strider/ buck strider

BadKarma05

BadKarma05

Joined
Feb 19, 2006
Messages
554
can anyone tell me the difference in quality or features between the strider and the "Buck" Strider? i never see them in any of the stores around here and i hear a lot of talk about them. just a little curious....ty in advance!:)
 
The "Buck" Strider brand is a collaboration between the two manufacturers. It means, Strider design, but Buck's manufacturing. (The result is a cheaper than Strider, but (usually) very durable knife family. ;) )
 
Buck Striders have 420HC blades (889, 890 models) and ATS34 blades (880, 882, 887, 888 models). Strider moved to S30 steel (was ATS34). As for Buck-Strider folders, they are very rugged, although not so tough as Striders. Pivot is smaller and lock is liner lock, not tank-like Strider framelock. Overall quality is exellent, yet some liner lock issues been reported. I own 882 model (http://www.buckknives.com/catalog/detail/414/233) and it is very good quality knife.
Here's the link to the review (by Nozh2002) http://playground.sun.com/~vasya/buck-882sbk0.html. It's all russian, but there are some comparison pics in the bottom.
 
Lenny_Goofoff said:
Mine got his mark. I suppose all Buck-Strider ATS34 blades are.
Click to expand...

mine buck-strider also has it but I was asking about strider-strider which were produced nut by Buck :)
 
I would say it depends on which model you are talking about. As far as the original Buck/Striders (the 880 knives)- which you can get in BG42 if you find someone with one of the original 500 willing to sell it-, they are VERY well done, and a very faithful copy of the knives they were meant to mimic (i.e. the AR/GB). The AR/GBs are liner locks- albeit with VERY thick liners that rival some framelocks. I'll have a GB soon, so I'll be able to tell you more about the differences there somewhat soon.

NOW, as to the 889 and the series of Buck/Striders meant to mimic the SMF and the SNG, I have a different opinion about them. I just don't think Buck has gotten the steel liner down as well as their Ti liners. I EDC one of the 880 series (the mini-tanto), and I have not seen the liner move from the left of the blade tang in all the time I've had it (over 2 years). The 889, from most reports, has a liner which if you're lucky will engage the lock at about 1/2 way over on the blade tang. I don't find that acceptable, but have to admit that I haven't seen too many reports of the locks failing. These knives will give you somewhat the feel of the SNG/SMF, but won't come close to how a real SNG/SMF feels in the way the 880 series does for the AR/GB.

Buck/Striders are GREAT for the money, and really represent a great value in knives. I think I'd skip the 889 and go for either one of the 880s or for a "real" strider SMF/SNG. Just my .02, and worth exactly what you paid probably.

Edited to add an opinion of 420HC: I think 420HC is a fine steel for EDC as long as you realise that it'll dull faster than some of the other high-end steels. For normal usage, I don't think you're going to see that much of a difference. Besides, 420HC sharpens up very quickly and takes on a VERY keen edge. If you have a lot of hard cutting (i.e. cardboard and such) you may want to get something that stays sharp a little longer, but the tradeoff is that it'll be a little harder (if only in time expendature) to get it really sharp.
 
In my opinion after handling and owning some of both the Strider and the Buck/Strider knives it seems to me that the Buck/Strider knives have a higher quality control as far as the lock mating to the blade is concerned. I know this will probably surprise and maybe even anger many Strider fans but I have not been impressed with the mating of the lock and blade on the Striders I've handled.

Many of them (too many in my opinion for a high dollar knife) look like this picture.

Notice all the light shining through on the Strider SNG and the EKI HD7 in these pics? That is because the lock doesn't contact the blade where you can see light getting through. In fact, based on my best measurements using my digital caliper the Strider lock in this picture is a total
of .430 wide at the face or 10.92 mm in width. It is .125 thick on the SNG.
There is 7.40 mm or .291 of the .430 Strider lock not even engaging the
blade at all. It simply doesn't come into contact at any time with the blade where you see light and it never will.

The gap between the lock face and the blade is between .018 at the bottom and .005 or less tapering to where the lock finally engages the blade for the last 3.52 mm at the top of the lock that is the only part of that massive lock that actually touches the blade when its opened. This is further evidenced by observing the wear marks on the blade from the very small surface area that engages the blade.

