Convince me buying a 110/112 :)

Hickory n steel said:
My point is that I've heard reports from more than a few knife nuts who had schrade Lb7's which they couldn't get to take an edge, leading me to believe they may have had an issue with HT at some point.
Click to expand...

I'm going to reply to post for certain on heat treatment.Schrade didn't really advertise their heat treatment as a marketing tool.But if you look in a Schrade Handbook online their Rockwell hardness for their steels is 56-59rc.Now Buck says the BOS Heat Treatment is 58rc for their 420HC-how do you know that isn't 55-58rc in truth?...here's my point.Aside from the 420HC mentioned being specifically at 58rc there's a four point differential in rc hardness on all their steels used if you look on their website.These steels used to be marketed at a specific hardness several years ago from the BOS Treatment just like 420HC is still stated at 58rc.I recall 60rc specifically for ATS-34/154CM and 61rc for S30V,but now...a four-point differential.Buck's heat treatment is no more precise than any other knife manufacturer.
 
Frotier76 said:
Yes I'm very familiar with the cheaper quality that became of Imperial as they reverted lower fit and finish brand through Ireland.But even when they were made in the USA (except for the Frontier Series years) Imperial always had fit/finish cuts just like Colonial.

Actually I think the issue regarding the LB7 pertains more to hollow ground blades in stainless steel by Schrade in general.If you compare an LB7 to a Buck 110 (made before 1999) you'll notice the edge on the LB7 is thicker but has a thinner bevel.Definitely a re-profiling job to get it as sharp as the 110 and improve edge taking results on a sharpening stone.But you look at those old Bucks made before 1999?...no better of a bevel than a Schrade+ blade.That old bevel work did well though on Schrade's flat ground blades in both 1095 Carbon Steel and the 440A Stainless (Plus Steel).Those 'knife nuts' clearly never took a look at the grinds and edge angles on those blades and that kind of propaganda falsely negates blade steel performance and serviceability.
Click to expand...
I've never seen an Imperial with fit and finish cuts where it mattered. They used the inexpensive shell construction method, but in my experience every other aspect seems to have been pretty consistent. Btw those frontier stockman's were made by camillus so there's that.

All I'm saying is that your bringing up of outsourcing some things means nothing, and that I see no reason the schrade was better.

I don't know why you brought up schrades in the Buck forum anyways,
 
Hickory n steel said:
I've never seen an Imperial with fit and finish cuts where it mattered. They used the inexpensive shell construction method, but in my experience every other aspect seems to have been pretty consistent. Btw those frontier stockman's were made by camillus so there's that.

All I'm saying is that your bringing up of outsourcing some things means nothing, and that I see no reason the schrade was better.

I don't know why you brought up schrades in the Buck forum anyways,
Click to expand...
Exactly. Weird huh. Other than knocking Buck and the accuracy of their heat great. I don't get what his point is.
 
Makael said:
Exactly. Weird huh. Other than knocking Buck and the accuracy of their heat great. I don't get what his point is.
Click to expand...
I like a carbon steel OLD TIMER slipjoint as much as the next guy ( didn't schrade produce Buck slipjoints at some point ? )
But liking schrade is no reason to recommend a schrade Buck 110 knockoff here to someone interested in the real deal.
 
Hickory n steel said:
I like a carbon steel OLD TIMER slipjoint as much as the next guy ( didn't schrade produce Buck slipjoints at some point ? )
But liking schrade is no reason to recommend a schrade Buck 110 knockoff here to someone interested in the real deal.
Click to expand...

Schrade did make Buck's slipjoints for them and so did Camillus I think up to 1985-1986.

I actually would recommend a Schrade USA 7OT or LB7 rather than not pretend they didn't exist IF they were better than the Buck 110 itself...and they were.You call the American competition that existed 'knock-offs' I call them noticeable improvements over Buck's 110 design.Why would I convince a person to buy a 110 because it's what's left on the table rather than check the cupboard.I apologize I can't help laugh when you phrase the 110 as 'the real deal'.

