describe areas in which the knives don't perform well.

I also sent the knife to Joe for him to evaluate the lock, he spoke well of it in regards to impact tests, maybe they just make good knives, it isn't the best liner/integral I have seen though. He did comment the handle had ergonomic issues for long term use as it is slim, which I agree.

I also sent it out for a pass around, fell free to have a look at it. You can also take it apart and modify the lock if you want, just be the last person on the signup sheet if you choose to do that.

Well, I'm on this forum and many others everyday and I have not seen them.

The discussion was heavy about 10 years ago, which lead to the development of the liner lock faq. Most people into heavy use folders who had the problem have long since moved onto to other lock types which is why you don't see guys like Joe and Steve talking about testing liner locks now. I stopped considering them for heavy use folders a long time ago.

Recently I saw a video of an axis lock miserably failing a spine whack as well as several so called heavy duty lock backs.

I have cut lots of black spruce that were easier to cut that lots of white pine. I spent the weekend hauling wood, 12 truckloads in two days, the heaviest log I lifted was actually of the lightest wood - there are always exceptions to general rules.

It is an interesting thought that a more flexible lock could be better.

I don't think it is a good thing the lock flexes, it just isn't the real problem with disengagements. It did have problems initally, specifically a partial engagement on opening, common to liner locks which I solved with a few inertia openings. I also don't like the actual set of the lock, it looks more curved and it seem to me a more angular alignment would be more stable, but the real issue is I think the contact geometry.

So then it is possible that a flexable lock may be more secure because it is able to stay put while the rest of the knife flexes?

Possibly, I never thought of it that way, I was just using it as an example of flexing not equating to instability, but yes if the lock bent instead of moving it could stop disengagement. I don't think that is the ideal solution though.

-Cliff

 

[STR]

Why do you suppose your Vapor is any better than the Sebenza you refer to when it comes to white knuckling closure? Both have locks in hand contact when using them right? Is that what you are saying basically that the Vapor has a more reliable lock than a Sebenza? I guess I fail to see how. My Vapor lock barely engages the blade at all and can be made to slide off from Spine taps. Is it the thumb ramp that is allowing the access to the lock more on the Sebbie?

The Buck Strider on the other hand just absorbs the shock when tapped but the lock doesn't move at all and has yet to defeat. Same with splitting wood. I've twisted it hard with nearly all my strength rotating my wrist and all it did was tighten the lock from where it was on the blade when I opened it. That is anything but unstable in my mind.

I think what I'm saying is this. When you say, "maybe they just make good knives", well, maybe you just got a good one and other times you just got a bad one. To be honest, you can't really say the Buck Strider has one of the most unstable locks for anything but that one knife you tested. Nor can you say the Rat Trap has one of the best ones you have seen from just that one knife. Well, you can. But it is not reality. It may be one of the knives that performed best that you've tested but it is not really a conclusive way to say all are good, or all are bad from one knife. Not that you did.

The knives tested are just one representative of the many. The results of the tests on one knife mean nothing really for any other knife out there, even of the same model and only apply to the one tested. Many would need to be looked at to determine that it is characteristic of the whole. As Joe has pointed out on several posts one can perform quite well one day and fail miserably the next so looking at that statement for what it is, tests of many could tell you very little also.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

Why do you suppose your Vapor is any better than the Sebenza you refer to when it comes to white knuckling closure?

My hand mates with the lock on the Sebenza more readily and thus when torquing exerts a direct force to release the lock. On some liners/integrals this isn't necessary and the torques unlock them directly.

Is that what you are saying basically that the Vapor has a more reliable lock than a Sebenza?

The Sebenza can take harder torques, and without the direct contact I think the blade would break before the lock would torque fail.

The Vapor's bar has wore more, and now seems to be less stable, it also has developed slight side play unless I over tighen the lock, but I use it much harder than the Sebenza as the blade profile is *much* more durable, but my Sebenza has an edge profile which was half spec so it is much more fragile than the normal ones.

The Vapor opens smoother, but mainly because the washers on the Sebenza rusted, and the Vaopr opens easier due to the handle cut out which allows easier access to the stud. The Sebenza out cuts it significantly on most work, but I have modified its edge profile significantly. NIB it would be very close.

The Vapor used to have an edge on some slicing due to the recurve, but I have actually wore a curvature into the Sebenza just from cutting cardboard, I was going to remove this when I first noticed it but like the way it works now.

Edge retention and ease of sharpening favor the Sebenza, ergonmics is dependent on what is being done exactly, but the Vapor is better more often.

My Vapor lock barely engages the blade at all and can be made to slide off from Spine taps.

Yes, QC on them is fairly low based on what I read. Mine was a gift from Thom which he would not have done obviously had it been defective. This is probably the best they get.

To be honest, you can't really say the Buck Strider has one of the most unstable locks for anything but that one knife you tested.

Yes I can when the maker confirms it is the expected behavior. I always check with the makers/manufacturers when I do reviews, both during and after. Some are more responsive than others. When I describe problems and they decline to comment then I have little faith that the product in general can be expected to be any better, common logic would apply here.

Nor can you say the Rat Trap has one of the best ones you have seen from just that one knife..

I don't tend to make such statements. I would say something like "Yeah, the Rat Trap has one of the better liner locks I have seen in regards to impact/torques." If I was posting where it was clear I was talking about knives used I would leave out the "seen" part as that is implied.

Of course as always, ask the maker/manufacturer for the GAURANTEED expected performance. Busse is fairly direct about this, just call him. It doesn't matter if a knife gets stellar reviews if the maker won't support any of the performance described.

-Cliff

 

[STR]

It doesn't matter if a knife gets stellar reviews if the maker won't support any of the performance described.

So true. And one of the main reasons I love Spyderco knives so much.

Yes I can when the maker confirms it is the expected behavior

You are talking about a titanium locking Buck Strider that the lock failed on though Cliff. This one right? http://www.physics.mun.ca/~sstamp/knives/buck_strider.html

That is not the 882 Tarani that we have been talking about in this thread. If you have done a review of the Tarani please provide a link because no search I do is bringing that up. That model in the link if I'm not mistaken, is the 880. The 882 has a steel lock probably 410 stainless or something similar hardened to a Rc 45. The 880 has a 6AL-4V ti lock and liner. Not only two different metals but two different models of knives. So unless I'm mistaken you are trying to slip in a fast one on us by using the 880 review to judge another model. I've searched your site and googled and yahooed to no avail to find a review of the Tarani from Cliff Stamp. At this point a little help is needed to find it.

 

[Artfully Martial]

someone should just test it. I want to know.