You folks that own 51-60 knives, what do you think.

kyhunt

kyhunt

Basic Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2007
Messages
4,068
I know the 51-60 knives have been out now for awhile. What do you folks think of them? I haven't tried one yet but been kind of thinking of picking up a new Buck and thought the 51-60 might be nice to try out.

I also noticed the 105 is offered in 51-60 and I've considered trying out a 105 for a long time.I just like the looks of them.
 
I'll be interested to know what others have found too. I've been using my 110 with 5160 and I like it. It seems to hold an edge well and sharpen pretty easily. 5160 is supposed to be tough. I'm not going to go crazy to find out, but it's a good feeling to know it could handle a little more abuse (if what I've read is correct) so I bring this 110 over others if there is a chance of heavier duty.

I was itching to see how 5160 would patina. It wasn't really doing that for me or not as fast as I thought it would. Having now forced the patina and not really liking it, I think that's good. If you care for it, you can probably keep the patina in check. I realized that I prefer a nice "clean looking" blade to cut food that I will eat. I'm just used to stainless steel I guess. I'm trying to remove the patina now.

The 105 is a fantastic knife. I always looked at the blade and thought it looked odd. I never thought I would buy one. Well, I did and it's now one of my favorites. I think it looks great and works great. I would like to get one in 5160 too.
 
i have a 112 and 110 in 5160.......i've used the 112 a lot so far, haven't used the 110 yet. surprisingly being in the wet humid and hot south and in the swamps i thought it would be a rust magnet. so far it's been much better than i expected. haven't seen any rust yet even from sweaty pocket carry. all i've doen it wiped it down with a dry cloth. no corrosion prevention products used yet like oils, silicones, etc or soap and water type cleaning. where as 1095 and 01 gets close to any of my acid sweat and it's rust like mad. the buck 5160 takes a good edge and holds it. i'm impressed so far and enough i bought a 119 in 5160.......not that i see anything wrong with my current and well used trusty 420hc 119, but i normally shy away from carbon and tool steels due to rust issues, but i can maintain the 5160 and keep it clean and shiny easily.
 
Thanks guys I have been wanting the 112 in 5160 and think I will go ahead and pull the trigger now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I bought the 119 to use on my boat and for just the average bush crafty needs and I live it. The 5160 steel holds a great edge and for high carbon steel, I really don't have an issue with corrosion. I'll probably go out and get the 105 as well. I forced a patina on the 119 just cause I prefer the sweaty old steel look as apposed to the mirror shine of SS. It's a definite keeper, thanks Buck for making a real knife...
 
Cool. I just been wanting to pick something up. I haven't bought a new knife in several months. My last two Bucks were at Christmas time and the 192 I've been using a lot in the kitchen this year waiting for hunting season. My 192 kind of has re-sparked my interest/love in Buck fixed blades.
 
I'd be super curious to hear from people who are using 5160 and who also have experience with well heat treated 1095 (e.g. Schrade USA or currently, ESEE perhaps).

1095 has more carbon than 5160 and the general synopsis is that 1095 should be more wear resistant while 5160 should be tougher. An alternative view would be that 1095 is plenty tough enough and that 5160 holds an edge well enough.

I have experience with 1095 but not 5160 and IME, 1095 is plenty tough enough for anything I'm going to do with a 5" or shorter blade. For a blade long enough to chop with, I can see the need for more toughness.

For people who've actually used both side by each, can you tell a difference?
 
5160 is not a high carbon steel by any means. It only has around .6 carbon, give or take .04, whereas 1095 has 1.0% carbon. It is a spring steel sometimes used to make swords and large knives. If it is run soft, it is very tough. But, it can be run about 58 or 59 RC for smaller knives to give them better edge holding.
 
pinnah said:
I'd be super curious to hear from people who are using 5160 and who also have experience with well heat treated 1095 (e.g. Schrade USA or currently, ESEE perhaps).

1095 has more carbon than 5160 and the general synopsis is that 1095 should be more wear resistant while 5160 should be tougher. An alternative view would be that 1095 is plenty tough enough and that 5160 holds an edge well enough.

I have experience with 1095 but not 5160 and IME, 1095 is plenty tough enough for anything I'm going to do with a 5" or shorter blade. For a blade long enough to chop with, I can see the need for more toughness.

For people who've actually used both side by each, can you tell a difference?
Click to expand...

I have the 103 and 105 in 5160 and really like them. I also have a rather large collection of user 1095 blades (mostly GEC, mainly folders but some fixed blades too). I would say that 1095 and 5160 are extremely similar but I think 1095 takes a slightly more keen edge. 5160 is no slouch but it just doesn't seem to be able to be sharpened as sharp as easily as 1095. Having said that: 5160 is a very capable steel when done by Buck and I'd rate it as similar to their 420HC in terms of edge holding.

One thing of note is that 5160 is designed to be tough AND to not pit when it rusts. It was designed as the go-to steel for vehicle leafsprings and therefore it was known that it certainly would rust and the rust must not cause pitting (which causes a weak spot in a spring). Therefore 5160 tends to rust on it's surface with causing too much damage underneath. It also tends to patina slightly different than 1095: it takes more of the light blue tones and is more resistant to the dark gray or brown tones.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top