Being that you're on this train of thought I can't help but ask 'do you consider the Buck 301 the real deal today or the real deal when it was made by Camillus and Schrade'?Keep in mind they're both functional and what separate them from each other.
 
Frotier76 said:
.Now Buck says the BOS Heat Treatment is 58rc for their 420HC-how do you know that isn't 55-58rc in truth?...
Click to expand...

Because I have measured the hardness of half a dozen Buck 420HC blades and they were all 58-59.

Back in the day, one reason some people went for Schrade instead of Buck was Schrade used carbon steel or 440A. Buck used 440C. Washita stones were the common sharpening media at the time. The fellas with Washita stones had a devil of a time sharpening 440C.

But, I don't call the Schrades "knock offs". The 110 design was copied by most of the major manufacturers of the day. At the time, such copying was not considered improper, as it is today. Whether the Schrades were superior, I can't say. Never tried one.

Back in the day, I carried a Camillus-made Buck 303 every day for years. I still have it, but does not get carried. I prefer to carry a current Buck 303. It holds an edge better and cuts better.
 
Frotier76 said:
Schrade did make Buck's slipjoints for them and so did Camillus I think up to 1985-1986.

I actually would recommend a Schrade USA 7OT or LB7 rather than not pretend they didn't exist IF they were better than the Buck 110 itself...and they were.You call the American competition that existed 'knock-offs' I call them noticeable improvements over Buck's 110 design.Why would I convince a person to buy a 110 because it's what's left on the table rather than check the cupboard.I apologize I can't help laugh when you phrase the 110 as 'the real deal'.

Being that you're on this train of thought I can't help but ask 'do you consider the Buck 301 the real deal today or the real deal when it was made by Camillus and Schrade'?Keep in mind they're both functional and what separate them from each other.
Click to expand...


My problem is you recommending a non Buck knife in the Buck forum to a person interested in a Buck knife.
Now I call the Buck 110 " the real deal " because it came first and because the schrade LB7 was much closer to the Buck 110 than it needed to be. There are other forms a lockback folding hunter can come in like a trapper format which they certainly made, but they were were cashing in on the popularity of the Buck 110.
I wasn't trying to put the schrade down, it's just not the OG that is the Buck 110 which was being asked about in the Buck forum.
I believe the The 301 has currently been made by Buck themselves Longer longer than it was by camillus or schrade, so yes it is the real deal.
Regardless, as long as it still looks like a 301 and is made in America it will be the real deal no matter who makes it.

I would like to know how in your opinion schrade improved the design with their LB7, but this is not the place so if you do feel the need to explain please to do it in the GKD. I've always been interested in the 6-OT, and wouldn't mind having one if available in their carbon steel but again this isn't the place to discuss schrade knives.
 
Last edited:
Buck had to switch the 300 series contract knives from Schrade to Camillus early on for quality reasons if I recall correctly.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to confirm the 110 is superior to the LB7. A child could figure that out.
 
knarfeng said:
Because I have measured the hardness of half a dozen Buck 420HC blades and they were all 58-59.

Back in the day, one reason some people went for Schrade instead of Buck was Schrade used carbon steel or 440A. Buck used 440C. Washita stones were the common sharpening media at the time. The fellas with Washita stones had a devil of a time sharpening 440C.

But, I don't call the Schrades "knock offs". The 110 design was copied by most of the major manufacturers of the day. At the time, such copying was not considered improper, as it is today. Whether the Schrades were superior, I can't say. Never tried one.

Back in the day, I carried a Camillus-made Buck 303 every day for years. I still have it, but does not get carried. I prefer to carry a current Buck 303. It holds an edge better and cuts better.
Click to expand...

Now why I raised that question about a possible 4-point variance is the Buck Quickfire and Bantam I had.The edge on them rolled like heck where the 112 did well in the same use.With all three being in 420HC and with the variable hardness observations on their higher end steel that does raise questions to the consistency of the BOS Heat Treatment on my end.

