I've recently rediscovered my Buck 110 and have enjoyed carrying it. I sometimes carry it in my back pocket beside my wallet or on my belt. I don't hear much about the 110 around here. Why is that? I consider it traditional, but maybe I'm wrong? I know Carl is not a fan of the knife, and I believe he has referred to it as a "boat anchor" or something of the sort. That's totally understandable tho, considering the 110 is pretty heavy and I can see where some folks wouldn't like that. But I'm sure somebody here enjoys the 110, right?
Yeah, I have to plead guilty to that.
I guess that I was around long enough before the 110 came out, that when it did, I compared it to the pocket and folding lockblades already out. The standard two blade jacks of the day, lockblade sodbusters from Herter and Henkels, and lockblade stag handle folding hunters from Puma that were half the weight of the Buck. I recall the fist time I ever handled a Buck. The man laid it in my open hand, and it was like being handled a pistol. Some solid weight was there. Next to the knives of the day, I had to ask myself "Why". The whole point of the knife seemed beyond me. Most of the hunting knives of the day were feather weights next to the 110. In fact, most deer hunters didn't use a folding knife. Amost every man I knew used one of those stacked leather handle Case, Kabar, or Western little finn type of fixed blades. Or one of those one piece stag handle German Edge Brand fixed blades. Pocket knives were reserved for quail and Squirrel hunting.
Now I'm not saying I don't see use for the Buck 110. No sir! If I found myself at the battle of Agincourt, I have no doubt a Buck 110 would bash in the helmet of a French knight with no problem. Or when the Titanic was sinking by the bows, some Buck 110's could have been collected from some passengers and carried all the way aft to counter the list, and maybe keep the ship afloat for a while longer.
Okay, okay, I'm zipping up my fireproof suit!
No, really, I have nothing against the Buck 110, it's just I never understood it. I have nothing but admiration for Mr. Buck, as he got Americans interested in something other than the norm, and thus maybe opening the knife consciousness to new stuff. But did he have to make a knife weigh in almost as much as a knights mace? I mean, why all that brass? In fact, why a rear bolster at all. One of the most rugged pocket knives ever made, the TL-29, had no rear bolster, but did have two useful blades, one with a basic liner lock, and didn't weigh as much as a Buck 110. At the same time Buck came out with their line of knives, the 110 was the only folder they made. In their scant line of sheath knives was the 102 woodsman, a perfect hunting knife. A fraction of the weight of a 110, nothing to fold over, no nooks and crannies for blood and gunk to get into, and had everything going for it. I know, because I bought one and used the heck out it for over 25 years, along with a Buck 301 stockman. I'm not sure, but I think both of these knives together may be less weight than a single 110. If not, it'll be close.
I admit I may the only person on the planet who does not like the 110. But then I'm kind of weird in some ways, I admit that. But then, sometimes when I'm wondering if something is too heavy, I can almost hear the ghostly echo of Mr. Van's voice in my head. " What you need those extra two inches of toothbrush handle for? Cut it off!" or "What do you need those paper tags on those tea bags for? Plan on writing a letter home?"
He got us to travel light.
Carl.
