Buck's hollow grind Pros and Cons

M

mudguard

Joined
Aug 2, 2013
Messages
309
This question comes from a fellow used to flat grinds. What are the benefits of the hollow grinds on Buck's pocket knives (300 series for example). Is there a particular reason why they moved away from their previously flat grind to this hollow grind?

307-301-1.jpg


note: this is not my image but it makes the point.
 
Just to be clear, the top knife is a contract knife and not actually mfg by Buck.
 
I much prefer the flat grinds and long pulls on the older ones.

Wish it was still this way!
 
Okay.. well then my question would be why change the grind? and once they did.. do you support their change or wish they would have kept the flat grinds they had before? are there any pros or cons to the new hollow grinds on the 300 series?

DeSotoSky said:
Yes, about 86-94.
Click to expand...
 
In my experience, the hollow grinds go through cardboard like butter. Way better than any of my other knives.
 
Here you go. Think of the contract knives, Buck had to use the basic design of the company they contracted with, to make the knife affordable. Flat grinds were found in both Schrade and Camillus contract 300s because that is what Schrade and Camillus were doing. This dated from 1966 to 1985. Buck took charge of four models in 1986 production, 301,303,309 and 305. Off the top of my head I will say, the Hollow grinding started, on those four models, in 1990 about the same time the design went to all stainless spring models and each blade had its own spring. Some may have dragged in later in 1991. The models (like307, 311, 313, 321, etc) that continued to be made by Camillus were still made using the contractors designs. So, say in 1996 you might have bought a new in the box 307 still with flat grinding, because it was actually being made by Camillus. In my photo pile I have a picture of the changes in the 303 as stuff changed, I will go look for it. But, remember, Buck "itself" only used flat grinding on its late 80's 300s that used 425m steel and had the BUCK shield in place of the knife,bolt and hammer, had two springs and brass liners after that all actual Buck made 300s had hollow grind....The time frame varies a little with the four models, but the changes occurred in the 90's.
300

Flat grind - Contract knife or Buck (301,303,309 or 305) 86 thru 89ish + a couple depending on model.
Hollow grind - Buck made models after early 1990s.
 
Last edited:
<drift>
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the original Hoyt Buck fixed blades sabre ground blades?
</drift>


I think the pros and cons of different grinds is real YMMV territory.

I think hollow grinds do better in materials that self separate as you cut, like rope, meat and CARTA testing gel.

I find hollow grinds tend to bind up in materials that don't self-separate like pumpkin, squash, potatoes and wood (deep cuts). The issue is that the shoulder where the "hollow" meets the flat part of the blade causes friction.

Some of the early Buck hollow grinds like the script 500s have a very rounded shoulder. This isn't my knife but mines looks very much like this.
il_570xN.439983477_hr65.jpg


Note the very soft transition from the hollow to the flat.

I've taken hollow ground blades to the stones to thin and soften the grind transition. Here's another 500 that I used to own (lost) that had a very sharp transition originally. You'll note that the grind transition is no longer straight. What it harder to see is that the top of blade is more angled like a full flat grind.
Buck 500 by Pinnah, on Flickr

I found that thinning a hollow grind like this improves the slicing ability but it's still not as versatile as a flat or convexed blade IMO.

In the traditional forum, people seem pretty split on their preferences between flat and hollow grinds for slip joints.

Given that Buck is first and foremost a hunting knife company and given that they use a hollow grind on almost every knife they make, I think that it's unlikely they would go back to a flat grind on their slip joints.
 
mudguard said:
This question comes from a fellow used to flat grinds. What are the benefits of the hollow grinds on Buck's pocket knives (300 series for example). Is there a particular reason why they moved away from their previously flat grind to this hollow grind?

note: this is not my image but it makes the point.
Click to expand...

Yes, there is a particular reason.

Buck changed to their super hollow grind with about a 12° per side edge bevel in about 2000. In the late 1990s Buck did a large project using a CATRA test machine to determine what blade profile would give the best performance. They found that the current blade profile gave superior results. They rolled it out with the name "Edge 2000".

