The 121 Old and New

Beauties......

I still like the older ones best, too......

But I'm mad because I've been totally shut out on most of the newer and fancied-up ones that I've tried for......guess I'll just have to snipe higher!

:cool:
 
Telechronos said:
The top knife in the attachment 200304 looks more like a 105 than a 121. Are my eyes deceiving me?

Telechronos:):):)
Click to expand...
Good "Eye" Telechronos,I forgot and put it in the photo (2liner 105).
I was looking at the newer 121's and old 105 and doing a side by side
comparison, newer 121's have a longer blade than the 105.
 
BG42EDGE said:
Found all the 121s that I own......I notice that the second two-liner actually seems to have a slightly thicker blade than the first. Sorry, the blades are turned slightly, but I think you can still judge the thickness.

011.jpg


008-1.jpg


007-2.jpg


Thanks to all for the pics, hope mine add some useful info for somebody.

The first two-liner is the one that has an Atchison sheath and, I believe, is the earliest knife. It is much slimmer in handle and lighter all around.
Click to expand...

I revive this old thread because of Packrat's fillet knife thread, where I found out that the "much slimmer" 121 above is also blessed with a thinner and more narrow blade that is just a hair under six inches long.

I never noticed this before.

Just wondering if anybody else has this variety of 121.

:)
 
And after looking at some of mine in that other thread, Was gonna ask if this three line inverted was as rare as a 110 3 line inverted. But then saw that 300bees posted one. So I guess not.

But none I have measured yet goes past 5 and 5/8 inches. Most right at 5.5
 
Pack Rat said:
And after looking at some of mine in that other thread, Was gonna ask if this three line inverted was as rare as a 110 3 line inverted. But then saw that 300bees posted one. So I guess not.
Click to expand...

My guess is that both of those are pretty darn rare.

That ol' 300 has some pretty rare stuff.
 
Mine is only 5 5/8" as well and I'd say it expressed a stiff flex. Could get the 1/2" but not more unless I REALLY forced it! I was meaning flex from Normal use. The 3 liners look much thicker than the 2. DM
 
Yeah, my thinner, near six-inch, Two-Liner is a LOT thinner and narrower than the other.

Guard and handle a lot different, too......check those pictures.

I'm thinking it must be just after the blade with scaler departed the lineup.

:)
 
Well you guys are gonna force me to line up the 121's and get that macro back on the camera. :D Maybe tomorrow.

Glad you opened this one again BG :thumbup:
 
DRAT!!! :mad::foot::o

I measured more carefully (and in good light) this morning and must retract my earlier measurement of that blade. I was using an unfamiliar (and cheap) rule and mistook the five and three quarter marking for the 6 inch line. My eyes deceive me every now and then these days especially in poor light.

It is, just like Pack Rat and David said, five and five/eighths.

However.......it IS significantly thinner and narrower in blade than the other Two-liner. The whole knife is more slender, actually.

It's a pretty and nicely shaped knife and earlier than the other, I'm sure. I remember thinking I paid too much for it when I got it. That's often the way you get a nice knife, though.......and I don't regret it now
 
In retrospect, I can easily see why Buck beefed up this knife.

The early one is far, far lighter and more flexible and I can see how the blades would get broken by enthusiastic filleters trying for a little too much flex in separating skin from flesh.

The scaler, I'm sure, was even more subject to breaking with those scaling notches out toward the tip.
 
BG42EDGE said:
DRAT!!! :mad::foot::o

I measured more carefully (and in good light) this morning and must retract my earlier measurement of that blade. I was using an unfamiliar (and cheap) rule and mistook the five and three quarter marking for the 6 inch line. My eyes deceive me every now and then these days especially in poor light.

It is, just like Pack Rat and David said, five and five/eighths.

However.......it IS significantly thinner and narrower in blade than the other Two-liner. The whole knife is more slender, actually.

It's a pretty and nicely shaped knife and earlier than the other, I'm sure. I remember thinking I paid too much for it when I got it. That's often the way you get a nice knife, though.......and I don't regret it now
Click to expand...

Bummer,,,was hoping you had a special one. Those rulers can be tricky..
 
From earlier in the thread:
So......blade thicknesses by model in the 121s I now own.

The new Buff .115
2000 Model .077
Three-Line .078
Older Three-Line .078
Two-Line .060
Older Two-line .051

Must add that Telechronos said his older model with the scaler was .056 earlier in the thread. Don't know why I'd have a later model at .051, but that's what I got.
Click to expand...

Looks like my old 121 might be one of the thinnest of all the 121s.

It could be that after Buck stopped making them with the scaler, they tried a thinner blade for a while--and apparently that didn't work out for them.
 
Have you measured the thickness in several places? I was hoping you had a 6" as well. Don't think much of it as most of us here have done a miscue some time. DM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top