All about Bucklites and Selector's & 110's & 112's LTs and Slims ...

Here's a cool 425 Bucklite... I wish I had the rest of the Box...

zM8PeCM.jpg


Xy8DieW.jpg


ABcWfan.jpg


:)
 
Old Hunter said:
Plan to drive over to the Trent River after church this morning and see if any Shad are running that far up yet. Taking this old Bucklite fishing knife with me (bass lures in this picture - not what I’ll use for Shad). OH
Buck-424-X-Bucklite-1990-with-bass-lures.jpg
Click to expand...

OH, what a great picture... Thanks for sharing...
 
st8yd said:
Just got one I havn't seen before. Bucklite II, Model 444 with red thermoplastic handle. A small run of these was authorized by Chuck and engraved by the factory.
View attachment 1464017
Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing, I don't remember seeing one of these either. I never collected 3rd generation. Only if it was different and odd, has Clinton would say.
 
Nothing really new to see here, but I recently found a deal for a 112 LT for $19 that I couldn't pass up on. Here's my Buck-lite family pic with (from top) a 2013 424, 2012 484, and the 112 LT (black) and 112 Slim (brown).

buck-lites.jpg


And here's the difference between the width of the handles on the Slim and LT 112s

rangers.jpg


I wanted to share this image because it plays a big part in my initial impressions of the new 112 LT. Like most of us I have a box full of knives from many makes and price ranges. All my knives are slim, like the Slim pictured above, except a TL-29 and an Opinel, both of which are my go-to for any kind of serious carving.

As soon as I pulled the 112 LT out of the box and opened the blade, I got that same sense of sturdy control that those other two wider handled knives give. But this one is much more comfortable, and I prefer the lockback.

Now to compare it to the Slim. For me, the 112 LT outshines the Slim in every aspect except one, that being the lack of a pocket clip.

The thicker handle on the LT gives me enough leverage to thumb open the blade one-handed without any issue. The LT spring almost feels lighter than on the Slim, but I think its mostly that there's more handle to grip onto.

I had thought the rounded clip point on the LT might bother me, but it fits the 'classic' style of the LT...though I'd still like to have 500-style a drop point eventually. And speaking of the blade, I have never liked the look of a thumbstud interrupting any blade. Looking closely you can see that the grind on the LT goes straight up a the plunge instead of at an angle like on the Slim due to the thumbstud....same thing is on the little guys above.

The finer checkering on the LT handle feels more grippy than the Slim's, and I prefer it's understated styling. I cannot stress enough how much better the wider handle feels in the hand...especially if you choke up too close to the blade, you'll feel the finger guard on the Slim poking at you a bit, but not so on the LT.

Though I have a leatherman wingman pocket clip that would go on the LT, I want to try making a custom one instead...I love the look and size of vantage clips.
 
You have a point TXoutback..My first LT 112 seemed light but had great control when cutting. But the most dramatic difference I noticed was when I first used the black 'Racer' 110 LE/web special. It felt so light compared to a brass Ebony 110 but with the textured handle felt really secure in my hand. Sometimes the difference between variations of Bucks models seem small just looking at it but feel very different in hand..
 
TXoutback said:
Nothing really new to see here, but I recently found a deal for a 112 LT for $19 that I couldn't pass up on. Here's my Buck-lite family pic with (from top) a 2013 424, 2012 484, and the 112 LT (black) and 112 Slim (brown).

buck-lites.jpg


And here's the difference between the width of the handles on the Slim and LT 112s

rangers.jpg


I wanted to share this image because it plays a big part in my initial impressions of the new 112 LT. Like most of us I have a box full of knives from many makes and price ranges. All my knives are slim, like the Slim pictured above, except a TL-29 and an Opinel, both of which are my go-to for any kind of serious carving.

As soon as I pulled the 112 LT out of the box and opened the blade, I got that same sense of sturdy control that those other two wider handled knives give. But this one is much more comfortable, and I prefer the lockback.

Now to compare it to the Slim. For me, the 112 LT outshines the Slim in every aspect except one, that being the lack of a pocket clip.

The thicker handle on the LT gives me enough leverage to thumb open the blade one-handed without any issue. The LT spring almost feels lighter than on the Slim, but I think its mostly that there's more handle to grip onto.

I had thought the rounded clip point on the LT might bother me, but it fits the 'classic' style of the LT...though I'd still like to have 500-style a drop point eventually. And speaking of the blade, I have never liked the look of a thumbstud interrupting any blade. Looking closely you can see that the grind on the LT goes straight up a the plunge instead of at an angle like on the Slim due to the thumbstud....same thing is on the little guys above.

The finer checkering on the LT handle feels more grippy than the Slim's, and I prefer it's understated styling. I cannot stress enough how much better the wider handle feels in the hand...especially if you choke up too close to the blade, you'll feel the finger guard on the Slim poking at you a bit, but not so on the LT.

Though I have a leatherman wingman pocket clip that would go on the LT, I want to try making a custom one instead...I love the look and size of vantage clips.
Click to expand...

Good info. Now I have to pull some of my old and new style bucklites out and compare.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top