Regarding Camillus and Camillus made Buck's in general I've always considered the edge put on their flat ground blades to be a re-profiling job versus a Schrade.Camillus had a tendency to put an edge on the grind that had more meat to it and had a wider edge angle.But the whole Edge 2X marketing and it's sales pitch is easily eliminated through a steady hand,a little oil,and a WorkSharp.Plenty of companies out there domestic and foreign put a good edge on their knives as a standard and don't try to swing it as a marketing tool.
 
Back to the original topic;
Do you know anyone in the USA? Have them buy you a 110 at Walmart and ship it over. They're amazingly cheap there and you'd be able to test out the form factor before you commit to anything more expensive. Plus you get someone to eyeball the knife and who can ship it to you not as a retailer who has to note it as an item they sold you.
 
Frotier, you can take up discussion of Schrade vs. Camillus edge angles in one of those subforums. This is the Buck Forum.

I've never had any reason to doubt any Bos heat treat.
I've tested several Buck S30 blades for hardness on a Rockwell tester. They all met spec.
If you have not actually measured the blades on a hardness tester, then you cannot attribute cutting performance deviations to hardness variation with any degree of certainty.

Edited to add:
And the early Bantams were subcontracted out to China. All bets are off on the heat treat, except we know it was not overseen by Paul Bos.
 
Last edited:
Frotier76 said:
Now why I raised that question about a possible 4-point variance is the Buck Quickfire and Bantam I had.The edge on them rolled like heck where the 112 did well in the same use.With all three being in 420HC and with the variable hardness observations on their higher end steel that does raise questions to the consistency of the BOS Heat Treatment on my end.

Regarding Camillus and Camillus made Buck's in general I've always considered the edge put on their flat ground blades to be a re-profiling job versus a Schrade.Camillus had a tendency to put an edge on the grind that had more meat to it and had a wider edge angle.But the whole Edge 2X marketing and it's sales pitch is easily eliminated through a steady hand,a little oil,and a WorkSharp.Plenty of companies out there domestic and foreign put a good edge on their knives as a standard and don't try to swing it as a marketing tool.
Click to expand...

so you had 3 examples and this was enough for your belief of poor heat treating at buck? i have maybe 2 or 3 dozen 420hc and more if i count all the various steels or so bucks and no heat treat issues and they all work as they should. even i know my samples isnt enough to determine much scientifically, but my sample totals are far bigger than yours.

i think your makimg assumptions based by your own words on 3 samples. that isnt enough to mean anything in the entire production line of bucks made in a year let alone over more than 75 years plus.
 
I have never had a problem with the heat treat on the 20 or so Buck knives in my EDC rotation. Steels vary from 440C, to S30V, to 420HC, to 5160.

Also, “Buck knife” is a universal term for a lot of different knives in the eyes of the average Joe. That didn’t happen due to lack of popularity or inferior product. It happened because it was/is the standard by which all “similar” (see: copy) knives are rated and/or judged.
 
mantzao said:
Hello guys,

I'm on the fence wether i should buy one of those models or not ,so, because you are unbiased, i decided to ask for your help :)
I remember being a kid and playing with some sort of 110 knockoff but never seen an original.
You see, i live in Portugal so Buck knives, or any quality knives as a matter of fact, aren't readily available for me to try.
I've had two Bucks of the vantage series and even though i liked them the linerlock seemed a bit suspicious due to the fact it locked very late.
I apologize for saying it but it made me question Buck's QC.
Anyway, lately i'be been eyeing the 110.
I know all the story behind it but i've been spoiled by lightweight, super-steel, one-hand opening knives and that's what is making me hesitate.
Also, i edc smaller blades, 3" blade ones to be more accurate, so i don't know if the 112 wouldn't be better.
But the 110 is the original....
Aaaaarrrrgh...
Can you help?
Click to expand...

Hello Mantzao
This might be a little late , but I live in the UK and I am buying my first Buck knife , its a 112 and I have ordered it from " Knives and Tools " This company has outlets in the UK , The Netherlands and Germany . At present they are selling a standard Buck 112 Ranger for £56 ( British ) which is not too bad . I am going to replace the scales when I receive it .
Mike
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top