Buck's grinds

David Martin

David Martin

Moderator
Joined
Apr 7, 2008
Messages
19,520
I've noticed some interest in Buck's grinds.
And thought I'd entertain some discussion in this area.
So, I drew out some of their grind cross-sections from early knives (1945) to Present.


Grind A was used in their early knives (model 117 ect.) and in their 60's- 90's slip locks. A full flat grind.
Grind B was used in their 100 series models and lock-back folders from 1962-1980. A semi-hollow grind. (a convex edge)
Grind C was started in 1981 with their 3 dot lock-back folders. A fuller hollow grind.
Grind D represents their Edge 2000 started in about 1993. A improved hollow grind.
Grind E represents a full hollow grind. Used by some custom makers. DM
 
Last edited:
David, is the entire Buck line using the Edge 2000, or just the folders. I guess I could not be lazy and look at the last couple models I've gotten, but my pocket knife folders are all mostly pre-2000.
 
Thanks, David. I love the deep hollow grinds. However, the FFG are my favorite.
 
300 series slippies had a full flat grind until the late 90's. The change to hollow grind took place in sometime between 1997 and 1999.

edit. I've fund a 1998 303 in my collection and it is hollow ground.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for this.

My understanding taken from photographs is that the earlier Buck fixed blades were sabre ground (as was the norm in the 40s and 50s), no?
 
DeSotoSky said:
300 series slippies had a full flat grind until the late 90's. The change to hollow grind took place in sometime between 1997 and 1999.
Click to expand...

Yes, that tracks right. Some folks at church gave me a 303 about 1987 and it was FFG.
 
pinn, I didn't post a cross section of the grind from the time frame you mention of fixed blades. The grind I drew was of slip locks. I knew for certain that one was being used in that time frame. As I haven't held enough of those models to know for certain. I have handled a 104 and it seemed to be. Certainly not as convex as the knives from the 70's. There are other grinds I've seen on some other models (kitchen knives) they do that I didn't draw. So, not meant as a complete dissertation. DM
 
Last edited:
Joe, I'd say no. As there are folding models I have that the blades are not edge 2000 type. The Durado and Alpha Hunter come to mind. These would be thicker than 'C'. The thinnest ones I've noticed were on Bucklites from 1993-2000 and some Workman series. Type 'D'. DM
 
On grind F these being from old knives it's hard to say how much of the grind was changed from sharpening. But I would say from the model I examined which was in very good shape. It had a wee more taper at mid-cross section and flowed on down to a convex primary bevel. Then on G this grind is not seen much, a flat grind flowing down to a hollow grind except on very wide knives. DM
 
David - any idea why so many various grinds on the current lineup? Excluding kitchen since I'm even more clueless on kitchenware than "regular" knives, but just from what I've gathered following forums, the FFG seems to be about the most popular, and most effective slicer, no?

I could see perhaps on knives that have a more heavier duty aspect to them, a different grind may give a stronger cross section, but on regular ol' knives meant for cutting and slicing chores, isn't the FFG most effective?

Please excuse the dumb questions as I'm just trying to pick the brains of folks with more understanding on the effectiveness of edge/blade profiling than I have. I find it interesting and helps explain the thinking behind different types of knives. I know sometimes I've seen knife review threads that always have "great knife, but they should have went with XYZ profile instead".

Thanks!
 
Joe, your questions are the type that folks on this forum discuss endlessly and have their reasons why they are camped in that flavor. I'm going to take the middle road, as I'm still testing a 'full flat grind' blade. However, as of today this FFG blade cuts well and right on par with Bucks edge 2000 thin hollow grind. I think either one performs fine. The full hollow grind is the one I prefer. As it's thinned out ALL the way to the spine and this allows for deeps cuts using less effort. But this grind is mostly Only seen on expensive custom knives. The other grinds have there place. It depends on what you're cutting or malleting. If I wanted a knife I thought I may use to mallet I'd make sure it had grind F or B. This may seem like a lot of grinds (and there are at least 2 more I can think of) but go over to the axe and hatchet forum guys and ask them about grinds on those tools. You'll have 12-15 grinds just for cutting wood and no one is using many brain cells giving you those. So, what you're cutting and what you prefer does matter with grinds. Then the steel and heat treat to compliment the package is of great importance as well. DM
 
Last edited:
Grinds A and E are my favorites. E slices insanely well and has a strong spine to support the blade. A slices as good, but where it shines is in softer material that is much deeper than the knife, or in cardboard. Think of a kitchen knife. B is interesting because in a hunting knife where you encounter bone, fine edges like E are easily chipped. B puts more steel behind the edge, thus giving it strength. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
 
Doc, yes I think that was the thinking when these grinds were developed. Then that thinking dominated and was slow to change. I noted some dates of change: when Buck went to a fuller hollow grind in 1981 (grind C)that was the time Bob Loveless was making quite a name in custom knives and many took notice. Still, a slow change taking 20 years.Then Buck's edge 2000 started being seen 13 years later. Grind D. This one could actually stand with the full flat grind. Still, it took 50 years for that change to surface. And the full flat grind is a tough standard to beat. I like your story-- stick to it. That thinking has a standing. I'll offer a different take. A knife is steel. Very hard. If the edge is done correct there should be no chipping noticed when a bone is nicked with any grind. But as the edge bevel is increased cutting efficiency (think obtuse) is decreased. As edge angle is decreased (think acute) cutting efficiency is increased but strength decreased. Hence a chip occurs. So, we have to find the 'sweet spot' for our cutting tasks. DM
 
Since Joe & Doc have taken this topic further I should probably offer additional images. It should be noted that not only Buck but other manufactures when grinding hollow grinds gives a flared tip. This is noticed at the bevel. One can feel it moving your fingers from the spine to edge. Here's a photo of this.


This is not normally found on a full flat grind. It can be remove by sharpening or it should diminish from stropping. Which helps cutting efficiency. It's created by the size of the grinding wheel during manufactoring. Special care can remove it during grinding. It's thought to help support the edge and during creating the edge bevel but creates a hang up when cutting. DM
 
Quite an interesting discussion actually. Makes me think a bit when I look at different knives and blades.

Curious if the "decent" companies actually research this stuff much or just dump it into the computer to see what comes out or what. Just seems with some knives, the blade geometry doesn't go for some reason. Dunno.
 
Joe, good question. I think Buck actually does research this. They have a CATRA and much can be done with that machine. (one of the few in the states) Some of the custom makers research it more as they charge more for their product thus it needs to be superior in many ways. Knife knowledge on Forums like this is getting out. So, we will see makers & manufacturers respond with not just new shapes but new grinds as well. DM
 
One thing about Buck is that it was originally hunting and farm/work knife in orientation. That means, Buck focused on actually cutting things (like Spyderco) rather than tactical knives of dubious ability. Buck knives really performed in the field where others fell short. The knives were practical and useful. Also, the idea of batoning through a log, rather than using an axe (the proper tool) was an unheard of concept. So, Buck knives worked, and still work very, very well, for their intended purpose and the blade grinds reflect all of that.
 
Good point DocT. One forgets sometimes the years some companies have been around and the "knife landscape" was very much different back then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top