Old Fixed Blade Construction

Generalist

Generalist

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2025
Messages
191
This is a rambling manufacturing/construction question for those familiar with pre-1961 Bucks. The below is my understanding and may be incomplete or inaccurate. Please add/correct if you can. I feel fairly uneducated in this area.

Pommels
Some 1940s fixed blades (and maybe earlier?) had pommel rivets. I presume those indicate pinned construction? From 1951-1963 Buck switched to/between threaded pommels and barrel nuts and seems to have switched which more than once (around '55 and in '61?).

Blades
Until 1961 blades were used files, which were hard from being previously heat treated, and therefore probably difficult to drill for pinned construction. The early 1960s forged blades were similarly pre-hardened? This seems to explain why brazing a bolt to the tang might have been easier than drilling for a pinned connection. However, for some period, tangs were actually threaded (prior to bolt brazing). That seems more difficult than drilling a hole for a pinned connection?

The main question(s)
Were the earliest Buck knives truly pinned construction, and if so, was the switch to and from threaded tangs/bolts for ease of manufacturing using pre hardened blade material? Or were other factors driving all the changes in blade/handle connections from the '40s-'60s?
 
This isn't directly related to your question, but it may be of interest. The photo is of a 1961 barrel-nut 102 with leather spacers. Before the barrel-nut, a threaded pommel was standard and the pommel was rotated around the threaded end of the tang. Leather spacers could be easily damaged by this rotation so a metal spacer was used to protect the leather. If you look closely at the photo, you can see the metal spacer between the leather and the pommel. Of course with a barrel nut that protection wasn't needed. The 102 in the photo must be an early one, and the metal spacer was a carryover. Someone must not have gotten the memo about the new construction and no need for that spacer.

Bert

102 barrel nut, leather 1961.jpeg
 
I'm glad you posted this. It's a rare and excellent example of one of the transition periods.
 
I really have a problem with the notion that file blades were worked in the hardened state, or the 440C forged blades for that matter. Annealing would be the FIRST step in making a blade from a file IMO. Forging introduces stress and irregular grain structure which much be relieved thru annealing, then final hardening and tempering after the blade is worked. I stumbled over your wording a bit but pommels were always threaded after 1951 and barrel nuts did not appear until 1961. (AFAIK ;) )

bertl bertl That 102 is just a thing of beauty.
 
Last edited:
The pommel is drilled & threaded all the way thru and you are seeing the end of the threaded tang. The pommel itself is the nut. I have a bunch of those LV knives. To get around the problem of clocking, the shaping of the pommel and handle together is completed after the pommel is affixed.
 
Thanks, that makes sense and clears up some of my confusion.

Some interesting context from Vern Taylor's article in the Aug 1997 BCCI newsletter. This section makes it seem like they were never pinned pre factory? If so, what is the pommel rivet in some of the '40s knives for?

1000019885.jpg

This section of the same article implies the files were pre hardened, but the early '60s forgings were not. So I was wrong about the forged blades being hard at least.

1000019884.jpg

Not my photos, but this is the pommel rivet I'm asking about from a couple of lucite knives.
1000019886.jpg
1000019890.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 1000019886.jpg
    1000019886.jpg
    46.7 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
Good find. So this says the forgings were still soft and files were ground hard....still not convinced.
Well.... unlike the Pope, I'm not infallible...
I'm 14 years retired but could have had one x-rayd one back in the day to see if the pined tang was also threaded. Either the pin is antirotation or the retention itself. Was there loctite pre 1951? According to Google... invented 1953, publically available 1956.
 
Last edited:
I received the knife that raised this question. I have not had time to x-ray it, but a source knowledgeable about knives from this era confirmed it is pinned.

The question still stands...why the switch to threaded pommels? It's hard to believe it would be easier to braze a bolt to the tang and thread the pommel than to drill and pin. Even if the pre hardened files wore drill bits quickly.

1000020037.jpg
 
DeSotoSky said:
I really have a problem with the notion that file blades were worked in the hardened state, or the 440C forged blades for that matter. Annealing would be the FIRST step in making a blade from a file IMO. Forging introduces stress and irregular grain structure which much be relieved thru annealing, then final hardening and tempering after the blade is worked. I stumbled over your wording a bit but pommels were always threaded after 1951 and barrel nuts did not appear until 1961. (AFAIK ;) )

bertl bertl That 102 is just a thing of beauty.
Click to expand...

It always bothered me too. I never could figure how a large enough quantity of files could be found to produce knives.

I always figured the truth was more like, he made his first one with an old file then ordered some steel! 😂.

I mean there had to be better sources than worn out files.
 
eveled said:
It always bothered me too. I never could figure how a large enough quantity of files could be found to produce knives.
Click to expand...

Back then, in a time where everything was produced, manufactured, repaired, rebuilt, and maintained with touch-labor, and mostly hand tools instead of electric hand-tools, files were consumables that every factory, machine shop, et all. went through quickly. From listening to my grandfather talk, folks would almost pay you to take them away so the business didn’t have to deal with them. Once files were dull, they were discarded and a new one was grabbed off the shelf.

I think it’s completely believable that a fledgling knife company could have a steady supply of files to work with.
 
From Tom Ables book, The History of Buck Knives, Chapter 4:

"Buck’s knives were all created from used metal files that had been discarded by Consolidated Vultee, the huge aircraft manufacturing plant that later became Convair. These worn-out files, with their heavy carbon content, were perfect for the toughness and edge-holding qualities that Buck required in his knives."
 
Generalist said:
From Tom Ables book, The History of Buck Knives, Chapter 4:

"Buck’s knives were all created from used metal files that had been discarded by Consolidated Vultee, the huge aircraft manufacturing plant that later became Convair. These worn-out files, with their heavy carbon content, were perfect for the toughness and edge-holding qualities that Buck required in his knives."
Click to expand...
Thanks for sharing 👍
 
So Roger's hunch was right...the 1947/48 model's tang has a bolt brazed on, the pommel is threaded, and a pin is there to prevent rotation.

My new understanding is:

1. The earliest Buck knives used steel sections forge welded onto the file tang, into which Hoyt cut threads. Pommels were threaded to mate.

2. Starting sometime in the 1940, knives used threaded pommels and bolts brazed to file blades, with a pin added to prevent rotation.

3. Early 50s-1961ish knives were the same but with no pin to prevent rotation.

4. 1961-May 1963 saw a switch to barrel nut construction and forged 440C blades with bolts brazed to the tang.

5. Switch to solely pinned construction occurs in May 1963 using flat tang forged 440C blades.

#4 and #5 era knives had a flat pommel cut using a band saw from a piece of bar stock aluminum and individually hand formed to shape. Later, blades were stamped and the pin became smaller diameter and the pommel more rounded.

The new question this raises is why stop using the pin to prevemt rotation in the 50s? Was an adhesive used instead?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top