The CATRA machine is a cutlery industry standard machine for comparing cutting performance. You can read about it here:
http://www.catra.org/pages/products/kniveslevel1/slt.htm

Here's the thread from 2001 in which CJ Buck talks about the work that Buck did:
http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php/127499-CATRA-Edge-Testing-Results

Unfortunately, the graphs no longer show. But, the upshot was that a BG-42 blade of the previous blade profile was outperformed by a 420HC blade of the new profile.

Personally, I find that a flat grind is better for peeling apples. But the new profile performs better for most other tasks.
 
Honest folks, the authority on this has spoken..Thanks Buck forum friend knarfeng.
300
 
hollow grind slice meat really cool but cut wood not stable like flate grind.
 
Last edited:
knarfeng said:
Yes, there is a particular reason.

Buck changed to their super hollow grind with about a 12° per side edge bevel in about 2000. In the late 1990s Buck did a large project using a CATRA test machine to determine what blade profile would give the best performance. They found that the current blade profile gave superior results. They rolled it out with the name "Edge 2000".

The CATRA machine is a cutlery industry standard machine for comparing cutting performance. You can read about it here:
http://www.catra.org/pages/products/kniveslevel1/slt.htm

Here's the thread from 2001 in which CJ Buck talks about the work that Buck did:
http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php/127499-CATRA-Edge-Testing-Results

Unfortunately, the graphs no longer show. But, the upshot was that a BG-42 blade of the previous blade profile was outperformed by a 420HC blade of the new profile.

Personally, I find that a flat grind is better for peeling apples. But the new profile performs better for most other tasks.
Click to expand...


Frank, I too find that different grinds do different things better (like peeling apples) but reach a different conclusion.

I think by "cutting performance" you mean the ability to continue making straight cuts and the apex degrades, which is what the CARTA machine tests for. While this is an important aspect of overall blade performance for a particular cutting task, it is only one aspect.

Occasionally (less currently than I like), I find myself sitting and making shavings and the result is a wind spiral. It keeps my hands busy and my busy mind calm when just sitting on the porch or a beach. I find that it gives me a good way to get to know a knife in a way that corresponds to my actual use, since outside of food prep, cutting wood is my #1 cutting task. I find that knives that do well making wind spirals do well working around my property and other wood cutting.

This also gives me a way to try different knives side by each. I'll often work on a spiral with 2 or 3 different knives to see if I can detect a noticeable difference in how they work the wood. I don't have a huge collection of knives, so this is not a huge list, but here are some of the knives that I've used in these side by side tests.
+ Buck 110 (hollow grind)
+ Buck 500 (hollow grind)
+ Buck 112 (hollow grind)
+ Buck 442 (hollow grind)
+ Buck 486 (hollow grind)
+ Case 316-5 (hollow grind)
+ Schrade-Walden H-15 (convexed sabre grind)
+ Opinel #9 & #10 (convex grind)
+ Mora Companion HD (factory zero grind Scandi)
+ Mora Companion HD (reground to convexed Scandi)

Here's a shot of the Mora with the shoulder convexed off (since polished out)
image by Pinnah, on Flickr

And a shot of an Opinel #10...
Getting acquainted by Pinnah, on Flickr

I don't have any pictures of any of my hollow ground knives making wind spirals because I never have been able to finish the job with them. Each and every time the flatter and more convexed blades do a better job and not by just a bit.

In reflecting on why this is the case, I find that the hollow ground knives seem to have a single "bite angle" when they start to bite into the wood and they feel like they continue to dive into the wood at that angle despite my effort to control the depth of the shaving. I had the same problem with factory zero grind Scandi on the Mora when new. This went way for me when I rounded off the shoulder of the Mora.

I *think* the rounded shoulder on the convexed Mora and H-15 and the lack of distinct shoulder on the Opinel allows me to use the shoulder of the blade as an easy to control fulcrum, which makes it easier to control the bite angle. I wonder if a similar thing is happening when you peel apples with a hollow ground blade?