This on top of the fact that the lock doesn't move out very far to engage the blade to begin with makes for a very weak, high probability shearing effect of the lock face under great stress. Cracking of the lock face is probably more likely than shear actually when so little of it comes out to meet the blade. Simply put I would not trust this lock. I have not seen this problem in the Buck knives or Kershaw, or pretty much any modern production frame locks. The locks from them, on the Tarani, 880, and 881 The Storm II can give a little under pressure from bending because they are not as massive as these here but the full face of the lock, thats pretty close to 100% of the lock appears to engage the blade by contacting it when the blade is opened. I have only seen one Strider, a PT that is this good. The others were similar to this picture. Most PTs have most of the lock engaging the blade by the way.

I've examined other brands as well that are high dollar folders made this way also. I find it pretty sad that you can buy a $30 frame lock by Kershaw at Wal-Mart with more lock surface area contacting the blade to secure it than some of these high dollar folders.

You will never see a Sebenza with this kind of gap at the lock. Chris wouldn't let it out of his shop that way. Based on what I know about how to properly build a folder: when done this way it is usually because the lock was cut out first and too short or the blade was ground too much where it is supposed to meet the lock and rather than remake the lock or the blade they simply moved the stop pin slightly forward of where it should be to make the lock and blade contact but with less surface area than it originally would have had in contact with the blade. Its called "cheating" the lock up in certain circles of knife makers when you see extreme gaps like this degree of difference at the inteface here. When this extreme it causes all the stress and pressure of use to be focused in one small area instead of evenly distributed along the lock over a greater area. The result is a detent into the lock face by the blade and blade play sooner rather than later, especially when the lock is titanium. Idealy the lock should contact the blade by a higher percentage with more metal in contact than I see here. Figure the percentage of lock up on this one for yourself.

What I was told is that: Contrary to popular belief by those from the old school of how to build these folders it is not only possible to have a parallel interface at the lock up these days without blade rock, but even expected. For examples of it you can find evidence of it at your local Wal-Mart by pulling out any Kershaw or modern CNC made frame lock. Tolerances are much higher today than when the first liner locks were made and gaps like this are hardly seen anymore even in cheapo knives. It isn't that this folder won't work or even that it won't be covered under warranty if you had a problem with it.

It may just be the difference between a hand made knife and a CNC machined one though.
STR
 
Interesting viewpoint STR.

Here is some info pulled from the Strider FAQ Sheet. It is in Quotes because it is copied direct from the FAQ. - The presence of Asterisks denotes my edit to language, but the Asterisks are the only change I made to the FAQ:

Why does only the lower section of the lock bar contact the blade on Strider Folders?
Per Mick Strider:

"The reason we only want contact at the lower section of the lock bar is this:

1. For the most solid lock, you need two points of contact, as far apart as possible. (bump stop and lock face)

2. For the most solid lock, your lock contact should be as far away from the center line of the pivot as possible. This keeps your lock from "rolling" off the blade.

3. No matter how far from the pivot center your lock surface is, if its contaminated with crap (sand), it will fail. We send knives into some nasty sh**. This is a huge concern for us. By making contact at the lowest section only, it creates a "sh** vent" above the lock surface. That is the same reason we make our detent hole go all the way through the blade....its a "sh** vent"."
Click to expand...
 
I have a buck/strider 889 with a plain edge blade, 420hc. not bos treated. and I really like it. lockup is very tight with no play. It fails a spine whack but i'm not really sure that bothers me that much. it feels really good in my hand and i like the choil area on the blade which lets you choke up for fine work. since I got it I've carried it pretty much daily. edge holding appears to be pretty good and it sharpens up easily. for the price i think it is a good knife. give it a shot. good luck ahgar
 
That is an interesting theory and even more so since the bottom part of the lock in the pictures I posted does not come into contact with the blade at all. The only part of the lock face touching the blade in the photos I posted is at the top of the lock not the bottom. ( I guess it depends on what you call the top or the bottom though huh? :D )

In a nut shell description of that reasoning from Strider. It makes little sense to me. Its the first I've seen it but I don't get it. If the lock contacts the blade fully or at least has closer tolerances toward the top it wears better and keeps grit from getting in. Less surface area on a titanium lock (Titanium is known for galling or sticking to dissimilar metals) means there is less metal to gall or stick to the blade holding it secure. Also, it seems to me that $hit can only build up if it has a way into an area so in my mind opening channels for $hit to travel such as in the picture in my first post is going to allow build up and gunk to get in there easier than if the lock mated to the blade at a higher %. I don't follow that line of thought by Strider but I'm not saying I know for certain either. I just wish the degree of gap there at the interface was less on a high dollar knife like that. On a frame lock it just stands out terribly to me.

