Lets talk GEC!

Thanks guys for the responses to the acorn question...I got this back from GEC "All our stainless has the acorn but not all knives with the acorn are stainless.A lot of our hunters have the acorn but may or may not be stainless."
 
knifeswapper said:
Just a very short term shortage of personnel due to illness.
Click to expand...

Mike, Thanks for the insight. Here's to a speedy recovery for the GEC folks. I was secretly hoping it was because all hands were busy with moving half the workforce into the old Queen building to form GEC's second factory so they could increase production.

- Lee
 
knifeswapper said:
Well I did put a little spin on the exact factory response. What they said was "We are all sick of giving tours"; but when I said good-bye they did say na-noo na-noo.
(this is entirely humor for those not receptive to such)
Click to expand...
Hilarious. :D

btb01 said:
I bought a Mudbug a couple years ago (at that time they didn't include the sheath). It was a nice knife, but mine had a combination of two issues that led me to pass it along: the tip of the blade sat a bit proud of the liners, and the edge also hit the backspring if you let it close on it's own, so you couldn't really lower the kick to fix the proud tip without first sharpening away quite a bit of metal.
Click to expand...
Barrett I have purchased 4 of theses. One of them is my edc (2 yrs). All of them have been flawless. I do carry it in the belt sheath. Lock up is superb with no play. If you're inclined to carry this type of knife I would encourage you to give em another chance. I will say I don't have a bullbuster but I will if they ever make another one. :)
 
I don't see what the fuss is about stainless and an acorn shield. If you want that combination, they are readily available.

YByDsly.jpg
 
Lock back, stainless steel, GEC, made in USA, these 99s tick a lot of boxes for me. Any guess on pricing for the bone?

,,,Mike in Canada
 
I wonder when GEC, Case, and others will start complying with California's Proposition 65 warning labeling for their products sold in CA? It goes like this:

CA Proposition 65 Warning:
Warning: This product contains a chemical or
Substance known to the State of California to
cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive
harm.

It would apply for various dyes and other chemicals used in the production of their products.
 
Modoc ED said:
I wonder when GEC, Case, and others will start complying with California's Proposition 65 warning labeling for their products sold in CA? It goes like this:

CA Proposition 65 Warning:
Warning: This product contains a chemical or
Substance known to the State of California to
cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive
harm.

It would apply for various dyes and other chemicals used in the production of their products.
Click to expand...

That’s a good question. My company is going through that now, and we deal with Diesel engines and after treatment.

I’d imagine brass would qualify as well.
 
I'm pretty sure it would only apply to GEC if they distributed or produced in California. In this case, I believe they have two official distributors in the state so would be curious if anything needs to change there. Otherwise, everything is out of state. The proposition doesn't cover every product made in the USA that might end up in California.
 
GEC has a retail store. If they sell to CA and use certain chemicals or substances in their product, they're going to need to provide a Prop 65 Warning.
 
If that is true, then the question would be if the products used are harmful enough to qualify for a warning based on OEHHA's safe harbor numbers.
Speaking openly here though, it just doesn't make any sense that all businesses in the united states would need to do this for all products that qualify that could possibly end up in California from secondary sales. But I digress.
 
It's not a requirement if a business can prove expected levels of exposure are less than the thresholds set forth by the proposition.

Some manufacturers use the labels just to play it safe.
 
Sabercat said:
It's not a requirement if a business can prove expected levels of exposure are less than the thresholds set forth by the proposition.

Some manufacturers use the labels just to play it safe.
Click to expand...

I think that's key Ryan. "Play it safe". This whole Prop 65 thing in CA is just plain nuts but some big fines have been levied against some companies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top