Gonna tease a little. :)

Hello Bear Claw
One knife I know about is the Buckmaster 184. I have approx. 10 and I learned more every time I bought one. If you are interested in the way it came about you must read Buckmaster Knives The Authorized History of Models 184 and 185 by Richard Neyman. This knife was not intended for the public. It was made by Qual-A-Tec for navy seals as a survival -dive knife. Then came the name Phrobis who joined with Buck to produce the M9 bayonet. Two very different cultures came together to produce the Buckmaster. Get the book from the library and read it some parts are very funny about a very beautiful and functional knife. On the front cover is the prototype Seal 1 of 6.


MIKE


buckmaster%20001_zpsbjpnpd3g.jpg

The reason it died out is the seals found it not a very useful knife. Even the saw tooth are not correct for cutting. Also don't buy into the reasoning of puncturing aluminum plane frames. They are great collector knives though.
 
I can't recommend Richard Neyman's book enough if you're interested in these knives, I couldn't put it down, and the high quality pictures, even in the Kindle version, made identifying mine a breeze.
 
Last edited:
gsea- I don't have a plane to test do YOU? I do know one thing every thing in front of the quillon is very sharp.
 
Neither saw was designed for cutting aircraft aluminum. The primary saw is for wood and the clip saw is for rope.


buckmaster1.jpg
 
Even the saw tooth are not correct for cutting.

I don't think it's the sawteeth as much as the blade's low grind. The sawteeth are properly angled, but when sawing wood, the blade quickly binds because of the thick flat portion on the blade under the sawteeth. This is why sawteeth work better on a blade with a full flat grind (Jimmy Lile) or a high hollow grind (Timberline). However, I wonder if the later 184 version, like Bear Claw's knife, would perform better. Adding the "fuller" and shortening the sawteeth might have inadvertently (or intentionally) fixed or helped the problem.

184-03-1.jpg


184-16-2.jpg
 
However, I wonder if the later 184 version, like Bear Claw's knife, would perform better. Adding the "fuller" and shortening the sawteeth might have inadvertently (or intentionally) fixed or helped the problem.

It does say in Neyman's book, that the shorter teeth of this version were found to cut better.
 
Actually the sawbuck is designed for notching wood not sawing through it. The teeth are set to cut as a pull saw not a push saw. Pull saws have thinner blades which are designed for making more delicate and precise cuts. As well as this, the motion of pulling the saw toward you rather than pushing it gives the user more control over each stroke of the saw. This makes it easier to cut in a straight line and achieve a neat finish like a coping saw. And also one of the intended uses was to cut through a plane's fuselage. For pilots getting out and rescuers getting in. The knife was not very practical for the military's use hence it's short lived life.
 
Last edited:
Back, the first thing to get in or out would be to plunge the knife into the fuselage so the teeth are set up to offer the least resistance. The cut is a pull cut (pulling takes less force than pushing). i.e. Mechanical forces
 

Hmmm, I have never heard of that saw style being designed or used for aircraft aluminum. Seems like they would get hung up easily. Full width teeth were first designed by Lile to be used on wood. Several other custom knifemakers used the same design and described them as a wood saw. The Randall sawteeth, which are a totally different, were specifically designed for aluminum. Not saying you're wrong, just never heard that before.
 
I am not 100% either. But what you say makes sense, the Randall has very thin teeth. This also would explain why most pilots carried Randalls and the seals deep six the 184. I actually have a hollow handle "survival knife" from the same era that has plain teeth for the saw side and they work great on cutting wood. I am not sure why any of the designers thought wide pull cut teeth would be the best for wood. Then again probably why I am not a knife designer.
 
But what you say makes sense, the Randall has very thin teeth. I am not sure why any of the designers thought wide pull cut teeth would be the best for wood.

Wide sawteeth are necessary on wood so they can cut a path for the rest of the blade to travel through. The Randall sawteeth don't work at all on wood. The blade instantly binds, but I can see how they would work on aluminum.


The original 1985 Buck catalog page refers to them as a "wood/metal" saw.

Probably just marketing. Buck copied the Lile and Timberline saw, which were designed for wood.
 
Looks like we'll need to wait for Bear Claw to be trapped in a downed chopper, so he can give us a report. :D
 
Looks like we'll need to wait for Bear Claw to be trapped in a downed chopper, so he can give us a report. :D

IIRC, that's the dealer's talking points memo that was sent out. There is confusion through all the old literature I've read some say "Wood", some say "Wood and metal" and some even say 'Wood,Metal and Ice".

I do agree with you though, those teeth a like wood saws on the backs of most survival knives, not anything like the ones on the Randall or various "Pilot Survival Knives", that are clearly stated to be for "cutting free from a downed aircraft".

Since the actual patent says "wood", I kinda gotta assume the designer leaned towards that.
 
Honesty, I don't put too much weigh in the Buck statement. I think that statement was written at the height of the survival knife craze and everyone was competing for market share. It's a known fact that that saw style was designed for wood by Jimmy Lile and almost every custom and production knifemaker copied it. The 184 is a great knife and as gsea said, the saw will perform just fine for its intended purpose of notching wood. Enjoy your knife for its awesomeness! :thumbup:
 
Back
Top