Please don't think just because that pic is of a Strider SNG that they stand alone. I have pics of HD7s and other high dollar tactical frame locks with this same issue going for them. The classic triangle of the three points is far more profound in these knives because of the difference between the face of the lock and the lock interface on the blade. What tells me that this is not the norm for these models is that not all of them are this way. There are some made that mate to the lock more or closer I should say which seems to indicate to me that this is a quality control issue and not something done on purpose.

I know what I've been taught by books and other makers on how to properly build a lock on a liner or frame locking folder and I don't recall seeing gaps like this in other knives. Not gaps this big anyway.

STR
 
STR,

Just checked My Strider, and it indeed has a similar lock up to the Pics you posted.

Curiously, I also have a PT, checked it - and it looks to be 100%
I alway s use the choil, so it that is great consolation for saftey on the SNG.

Only had it a few days, and have given it a pretty good work out with no worries but, I'll check in with Strider to see if they have any additional thoughts other than the FAQ.

I'm interested at this point when Blade play may become an issue..

Thanks for the heads up.

sp
 
Barrabas. Open the blade and take it to where the blade just falls off the detent ball but don't lock it. Leave it so you can see into the body of the knife in the light and look on the blade where the lock meets it. On most you can see evidence of just how much metal is touching metal from the wear marks.

I get to handle a great many knives for forum members and lay people all the time due to my knife smithing and pocket clip work as well as various repairs and reprofiles, Waves and other things, so I think I have a pretty good idea of what is out there in the hands of the public. My question to someone trying to justify a lock up like in the pic I posted would be: Why have all that mass in a lock if no more of it meets the blade to secure it than a common Taiwan or China made cheap a$$ liner locking folder? Something just doesn't add up there in my mind anyway, and for $400 plus bucks I expect it to shine in all areas of workmanship with closer tolerances than this pic shows.

STR
 
By the way. Reading that FAQ from Strider again it seems to me that he is talking about how much of the lock face comes out to contact the blade and not referring to what I am talking about. But it is hard to follow for me to be sure.

His reference seems to be from this view (see thumbnail pic) and not the one I show in my pics in my first post. I could be wrong though. It is hard to be clear on what exactly Strider's frame of reference is when he says, " center line of the pivot". Maybe someone that has spoken with him more on it can clarify. It may be the triangle formed to make a good contact on the pin, and the blade to avoid blade rocking but that is possible with more lock contacting the blade than what I see in this picture.

Whatever the case if he is speaking about the way the knife in my first pics lock up then his philosophy has apparently not carried over into the Buck/Strider knives because everyone of those I've examined has had very close to 100% of the lock mating to the blade without exception but they do seem to exhibit a bit of movement so it may be there is something to be said for doing them this way. I just don't know for sure.

STR
 
Well, I have never had a real strider made knife, but have had one of the less expensive bucks. I sold mine due to the fact that every time I threw it into a 2X4 (bout 6-7 times in a row) the lock closed up. Not exactily normal use, but I just didn't want to have a knife that closed like that. -I do plan on owning a sng in the near future, and hope it's 100%.
 
I put an email into the Fine Folks at Strider to get a little more clarity.
Looking forward to their thoughts on this.

I totally LOVE my SNG (and PT for that matter) both have been Killer so far, - But, it's always better to be safe than sorry;) .
 
The PT I had in my home the other day to check out was flawless. The lock up was just as you would expect from a high dollar knife. I can't say I would even want the SNG that was here with it. Its the one in the picture and to be perfectly honest with you my Kershaw Chive has more lock securing the blade open than the SNG does in that picture in my first post. For that matter my Chive has more lock on the blade than the HD7 by Emerson too that I was also checking over for a forum member.

It can be decieving to the untrained eye. On the surface these locks look so massive and impressive kind of like big speakers. But bigger isn't always better. (now I sound like Dr. Ruth :D )

Which would you rather have? A .050 thick liner lock 10mm wide with 75% or nearly all of the lock engaging the blade from both the perspective of my first pics and the perspective of the lock view looking down?

Or would you rather have a .125 thick lock 10.5 mm wide with only 3.5 mm of the lock engaging the blade from perspective number 1 and only coming out 15% from perspective number 2? To me its a no brainer. Cracking of the lock face is just all too possible with that little contact area if you ask me especially when the lock is titanium. If these locks were stainless and the contact areas were that small I would probably not have even mentioned it.

STR
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top