Junkyard Dogs

[chickentrax]

Those early 110's had a lot more hand work done to them and that can cause variances in the length of the chamfer...

I'm happy you brought that up, Joe...

...Because Vern Taylor made a statement here, about the 426 Bucklite blades -

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=184266

"They were hand made; every blade started life as a 110 blade stamped 426 and the clip point was removed BY HAND on a grinder. Tooling for the 426 drop point never existed."

...Is that correct??? Were the 426's ground down after final 110 shaping, or was it just the 110 blank that was specially ground to the 426 drop-point shape???

 

[Mike Kerins]

I am betting that it was done in an attempt to add a little more steel to the point. The number one reason that we get 110's back is becuase the tip is broken.

The concept of changing the length of the chamfer to add steel to the point makes sense. I also always assumed it was to match what appeared to me to be a heavier body in the newer versions. My old circa 1968 110 is considerably thinner through the middle of the body than newer ones.

 

[chickentrax]

My old circa 1968 110 is considerably thinner through the middle of the body than newer ones.

You been reading my mind!

I had a reply specifically intended for/to you about the older 110's having thinner *blades*, with the dimensions, but I can't find the PDF I read it in!!! :grumpy:

I guess the thicker blade was also to reinforce the tip.

(I don't know about the body being thinner, though...the older ones I have are actually thicker)

 

[Mike Kerins]

Chickentrax,
The thicker body is the first thing I noticed the first time I saw a newer 110. I've had this old one since the late 60's and have a 1st version 112 from
1972. I had not seen a 110 or 112 other than mine until last year. Believe me, the one I have has a significantly slimmer profile. I actually like the feel of the newer ones....thicker body and blade!

 

[chickentrax]

The thicker body is the first thing I noticed the first time I saw a newer 110...

Mike -

Do you mean thicker up-and-down, or thicker side-to-side??? I've noticed they're thicker now up-and-down [profile view] but thinner in the center looking down at the spine...(the scales are flat now instead of being curved)...

But I read that the blade thickness was increased...it went from .085" to .119"...in 1965??? (I found the info...It was from a Richard Matheny 2002 BCCI sheet I received from Larry Oden)

 

[Mike Kerins]

If I'm looking at a side view of the knife body, the arch of my old 110 body creates a thinner center area than the newer ones. The bolsters are about the same size.

 

[chickentrax]

If I'm looking at a side view of the knife body, the arch of my old 110 body creates a thinner center area than the newer ones. The bolsters are about the same size.

OK, I'm with ya!

Here's a side-by-side scan of the oldest I have [a "flat-top"] with a newer 110...

You can see the [top] middle is *thinner* than the later model (in profile). Also the thumb cutout is larger; the bolsters are squarer; and the chamfer on the blade is longer.

Here's a top view, showing the scales on the old 110 being *fatter* in the middle (due to their curvature)...

Same two knives...

So, the older ones are both fatter and thinner, depending on which way you're looking at them...

Addendum: I just checked the overall thickness of the bolsters with a vernier; the older measures .571" and the newer is .603"...