Buck 110 blade question…. Regular vs Liteweight

[HallyButt]

As the lunatics are well in charge of the asylum I thought it’s time to buy one of these before seeing them at the shooting show incase any radicalized Islamic criminals kill anyone else with one (half expecting comrade Starmer to also ban the sale of rice)

I’m interested in whether anyone has compared the blades of the above, are they identical just with lighter weight mechanism, scales etc? Or is there a difference in quality?

 

[SSN100]

I haven’t used one, but I think the slimline looks nicer than lightweight.

 

[Feugh]

I have both. It is my impression that the light weight does not hold an edge as well. I don’t know if the steel is different, it’s a different heat treatment or I am just plain wrong but I prefer everything about the original other than the weight.

 

[bluesako]

whoa thats green, its a zombie knife you could cut your finger.

 

[paul o']

Still got a buck 110 but a posh one

 

[HallyButt]

I have both. It is my impression that the light weight does not hold an edge as well. I don’t know if the steel is different, it’s a different heat treatment or I am just plain wrong but I prefer everything about the original other than the weight.

Thank you! I will go with ‘full fat’

 

[Rory]

As the lunatics are well in charge of the asylum I thought it’s time to buy one of these before seeing them at the shooting show incase any radicalized Islamic criminals kill anyone else with one (half expecting comrade Starmer to also ban the sale of rice)

I’m interested in whether anyone has compared the blades of the above, are they identical just with lighter weight mechanism, scales etc? Or is there a difference in quality?

The Buck 110 Hunter and 110 LT lightweight Hunter use the same steel for the blade, 420HC, and are identical. The 110LT is about half the weight of the normal wood and brass 110 Hunter.

 

[Feugh]

 

[HallyButt]

View attachment 403389

Thanks that’s awesome, is the brass one irritatingly heavy?

 

[Feugh]

I thought that I had read that the steel is the same but the finish is different. I’ve also read elsewhere that folk prefer the durability of the heavy version, but maybe they wrong too.

 

[Feugh]

I thought that I had read that the steel is the same but the finish is different. I’ve also read elsewhere that folk prefer the durability of the heavy version, but maybe they wrong too.

it is pretty heavy. Heavy enough that you certainly notice it in your pocket. That’s not always a bad thing.

 

[HallyButt]

it is pretty heavy. Heavy enough that you certainly notice it in your pocket. That’s not always a bad thing.

I’m wondering whether the brass 112 might be the best bet

 

[Rory]

I thought that I had read that the steel is the same but the finish is different. I’ve also read elsewhere that folk prefer the durability of the heavy version, but maybe they wrong too.

Steel is the same, the 110 LT blade has a 'tumbled finish'.

 

[VSS]

I’m wondering whether the brass 112 might be the best bet

A Buck 112 is a nice little knife. A slightly "chubbier" look than the 110, on account of being shorter but just as chunky. I would be happy with either.

Incidentally, the little symbol next to the number on the blade denotes the year in which the knife was made:

 

[Acm]

Aware this is an unpopular opinion but the buck 110 is quite expensive for a fairly average steel. I know that they make a lot about the heat treat being somthing special, but you could get a much higher end steel from spyderco/fallkniven or benchmade for similar money.
Of course the look and feel of the buck is fairly unique.

 

[HallyButt]

A Buck 112 is a nice little knife. A slightly "chubbier" look than the 110, on account of being shorter but just as chunky. I would be happy with either.

Incidentally, the little symbol next to the number on the blade denotes the year in which the knife was made:
View attachment 403399

Coool! Thanks! If you had to pick ONE principally for internal deer work in the field, what’s would you go for?

 

[VSS]

Coool! Thanks! If you had to pick ONE principally for internal deer work in the field, what’s would you go for?

I'd probably go with the 110 as the slightly longer blade makes for easier anal tract removal, but if you're only doing green gralloch in the field, and then doing the rest in the larder, the 112 is probably easier in the hand for unzipping.

 

[25 Sharps]

Coool! Thanks! If you had to pick ONE principally for internal deer work in the field, what’s would you go for?

One that doesn’t fold……

 

[HallyButt]

One that doesn’t fold……

I’ve got a heavy fixed blade on a dangler that does anything needing force, this is only for inside..

 

[HallyButt]

I'd probably go with the 110 as the slightly longer blade makes for easier anal tract removal, but if you're only doing green gralloch in the field, and then doing the rest in the larder, the 112 is probably easier in the hand for unzipping.

Awesome! I have a narrow folding browning that sits on my bino pouch to deal with assholes (deer obviously), just looking for something for the internals, I have a heavy fixed blade knife on a dangler that deals with head, legs, ribs but is ground for tough work not scalpel like. Plus the browning is a nippy little bit!