• The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is ready to order! See this thread for details: https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/bladeforums-2024-traditional-knife.2003187/
    Price is $300 $250 ea (shipped within CONUS). If you live outside the US, I will contact you after your order for extra shipping charges.
    Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/ - Order as many as you like, we have plenty.

  • Today marks the 24th anniversary of 9/11. I pray that this nation does not forget the loss of lives from this horrible event. Yesterday conservative commentator Charlie Kirk was murdered, and I worry about what is to come. Please love one another and your family in these trying times - Spark

The 301 Revisited: A Tale of Two Bucks

straitshot

straitshot

Joined
Mar 18, 2006
Messages
520
This past season included the gratifying use of one of my favorites, the 301. It was time to freshen the edge for next Fall and in doing so, I happened to place it beside one I've had for so long I don't remember the age (maybe from the 70's ?). There are significant differences even though I believe both are by Camillus. The newer one from '99 is the one I've used most recently, but I wasn't sure why since I didn't compare them side by side before.

The '99 took very nice edges at 15 degrees on a Gatco then finished on a Sharpmaker. The burrs cut off cleanly and evenly, just like the older one. The '99 has three stainless backsprings, one for each blade, but the older one has two carbon with brass spacers. The blade arrangements are different as well, shown in the photo. I would have thought the '99 significantly thicker across the frame as a result (excluding scales) yet it measurers only 0.025" wider and the scales are thinner so it is actually 0.015" thinner overall.
Both weigh 3ozs. The '99 has more handle curvature (about 1/8") and is probably why it feels a little better to grip.

Another interesting factor is the difference in pivot pins. The older mics about 0.10", the '99 about 0.120" with the difference in size being apparent on all four corners of both knives, at least on the exposed heads. Both have steel pins which I prefer. What I like equally well is that the '99 has bolsters integral with the frame/liners! Careful study under lighted 30x confirms they are seamless which should be inherently durable.

Thinner overall, a backspring for each blade, more curvature, heavier pivot pins, and my favorite- the integral bolsters... what's not to like? There are other differences but they are mostly cosmetic. I'm not sure of the steel types although both hold up very well so it wouldn't matter much to me even if I knew.

I'm usually in the camp of "older is probably better" but, in this case, I'll probably be using the 301 '99 version again next Fall. Any additional information on these you may care to share will be appreciated. Regards, ss.
 
I really believe the 301 is Bucks best pocket knife they ever made!

I bought one in 1967, and it served me through the service in the army where I was in the engineers. That little stockman did everything a knife could be asked, and a few things it should not have. After my seperation from service, I used the 301 for another 20 years in my job as a machinist, and on many sporting outings.

In 2002 I bought a new 301 stockman, as my old one was worn down pretty badly. It took me three and a half decades to wear out a quality tool, and when the day came I looked at my old knife and knew it was time for a new one, I did'nt think for a moment on what the new knife would be. In the past five years my new 301 has lived up to the standard I've come to expect from my long experiance with Buck Knives, including my 30 year old 102 woodsman, that is still in my pack ready for use.
 
Whoopee, after three or four weeks of everyones 110 and fixed blade stories a 300 question floats to the top. :D

Ok, By the photo you have a stainless 301 , all home made by Buck. On the other notice the double brass liner on the one side . This would indicate a late model Cammi made 301 my guess somewhere near 1980. The old looks well taken care of but I don't see any rivets sticking out down the side of the scale to make it a early 70's model.

For a definitive age we need to know what the tang stamp says.

Buck 301, the standard others seek to achieve.....:p
 
The older one doesn't have scale rivets. The stamp reads "BUCK" in very tall letters, "301" nearly touching smaller letters "U.S.A." below. There are no other blade stamps. The back spring pivot pin is brass. It has the long nail nick only on the clip blade. I appreciate the info, thanks. Regards, ss.
 
I think 300bucks nailed it. Since the older one has the model number on it, it can be as old as the early 1970's but I am thinking something closer to the late 1970's. Still some research needs to be done to see if we have records of when we switched away from that double brass liner set up.
 
Joe,

No time pressure, but if you find that switch period out, I could use that as WTB and I are going to attempt some 300 model history info. on the Buck Collectors Club Site. Some little good is better than no good, somebodies got to start, eh.

Considering the spacer issues on this model and the several others also with doubles, my question would be - was change in spacer numbers always a standard assembly operation change via engineering or a fit up as needed operation to tweak fit ? Doubles were found on the 313's of the same time period. But with both some had two and some had one. Go figure.
 
Post post note:

All my 319's with serrated leather punch have double spacers. No singles there. :confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top