Where are the new 301's & 303's ?

  • Like
Reactions: plb
GPyro said:
Sorry, but am I looking at grind lines that were added in an attempt to make the knife function properly?
Click to expand...
Those are marks that should have been removed when the blade was finished, however they never finished the swedge on either main blade. They left the rough tool marks. Warranty dept. did not address them either.
 
SharpBits said:
Those are marks that should have been removed when the blade was finished, however they never finished the swedge on either main blade. They left the rough tool marks. Warranty dept. did not address them either.
Click to expand...
That’s definitely disappointing. Have you tried contacting them again? I wonder if there’s any way to push it up the food chain - I can’t imagine a higher-up would be happy with that.
 
SharpBits said:
Those are marks that should have been removed when the blade was finished, however they never finished the swedge on either main blade. They left the rough tool marks. Warranty dept. did not address them either.
Click to expand...
I looked at over a dozen 301, 302 and 303s produced by Buck in the last 20 years and none of mine have the swedge finished. The tool marks are there and I'm sure that is the way Buck designed it.

As for gaps, someone else mentioned that theirs appears to have gaps, but that a light wouldn't shine through. Are yours truly gaps, or are the back springs rounded or chamfered. giving the appearance of gaps. Buck might be tumbling the springs before assembly resulting in round corner springs. If there's no side to side play in the blades and the walk and talk are smooth, then the knife is functioning as intended.
 
plb said:
I looked at over a dozen 301, 302 and 303s produced by Buck in the last 20 years and none of mine have the swedge finished. The tool marks are there and I'm sure that is the way Buck designed it.
Click to expand...
Wow, and that’s considered finished and acceptable? Along with the overly chamfered and rounded springs? For $75!?

Thanks for letting me know. At least I can avoid wasting anymore time and money on Buck 3xx series.
 
SharpBits said:
Those are marks that should have been removed when the blade was finished, however they never finished the swedge on either main blade. They left the rough tool marks. Warranty dept. did not address them either.
Click to expand...
Thanks.

I've sent knives back to Buck for full refund before. It took awhile to process, but at least I was rid of a knife I was unhappy with.
 
I got mine back just now! Opens and closes like it should. The gaps are still gappy, but until I found BladeForums I probably wouldn't have noticed them.

It's a fantastic knife! Sharp as a turtleneck and blazer. I'll post photos when I get a chance.

Edit: Here are the promised photos.

IMG_4116.jpegIMG_4117.jpeg
 
Last edited:
mbkr said:
When I got mine it would close to that point, and then with a little nudge it would "click" and drop down below the sheepsfoot nick. The problem then was that the spey couldn't be opened without opening the sheepsfoot first.
Click to expand...
I have the exact same issue. The blade well seems a tiny fraction of a millimeter too crowded. And yet there are gaps in the springs! My sheepsfoot doesn't seat completely and the spey rubs both the liner and the sheepsfoot ever so slightly. Wonder if the engineering specs weren't met here. The crowded blades cause the backsprings to gap when opened and closed repeatedly and flushed. Considering just keeping the knife and letting it 'wear down' after a couple weeks carry, but disappointed.
 
Slice-and-dice said:
I have the exact same issue. The blade well seems a tiny fraction of a millimeter too crowded. And yet there are gaps in the springs! My sheepsfoot doesn't seat completely and the spey rubs both the liner and the sheepsfoot ever so slightly. Wonder if the engineering specs weren't met here. The crowded blades cause the backsprings to gap when opened and closed repeatedly and flushed. Considering just keeping the knife and letting it 'wear down' after a couple weeks carry, but disappointed.
Click to expand...
Please send me a message and I will get a pre-paid label to get it back here and repaired. I would also like to take a look at the back springs.
 
guy g said:
It seems the sheep's foot is more common on the other side. I hadn't paid attention to this until the New Bucks were introduced.
There was one post here someplace where the Poster said something like ' finally the sheep's foot is on the correct side.
Click to expand...

Not sure why Buck chose to relocate the sheepsfoot, but having it beside the main blade, and putting it there with no spacer in between, shouldn't be a problem IMHO. Consider one of the great stockman knives made today, and for years, as an example: the Case Stockman pattern 6347. Same size overall as the 301. This knife (the Case) has that exact orientation, sheepsfoot by the clip main, no spacer, and they pull it off well - rare to see gaps or overcrowding. It also has three springs.

Perhaps Buck's error here is in meeting the design spec's / tolerances?? Still love the 301, but maybe some more R&D was needed on this new design.
 
Slice-and-dice said:
Not sure why Buck chose to relocate the sheepsfoot, but having it beside the main blade, and putting it there with no spacer in between, shouldn't be a problem IMHO. Consider one of the great stockman knives made today, and for years, as an example: the Case Stockman pattern 6347. Same size overall as the 301. This knife (the Case) has that exact orientation, sheepsfoot by the clip main, no spacer, and they pull it off well - rare to see gaps or overcrowding. It also has three springs.

Perhaps Buck's error here is in meeting the design spec's / tolerances?? Still love the 301, but maybe some more R&D was needed on this new design.
Click to expand...


I have one Case 47. I don’t carry it often but actually had it in my pocket yesterday. I never noticed the blade configuration until you mentioned it. 👍
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top