- Joined
- Apr 3, 2008
- Messages
- 369
I got my first Buck 500 ("\" = 1994) last week.
I have lusted over one of these for a while now, and I was pleased to score one in good (*koff* *koff*) condition.
"Good condition" is where the knife doesn't have a broken point, has an edge that can be restored, and the scratches and dings on the bolsters and scales can be buffed out.
It took me an hour to give it a decent edge, but there is still "gapping" in the edge from the nicks it had. Under magnification, it is clear it needs to travel the entire fifteen miles from here to the factory for some TLC. Restoring the edge will mean removing a bit of metal and possibly cleaning up the profile a bit afterward.
It snaps well, but there's a noticeable "rebound" when it snaps closed, and the amount of force needed to pinch it open is minimal -- I can hold the blade, flick the handle down easily, and it snaps open. Good lockup. Almost no blade play when open.
In other words, it will make a find addition to the EDC roster.
However . . .
I have now grasped something about sizing and proportions when making knives.
If you take a given knife pattern, like say the Buck 501, and you add a quarter inch to the length of the blade -- and then you increase all the other dimensions proportionately, you don't get a small increase in mass (and therefore weight), you get a large increase in mass. You hold the 501 and the 500 up next to one another. Even at a glance, the 500 is glaringly larger. A brief heft of the two tells you that the weight of the 500 is something like double that of the 501.
So I took some measurements.
Notice that the effective increase in blade length is barely over a quarter inch, less than a 10% gain, and yet the expansion in the handle size is from modest gent's to manly hands.
No single dimension of increase is particularly dramatic, but the resulting increase in mass (and weight) is almost 72%.
The net result is a knife that, frankly, is too heavy for EDC in slacks, and heavy enough to feel in your pocket when you walk in [whatever] trousers.
For comparison, the Buck 110 EcoLite -- a substantially larger knife -- weighs only 4.1 oz. The Buck 112 EcoLite -- essentially the same size as the 500 -- weighs in at 3.3 oz.
In my pocket, the magic threshold for carry is about 3.5 oz. Under 4 oz, I can carry it. From 3.5 and down, it's comfortable and goes unnoticed.
But wait, there's more . . .
I have an older 426 BuckLite. The blade style is the same as the 500, but the blade proportions are different. The blade stock is the same thickness, the 110 blade is a shade wider than the 500, but the 426's blade is 3 5/8" long, a little over a half inch longer.
The extra length of the 426 is not accompanied by exaggerations in the other blade dimensions. You get more length, but not thickness and very little width increase.
The profile of the 426 blade is elegant and balanced.
I can't escape the feeling that Buck could fill a very nice niche with a knife that fits in that place between the 501 and the 500.
Take the 501, add that quarter inch (or 3/8") to the blade, only widen the blade about 1/16", and keep the thickness the same. The resulting increase in mass (accounting for handle expansion) should only be about 25% to 30%, taking the weight to maybe 3.5 oz, maybe as high as 3.65 oz.
You have a knife that's elegantly styled, just that little big bigger for those you need (or want) that +.25" or so, and it comes in well under 4 oz. That longer, narrow blade would be right purty.
I would be tickled to carry one of those.
Of course, there's also the obvious alternative: make the 500 in an EcoLite version.
I'd carry that.
I have lusted over one of these for a while now, and I was pleased to score one in good (*koff* *koff*) condition.
"Good condition" is where the knife doesn't have a broken point, has an edge that can be restored, and the scratches and dings on the bolsters and scales can be buffed out.
It took me an hour to give it a decent edge, but there is still "gapping" in the edge from the nicks it had. Under magnification, it is clear it needs to travel the entire fifteen miles from here to the factory for some TLC. Restoring the edge will mean removing a bit of metal and possibly cleaning up the profile a bit afterward.
It snaps well, but there's a noticeable "rebound" when it snaps closed, and the amount of force needed to pinch it open is minimal -- I can hold the blade, flick the handle down easily, and it snaps open. Good lockup. Almost no blade play when open.
In other words, it will make a find addition to the EDC roster.
However . . .
I have now grasped something about sizing and proportions when making knives.
If you take a given knife pattern, like say the Buck 501, and you add a quarter inch to the length of the blade -- and then you increase all the other dimensions proportionately, you don't get a small increase in mass (and therefore weight), you get a large increase in mass. You hold the 501 and the 500 up next to one another. Even at a glance, the 500 is glaringly larger. A brief heft of the two tells you that the weight of the 500 is something like double that of the 501.
So I took some measurements.
| *Pattern* | Len Closed | Len Open | Blade Len | Thickness | Width | Weight |
| Buck 501 | 3 13/16" | 6 3/4" | 2 3/4" | 3/8" | 7/8" | 2.8 oz |
| Buck 500 | 4 5/16" | 7 1/2" | 3 1/16" | 7/16" | 1 3/16" | 4.8 oz |
Notice that the effective increase in blade length is barely over a quarter inch, less than a 10% gain, and yet the expansion in the handle size is from modest gent's to manly hands.
No single dimension of increase is particularly dramatic, but the resulting increase in mass (and weight) is almost 72%.
The net result is a knife that, frankly, is too heavy for EDC in slacks, and heavy enough to feel in your pocket when you walk in [whatever] trousers.
For comparison, the Buck 110 EcoLite -- a substantially larger knife -- weighs only 4.1 oz. The Buck 112 EcoLite -- essentially the same size as the 500 -- weighs in at 3.3 oz.
In my pocket, the magic threshold for carry is about 3.5 oz. Under 4 oz, I can carry it. From 3.5 and down, it's comfortable and goes unnoticed.
But wait, there's more . . .
I have an older 426 BuckLite. The blade style is the same as the 500, but the blade proportions are different. The blade stock is the same thickness, the 110 blade is a shade wider than the 500, but the 426's blade is 3 5/8" long, a little over a half inch longer.
The extra length of the 426 is not accompanied by exaggerations in the other blade dimensions. You get more length, but not thickness and very little width increase.
The profile of the 426 blade is elegant and balanced.
I can't escape the feeling that Buck could fill a very nice niche with a knife that fits in that place between the 501 and the 500.
Take the 501, add that quarter inch (or 3/8") to the blade, only widen the blade about 1/16", and keep the thickness the same. The resulting increase in mass (accounting for handle expansion) should only be about 25% to 30%, taking the weight to maybe 3.5 oz, maybe as high as 3.65 oz.
You have a knife that's elegantly styled, just that little big bigger for those you need (or want) that +.25" or so, and it comes in well under 4 oz. That longer, narrow blade would be right purty.
I would be tickled to carry one of those.
Of course, there's also the obvious alternative: make the 500 in an EcoLite version.
I'd carry that.
