*Official 2018 BF Knive: Poll 1/8: 2 Blades (Jack), 2 Blades or 3 Blades

Buck 301: How many blades?

  • 2 Blades OPPOSITE ends: Clip & Spey

    Votes: 5 1.5%

  • 2 Blades OPPOSITE ends: Clip & Sheepsfoot

    Votes: 169 49.4%

  • 2 Blades SAME end: Clip & Spey

    Votes: 7 2.0%

  • 2 Blades SAME end: Clip & Sheepsfoot

    Votes: 34 9.9%

  • 3 Blades: Clip, Spey, Sheepsfoot

    Votes: 127 37.1%
  • Total voters
    342
  • Poll closed .
btb01 said:
This is true, but unless there's a secret two-blade same-end resistance movement of 100+ members waiting until the last minute to cast their votes, it's not looking good. :D
Click to expand...
My vote is currently NOT for the 2 blade same end because I do believe the knowledgeable folks here who point out possible aesthetics concerns on this frame.

HOWEVER if the samples turn out to be better than expected, this could be where my vote will end up.

I will be voting 2 blade regardless, as I want to save money by losing the spey and its spring and put it towards nicer handle material.
 
I've warmed a bit to the idea of the full stockman; it's a pattern I can live with, and it's jumped into second place for me. But I'm sticking with the two-blade option for 2 primary reasons.

1) Most importantly, the thinner profile is more pocket friendly.
2) Money saved by eliminating the spey blade could be put toward grooved bolsters or more premium handle materials.
 
I like easier to carry, so I initially voted for a 2-blade instead of the 3-blade. But even the 2-blade, at 3 7/8" long closed, is bigger than what I normally want to carry every day (currently a GEC #83 at under 3 3/8"). So in a nod to the tradition of a 301, I switched my vote to the 3-blade.
 
I will have to say, I'm still not sure I understand "slim, pocketable" when we're talking about what, a sixteenth of an inch? Too bad for bulky 3 bladed stockmans that we are still in the era of skinny jeans!

As well as the qualms with the spay...which is most certainly the red headed stepchild of the slipjoint blade family. I can recall exactly two positive comments about spay blades during my tenure on these forums. Clearly, folks round these parts have not read Levine's Spay Compendium- Uses and Other Errata......,or heard the moving ballad "Ode to Le Spay" penned by the brilliant poet M. Eako. Sigh. It's simply a tragedy- so useful, so under appreciated.

But hey, taking a knife with three blades and pulling one out will make it more differenter!

Ok, seriously I don't care that much. I'm sure it will be a cool knife either way. There are folks who clearly have a much stronger opinion on that extra 5 grams of steel than I do.
 
It's looking like reason prevails in the voting, as the only two viable options are running way ahead. While the two-blade jack configuration would be my preference if the design was more mainstream, it just isn't. With the gaping wells past the blade tips and the two tangs rubbing against each other, it just doesn't make sense. Although I prefer the 2-blades opposing, mainly for the cost savings to put back into other features, I'd be all over the 3-blade as well.
 
Ramrodmb said:
One more positive for the 2 blade same end Jack is that this config. has never been a forum knife. (in this pattern)
Click to expand...

supratentorial said:
.........It seems that there's some campaigning going on. But maybe we could take an objective look at the top options.

Stockman
(Positives)
1. Iconic Buck 300 series knife
(Negatives)
1. 3 springs instead of 2 (this could be argued as minus or a plus)
2. Regular production pattern that is readily available for less than half a forum knife would cost
3. A premium 301 with premium steel already exists. It was made for BCCI. You can buy it now.
4. A stockman was a previous forum knife

2-blade Jack (same side)
(Positives)
1. New for the 300 series though it's a classic pattern
2. Jacks with 2 springs are typically same side (though present day manufacturing sometimes puts each blade on a separate spring).
3. Less expensive than 3-blades
(Negatives)
1. No liner, washer, or spring between the two blades
2. Since the main blade is also short, both blades would be shorter than the handle and there would be empty space on one end

2-blade double-end Jack (opposite sides)
(Positives)
1. New for the 300 series though it's a classic pattern
2. Less expensive than 3-blades
(Negatives)
1. Jacks with 2 springs are typically same side (though present day manufacturing sometimes puts each blade on a separate spring).
2. A double end jack was a previous forum knife (except it had a more typical single spring)
Click to expand...

That is correct so it didn't get a negative for repetition like the other 2 options. The options are intended to be compared. And I tried to keep the list as short as possible so I didn't make a positive for the absence of a negative. Otherwise, I'd have to do the same for others. For example, I'd have to make a positive for the double end since it doesn't have both tangs in direct contact, etc. I'm sure the list is not perfect. It's just intended to give people a quick overview of how the options compare.
 
Jack Black said:
Would the tangs be in DIRECT contact if the blades were on the same end?
Click to expand...

If the same manufacturing/construction is used as the other 300 series knives. There's nothing between the blades on the 301... no liners (would make the knife too thick with 3 springs) and no washers. The blades are alternated in orientation on the 301. Buck doesn't make any 300 series knives without alternating the orientation of the blades.
 
Just look inside a 301, 303, or a 309 to see how Buck constructs their knives.

A 3 spring 303 Small Stockman is the same width as a GEC 14 2 blade Jack despite having 3 blades and being longer. It's hard to see how a 2 blade 301 could function as a same end Jack, no liners would mean the tangs are in contact. If you include the 3rd spring as a spacer then you will not save on width and you will have all that empty space for nothing, no point in taking out the Spey then...

The 309, blades on each end is often mistaken for a Pen as it is slim (thinner than a Peanut) yet it has 2 springs. The 301 opposite end blades will I assume, be based on the 309's arrangements, albeit bigger.
 
"Oh gorgeous Spey blade thou glisteneth in the sun,thing of beauty.
Though only small thou helpst me cut up
my fruity.
Thou hast so many other uses, in a 3 blade stockman configuration.
But among the blade shapes of the world,
Thou art the king of castration."
 
Last edited:
supratentorial said:
If the same manufacturing/construction is used as the other 300 series knives. There's nothing between the blades on the 301... no liners (would make the knife too thick with 3 springs) and no washers. The blades are alternated in orientation on the 301. Buck doesn't make any 300 series knives without alternating the orientation of the blades.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply Jake :thumbsup: Surely though, if Buck were to build a knife like this, being an experienced cutlery manufacturer, they wouldn't build it with the tangs of the two blades rubbing together, they'd add some sort of spacer?

I'd still like to see some samples before this vote is concluded :thumbsup:
 
Jack Black said:
Thanks for the reply Jake :thumbsup: Surely though, if Buck were to build a knife like this, being an experienced cutlery manufacturer, they wouldn't build it with the tangs of the two blades rubbing together, they'd add some sort of spacer?

I'd still like to see some samples before this vote is concluded :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

They don't build any knives that way so we won't know exactly until we see a sample. If they make a new center cut liner, that may make the knife more expensive.

I figured some folks might not have a 301 and may not realize these concerns. It seems folks didn't want to hear it. I was just trying to help but I should have known better and kept silent--haha!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top