Why are the old Buck 110/112 blades so hard to sharpen?

cramsey3006 said:
I know what you mean. I didn't mean to come across snippy, sometimes you lose inflection in print. ;)

I kind of got caught up in an issue (for no reason) that doesn't really concern me. I don't have any Buck's anymore, and when I did, I didn't have any problems sharpening them. Thanks to diamonds and thanks to my new Work Sharp, LOL.
Click to expand...

No problem. Sometimes these posts take off in so many different directions that it's hard to pluck the pearls out. At least it hasn't turned into a 'wheels vs. belt' thread... yet :)
 
Bill DeShivs said:
My post about them having 420 was incorrect.
All hollow ground edges don't get thicker toward the edge- they should get thinner at the edge.
Click to expand...

Well, not really. Edges on a hollow ground blade all have a bit of a shoulder on them where the curve of the grind slopes back up. That's one reason there's so much info out there about convexing edges, to reduce the amount of shoulder and increase cutting efficiency, without sacrificing edge integrity.
 
cramsey3006 said:
Did you guys really read the posts?

One post says that the earliest knives were 420.

One says that the early ones were 440C (my understanding that they were).

One post says that 425 started in 1980 and ended in 1985, then they went to 420hc.

Another says that 425 started in the 1984 and that the 420hc started in 1992.

What is a "semi" hollow grind? Never heard of it and can't find any reference to such a grind. It's either hollow ground or not. All hollow ground blades get thin in the middle of the grind and then thicker toward the edge of the blade. That's why the grind is called hollow.

Grinds that I am aware of:

Scandi
Hollow
Full Flat
High Flat
Saber
Full Convex
Click to expand...

Buck literature from the 60s and 70s make reference to semi-hollow grind and even in Jon Juranitch's video on sharpening he has an illustration of it.
 
cramsey3006,

I have only personally witnessed one knife as you have described and it was a large handmade hawkbill by Del Blue out in CO. He brought the point down low enough that it actually started to leave the hollow as you are suggesting. However, that is the exception to the norm.

In this link, if you scroll down to the "Grinds" section you can see images depicting various grinds.

Here is another link to a different source that also gives pictures to reference different grinds including hollow grinds. Again, scroll down to the "Typical grinds" section for images and descriptions to match.

Here you can read about concave grinds and hollow grinds. In their material the hollow grind looks like a Hollow Saber grind to me, but you still get the idea through the description.
 
I think they call that old grind a double hollow grind.Old Rigids used it also.It was relatively difficult to sharpen with stones,but takes a crazy sharp and durable edge with belts followed with a leather strop.I still hunt for them.The old 440c is equal to most super steels of today i think.And not as prone to chipping as some.Then again,Im old school and like old school stuff.:D
 
If you take a round abrasive surface (grinder wheel with a belt) and use it to apply pressure to a flat surface, the area where material is removed by the wheel will be concave or hollow, ie hollow ground.

If you were to take a straight edge and lay it on the shoulder of the blade where the grind begins, to the edge of the blade, it doesn't contact the hollow or concave area where the grind is. It also doesn't contact the actual cutting edge itself (unless altered), it will contact the shoulder of the bevel.

That's what I mean by saying the grind curves back up to the edge.
 
Razors are hollow ground.
The "semi hollow grind" is just a concave grind not brought to the edge. It seems a useless, incorrect grind to me, but what would I know?
 
Seals said:
I think they call that old grind a double hollow grind.Old Rigids used it also.It was relatively difficult to sharpen with stones,but takes a crazy sharp and durable edge with belts followed with a leather strop.I still hunt for them.The old 440c is equal to most super steels of today i think.And not as prone to chipping as some.Then again,Im old school and like old school stuff.:D
Click to expand...

This is exactly my experience as well . Which is why many makers use 440C in their knives . DM
 
I've had very good luck with 440C. IME, it beats out 440A and B, as well as 420HC and all of the AUS steels by a mile! :p

While I think it compares very favorably to BG-42 and 154CM, and even comes close to S30V, it isn't, IME in the same league with D-2, or the real super steels like S90V and CPM M-4.
 
This alludes toward the 110 steels used today; Buck now uses CPM-154, S30V, BG-42 and Sandvik 12C27 . D-2 was used on a different model . DM
 
double hollows were done on some razors and reed knives

hollow ground blades get thinner from spine to edge.

knifemakers do this
2wr17k6.jpg

not this
2m458c8.jpg
 
David Martin said:
This alludes toward the 110 steels used today; Buck now uses CPM-154, S30V, BG-42 and Sandvik 12C27 . D-2 was used on a different model . DM
Click to expand...

That was a good move for Buck. :thumbup:

The only exception, IME is Sandvik 12C27. I have somewhat limited experience with this steel, but after two knives, I doubt that I'd ever buy anything made from it again. It appears to be very similar to AUS8A, with which I am somewhat less than impressed. :thumbdn::thumbdn:
 
Describing grinds, the grind used on the older Bucks was correctly called a hollow grind. It had a hollow below the spine, then a thicker part near the edge. This is illustrated by the bottom sketch shown above, and the grind is hollow in the middle.

They were difficult to sharpen because they were so thick near the edge.

The correct name for the grind, as illustrated in the sketch above demonstrating how knife makers do it, is actually known as a concave grind.

It will take many sharpenings before it is too thick to cut readily. The actual hollow grind, as described above, is probably much stonger, but is very difficult to re-sharpen, and doesn't cut very well after it is sharpened.
 
If Buck blades really are thinner in the middle of the blade than at the edge, they must have been using small diameter grinding wheels. Although it's not uncommon for folks to think of 'hollow ground' meaning it's thinner in the middle, I've never seen it. Put a caliper on 'em. Thinner in the middle makes no sense, although I will admit that I don't know for positive that it hasn't been done. I am in agreement with Hardheart and his illustrations. Also, I've never heard of 'concave grind'. It's always been 'hollow ground' in any setting I'm familiar with.
 
Last edited:
I've thought something like that as well . Almost like they were using a 6" wheel . I've done close to theirs with a 8" wheel . DM
 
I call it a "bad grind."
Notice they don't do it that way anymore.
 
I've heard how repulsive hollow grinds are to some folks, but I don't get it. I have done testing cutting cardboard. I have gotten 2 of my friends to test the knives too. There's some gross dis-information being touted as fact about hollow grinds, mainly, I think, because not all hollow grinds are the same. Take your Seb or your Dozier and take the pepsi challenge. I know I was surprised. A well done hollow grind slips through cardboard like I couldn't believe after a thread on the evils of HGs. There are simply too many differences in hollow grinds to make blanket statements. HGs done properly, and by that, I mean big wheels and full hollows, like Chris and Bob (and others) do, slice like crazy. It's not the strongest blade, but you have to give and take. I talked with Chris himself about it. That man is no dummy, and he does things with reason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top