I keep a couple of traditional knives in my kitchen drawer and use them (for fun, they make me happy) regularly. The Schrade 51OT is flat ground and of course the Buck 110 is hollow ground. The Opinel #9 and Buck 500 are my 2 EDC knives (in rotation) and they get used too (after being washed).
image by Pinnah, on Flickr

Tme and time again, I can notice a real difference in what sorts of food the different knives seem to be best at. The Buck 110 (and other hollow ground knives) do great with meat but they bind up noticeably when cutting things like onions, potatoes or squash. The flat Schrade and the thin convex Opinel slice much better. A really noticeable difference. Going beyond this, while the superiority of the flatter blades for slicing is huge, the superiority of the hollow grind for cutting meat isn't as noticeable.

I'm not suggesting that the CARTA test is meaningless. Only that edge retention is only a single aspect of overall blade performance. How the blade performs and handles when cutting matters too and what we cut may differ. For food and wood, I find the flatter or more convexed blades to be more versatile but again, this is YMMV territory.

Last comment on this front... Especially when working with wood I find it takes a day of cutting for me to find the feel of a blade. As with bike and ski handling, this suggests to me that there is a big connection between performance and user technique and with habitual technique, it's very possible for different people with different muscle memory will end up with difference preferences. These knives might work best for me and my hands and perhaps not for somebody else.
 
Ha, I came with in a hair's breath of saying " and one of my other three metal and grind friends is 'pinnah' ". I guess I should have....my hat off in apology....DM is in the herd also....I count on them to quickly and quietly tell me to hold my tongue when I am wrong.......300
 
Geez Louise! No apology needed!!!

Having been through this "same" discussion a zillion times in ski and bike forums when performance is the result of the tool (eg grind) and user (eg technique or habit), there is loads of room for YMMV type variance. I know lots of folks who do the same sort of skiing/riding/shooting/cutting as I do and end up with different preferences. The discussion is always interesting! :thumbup:

EDITED to Add: I suspect that Frank has forgotten more than I'll ever know about blades and steels, btw. His posts in the traditional and maintenance forums have been and continue to be incredibly helpful for this "newbie".
 
Last edited:
Just making Buck forum a friendly place to come. And am appreciative of those who are organized, give reasons, use principals, back up statements with data and illustrations.

I didn't give my opinion just the history above....my opinion is I like the flat. If the hollow grind was or is more polished and would have less striations showing, it would be much more acceptable. I also think its easier for me to see the edge on the flat when sharpening on a hand stone.
That's one reason I just about use rods all the time with the newer blades.

300
 
I know I may be disagreeing with the authorities here and that might even be considered blasphemy.
But.
I've been using Buck stockman's since they were made with 440C It was the first knife I bought for myself. It's replacement was a 420HC 1995 vintage with the flat grind. At the time I didn't know there had been a change in the steel, all I knew was it didn't hold an edge like my original Buck. So I went back to using the old knife until I ran out of steel to sharpen.

I don't spend any time cutting CATRA's specially developed synthetic paper but I don't see that the new hollow grind 420HC holds an edge any better than the old 420HC flat grind. At least in my day to day usage. I would much rather have the flat grind to slice with, whether I'm slicing an apple, a pointed stick or fuel line. Even when it comes to cutting bait the flat grind seems to work better.

I won't speak for a larger hunting knives used to quarter up deer but in a slip joint at least for my uses, I miss Bucks 440C and flat grind. The 420HC and then the hollow grind were two step backwards for their slip joints. IMHO
 
Skipper,

The OP was using the 300 series as an example in the photo. You mention Buck stockmen as your example.

Buck 300 series Stockmen (the only ones they ever sold) were never made with 440C. All the first stockmen were contract made and used 440A blades. In the mid 80's a few years of 425M were used before Buck switched the knives made by them to 420hc. Camillus continued on making a few 300s in 440A until discontinued. 110s,112s and 100 series knives were made with 440c in 70s and 80s but Stockmen never were. I say all this with confidence of information shared on this forum. Many such threads you can access with a few searches. If you have written information that says Buck used 440C in their stockmen please share it with us. I and most everyone else would like to know which stockman was your original. You can find many photos and descriptions in a search of 300 series threads. I bet we can even find a photo of it.

300Bucks
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top