Favorite Back Lock/Lockback Knife?

Wowbagger said:
Oooohhhh I was such a snob for a long time.
I was being a dumbass !

I finally learned : it is not about fidgeting it is about cutting stuff with a knife that has a handle that is comfortable . ( ! )
With a back lock there are no pot holes in the handle where I want to grip and apply force ; no skinny , irregular , jagged , places ( frame locks ) ; just smooth handle top and bottom . And with a Buck 110 style of tail end back lock , thank you jmh33, no chance to sort of press in the lock bar while gripping which I have no problem with but . . . some do .

by the by I hate the term " lock back " and twitch every time I read it ; one is not locking something back one has a knife with a lock release that is on the back of the knife
.
The blade lock is ON THE BACK !

( ! ! ! 😤 ok . . . I have been wanting to rant about that one for years !
hwhooo . I feel better now . Thanks ! )
Click to expand...

You nailed it on the handle thing, as far as I'm concerned attaching super-steel blades to many modern EDC handles is little more than a practical joke on the general public... even if the blade was just 420HC your hands would be shot long before you ever whittled the edge off in one sitting. Lock terminoligy though... I couldnt care less.

For me, if theres a knife that is better sized and proportioned for field dressing deer than a 112 drop point I've yet to meet it. Because I'm generally dragging the deer through the woods a fair distance I dont split the ribcage or the pelvis, and I like how I can easily poke my finger down the side of the shorter blade to feel what I'm cutting while working inside the animal. Unlike most fixed blades with such a short blade however, the handle is still fairly ample without making the knife disproportionate, and its still substantial enough to break a deer down should it need to be packed out.

RIMG0168 by https://www.flickr.com/photos/153108294@N08/, on Flickr

About the time you're peeling backstraps off a moose, both a 3" blade and 420HC steel are starting to show their limitations, but for a deer knife this one pretty much nailed it.
 
Bushleague270 said:
You nailed it on the handle thing, as far as I'm concerned attaching super-steel blades to many modern EDC handles is little more than a practical joke on the general public... even if the blade was just 420HC your hands would be shot long before you ever whittled the edge off in one sitting. Lock terminoligy though... I couldnt care less.

For me, if theres a knife that is better sized and proportioned for field dressing deer than a 112 drop point I've yet to meet it. Because I'm generally dragging the deer through the woods a fair distance I dont split the ribcage or the pelvis, and I like how I can easily poke my finger down the side of the shorter blade to feel what I'm cutting while working inside the animal. Unlike most fixed blades with such a short blade however, the handle is still fairly ample without making the knife disproportionate, and its still substantial enough to break a deer down should it need to be packed out.

RIMG0168 by https://www.flickr.com/photos/153108294@N08/, on Flickr

About the time you're peeling backstraps off a moose, both a 3" blade and 420HC steel are starting to show their limitations, but for a deer knife this one pretty much nailed it.
Click to expand...

Spot on bro 👍
 
000YDcIh.jpg
 
I carried a Buck 110 from nearly the time they were introduced in the 1970s until the early 1990s when my life path changed and I switched to a Leatherman Wave for EDC.

Not the same Buck 110 . . The early models had sharp edges and corners. The belt sheath was necessary to avoid wearing out your pic kets. I first worked for a tree service company, combing and cutting, heavy work in the hot sun for low pay. Later on, I worked on drilling rigs as a drilling fluids specialist ("Mudf Man") domestically and in the Middle East. Went through several 110 and 112 Bucks and using them for whatever was at hand. They wore out in several ways under this use.

"Favorite"? When introduced in the 1970s, they were pretty much the only lock-back folder available. At introduction they revolutionary in the knife world. They called it the "Folding Hunter" then (still?). It it was the first pocket knife intended for non-aggressive utility use that locked open that I am aware of. Back then, only Italian stilettos were locking folders as I now recall it. The idea of a largish pocket knife that could be used as though it was a fixed blade was advertised as a big deal in outdoor magazines.

When first introduced in the 1970s, the only comparable locking utility folder was from Schrade or maybe Case and I felt that the Buck was "better" somehow. And so, I stuck with them for something like twenty years. Over those years, I wore out, broke or lost too many 110s or 112s to remember.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top