Thick blades.

V

Voltron

Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
565
I was noticing on my Buck slippies and on others at the stores that the blades are made pretty darn thick. I was wondering why this is? I personally love a thin blade. I have a Case Peanut with an ultra thin blade that will cut just about anything even when dull. The geometry of the blade helps make it a superb cutter. Any ideas why Buck went to these really thick blades? Is it toughness? This I would think is a none issue, as you cut, you don't pry or aplly lots of pressure, you know?
I'm just curious.
 
Volt,welcome.300 Bucks is our local expert on that model.He'll be along shorty to lend you a hand.DM
 
Volt,
First off the thick spine supports the ever so slightly concave surface of the grind portion more effectively with the modern grind. Old flat ground is thinner with stress spread over blade more proportionaly. Many engineering efforts are for worst case senarios. I don't twist and you don't twist but I think someone in Nevada might twist.

However Buck changed blade width from contract knives blades when they took over production in house at 1986. But continued flat ground thru 425m into 420HC eras. The the modern concave grind you see today started taking shape in mid 90's but blade widths have acutally thinned down a little recently .

Maybe someone from factory who knows real data will comment. 300Bucks
 
Last edited:
Here's a photo of 301 blades across time. 1966 to 2008. Hard to tell differences. Early contract knives were likely 440A steel.

BladeClose.jpg

Left to right.
Knife 1: Schrade made 301 1966-67
Knife 2: Camillus made 301, scale rivets, MIUSA on tang 1971
Knife 3: Camillus made 301, Buck,301,USA on tang 1974 to 1985
Knife 4: Buck made 301, 425m steel, Buck Escutcheon, dated 301V, 1989
Knife 5: Buck made 301, 420HC steel, dated 301U, 1998
Knife 6: Buck made 301, 420HC steel, Dymondwood, dated 301 uparrow symbol 2008
 
Last edited:
Excellent photos 412(or are we now back to 300:p)
Knives 2, 4 and 6 seem thicker than 1,3 and 5... at least by my questionable eyesight. Thanks:thumbup:
 
I have a Camillus-made 303 dating from ~1980. (I lost my first one in ~'79, Bought the replacement a couple of months later.)
I also have a Buck-made 303 dating from 1992.

I miked them and found that the Camillus blades are thicker - 0.071" vs 0.095" for the main blades.

So, it isn't just Buck that is thicker. Camillus was thicker yet.

Also, what designs are you comparing? According to the head designer at Canal Street, a stockman design has thicker blades than a Trapper. It's part of the design. So if you are looking at a small stockman and comparing it to a Peanut, then yeah, the Peanut blades are going to be thinner.

If you feel you have to have thin blades, then you need to be looking at designs that by their basic design, have thinner blades. Look at trappers and Peanuts, by all means.
 
I am comparing the Buck 303 to the Case Medium Stockman, which is actually a little bit BIGGER then the Cadet.
 
Well,
Actually with my Brown and Sharpe Mfg. Micrometer, measured just in front of the tang along the spine, they are:

1. Schrade 66-67 .076
2 Camillus 71 .086
3. Camillus 74 - 85 .078
4. Buck 89 .096
5. Buck 98 .088
6. Buck 08 .086

So Trax was correct twice. Fritz only missed it by .001. It must have been the lighting. 300bucks
 
Voltron said:
I am comparing the Buck 303 to the Case Medium Stockman, which is actually a little bit BIGGER then the Cadet.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the clarification. your original post implied comparing a Case Peanut.

I did what 300 did, that is measure some 4" stockmans and I got similar results
Buck 301_____0.087
Schrade______0.078
Cold Steel____0.084
Remington____0.082
Camillus______0.084

By Golly the Buck is thickest...by a whopping 3 mils (three 1000's of an inch). Only the Schrade was noticeably thinner, by 12 mils. IIRC, the average tolerance on sheet metal thickness is 2 mils, so a 3 mil diff is noise.

So to get back to the "why" question. I dunno why Buck Blades are thicker than Case blades. They just are, and they are not thicker than the blades of other knives from other companies.
 
Yeah, knarfeng, I mentioned the Peanut, but what I was comparing it to here at home was a similar sized knife. I used the Peanut to illustrate the point of a good thin blade performing well even when dull.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top